Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
First off, in the USA, if there was a sure fire cure, many americans couldn't afford the treatment. As is the case with every other condition.

Americans allow guns, massive wealth inequality, healthcare unaffordable for about 30% of the populace, racism and xenophobia. How many does this kill every year with barely anyone batting an eyelid?

Look at other countries that have experienced proper disasters. People adapt to a new normal pretty quickly.
You're using an over-wide brush in painting your picture of healthcare in America. All of the issues you note are, indeed, problematic -- but some of them are hardly controllable and you've left other concerns off that might be controllable yet bother us as is.

Our healthcare system offers free childhood vaccinations to all (though we do not force the anti-vaxers to be vaccinated and systemic pressures pushing them to vaccinate anyway are limited). Were some virus to reach crisis proportions this same system would be used to provide vaccines as needed and there likely would be legislation passed to fund it for all. Our love of the "rugged individualist" is not a suicide pact. Moreover, any person can present themselves to an emergency room and receive care, even if unable to pay (though the system is cumbersome and reactive instead of proactive -- which I acknowledge may be costing us as much if not more than funding across the board preventative medicine would save).

Firearms have been ubiquitous in the USA since before our inception. Sadly, they do make would-be suicides easier and more effective (as you are probably aware, some 60% of our firearm deaths are suicides). The original reasons for personal use of firearms and their ubiquity were food, protection, and as a final stopgap against government tyranny. The need provide food has, except for certain wilderness areas in Alaska, been obviated by modern food production and distribution. Protection, while still valid to some extent, no longer requires the local militia to be armed since the development of modern policing (both protection responses are reactive) and is simply a question of personal defense prior to a police response. The only continuing reason of the original three is the final stopgap against tyranny, which any number of people think is silly as they believe our government cannot degenerate into tyranny (some few think it already has, but all societies have their fringers). I am not opposed to firearms ownership as I like that final stopgap concept and also note that it makes my country functionally unconquerable by an external power that does not command the high orbitals. That said, I think we might want to seriously consider the requirement that firearms under 15" barrel length be banned/rendered inoperable. Protection against tyranny is best served by weapons that would be useful on a modern battlefield and your typical handgun is largely irrelevant in such a context -- yet it is handguns easily held and used that are the source of most of our suicides and homicides. I wonder how many would be prevented simply by the choice to violence requiring you to use both hands to lift a multiple pound object...

Racism and Xenophobia are problems in the USA, I agree. We have been working on them for hundreds of years and while we have enjoyed much success we are all too prone to backsliding on both. But you're well aware that these things exist in all cultures and that the USA's culture is, by no means, the worst practitioner of either. Do these weaknesses kill people? Absolutely, at least by laying the groundwork that allows people to be mistreated or forgotten or marginalized or even, at least in some cases, specifically targeted for violence. Both concerns are still being better addressed than they were when I was a child. I can assure you that my children are even less likely to further either and very likely to work against both as opportunity presents. Which is as it should be. These are cultural changes that require sustained effort over time. Cultures do not change by fiat.

You did not mention auto accidents (40k+ per year), or plain old accidents (120k+ per year), or overdoses (60-70k+ depending on year), or the metabolic syndrome stuff (800k+ per year) that underlies much of our healthcare risks on the national level (increase in sedentary, increase in calories, increase in simple carbs/fats as a ratio of diet).


I do agree with you as to government choices on same. Governments can never have the resources to address all concerns, so they MUST make calculated choices as to how much to spend on what and to counteract x, y. or z. That's unlikely to ever change. All we can do is help make those choices generate the greatest good for the cost expenditure made.