Heath in amirca

[Altiair]

amarica has the worst health care ever it needs to be solised england france and cuba has better heath care. the heath care has rejected so may people in need and they have died.

[Lindione]

If there is socialized heath care (assuming you mean health care) people will die waiting to get a check up for a cold.

[TheMason]

At 11/24/07 11:47 PM, Altiair wrote: amarica has the worst health care ever it needs to be solised england france and cuba has better heath care. the heath care has rejected so may people in need and they have died.

Our coverage may have problems...BUT our healthcare is hands down better than all those countries you mentioned. Our only competition comes from India in terms of how good our healthcare is in terms of treatment.

[Altiair]

we are 37 place in the whole health in the world just above slovania we need the gov. to pay for heath it would work and we would no longer be in 37 place

[Altiair]

go check the charts have you seen them? online england france are near top and meds. dont coast that much too

[Empanado]

There's an extremely obscure documentary, largely ignored by mainstream public, called Sicko. Created by unknown director Michael Moore. Apparently, the OP thought that he should lecture the illiterate masses by simply repeating a couple of lines he heard in that piece of film.

[Altiair]

siko is a good refrance too

[RedSkunk]

At 11/25/07 12:01 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/24/07 11:47 PM, Altiair wrote: amarica has the worst health care ever it needs to be solised england france and cuba has better heath care. the heath care has rejected so may people in need and they have died.

Our coverage may have problems...BUT our healthcare is hands down better than all those countries you mentioned. Our only competition comes from India in terms of how good our healthcare is in terms of treatment.

I would disagree. My reason - the WHO's constant ranking of England and France ahead of the US in holistic ranking of healthcare systems / general health of the nation. The 2000 report focused on healthcare systems, but it seems to jibe with results before + after suggesting little change since then.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/25/07 12:11 AM, RedSkunk wrote: I would disagree. My reason - the WHO's constant ranking of England and France ahead of the US in holistic ranking of healthcare systems / general health of the nation.

Yeah, by listing arbitrary factors that have absolutely dick to do with the quality of treatment itself.

[DariusR]

The government can't spontaneously establish a universal health care program, it costs MONEY. Where do we get money? TAXES. Do you like to pay taxes? That's for you to decide.

[RedSkunk]

I used the WHO website to collect this especially relevant statistics. Feel free to try your own hand at
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/
core_select_process.cfm

I choose the four countries tehmason brought up.

Cuba
Indicator Value (year)
Life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 75.0 (2005)
Life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 79.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population) ? 5.91 (2002)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population) 49.0 (2005)
France
Indicator Value (year)
Life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 77.0 (2005)
Life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 84.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population) ? 3.37 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population) 75.0 (2004)
United Kingdom
Indicator Value (year)
Life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 77.0 (2005)
Life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 81.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population) ? 2.30 (1997)
Health management and support workers (density per 1 000 population) ? 12.77 (1997)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population) 39.0 (2004)
United States of America
Indicator Value (year)
Life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 75.0 (2005)
Life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 80.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population) ? 2.56 (2000)
Health management and support workers (density per 1 000 population) ? 24.76 (2000)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population) 33.0 (2003)

[Altiair]

my grandfather was rejected medical attion he died shortly after of kidney faliure

[RedSkunk]

At 11/25/07 12:13 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/25/07 12:11 AM, RedSkunk wrote: I would disagree. My reason - the WHO's constant ranking of England and France ahead of the US in holistic ranking of healthcare systems / general health of the nation.

Yeah, by listing arbitrary factors that have absolutely dick to do with the quality of treatment itself.

Please tell me what factors the WHO used which are arbitrary. I suggest restricting the discussion to the 2000 World Health Report, which dealt directly with healthcare systems.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/25/07 12:23 AM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/25/07 12:13 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/25/07 12:11 AM, RedSkunk wrote: I would disagree. My reason - the WHO's constant ranking of England and France ahead of the US in holistic ranking of healthcare systems / general health of the nation.

Yeah, by listing arbitrary factors that have absolutely dick to do with the quality of treatment itself.

Please tell me what factors the WHO used which are arbitrary. I suggest restricting the discussion to the 2000 World Health Report, which dealt directly with healthcare systems.

Basically all of the ones you listed.

They gauge things that are not directly attributable to healthcare quality, the actual ability of healthcare to treat illnesses and save lives. They are treated as indicators... as results of the respective healthcare systems but they are not, at all. In the link you provided, many of the things in the list have absolutely jackshit to do with healthcare quality... things like cell phone use for fuck sake.

Also, you can't list things like life expectancy and gauge the healthcare of the country based on it, because life expectancy isn't only a reflection of healthcare, it's a reflection of social issues, cultural issues, environment, lifestyle, racioal-make up etc.. Life expectancy differences aren't caused by better healthcare, countries like France, and even Cuba have always had higher life expectancy.

Take non-healthcare related factors out of the equation and Americans have the highest life expectancy out of any western nation, which includes the UK and France obviously.

Oh, and where in that entire list does it mention survival from treatable diseases? Where does it mention the success rate of operations, procedures, and treatments? Hmm?

Because apparently in areas that ACTUALLY indicate healthcare quality... survivability from treatable diseases, the US excels, and is more effective. Countries that score higher than the US in healthcare lists based on arbitrary factors still perform less well in the actual quality of healthcare treatments as a result of the HEALTHCARE.

The US has a higher cancer survival than any European country in this study. Much higher than the UK countries, England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland.

Then we can get into specifics:

Overall Cancer Survival Rates

- American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women.

- American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent - compared to only 47 percent for European men.

- Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.

- For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.

These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.

Survival Rate for Specific Cancers U.S. survival rates are higher than the average in Europe for 13 of 16 types of cancer reported in Lancet Oncology, confirming the results of previous studies.

- Of cancers that affect primarily men, the survival rate among Americans for bladder cancer is 15 percentage points higher than the European average; for prostate cancer, it is 28 percentage points higher.

- Of cancers that affect women only, the survival rate among Americans for uterine cancer is about 5 percentage points higher than the European average; for breast cancer, it is 14 percentage points higher.

- The United States has survival rates of 90 percent or higher for five cancers (skin melanoma, breast, prostate, thyroid and testicular), but there is only one cancer for which the European survival rate reaches 90 percent (testicular).

Furthermore, the Lancet Oncology study found that lung cancer patients in the United States have the best chance of surviving five years - about 16 percent - whereas patients in Great Britain have only an 8 percent chance, which is lower than the European average of 11 percent.

As for Canada (another country that scores higher due to arbitrary factors)

Canada's system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O'Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada:

- For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.

- For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.

Early Diagnosis It is often claimed that people have better access to preventive screenings in universal health care systems. But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment. For example, a Commonwealth Fund report showed that women in the United States were more likely to get a PAP test for cervical cancer every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain, where health insurance is guaranteed by the government.

- In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain.

- The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly - a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of British women.

Access to treatment and drugs

Another reason for the higher cancer survival rates in the United States is that Americans can get new, effective drugs long before they are available in most other countries. A report in the Annals of Oncology by two Swedish scientists found:

- Cancer patients have the most access to 67 new drugs in France, the United States, Switzerland and Austria.

- Erlotinib, a new lung cancer therapy, was 10 times more likely to be prescribed for a patient in the United States than in Europe.

Conclusion

International comparisons establish that the most important factors in cancer survival are early diagnosis, time to treatment and access to the most effective drugs. Some uninsured cancer patients in the United States encounter problems with timely treatment and access, but a far larger proportion of cancer patients in Europe face these troubles. No country on the globe does as good a job overall as the United States. Thus, the U.S. government should focus on ensuring that all cancer patients receive timely care, rather than radically overhauling the current system.

[RedSkunk]

Life expectancy and infant mortality rates are gauges of a nation's healthcare system. So are cancer survival rates. Neither is the end-all, be-all. There is not a single statistic that can directly gauge a nation's healthcare system without other factors coming into play. Cancer survival rates are similarly indicators - "social, cultural, and racial issues, environment factors and lifestyle" come into play.

Tell me. Do you have a reason to fault the WHO's reports other than they don't conform to your politics?

[RedSkunk]

By the by.. The "Core Health Indicators" link that I posted does take cancer mortality rates into consideration, as well as TB, communicable diseases, immunizations, HIV/AIDS, and a whole host of other things which, by your account, are better indicators than life expectancy.. Or cell phone use. (Which I assume rates fairly low for the WHO when determining indicators)

I bet you'll be happy to know that cancer mortality figures for the US are lower than for European nations. As you quoted.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/25/07 01:19 AM, RedSkunk wrote: Life expectancy and infant mortality rates are gauges of a nation's healthcare system.

Not always, and in this comparison.. not at all.

In a comparison of the UK vs the US for example in both areas, they are directly attributable to issues that are outside of and unaffected by healthcare quality.

1) Infant mortality.

The US has a much higher minority rate than the UK, which skews the comparison considering minorities score lower than the white majority on both countries.

- 1/3rd or 33% of the US population consists of minorities, mostly blacks and Hispanics.

- 1/13th of only 7.9% of the UK consists of minorities, most of which are Asian.

Now, African Americans have an infant mortality rate of 14.1/1000 and other minorities as a whole have a much higher rate of infant mortality in the US than the majority whites. Whites have the most in absolute terms, but the numbers for each race are disproportionately high among minorities. This inflates the national average.

You might say something like "if minorities were in the UK, they'd have lower infant mortality rate due to NHS" but you'd be wrong. Infant mortality in the UK in 2006 was 5.2/1000 births, which is lower than the US. However, if you look at the areas of the UK with a high infant mortality (same link), it is MUCH higher where there are more minorities. Central Birmingham, which has a relatively large minority population of 29.7% (still lower than the US average though), scored at 12.4/1000.

Infant mortality in this comparison is relative to race, not the ability of the respective countries to create a favorable atmosphere for infant survivability. The UK scores better only because it happens to have a certain racial structure. UK healthcare does not perform better, and it is not the cause of the better infant mortality rate.

2) Life expectancy.

There are a whole host of issues that cause the US to have lower life expectancy as a national average. Race, lifestyle, murder rates, auto accidents, all kinds of things.

When you take non-healthcare issues out of the equation, the US has the highest life expectancy in the western world.

Thus showing that healthcare is not the reason some countries, including the UK, have higher life expectancy. Thus showing that even though the US has superior quality healthcare, it still scores lower due to arbitrary factors that are no comprehensive or applicable in a quality vs. quality comparison.

So are cancer survival rates. Neither is the end-all, be-all.

Well, cancer is the biggest killer in both countries, and when non-healthcare issues are taken out of the equation the US has a higher life expectancy also. So I'm going to be comfortable saying US healthcare outperforms UK healthcare, and also outperforms the healthcare of basically every other country that scores higher on a list of "indicators" that actually DON'T indicate the affect of healthcare at all.

Tell me. Do you have a reason to fault the WHO's reports other than they don't conform to your politics?

Um try... I fault it because it doesn't gauge healthcare quality AT ALL maybe? It doesn't actually indicate the effectiveness of healthcare and instead makes a correlation by gauging things falsely as a result of healthcare, which they aren't.

The list you provide creates a critique of several issues that are ARBITRARY and MEANINGLESS in a comparison of the quality of the actual healthcare a system provides.

[RedSkunk]

Differences in infant mortality between racial lines revolve around income, not race. Your point actually illustrates a failure of the American system - inequality of care because of income (lack thereof). The WHO takes this into account.

And yes, life expectancy is dependent on a multitude of factors which don't play directly into a nation's healthcare system. Just like cancer survivability rates.

None of these factors in itself is a complete portrayal of a country's healthcare system. I've already pointed out that the WHO uses the same indicators that you keep pointing to. How can a report or group take into account the same factors you're using and still be completely baseless? Because they're more comprehensive?

[cellardoor6]

At 11/25/07 02:09 AM, RedSkunk wrote: Differences in infant mortality between racial lines revolve around income, not race.

That's debatable, and irrelevant... because minorities underachieve in other western countries... and those countries would have similiarly low scores in infant mortality if they had the same high proportion of minorities.

Your point actually illustrates a failure of the American system - inequality of care because of income (lack thereof).

Now you're ignoring that minorities score low in the UK, France, and other western countries to the same degree they do in the US. The universal healthcare system in the UK isn't saving minorities now is it?

Thus either making your claim false, or hypocritical and disingenuous in that you still maintain that healthcare causes their better relative scores even though it's obviously not true.

The WHO takes this into account.

No it doesn't.

In fact, WHO doesn't gauge healthcare quality in actual comprehensive, and measurable areas. Not once.

If a list was actually guaging healthcare quality, then they wouldn't mention the myriad of irrelevant variables and then use those to come to some conclusion that people like YOU misguidedly think is only reflective of the effect of healthcare.

And yes, life expectancy is dependent on a multitude of factors which don't play directly into a nation's healthcare system.

Except when you take out factors that are not related to healthcare... in that case the US has the longest life expectancy in the western world in spite of the fact the US has a high proportion of minorities that statistically score lower, wherever they live in the world.

Just like cancer survivability rates.

Um actually... cancer survival rates actually measure the ability of system to treat people successfully... to save people's lives. That's an ACTUAL indicator of healthcare quality.

None of these factors in itself is a complete portrayal of a country's healthcare system. I've already pointed out that the WHO uses the same indicators that you keep pointing to.

Um yet you haven't shown it, at all.

The lists you provided made no mention of survivability from diseases after application of treatment.

How can a report or group take into account the same factors you're using and still be completely baseless? Because they're more comprehensive?

Um try because they AREN'T comprehensive and actually are baseless when used to determine the successfulness of a healthcare system? Maybe because the vast majority of the factors for the countries are unaffected by healthcare entirely, and yet are used by you to pretend the healthcare system of the country was the cause of those factors?

[TheMason]

At 11/25/07 12:11 AM, RedSkunk wrote: I would disagree.

I have two reasons for not wanting socializied healthcare in the US, one academic and one personal.

The academic reason is the mud at our Colossus' feet is entitlement programs. Social Security and Medicare/aid consumer over 50% of our budget. Military adventurism is not going to bankrupt the government (and then the economy)...but our social entitlements. Adding universal healthcare a la Canada, Cuba, France and England will just hasten the demise of our economy and possibly way of life...

The other is my ex-wife has (I believe) Muchausen by Proxy. Having access to healthcare makes it easier for her to abuse our kid. In one sense I want my ex to have shitty healthcare because so my kid doesn't have to go through unnecessary medical treatments/tests. Universal healthcare would just contribute to my ex's ability to abuse.

[EnzeruAkuma]

At 11/25/07 12:13 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/25/07 12:11 AM, RedSkunk wrote: I would disagree. My reason - the WHO's constant ranking of England and France ahead of the US in holistic ranking of healthcare systems / general health of the nation.

Yeah, by listing arbitrary factors that have absolutely dick to do with the quality of treatment itself.

I think you make a lot of valid points after this post. But i have to say that even if you have the best quality of treatment in a country it doesn't mean dick if you can't pay for it. Who in the hell can afford 60,000 dollars for treatments? And that's low really when you start talking about things like cancer treatments an such. I've heard of cases that the final bill was nearly half a million dollars! No one can afford that kind of thing. Insurance companies help a great deal with this, no doubt, but at the same time you have to consider that they find whatever bloody reason they can to not pay for stuff. It IS a fact that people end up dying because their insurance wouldn't pay for treatments and they can't pay for it themselves. Much of the time they will also do it AFTER you have the damn treatments. And often how much you can pay for insurance detemines what kind of coverage you get. If you can only afford a couple hundred a month on insurance they'll pay maybe 30% of the time. Often screwing you on the final bill when it comes to very neccesary things. Yet if you can pay some 1000 or so in insurance a month you'll get the best damned treatment there is and not have to pay a dime on that bill.
I can understand why insurance companies would need to evaluate what is neccesary to pay for and what isn't, but there are a LOT of people falling through the cracks of that process, and it is creating a very big problem with how we are handling people's healthcare in this nation.

Maybe socialized medicine isn't the answer for this country. However when you have people that are loosing everything they have, some even ending up on the streets, or even dying for no other bloody reason than not being able to pay for something or not being able to get an insurrance company to pay for it; that is a MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM!

[cellardoor6]

At 11/25/07 03:50 AM, EnzeruAkuma wrote: I think you make a lot of valid points after this post. But i have to say that even if you have the best quality of treatment in a country it doesn't mean dick if you can't pay for it.

You didn't read the sites I linked to did you?

1) Survival rates were for the US as a whole, not just for people with insurance.

"But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment. "

2) Even if not everyone is covered, that is irrelevant because the US still has higher survival rates as a whole... and also a higher life expectancy as a whole when factors outside of healthcare are removed.

But let's reverse your logic and apply it to universal healthcare:

What good is a healthcare system that covers everyone if the care they give people is inferior, and they end up saving less lives in the long run?

What good is a system that covers everyone with a mediocre system that saves less lives?

Who in the hell can afford 60,000 dollars for treatments?

The vast majority of Americans.

Who in the hell wants to die just because their government wants to control healthcare and enforces its mediocre, one-size-fits-all system on everyone against their will?

And that's low really when you start talking about things like cancer treatments an such. I've heard of cases that the final bill was nearly half a million dollars! No one can afford that kind of thing.

Insurance.

It IS a fact that people end up dying because their insurance wouldn't pay for treatments and they can't pay for it themselves.

It IS a fact that people end up dying in social healthcare systems because their care is inferior and they have to wait long periods of time for treatment. It is a FACT that since national healthcare is prone to the corruption and bureacracy of a government, it will be prone to price cuts and corner-cutting that leads to less quality treatments, less access to state-of-the-art drugs and so forth.

It IS a fact that Americans as a whole are still more likely to be treated successfully, regardless of whether or not they are covered by insurance, thus making your criticism of the US irrelevant and quite stupid actually.

I can understand why insurance companies would need to evaluate what is neccesary to pay for and what isn't, but there are a LOT of people falling through the cracks of that process, and it is creating a very big problem with how we are handling people's healthcare in this nation.

And yet this whole time, you're so irrational that you ignore the fact that our system saves more lives... and talk about financial issues that should only be a secondary issue.

Maybe socialized medicine isn't the answer for this country. However when you have people that are loosing everything they have, some even ending up on the streets, or even dying for no other bloody reason than not being able to pay for something or not being able to get an insurrance company to pay for it; that is a MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM!

When you have people waiting in line for long periods of time, getting less successful treatments, and dying because their SHITTY universal healthcare system is more concerned with cutting costs than saving lives... then you have a MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM.

I'd rather be in debt than be dead. And I'm sure people who live in countries with universal healthcare would feel the same way if they weren't blinded by the hilariously deceptive propaganda that they have about their supposedly benevolent healthcare system.

"OMG liek everyone isn't covered in America... but let's ignore the fact that they are still more likely to survive! Let's resort to emotional tactics to make up for the lack of logic behind our system!"

[Flyingdingo0827]

At 11/25/07 12:01 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/24/07 11:47 PM, Altiair wrote: amarica has the worst health care ever it needs to be solised england france and cuba has better heath care. the heath care has rejected so may people in need and they have died.

Our coverage may have problems...BUT our healthcare is hands down better than all those countries you mentioned. Our only competition comes from India in terms of how good our healthcare is in terms of treatment.

that is total and complete bullshit, we are the the only country without universal health care and we are at least in the bottom of the top 50 in terms of healthcare.

[reviewer-general]

This is the most ovious alt I have ever seen.

I mean, the word "alt" is IN HIS USERNAME!

;

[fahrenheit]

At 11/25/07 10:48 AM, Flyingdingo0827 wrote: and we are at least in the bottom of the top 50 in terms of healthcare.

I wonder where we would be if we cut out everyone who didnt have healthcare.

[Memorize]

At 11/25/07 10:48 AM, Flyingdingo0827 wrote:

that is total and complete bullshit, we are the the only country without universal health care and we are at least in the bottom of the top 50 in terms of healthcare.

You didn't read a single thing in this thread, did you?

[Imperator]

Maybe because the vast majority of the factors for the countries are unaffected by healthcare entirely, and yet are used by you to pretend the healthcare system of the country was the cause of those factors?

Well would you agree that access to the system is an important indicator of the quality of the service or not? I mean, having the best doctors, equipment, and procedures is great and all, but it doesn't really do a whole lot of good if there is a significant portion of the population that does not have access to it, does it? It's not a health-issue per se, but access to the system is still an indicator of the system's ability to treat patients. After all, if they can't/won't get to the patients, it's a little hard to treat them.....

At 11/25/07 03:02 AM, TheMason wrote: The academic reason is the mud at our Colossus' feet is entitlement programs. Social Security and Medicare/aid consumer over 50% of our budget. Military adventurism is not going to bankrupt the government (and then the economy)...but our social entitlements. Adding universal healthcare a la Canada, Cuba, France and England will just hasten the demise of our economy and possibly way of life...

Agreed, but the problem still remains. Full socialization will collapse the coffers, while turning it entirely a private enterprise is not really beneficial either. We still remain with the problem of people who simply cannot afford $6000 a month in cancer pills......
And with the diminishing middle class the problem only looks to be worse.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 11/25/07 10:48 AM, Flyingdingo0827 wrote:

At 11/25/07 12:01 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/24/07 11:47 PM, Altiair wrote: amarica has the worst health care ever it needs to be solised england france and cuba has better heath care. the heath care has rejected so may people in need and they have died.

Our coverage may have problems...BUT our healthcare is hands down better than all those countries you mentioned. Our only competition comes from India in terms of how good our healthcare is in terms of treatment.

that is total and complete bullshit, we are the the only country without universal health care and we are at least in the bottom of the top 50 in terms of healthcare.

Ding, Open up to page 1 on this forum, read celladoors posts, if you bring up that argument again it's because your ignoring them.

And the number wasn't even 50, you are exaggerating.

What IS total complete bullshit, is somone who clearly rushed his way through a simple 3 sentence proclaimation testifying to the fact that the maker [altair was it?] hasn't read a single healthcare post on this thread and genuinely believes that a universal health care plan will make all of his worries go away

[Brick-top]

At 11/24/07 11:47 PM, Altiair wrote: amarica has the worst health care ever it needs to be solised england france and cuba has better heath care. the heath care has rejected so may people in need and they have died.

I havn't watched that documentary yet.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/25/07 06:37 PM, Imperator wrote:

Maybe because the vast majority of the factors for the countries are unaffected by healthcare entirely, and yet are used by you to pretend the healthcare system of the country was the cause of those factors?

Well would you agree that access to the system is an important indicator of the quality of the service or not?

Absolutely not.

Access to inferior quality care doesn't negate the fact that the care is still inferior and less likely to save lives of people who are affected with certain illnesses.

I mean, having the best doctors, equipment, and procedures is great and all, but it doesn't really do a whole lot of good if there is a significant portion of the population that does not have access to it, does it?

Um actually it does because firstly, you're assuming that people who don't have insurance will not get care, which is not true.

Secondly, you're assuming that more people covered automatically means more lives saved, which has proven to be untrue also considering people in the US, regardless of their coverage, are more likely to be treated successfully for cancer as an example.

It doesn't matter how "fair" the system appears in its distribution or the amount of people who have access provides if it still ends up saving less lives. If 15% of people aren't covered, yet the entire country is still more likely to be treated with timely, quality, effective care... then the "access" means precisely jackshit.

In fact "access" isn't even reflective oh healthcare quality, that is a judgment of the affect of the system as a whole. It's not making a determination of the quality and affect of healthcare.

It's not a health-issue per se, but access to the system is still an indicator of the system's ability to treat patients.

Um actually it's really not. Because the fact that a country has universal healthcare, and everyone is covered would be considered to give greater access. However it ends up not being true at all when you factor in waiting lines, corner cutting, and the fact people are less likely to be treated successfully.