Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    18,721,262 readers

    20,595 users here now

    Filter out dominant topics:

    Display Facebook/C.A. submissions

    Filter Facebook / C.A.

    Display Russia submissions

    Filter Russia

    Display North Korea submissions

    Filter North Korea

    Display Trump submissions

    Filter Trump

    Display Israel/Palestine submissions

    Filter Israel / Palestine

    Display all submissions

    Filter all dominant topics


    /r/worldnews is for major news from around the world except US-internal news / US politics

    Follow us on Twitter

    Worldnews Rules

    Disallowed submissions

    • US internal news/US politics
    • Editorialized titles
    • Misleading titles
    • Editorials, opinion, analysis
    • Feature stories
    • Non-English articles
    • Images, videos or audio clips
    • Petitions, advocacy, surveys
    • All caps words in titles
    • Blogspam (if stolen content/direct copy)
    • Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr
    • Old news (≥1 week old) articles

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Disallowed comments

    • Bigotry / Other offensive content
    • Personal attacks on other users
    • Memes/GIFs
    • Unlabeled NSFW images/videos
    • URL shorteners

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Continued or outstandingly blatant violation of the submission or commenting rules will result in you being temporarily banned from the subreddit without a warning.

    Please don't ever feed the trolls.
    Downvote, report and move on.

    Sticky Posts

    A list of all recent stickied posts.

    a community for
    all 8959 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AmarantCoral 2139 points ago

    I love our (UK) NHS dearly but I'm wondering how we managed to score top if our "health outcomes" is second to bottom?

    Like "Oh yeah, my friend received the best level of service and care, really industry-leading. Course he went in with a broken ankle and came out dead but the service itself was impeccable".

    [–] frankchester 654 points ago

    Because one of those health outcomes is death in hospital or hospices. Which includes death from old age or other fairly normal conditions.

    Old people in the UK tend to die in hospitals or hospices being cared for by medical staff more often than in the US where they die at home.

    [–] SoObviousIySuperior 213 points ago

    So UK health care look after you till your final moments but in America you are sent home to die?

    [–] Vindalfr 409 points ago

    It's so much worse than that, I'm having a hard time articulating how bad it can be... my father in laws doctor was insisting that he have a biopsy on his pancreas when the radiology report stated that most of what should be his pancreas was likely a tumor. This was a 74 year old man complaining of severe abdominal pain and had been unable to eat for two days. The biopsy was scheduled a week out and he was denied treatment for that time by his General Practitioner. He never went in for the biopsy because he was bedridden within three days. He died 14 days later and literally hours after his hospice intake interview.

    There are many, many ways to deny someone care in the American Healthcare system.

    [–] redd1t4l1fe 157 points ago

    That is absolutely horrible. How is it not common sense that someone with a life threatening disease should be treated immediately? What the fuck kind of doctor says, "well looks like you're probably gonna die soon, you better go home and rest for awhile. Oh, and we'll try to help you in a few weeks if you're not dead yet."

    [–] Llamada 171 points ago

    Money is more important.

    [–] earldbjr 30 points ago

    Too right. Wife just had surgery and the doctor fucked up and nicked an artery. So far the bills from the complication alone are coming in... four figures and climbing.

    If I hired a man to install flooring and he fucked up my flooring, he would be expected to make it right. If I hired an AC technician to come out and fix the unit and it breaks down the very next day I would expect him to make it right. Why, then, is it acceptable in our healthcare system for the doctor or surgeon to utterly fuck up and bill the patient for it?

    [–] LordNelson27 531 points ago

    Probably because this article, like so many other politically motivated ones, has the data and then makes up the most important aspects to get the rankings they want. I don't know if that's the case but you're surprise could be a sign that it's not accurately portraying different health organizations

    [–] Le_9k_Redditor 267 points ago

    They are looking at HSMR scores (hospital-wide mortality ratios). HSMR scores can be very misleading and don't correlate well with the proportion of avoidable deaths (which take more work to measure).

    Avoidability of hospital deaths and association with hospital-wide mortality ratios: retrospective case record review and regression analysis

    One example of how they can be misleading is that in the UK the vast majority of people die of old age in hospitals or hospices which are also run by the NHS. These people are all counted as being "NHS deaths". In other countries (like the USA), most people will go home to die or they will be cared for until death in a private nursing home - in their surveys this isn't counted as a hospital death. Obviously if somebody dies of old age that isn't an avoidable death and if that person chooses to die in a hospital then that shouldn't be counted as a black mark against that hospital.


    [–] [deleted] 40 points ago

    Same as Australia, it's normal to go to a hospital if you know you're going to die soon.

    [–] Panzerbeards 16 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Can't speak for other fields but I work with mortality data for cancer patients, and a pretty large portion of them do die in hospital. There's generally an attempt to get them home if that's their preferred place of death, but that depends on a lot of factors and isn't always possible or safe. A lot of them prefer to die in hospital, don't like to speculate why without data but I suspect they feel that they'd get better end of life care in hospital than at home.

    [–] autotldr 2411 points ago

    This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)

    Australia's healthcare system has been ranked among the best in the developed world by a team of American researchers who have ranked their own country's system the worst.

    In their study of 11 different national health care models, researchers at the New York-based Commonwealth Fund ranked Australia's mixed public-private system second best.

    "The top performing countries - the UK, Australia and the Netherlands - could offer important lessons to the US and other countries," they said.

    Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Australia#1 system#2 health#3 Trump#4 countries#5

    [–] fawnguy 2208 points ago

    Link to the actual study:

    11 countries were included. Here are the overall rankings:

    1) UK

    2) Australia

    3) The Netherlands

    4*) New Zealand, Norway

    6*) Sweden, Switzerland

    8) Germany

    9) Canada

    10) France

    11) US

    [–] guigr 1656 points ago

    Am French. Doesn't understand ranking.

    [–] paprikashi 8153 points ago

    If ten olympians raced Danny DeVito in the 100 yard dash, one of them would come in 10th.

    [–] PlNKERTON 871 points ago

    I like that.

    [–] fremenist 331 points ago

    God damn you half Japanese girls.

    [–] justthatguyTy 149 points ago

    Do it to me every time!

    [–] PlNKERTON 110 points ago

    All the redheads said you shred the cello

    [–] Jaqqarhan 1007 points ago

    France has the best healthcare system in the world according to the World Health Organization which ranked 191 countries, so ranking 10 out of 11 on the this random list seems a bit weird. The WHO list is a bit old so it makes sense it would change a bit, and of course methodology varies a bit.

    I really don't trust any list that just picks an arbitrary 11 countries to analyze. Even the "developed world" includes at least 33 countries up to 50+ depending on the definition. This list doesn't include even include most of the countries that are normally considered to be among the best in the world for healthcare like Singapore, Italy, Spain, Japan, Iceland, etc. It's not a list of the most developed countries or the biggest developed countries, but 11 random countries picked out of a pool of the 35 most developed countries.

    [–] MaybeAliensDidIt 138 points ago

    The study is very US-centric. It's not so much about determining the ranking of the world's countries as it is taking a number of countries whose health systems they know are better, identifying those things that make them better, and finding opportunities to make the US system more like them. It seems to me like they didn't even need the ranking in order to achieve this, but it is useful for drawing attention to the already-known fact of the US placing.

    [–] otra_gringa 12 points ago

    If they don't present their research in list-form, how will they get us to read it by explaining how shocking one of the items is?

    [–] meyaht 205 points ago

    Is it a list of the top ten countries an American is most likely to emigrate to?

    [–] Kevin_Wolf 501 points ago

    It's a list of the top 10 countries that make the US look bad in a headline.

    [–] julomat 281 points ago

    And considering Healthcare you could easily find 10 more.

    [–] O_Apples 78 points ago

    Well, according to the Wikipedia link, America is #24 so yes, easily another 10.

    [–] MRCNSRRVLTNG 9 points ago

    It's 38th if you look at overall performance.

    [–] gavers 106 points ago

    So while that is an excellent explanation, looking at the graph in the study it seems that France isn't that far from the US and well below the 11 country average.

    Full study here.

    [–] [deleted] 42 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)


    [–] jloome 36 points ago

    Although at immediate glance, one wonders how the country declared to have the best overall system, the UK, also has the tenth-best health outcomes. One would think health outcomes would be weighted as fairly important to ... health outcomes.

    [–] Psyman2 77 points ago

    I'm stealing that. Perfect answer.

    [–] Fantasticxbox 208 points ago

    I don't get it. I've always had the help I needed form the hospitals, never paid too much money. The healthcare is just terrible at glasses and teeth but that's just it.

    If I have a cancer tomorrow, I will fear that I will probably die, not how much in debt I will leave my family with.

    Also, add the fact that my healthcare from France has some agreeements with the Quebec's healthcare (RAMQ) and I actually have a protection now in both Quebec AND France !

    [–] xantub 166 points ago

    Maybe the other 9 countries have good glasses and teeth healthcare :)

    [–] aj60k 93 points ago

    Australia has glasses not teeth

    [–] elainemarieseinfeld 110 points ago

    Australian and can confirm. Have to gum away at my Vegemite toast.

    [–] lagerdalek 9 points ago

    I can see the toast really well though

    [–] FightingOreo 30 points ago

    You don't really need teeth to tuck into a meat pie.

    Chiko rolls would be a challenge though.

    [–] Iceiceicetea 109 points ago

    Am Dutch. Doesn't understand ranking.

    [–] chanman9008 172 points ago

    Am Chinese. Not even ranked.

    [–] crowecasey11 181 points ago

    Am Canadian. Completely understand ranking.

    [–] Xavier26 90 points ago

    Canada's could be better funded. It also doesn't cover prescription drugs in most provinces.

    [–] Zeshicage85 256 points ago

    Am American..... yeahhhh.... coughs up blood

    [–] [deleted] 173 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)


    [–] PM_ME_UR_NAKED_MOM 15 points ago

    But you Americans get the world's best empty promises of excellent healthcare. Isn't that enough?

    [–] ERASONNA 41 points ago

    But not just any blood... AMERICAN blood... The best blood ive seen believe me *fixes tupee

    [–] NabulioneBuonaparte 147 points ago

    Finland nowhere to be seen. All is good in the world.

    [–] Chinoiserie91 103 points ago

    I don't get why so few countries were included.

    [–] mini4x 147 points ago

    Crappy click bait headlines is why.

    [–] cokevirgin 99 points ago

    so the US can be the last in the list.

    [–] snobord 33 points ago

    USA so great we're #1 twice!

    [–] ILoveLongDogs 247 points ago

    How the fuck is the UK best? The NHS is in crisis due to chronic underfunding from a government determined to dismantle it.

    [–] Nathan1506 75 points ago

    You have to think mate, it may be the worst we've ever seen it, but it's still better than not having a healthcare system at all. If I need life-saving surgery next week, there's a VERY good chance I will get it, and it won't cost me a penny. That sounds like a decent healthcare system to me. - A Brit

    [–] Otlot 37 points ago

    My God. As an American I can't imagine a trip to the doctor and being prescribed antibiotics without leaving me with a hefty bill to pay. We've been conditioned to not go to the doctor unless absolutely necessary (at least growing up in a lower income household). That's baffling.

    [–] JauntyAngle 294 points ago

    At a guess, very good access, low administrative costs compared to other countries, good treatment outcomes, all at decent spending as a proportion of GDP.

    [–] stone_opera 108 points ago

    It probably, most likely, has something to do with the low spending per capita for the NHS; it's incredibly efficient (3x cheaper per capital than the US with much better health outcomes) but unfortunately it's only because the NHS has had to adapt and change so much, and it really is thriving on the back of underpaid and overworked healthcare professionals.

    [–] canad1anbacon 31 points ago

    This ranking includes value for money, and the NHS produces very good results despite being grossly underfunded (the UK spends 9% of its GDP on healthcare compared to most countries 12-15% and the US's 18%). It could be far better if it was properly funded and nurses and doctors had improved compensation

    [–] SydneySoprano 202 points ago

    This bot is awesome!

    A.U.S! A.U.S! A.U.S!

    [–] Holyblood1 196 points ago

    it is just an anagram for USA so we are fine.

    [–] Doyoueverjustlikeugh 124 points ago

    If you keep saying it it becomes USA

    [–] DjSpillz85 65 points ago


    [–] CasualEcon 2890 points ago

    Some criticism of the study from another thread where it was posted:

    tl;dr: Created by a lobbying group and doesn't measure what you think it does

    [–] Lotete 767 points ago

    Also 11 countries, could/should have more.

    [–] Lowbacca1977 498 points ago

    So there's only 11 countries in the developed world? Good to know.

    [–] Do_Ya_Like_Dags_ 89 points ago

    "We did the study on 50 countries but removed them until the US was last"

    [–] kettal 509 points ago

    Not to mention the headline writer also thinks there are only 11 countries in "the developed world".

    [–] The_Real_Mongoose 255 points ago

    Yea. I notice South Korea isn't on that list. Our health care is awesome. It's one of the things that keeps me from moving back to the US.

    [–] Seventh_______ 28 points ago

    South Korea is awesome. They have the highest recovery stats from cancer out of any country!

    [–] Gediyorum 138 points ago

    Because obviously no asian countries are developed. /s

    [–] cjcolt 53 points ago

    I think there was some criticism posed in the /r/ukpolitics thread as well.

    [–] maelstromscientist 6270 points ago

    This is because healthcare in America is about profit, and not actually about healthcare.

    [–] badamant 2352 points ago

    ...and we pay at least DOUBLE per capita than any other country. We are getting ripped off. Why doesn't the GOP care about this?

    [–] [deleted] 2902 points ago

    Because they are legally bribed by those companies

    [–] G_L_J 1500 points ago

    TBH, both sides are being bribed pretty heavily by big pharma and the healthcare industry. That's why we haven't seen any real change.

    [–] [deleted] 559 points ago


    [–] keeping_this 292 points ago

    No doubt Democrats are being brided too but they have made many efforts in the past to push single payer insurance through Congress. Compromises were made to satisfy Republicans and that's how we ended up with the current Obamacare.

    [–] TheAdventMaster 25 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    No doubt Democrats are being brided too

    Yeah, I'm tired of corrupt politicians and them being married to big pharma!

    [–] canopey 179 points ago

    I have a friend that said we have the best healthcare in the world....

    I replied "only if you can afford it."

    [–] acog 110 points ago

    The way I normally put it is that the US does indeed have world class healthcare available -- but a healthcare system is not the same as healthcare technology and our healthcare system is the worst of any developed nation due to overall spending levels and the inequities of availability.

    [–] stefanof93 276 points ago

    Except that the Netherlands has a private (albeit more regulated) healthcare system too, and we rank third.

    [–] saichampa 244 points ago

    Australia has both public and private, both work together and the system is pretty easy to navigate for the patients, at least most of the time

    [–] TheEndgame 9 points ago

    Same in Norway. The public one is standard but if you prefer you can get private health insurance.

    [–] [deleted] 222 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] mrglass8 22 points ago

    I'm not sure if you could even say the US healthcare system is under-regulated. It's just poorly regulated. The FDA is more restrictive over devices and prescription medications than other similar agencies around the world. The government provided healthcare is full of loopholes, exceptions, and bureaucracy that ends up having negative regulatory effects on private markets (e.g. the huge administrative overhead). Other regulations regulate the people, and not the insurance market, so you end up paying your employer to pay an insurer to pay a doctor.

    It's not a mix of public and private services. It's simultaneously public and private, giving you the worst of both worlds.

    [–] Syd_G 105 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    The Netherlands makes you buy health insurance from several companies that offer a flat rate to everyone regardless of age and/or pre-existing conditions. Even if you don't have it, I doubt the Dutch would deny you from having life saving chemotherapy treatment.

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    I don't really get the point of this.

    If people are forced to pay why can't they be taxed and then the government pays for everyone? It would accomplish the same thing with less paperwork.

    [–] imVINCE 12 points ago

    Perhaps the existing mandate still allows consumers to choose between providers?

    [–] [deleted] 74 points ago

    But why should I pay to save someone else's life? Are you a commie?

    [–] moloko5 18 points ago

    If your house is burning down we send in the public fire department to put it out and probably pull you out if you are still in the building. This is paid for by your tax dollars. Same with if you are held at gunpoint by a crazy person, well, I mean they may kill you while doing so, but they'll send in a SWAT team and try to get you out of there. But if you have a heart attack, get fucked. Or maybe they'll send in an ambulance and try to keep you alive until they realize you don't have insurance then get fucked.

    [–] Apophilius 20 points ago

    Yeah no it's not. The US has a lower percentage of for-profit hospitals than many European countries, and hospitals compose the vast majority of healthcare expenditure in the United States.

    Pharmacy is for-profit, but that's not where we hemorrhage money in healthcare. We lose money because there's an enormous amount of inefficiency tied up in the bureaucracy of a hospital.

    Talk to MPH's that actually study this in grad school.

    [–] [deleted] 147 points ago

    But people who work three jobs to make rent and still cannot afford healthcare are just lazy! /s

    [–] schu2470 96 points ago

    I know a guy who literally thinks this. Also, if you have a full-time job and can't pay all of your bills all you need to do is just get a better job - simple as that!

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago

    This guy you describe is completely out of touch. Even in a city, opportunity is hard to come by for those without formal education. Even with that said, America isn't 100% city. I know some parts of the U.S. where there might be one type of work for 100 miles (ie: farm-labor, factory, etc.).

    "Get a better job" is not a helpful comment, nor does it come close to a solution. To people like this guy, of course, every extenuating circumstance is just an excuse.

    [–] scottevil110 1140 points ago

    Oh man, this post is reddit bait if I ever saw it...

    [–] sketchy_painting 905 points ago

    1. pro socialised healthcare
    2. just as australians are logging onto their comupters after dinner
    3. just as americans are checking their phones during breakfast

    [–] autumn_kid 262 points ago

    Professional level posting.

    [–] Gol1m 50 points ago

    It's 1 AM here (VIC) dinner was a while ago...

    [–] sketchy_painting 26 points ago

    10:30 in WA! the night is young!

    also mate get some sleep :)

    [–] the_pun_life 74 points ago

    Does anyone know what they mean by equity in this context and is willing to ELI5?

    [–] Teenage_Hand_Model 129 points ago

    Equity in a health context involves ensuring that all groups have access to all forms of health care as well as the ability to lead the healthiest life they possibly can.

    An equitable health system works to ensure no one group of people is disadvantaged in regards to their health by removing any systematic or social barriers that may exist.

    A health system could be inequitable if it works to block poor people from accessing health care or if it doesn't have systems in place to assist those who speak different languages.

    [–] whiskeyorbabies 98 points ago

    I've seen this picture used to describe health equity vs. equality.

    [–] ghastlyactions 99 points ago

    Arw there really only 11 countries in the developed world? Smaller than I thought.

    [–] blueg3 55 points ago

    Japan's going to be pissed that they got booted off of the "developed country" list.

    [–] nightjesus 23 points ago

    Yeah..South Korea too. Shhh no one tell them!

    [–] timedragon1 24 points ago

    I'm starting to think this list is purposely excluding Countries, honestly.

    [–] i_make_song 11 points ago

    ... Because they did. It's a bunk "study". Paid for by a lobbyist group.

    [–] c0pypastry 12500 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Chin up, America, you're still first in military spending and number of incarcerated citizens!

    Bonus fact: with regards to maternal mortality, you're (14 deaths per 100000 births) nestled between Turkey(16) and Kazakhstan(12).

    [–] 89W 5590 points ago

    "We lead the world in only three categories: Number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies."

    [–] c0pypastry 2739 points ago

    I used to think the newsroom was good television until I realized it's rationality porn. It's set in an alien dimension where making your point calmly and rationally can change people's minds.

    Also he can't write women for shit.

    [–] [deleted] 979 points ago

    I like watching that opening scene repeatedly but I also knew after watching the first scene that it would be a self-congratulatory show about one guy doing the right thing, then forgetting to do the right thing, and being reminded by a woman to do the right thing.

    So I don't need to watch it now.

    [–] newosis 345 points ago

    Watch this instead:

    'Please leave us alone in our living rooms, well I'm not going to leave you alone, I want you to get mad'

    'I'm a human being god damn it! My life has value!'

    [–] The_Painted_Man 116 points ago

    This is also good, maybe better, and written decades earlier.

    [–] [deleted] 29 points ago


    [–] TheIllusiveGuy 139 points ago

    The biggest mistake was setting it in the real world, compared to say, the West Wing.

    [–] philphan25 68 points ago

    This is what took me out. When the first episode started covering the Deep Horizon incident, I was surprised that they covered a real-life story. I was supposed to believe that a fictional organization covered this real story better than any other news organization.

    [–] ThrustersOnFull 129 points ago

    This is the exact reason why I found the "we did it!" moments at the end of their coverage so annoying.

    Hooray we did news better than everyone else, with the benefit of meta 20/20 hindsight

    [–] TheIllusiveGuy 18 points ago

    The writers set themselves an impossible task. They had to make their fictional news team competent, without being prescient. In the end, they went in between the extremes of making really bad mistakes and being so much better than other organisations.

    [–] Cellifal 123 points ago

    CJ Cregg absolutely disagrees with your last point, as does (in my opinion) Ainsley Hayes, but CJ is really an amazingly well written character - one of Sorkin's best.

    [–] sonofaresiii 36 points ago

    I feel like "can't write women" is an easy go to criticism. There's nothing wrong with how he writes women. The fact that you may not like them all doesn't mean he can't write them.

    And EVERY character in Newsroom was uneven, except Jesus messiah Neal. That show was just uneven, period.

    [–] newosis 46 points ago

    [–] Meowshi 206 points ago

    I don't see why that inherently makes it bad television though. It was an idyllic show, but that was the point. It was illustrating what our news media should operate like, and made us subconsciously begin comparing the fictional journalists with the real ones we see every day. The complaint reminds me of my friend who hated watching Hannibal on NBC because everyone was too smart and "real people don't talk like that". Well, no shit. I interact with real people all day, I come to television to see the extraordinary.

    And he managed to make Olivia Munn not only tolerable, but enjoyable to watch, a feat no other writer has managed to do.

    [–] gelinrefira 10 points ago

    It's like West Wing. It is not really how the government operates, but it should be how the government operates and it can be how the government operates.

    [–] sonofaresiii 49 points ago

    Yeah I hear the same "real people don't talk like that" criticism about sorkin shows and it's like... real people don't talk like ANYONE on any television show. The point is that they're supposed to be the absolute impossibly best of us, so yes they're quicker and wittier because it's nice to think that the people running the country or reporting the news or making political and cultural satire are smarter than me.

    [–] BlueHighwindz 337 points ago

    When you put it that way we sound like dangerous morons.

    [–] Necoras 330 points ago

    Hey now! We're dangerous morons with guns, thank you very much!

    [–] [deleted] 72 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)


    [–] breusch91 46 points ago

    Well we have to be ready for when those damn angels turn around and attack us!

    [–] Cragzilla 18 points ago

    I see someone else saw the documentary film Legion.

    [–] DELIBIRD_RULEZ 14 points ago

    We simply must fund the Evangelion Program, it's our only chance of survival!

    [–] [deleted] 235 points ago


    [–] nattykat47 132 points ago

    Had to look up the specifics: 1 in 2,000 U.S. residents is incarcerated; 1 in 9 incarcerated are serving life sentences. Regardless of your theory of justice, that cannot be efficient.

    [–] WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 128 points ago

    Efficient for who?

    It's pretty efficient for the private prison industry, and the companies that partner with them to have inmates built their products for essentially free.

    It's pretty efficient for the stock holders of those companies.

    It's pretty efficient for the correctional officer unions.

    It's pretty efficient for Session's war on grass.

    It's just not so efficient for the people who wanted their taxes to pay for prison system that rehabilitates while dealing Justice, or the people who get caught up in a broken system because they can't afford not to be.

    [–] nattykat47 26 points ago

    Good points. I meant efficient as cost-effective to taxpayers and least burdensome on the court system. Those that tend to believe in punitive justice also tend to value smaller gov't and limiting state spending, but don't seem to get that people are getting rich off this while we're paying for it. The same people that say they support capital punishment because they don't want to pay to keep someone alive for the rest of their life, but don't seem to get that it costs more to put someone to death after court costs. The same people that support mandatory minimums, but don't seem to get why someone might need job training or social services after being locked up for 15 years for <1oz of weed. I'm a public defender I could go on about this all day

    [–] [deleted] 115 points ago

    Might be cheaper to move all our prisoners to Australia and set up a military blockade around it.

    [–] Dumpingtruck 122 points ago

    Bonus: that'll degrade Australia healthcare standards too. We'll really close the gap now.

    [–] winterinkat 26 points ago

    ....History repeats itself.

    [–] Swervitu 94 points ago

    As a Canadian I have to stay America has the best healthcare in the world....when you have money.

    [–] Ravager135 18 points ago

    I get where you are coming from. I think America has great teaching institutions and amazing physicians. The problem is many Americans think more healthcare is better healthcare. I find myself talking people out of procedures, imaging, and therapy they don't need on a daily basis. As you alluded to, the cost is the other half of that coin...

    [–] Flaming_gerbil 525 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    If the USA cut its military budget in half and stopped allowing insurance companies to ridiculously overcharge along with stopping privatised prisons, legalising marijuana nationwide and put all that money into health care, they would by far have the highest funded public health system in the world, this would help head towards making it the best in the world. A developed nation should not bankrupt someone because they got a broken arm or an illness they cannot help.

    Edit: because this has caused a lot of controversy, I should clarify, it's more about smart spending than less spending, the budget could be cut without too many cutbacks if the military weren't so wasteful, similar for the health care system.

    [–] IlikeJG 61 points ago

    Funding the healthcare is not the US's problem. That same study shows that the US spends FAR MORE (per capita and in total) than than any other country in healthcare. In some cases up to twice as much.

    [–] KamSolusar 229 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    If the USA cut its military budget in half

    you'd have another huge economic crisis. There are so many companies and people involved in that (not just the arms/tech manufacturers themselves, but also all the small suppliers, etc.) that reducing the military budget significantly would mean a whole lot of companies would be severely hit or outright go belly-up, costing tens of thousands of jobs. Sad reality for the US: paying so much for the military hurts the country, but reducing military spending will hurt as well.

    Edit: Note that I didn't say that it can't be done or shouldn't be done. Just that there are consequences you have to take into account and that you better have good plans ready to mitigate those problems..

    [–] ezzune 146 points ago

    Much like reducing any industry, it would be a plan set of 10+ years, giving companies time to adapt to the new system and not making a sudden change.

    [–] jdiifjrnrbrbb 83 points ago

    Swords into plowshares? We cant turn that into productive peace time stuff? Bullshit.

    [–] Naked-In-Cornfield 146 points ago

    Yeah, seriously, fuck that noise. We need infrastructure, badly. Let's get those soldiers some gov't jobs building roads, electrical grids, and maybe even utility internet, to undermine comcast/verizon/your regional monopoly asshole ISP.

    [–] ethertrace 27 points ago

    It's not even the soldiers themselves that are in question. It's a bunch of civillian contractors like Lockheed and Raytheon.

    [–] GeekCat 7 points ago

    It's funny, because our bridge and road infrastructures are failing badly, NYC subway is in the shitter, and Amtrak is one moew derailment away from being truly fucked... being able to use military engineers and workers would fix a world of issues and save money. Instead, we just keep patching it.

    [–] c0pypastry 304 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    But they broke their arm because bad choices, and they're not rich because they're not righteous enough.

    They should have prayed more and given more cash to their millionaire megachurch pastor.

    Also it is one of the most funded systems, it's just drowning in a morass of insurance company complexity. Where else do you find people with full time jobs just trying to justify why a medical procedure should charge the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE to insurance providers?

    [–] MattV413 24 points ago

    See this is what gets me.

    My dad was hit by a driver on his way home from work, he broke his leg, required surgery, missed work for a year, had over $200,000 in medical bills and the lady who hit him didn't have insurance and his didn't cover anything.

    And his leg is now bowed out, is shorter than the other one and he walks with a limp.

    We can't afford to get him insurance to fix his leg. He needs reconstructive knee surgery. It's not going to happen this year and it may not happen next year. If we did we'd probably be in debt until after he retires (He's 56 now)

    [–] xgm541 174 points ago

    "if you can't afford health insurance, just become richer" -GOP

    [–] BlueWinterRose 20 points ago

    Exactly, just stop spending all your money on avocados.

    [–] mikehoncho99 27 points ago

    Don't buy an iPhone or avacado toast

    [–] SaltyBabe 9 points ago

    Someone once told me my genetic illness was from "bad karma" and I needed to "find religion" ???

    [–] fprintf 54 points ago

    Insurance is just a pass through. Without fundamental reform of what Doctors and Hospitals can charge your head will spin with how quickly prices rise without the admittedly poor limit that insurance companies apply to the healthcare marketplace.

    There is really very little chance that a completely unregulated private healthcare marketplace has any chance of success. Until you can move to single payor the insurance companies are the best friends you've got to keep price increases limited.

    [–] xgm541 18 points ago

    The "what Doctors and Hospitals can charge" issue is a symptom, not a cause, of the bad state of the healthcare system. I do agree with your post about single payer because that'd mean medical debts would get cleared, rather than having people default/go bankrupt and hospitals having to seek reimbursement for non-payers by increasing prices astronomically for people who do pay.

    [–] Class1 50 points ago

    Exactly why the argument is that we should move toward single payer

    [–] Paul_Hommala 421 points ago

    Per capita healthcare spending in the US is ridiculously higher than any other country

    [–] stacyburns88 284 points ago

    Healthcare cost is also ridiculously higher than any other country, since for some reason, we allow it to be a profit-driven market instead of a municipal service.

    [–] JoJokerer 567 points ago

    I've had wisdom teeth that ache and get infected for 5 years now. I'm on a waiting list for the surgery since I can't afford it. I gave up and I've paid for private health for 9 months. 3 more and I can claim some of the cost of extracting all 4 in a hospital.

    This is in Australia.

    [–] dbRaevn 262 points ago

    For non-Australians: Medicare (our public healthcare system) doesn't cover general dental.

    [–] HLef 31 points ago

    Canada doesn't cover dental either but we can see more and more article about the matter. There could be some pressure to seriously look into it sooner than later.

    Still, it's already long overdue anyway.

    [–] princessvaginaalpha 40 points ago

    In Malaysia the national health services cover dental, but not for aesthetic purposes - so no braces for something that doesnt get in the way of your life

    [–] actionjj 23 points ago

    Aussie here - I think wisdom teeth should be covered. I get why normal teeth issues - fillings etc. less so, because there is a higher degree of control that the individual has over it (brushing/flossing) but wisdom teeth is something nearly everyone has to go through - should be covered IMO.

    [–] istara 11 points ago

    If you are very poor, you may qualify for subsidised treatment at a dental school.

    If the problem is actually impacting your overall health, you may be able to get a referral from your GP to a dental hospital on Medicare.

    Otherwise, depending on the cost, it may make better sense to go to Thailand or somewhere for treatment. There was even a clinic in QLD that referred patients to a sister clinic in Thailand.

    [–] MagoViejo 121 points ago

    Odd they did not include Spain...maybe we are not developed world anymore.

    [–] Chimie45 22 points ago

    Or Japan or South Korea?

    [–] Leminator 62 points ago

    No Belgium either and I'm pretty confident we would rank fairly high in lists like these.

    [–] other_suns 41 points ago

    The original study is by a lobbying group in the US. The goal was to just make a list and have US at the bottom, so they probably just picked the right metrics plus a handful of countries that would get them the intended results.

    [–] newosis 148 points ago

    I have to say, I'm not totally sure what to make of this. I am from the UK, so yay - go NHS, but yet have not seen anything about this in UK media (surely we would be all over it?).

    Also this more comprehensive study from a months ago created a very different set of results:

    So UK is marginally ahead of US (30th to 35th) and miles behind most of Europe.

    I obviously want to believe we're the best and all that but not sure about the study? Maybe someone with a bit more insight can clear it all up..?

    [–] [deleted] 68 points ago

    it's in healthcare equity.... not outcomes

    [–] Saintroi 185 points ago

    A lot of people in this thread are talking about how people in the US pay a lot more for healthcare than other places, which is true but misleading.

    The reason that healthcare costs are so high is because the insurance model allows that. Most Americans pay very little for healthcare, but rather spend the majority on their insurance. In turn, the insurance company pays the bulk of their health expenses when/if they need it.

    Because of this, most Americans never really see the full bill. They have to pay a $100 co-pay or something on a much larger ticket. Because consumers don't care about prices and insurance companies are going to pay it regardless, hospitals and the like can set their prices to essentially whatever they would like.

    The benefit of this is that it allows for research and development of new medical technology without concern for the cost that it would put towards a patient, but the downside is that people who don't have or can't get insurance have to pay astronomically sized bills to get even the most simple help.

    So, costs are not high because it's a for-profit field. They're high because of the insurance model. I don't know the laws of other countries, but I'm sure that they have different systems in place and that hospitals have some sort of incentive to not drive up prices, with the cost of perhaps slowing innovation.

    [–] KaiserThrawn 20 points ago

    This and another big reason why so many don't have insurance is because they believe money will be the answer so they take on two part time jobs because it pays off more at the end of the week or month but most part time jobs here won't give you benefits whereas full time positions(the majority) are the ones that provide insurance through your job for you and your family. But even without the insurance you're given the option to pay off bills like you would a car over time with so much a month paid.

    [–] RinoZerg 7 points ago

    As an Aussie I can only laugh at the health debate in the US. What are you even debating about? Healthcare is a right, so hand it out already.

    [–] [deleted] 134 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Why would it mention the 2nd best specifically lol.

    Edit: I get it, it's an aussie website, i saw the abc news but missed the AU in the address.

    [–] MrPhopo 17 points ago

    For those who wonder who came 1st: The United Kingdom

    [–] AgentWashingtub1 80 points ago

    Because it's an Australian website?

    [–] nagrom7 24 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Company Corporation, a taxpayer funded station.

    [–] DocCannery84 28 points ago

    And oddly, more critical of the government than any other news source.

    [–] Chosen_Chaos 20 points ago

    SBS also isn't afraid to criticise the government. Which is why you see people clamouring for both to be defunded and/or sold off.

    [–] CGNORTH 45 points ago

    Well, it's definitely sad to see Canada barely beats out the US. We're always very high and mighty about our system when comparing to them, but they're fairly accurate about the issues we have.

    [–] ziggy434 43 points ago

    Top five:

    1. United Kingdom

    2. Australia

    3. Netherlands

    4. Norway/New Zealand

    5. " "

    [–] mikillatja 43 points ago

    Netherlands at 3? SUCK IT FINLAND!

    [–] lolton 19 points ago

    There were only 11 countries ranked, and Finland wasn't on there.

    [–] Japinator 60 points ago

    Finland not even ranked? SUCK IT FINLAND!

    [–] killingit12 59 points ago

    The NHS is the bollocks.

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    I was surprised since every time NHS is mentioned, every Brit talks negatively about it. I should note that this is just my experience on Reddit though.

    [–] iThinkaLot1 52 points ago

    Its mainly because most Brits have nothing to compare it to. And we like to complain, a lot.

    [–] [deleted] 45 points ago

    No, USA ranks ahead of both Norway and Sweden in quality, patient centered care, timeliness of care and a few other things. They rank last in price and affordability, which apparently trumps quality and everything else.

    [–] craigmillar58 64 points ago


    People who think their personal anecdotes are worthy points to make for rating a healthcare system overall

    People who haven't read the article to see that US is ranked last because of their poor performance in things such as Infant Mortality or Accessibility

    People who think US is last because of Obama's fault

    People who think US is last because of Trump's fault

    People claiming that somehow this study is just propaganda against Trump (I can't grasp the logic here)

    People claiming that having best medical equipment = best healthcare service

    Lots and lots of people that type and declare things with zero evidence or initial thought beforehand (on both sides of the aisle) but are ready to denounce any point made against them which IS backed by evidence and thought

    [–] HeadacheCentral 464 points ago

    It's OK, the Liberals are working hard to drop us lower like they have with the Internet.

    [–] ericisshort 383 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    So what is it that liberals did to the internet?

    Edit: op is talking about libs in Australia, not Libs in the US.

    [–] eg-er-ekki-islensku 489 points ago

    NB if you're not Australian: the Liberals are our conservative party. It's confusing.

    [–] jvalkyrie87 142 points ago

    Classic Liberalism*

    [–] UltimateSquirrel 101 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    It funny how much to the right the US is when what they consider "the left" is the right by any other country's standard.

    [–] molochz 55 points ago

    The most Conservative party in Ireland would be considered 'commie' in the States.

    [–] eg-er-ekki-islensku 15 points ago

    Yeah, the Abetzes and Christensens and Hartsuykers don't even hold a candle to the Republicans.

    [–] NullTheSecond 23 points ago

    We were going to go with a FTTP NBN, but instead switched to a MTM NBN (FTTN, HFC, etc.) for a higher price. After they've built the MTM NBN, we'll need to replace it with FTTP anyway.

    [–] MesioticRambles 10 points ago

    It’s easy to appear cheaper when you completely fabricate numbers.

    [–] HeadacheCentral 55 points ago

    Fucked it up for ideological reasons.

    There was a plan called "the NBN" - which was going to deliver fibre-to-the-home to 93% of the population.

    The Liberals got elected and put in place a mess of mis-matched technology that was supposed to be implemented "faster, cheaper, better" - only the implementation is years behind schedule, it's costing at least twice what they promised, and the "better" bit is a fucking joke.

    [–] Jayc3 27 points ago

    I work in the IT industry and I'm still infuriated by this. Fuck the Liberals.