This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The US Healthcare System: Most Expensive Yet Worst In The Developed World
One month ago we showed that when it comes to the cost of basic (and not so basic) health insurance, the US is by far the most expensive country in the world and certainly among its "wealthy-nation"peers (in a world in which indebtedness is somehow equivalent to wealth), which in the context of the irreversible socialization of American healthcare, was in line with expectations.
It would be logical then to think that as a result of this premium - the biggest in the world - the quality of the healthcare offered in the US among the best, if not the best, in the world. Unfortunately, that would be wrong and, in fact, the reality is the complete opposite: as a recent study by the Commonweath Fund, looking at how the US healthcare system compares internationally, finds, "the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity." In other words: most expensive, yet worst in the developed world.
From the report:
The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity. In this edition of Mirror, Mirror, the United Kingdom ranks first, followed closely by Switzerland (Exhibit ES-1).
Expanding from the seven countries included in 2010, the 2014 edition includes data from 11 countries. It incorporates patients’ and physicians’ survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care. It includes information from the most recent three Commonwealth Fund international surveys of patients and primary care physicians about medical practices and views of their countries’ health systems (2011–2013). It also includes information on health care outcomes featured in The Commonwealth Fund’s most recent (2011) national health system scorecard, and from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Affordable Care Act is increasing the number of Americans with coverage and improving access to care, though the data in this report are from years prior to the full implementation of the law. Thus, it is not surprising that the U.S. underperforms on measures of access and equity between populations with above- average and below-average incomes.
The U.S. also ranks behind most countries on many measures of health outcomes, quality, and efficiency. U.S. physicians face particular difficulties receiving timely information, coordinating care, and dealing with administrative hassles. Other countries have led in the adoption of modern health information systems, but U.S. physicians and hospitals are catching up as they respond to significant financial incentives to adopt and make meaningful use of health information technology systems. Additional provisions in the Affordable Care Act will further encourage the efficient organization and delivery of health care, as well as investment in important preventive and population health measures.
For all countries, responses indicate room for improvement. Yet, the other 10 countries spend considerably less on health care per person and as a percent of gross domestic product than does the United States. These findings indicate that, from the perspectives of both physicians and patients, the U.S. health care system could do much better in achieving value for the nation’s substantial investment in health.
Major Findings
- Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
- Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
- Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
- Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
- Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.
Summary
The U.S. ranks last of 11 nations overall. Findings in this report confirm many of those in the earlier four editions of Mirror, Mirror, with the U.S. still ranking last on indicators of efficiency, equity, and outcomes. The U.K. continues to demonstrate strong performance and ranked first overall, though lagging notably on health outcomes. Switzerland, which was included for the first time in this edition, ranked second overall. In the subcategories, the U.S. ranks higher on preventive care, and is strong on waiting times for specialist care, but weak on access to needed services and ability to obtain prompt attention from primary care physicians. Any attempt to assess the relative performance of countries has inherent limitations. These rankings summarize evidence on measures of high performance based on national mortality data and the perceptions and experiences of patients and physicians. They do not capture important dimensions of effectiveness or efficiency that might be obtained from medical records or administrative data. Patients’ and physicians’ assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations, which could differ by country and culture.
Disparities in access to services signal the need to expand insurance to cover the uninsured and to ensure that all Americans have an accessible medical home. Under the Affordable Care Act, low- to moderate-income families are now eligible for financial assistance in obtaining coverage. Meanwhile, the U.S. has significantly accelerated the adoption of health information technology following the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and is beginning to close the gap with other countries that have led on adoption of health information technology. Significant incentives now encourage U.S. providers to utilize integrated medical records and information systems that are accessible to providers and patients. Those efforts will likely help clinicians deliver more effective and efficient care.
Many U.S. hospitals and health systems are dedicated to improving the process of care to achieve better safety and quality, but the U.S. can also learn from innovations in other countries—including public reporting of quality data, payment systems that reward high-quality care, and a team approach to management of chronic conditions. Based on these patient and physician reports, and with the enactment of health reform, the United States should be able to make significant strides in improving the delivery, coordination, and equity of the health care system in coming years.
* * *
It should, although if the government is in charge of it, as it now appears to be, it won't.
»
- 32027 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The puff piece was put together by commonwealthfund.org - promoting healthcare stuff - reads like a lobby group for more gewbermint spending - lots of cross references to Rockefeller.
Funny how Canada sits at the bottom too - gewbermint run healthcare is in their constitution - who are the room full of assholes that came up with that one - I think there's a clause in their constitution too for a free lollipop after each doctor visit too.
And Europe has the best - of course they do - with 35% unemployed, no one gets stressed and so they don't get sick.
Although there are some good points, the problem with this type of report is that it systematically assumes that one form of medicine is superior to all others. When one considers the number of iatrogenic deaths and injuries from allopathic medicine, the abundant and rich knowledge that we have on the impact of nutrition on general health but also on its ability to reverse the symptoms of many diseases, of the multiple benefits derived from electric, bioelectric, magnetic and electro magnetic devices or the impressive qualities of water to resonate at the frequency of substances even at incredibly high dilutions this all screams out of the need for competition across all different forms of medicine. That is the key to drastically reducing costs in the healthcare. Without doing that, all these measures are just light trimmings especially when one considers that the UK came out on top but on a per capita basis is around £2000 per person!?! One can buy full health and dental private insurance coverage for a family of 4 for around £325 per month (i.e. £975 per person). So let's not fool ourselves into thinking reports like this are going to provide us with any useful information.
This report is the most biased,unscientific exercise in cherry picking data and promoting technologies which do the reverse of what they claim that I have ever seen.
Compare it to arguments that central banks know best,that WIC is superior to a working family buying its groceries,or the superiority of public to private housing.The post office is superior to Fedex?Really?
For a useful exercise,take a look at what the above useless screed says about the glories of health information technology,and then try to find a Contemporary publication from a refereed journal that actually shows a benefit-ANY benefit to the use of IT in healthcare.
Go on and try.
THERE ARENT any!
This bogus piece is a perfect example of the rhetoric used to foist off the abomination that is Obamacare on a fat,dumb,lazy populace of low information voters.
Strange that people from the UK come here for heart operations? More bullshit from the propoganda team!
You know something's wrong when they rank the NIH system the best in the world. Turns out "The Commonwealth Fund" is headed by Obama administration flunkie Dr. David Blumenthal. Small world. Reminds me of the Kamp Krusty Simpsons episode:
Bart: Well Dad, here's my report card. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Homer: A+?!? You don't think much of me, do you boy?
Bart: No sir!
Homer: You know a D turns into a B so easily. You just got greedy.
Two things that add to cost and decrease efficiency: constant gov't meddling and high malpractice insurance due to greedy ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Gov't take over of our healthcare is the final piece of controlling our very lives. All past dictators have done it.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens when the IRS and its crashing hard drives are in charge of our medical care.
It provides two functions. The first is to gain ever more control of us, the second is that it perpetrates the notion that they are acting, doing something to protect and care for us. I known I feel better...you?
And I must note, I came to ZH for an anti-establishment POV on things.
But in this case Tyler's pessimism and anti-Americanism has overriden that, and he's repeating bullshit establishment propaganda.
Fuck Amercanism. fuck government.
A lot of apologists crawling out to defend the US system...
I don;t envy their task... It's hard to defend a bunch of sociopathic health insurance execs that are subsidized by the gubbmint...
You do realize that, don't you?
Dear God, I'm not defending the US health care system (which itself is largely government run anyway). But I'll take a sociopathic insurance exec who's somewhat controlled by market forces over a sociopathic politician or govt bureaucrat who answers to no one any day.
If you think "market forces" are at work, you are clearly deluded about how HI works or what market forces are...
That exec would have you planted 6 ft under if it meant another $1,000 to his bonus....
Public employees on personal bonus programs for "performance" do not have unalloyed hearts of gold.
Has recent news about the VA Hospital system reached your neck of the woods yet? That isn't exactly a new healthcare system. It's been corrupt and overwhelmed by bloat and inefficiency for decades, even as government has sweetly smiled on its continuing "success" (although vets under treatment have surely known better). Every time we start another war, demand goes up. Not unlike what's happening also with b-boomers hitting the age where health begins declining.
The well-established VA Hospital system has for-sure planted many people 6 ft under in order to add bonus money to government executive paychecks. Extending government health care to the general population will simply stretch that misery from wall to wall, solely to the benefit of bureaucrats on the make.
Got those Fox news talking points down...
The problem with the VA is that there is a shortage of doctors for whom making $350,000 is adequate compensation...
Why enter pubic service when you can become a shill for big Pharma and and like and really line your pockets?
So why are American doctors so driven by greed,, unwilling to work at sub-par wages for the VA, as compared to those loving, caring European doctors? Is it as simple as the lack of a good Marxist upbringing?
How many bales of straw did it take to build what you just posted?
Part of it is that you get paid by the patient not the procedure... Changes the incentive structure....
Not at all. We keep hearing this repeated that European doctors make substantially less than American doctors and are more caring as well. So what's up with American doctors? They won't work for Euro wages? Are they Greedy or what? Do they just not give a damn about their patients? Why is that? It sure must be cultural or something in their education, upbringing or something that would make them so evil. Just give me a clue.
I'm not sure what your reference to patient versus procedure is pointing at. European doctors get largely paid by the government, right? Do they get paid by how many patients they see or by how many procedures they do or by outcome. Ideally it would be outcome as living patients pay better than dead ones (maybe marginally).
Given that we see more and more American doctors opting out of Obamacare, insurance and even the whole healthcare gig, whats up with that? Are they just so damn greedy they are going Galt on us?
A system is not just a bunch of rules and policy statements. Its people, and if you don't have them on board, then no system will work. It requires trust and trust ultimately has to be earned. Something this government has failed in on every level and getting worse. At some point they are going to have to demonstrate some credibility, if it is no more than prosecuting those who have failed the trust.
It isn't necessarily defending the US system. The question is how fair is this report when comparing the US system to other systems around the world. This report, for example, equates having insurance with access to care. This is absurd. Insurance does not necesasrily equal access. People in Canada have insurance through the government but they have terrible accesst o healthcare. The result is that many people end up dying on waiting lists for care an uninsured person frequenlty gets in the United States.
That isn't to say that the US healthcare system is perfect and is flawless. It is far from perfect and could be improved in many ways. The government is too involved in heatlhcare in this country and ends up driving up costs and limits the supply of healthcare. The report mentioned in this post reads like a propaganda piece for socialized medicine in general and Obamacare in partiular.
Comments here about how superior the United States healthcare system is remind me of the Soviet Union under the communists, when the Soviet propaganda mill routinely pumped out lies about their "workers' paradise." Two words apply to healthcare these days: "everything sucks."
At least in the UK, when the health authorities there found out that there were excessive deaths starting in 2007 from the C. Difficile pathogen in some hospital trusts, the National Health Trust took action and the news media there (including the BBC Panorama show) reported on this serious problem. As C. Diff infections flared up at hospitals here in the USA at the same time, there was virtually no reporting on patient C. Diff deaths.
Just what you would expect from a captive American press staffed by liars and incompetents who have orders not to upset hospital executives with friends, executives who earn 7 and 8 figure salaries from overcharging patients and insurance companies for sometimes rotten care.
Were Westerners flooding the Soviet Union to take advantage of its economic system?
There are lots of Canadians at hospitals in Seattle, Buffalo, and Michigan for some reason.
Wait lists for elective stuff is well known...
Note the term "elective"...
Because waiting for cancer treatment is elective...
And what is your point? How does what you say relate to the issue?
Because there are wait lists for cancer patients, and by your reference they must obviously be elective.
And what evidence do you provide of excessive waits for non-elective procedures...
Most expensive health care, yes.
Low quality No.
The US health care system saved my life, twice.
Great doctors, except for a few quacks.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the health industry bribing...err lobbying conartists...I mean congress to allow them to rip off the US. look what the pharmaceutical industry did to medicare under Bush.
Simple, it's cost shifting to the American market. Subsidizing the world, all the while getting substandard care in return. Even moreso when it comes to Big Pharma.
Some people simply do not understand that 30+ years of social justice and first world guilt based policies can backfire.
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!!!!!!!
I laugh to keep from crying.
Just eat garlic.
The US Healthcare System should be renamed to Insurance and Pharmaceutical Subsidy System. It has very little to do with health.
"The Affordable Care Act is increasing the number of Americans with coverage and improving access to care, [...]"
This is a good example of how great propaganda works: mixing a small counter-factual claim with an abundance of factual data to make it appear factual also. There is absolutely no evidence either coverage or access have improved in the US on a net basis, while there is considerable evidence that access ("you can keep your doctor") has declined for many. Moreover, this mandate has now artificially goosed costs upward at an even faster rate, as well.
One interesting thing about Switzerland (perhaps the most sane country in the world) is that their health care system relies on private insurers, not nannycrats.
No particular relationship appears to exist between cost of health care vs. quality and accessibility of care delivered in various countries. Throwing money at inefficient systems is a response but not a solution. The US health care system is a solid of example of why that doesn't work.
the main relationship is that there are more sound regulations to restrict the excessive profit motive in these healthcare systems and most people actually care about their fellow citizens' right to quality and affordable healthcare.
you do know that health insurance is universal and compulsory in switzerland?
other things you probably didn't know:
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/i-dont-the-swiss-health-care...
The reasons other countries spend less are not because they are “free market”. Why not cite how much less the UK spends? Or Canada? Or pretty much any other country in the world? The reason they spend less is because everything (including drugs, physicians, etc.) costs less there.
There is no “public option” here. What are they talking about? But more importantly – do they know that the Swiss health care system forces every insurance company to offer anon-profit product to everyone, which is closer to a “public option” than anything we have?
More of their ideas:
Do they know that the Swiss health care system has an individual mandate? Do they know that the Swiss health care system has arguably more regulations, such that they can’t even charge a 25 year old and an 80 year old a different price (like you can in Obamacare)? Do they know that the Swiss health care system regulates drug prices and fees for lab tests and medical devices? Do they know the most someone can pay for insurance in Switzerland is 8% of income (which is less than Obamacare allows)?
Do they know that the Swiss health care system employs community ratings?
And do the vast majority of the Swiss support their system?
Because in America, we do not. It has been noted that no socialized system of welfare or healthcare can survive any significant level of immigration. America might have had an opportunity to implement a Swiss styled system fifty years ago but we have instead opened our borders and our pockets to every bleeding heart cause on the planet. WE ARE BROKE, and every socialist solution seems to make us even more so.
I hate to go here but is this not the deliberate collapsing of our economy through the burden of unsustainable entitlements? Articles such as this are but for one purpose, to drive us deeper into debt by effectively nationalizing a corrupt and broken system created by the very same people trying to save us.
There is a name for what you describe. I believe it is Cloward Piven.
the vasy majorty supports a system that ensures everyone gets healthcare and pays a fair amount.
in america, the problem is that the government doesn't regulate the health care system enough to make it fair and accesible to everyone, as well as cost-effective.
instead, you've been cool with spending trillions the last decade fighting the bogeymen in the deserts of southwest asia.
where are your priorities?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-a...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:Everyone supports fairness, we just can't all agree what is fair.
fair means everyone can obtain health care at an affordable cost.
Subsidizing the healthcare of others via government mandates (forcing socilized medicine down our throats after lie upon lie upon lie) while my own healthcare becomes severly rationed, quality goes down and my costs sky rocket is not a "top prioroity" for me. I really don't give a fuck about those people. I worry a lot more about taking care of myself and my family.
The Atlantic, a government mouthpiece and the CDC, the Center for Dumb Comments. You make me laugh.
You can "shame" me all you want. You will never, ever "guilt" me.
Even government shill ABC admits that the majority of Americans STILL do not support Obamacare. I would bet the real, honest to god number is still around 70%.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/03/at-49-percent-support-obama...
Actually I am not "cool with spending trillions the last decade fighting the bogeymen in the deserts of southwest asia." This strategy was/is neccessary to protect the petrodollar/pricing of gold in dollars/USD as world reserve currency etc.. Without this, the cost to contnually borrow money will skyrocket as the US runs deficits. How could you not know this? LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege
England (prior to 1950) was doing almost exactly same thing the Americans are doing now, just as most of Europe sucked wealth from the developing world via their colonial system.
Socialized medicine has nothing to do with making healthcare fair and accessible. This is not the will of the people, it is control (of another 16% of the economy). Plain and simple.
there's a lot of rage, paranoia, and stupidity screaming from the text that you've written.
who fucked you over?
even though the dollar is the reserve currency and american growth was debt-financed, it should concern you that your government (and by extension, the representation of your society) doesn't care about your, your family's, and your community's health and well-being.
have you thought about re-locating to a more human-friendly country?
You really think the government cares about "you"? Why don't you GO BACK to Europe.
In the meantime, here are some highlights from:
http://tinyurl.com/ku9vxug
Cost of obamacare; lied
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c3756/clip-presidential-health-care-address
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/health-care-law-will-add-...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/state-officials-health-care-aid...
Promised to put obamacare negotiations on c-span; lied
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-reneges-on-health-care-transparency/
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/26/c-span-president-never-requested-c-spa...
If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan; lied
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/06/what-does-the-presidents-pr...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hhs-admits-you-might-not-be-able-kee...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/05/01/fortune-100-survey-employers...
http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=fce28676-f98c-462e-a19d-2f2d8c7e...
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022813-646270-affordable-care-a...
If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor; lied
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/lying-about-lies-why-credibil...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hhs-admits-you-might-not-be-able-kee...
Refused to fire or prosecute 15 IRS agents who illegally seized the medical records of 60 million people
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/12/house-committee-looks-into-irs-seizure...
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/14/55707.htm
Hired 16,500 new IRS agents to run Obamacare
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060313-658637-congress-must-imp...
Too bad he didn't use the money to hire more healthcare workers at the VA. LOL
Illegally bypassed Congress to delay Obamacare’s employer mandate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/02/white-house-d...
Paid $67 million to so-called “volunteers”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2013/08/15/to-help-navigate-obam...
Members of Congress and their staff are exempt from the income limits for Obamacare subsidies that apply to everyone else
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2013/11/14/obamacare-the-real-sto...
How many millions of people lost their employee sponsored health insurance?
How many millions of people had their hours cut because of obamacare?
How many millions of people are being were forced to buy shitty policies that cost way more out of pocket than their employee sponsored plan and cover far less?
Here are some more tidbits
Obamacare requires some people to pay 19% of their income for premiums
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/business/new-health-law-frustrates-man...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/20/utter-chaos-white-h...
Under certain circumstances, Obamacare recipients between the ages of 55 and 64 can have their homes seized by the government after they die
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-shotgun-wedding-marry-lose-09150...
All of this is taken from:
http://tinyurl.com/ku9vxug
i'm already in europe.
idiot.
trader1:
You forgot to mention that Switzerland has some of the strictest immigration policies in the world.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-09/europe-stunned-angry-switzerlan....
let's look at the data (as of 2005, but if you can find more recent then have at it):
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Migration/Net-migr...
DEFINITION: Net migration is the net total of migrants during the period, that is, the total number of immigrants less the annual number of emigrants, including both citizens and noncitizens. Data are five-year estimates. To derive estimates of net migration, the United Nations Population Division takes into account the past migration history of a country or area, the migration policy of a country, and the influx of refugees in recent periods. The data to calculate these official estimates come from a variety of sources, including border statistics, administrative records, surveys, and censuses. When no official estimates can be made because of insufficient data, net migration is derived through the balance equation, which is the difference between overall population growth and the natural increase during the 1990-2000 intercensal period." Per capita figures expressed per 1 million population.
# 20 Switzerland 26,900.54 per 1 million people 2005
# 34 United States 19,148.45 per 1 million people 2005if switzerland has a strict immigration policy, they are certainly not enforcing it that well.
besides, switzerland has one of the highest % of permanent residents with an immigrant background of any european country:
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/01/07/blank/key/04.html
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/switzerlands-non-eu-immigrants-th...
the recent referendum in switzerland only asks that the federal govt. in switzerland consider immigration quotas. nothing has been decided or implemented as of yet...
I got a Colonoscopy in Cuba and they found nothing $150.00 I had a second one done in Amerika for $5,000.00 they found nothing.....
$5150.00. If you where on the price is right what would you have guessed?
America is getting a colonoscopy from big SPYING POLICE STATE government and it's only costing us TRILLIONS!
I question how you spend your entertainment dollars. Just sayin...
Of course, the worst feature only applies if you are in the 99.99%
About health!!!
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2014/05/30/fukushima-the-gift-that-ke...
Why should I have to pay for the person who eats 10 donuts a day and has diabetes, stroke, etc. Same thing why should anyone else pay for my heart attack if i want to eat a pint of double dutch dark chocolate ice cream every night?
Zero responsibility these days at every level.
"Why should I have to pay for the person [...]"
Until the government required you to have health insurance, you did not. You could fund your own treatment with your own money, directly out of pocket. Now you cannot (unless you pay government a fee for that privilege).
But because government passed laws to prevent anyone from receiving care, we have been forced to pay for others regardless. This is how it is done. Create policies that seek to only help those most in need and before long...we all are.
Hey Tyler, are you crazy? Why are you printing an article from the establishment that wants more NWO? Don't get fooled by them! Also have you noticed the lack of any comparison of currency exchange ratio? When they say they spend only one dollar for each ten we spend, what does that correspond in their currency? And speakig of their country, how much do they spend of their GNP and what does that provide for services rendered? Can I get me a hunting license here?
There are a couple of basic flaws in these meta studies - essentially they're not worth much except to one ideology or another.
1. Life expectency is typically used at the key measure, but rarely is it normalized so it it relevant across countries. When accidental and violent death is taken into account the US healthcare system rises to the top.
2. Much data is self-reported with little to now auditing, particularly as it comes to infant mortality which is heavily distorted by certain countries.
3. Medical outcomes from the point of intervention. When you asess the healthcare system from the point where it comes into play with the patient, the US system rises to the top 1 or 2 in the world.
4. Preventative care is basically worthless.
I don't know what that chart shows - is the amount the out-of-pocket per capita? Because all those "better" numbers are supported by humongous taxes and government programs. The numbers that are needed are total expenditures.
Not that I disagree, the US system is far, far weaker than we make out, it has long been mired in all kinds of inefficiencies. Obamacare was (crudely) modelled on academic studies going back fifty years on how to improve things, but you know what most academic studies are worth. The result is it makes things worse.
A lot of the US total expenditure is high because millions of illegals pour into the most expensive medical facilties like ERs because they are not allowed to pour into the local doctor's offices! If Obamacare set up free walk-in clinics around the country, it would probably cost about 1/50 of the current program and relieve a million pressures on the expensive sides of the system. OTOH yes I know, if we can't even get the VA to work, then could the government ever run free clinics? So break it up and privitize it, but still use government money.
Life Expectancy is a good indicator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Like those prognosticating climate change the question is, what temperature should it be.
How long do we want to live. I know its a stupid question...but is it? Given the world we have created one has to question from time to time what the quality of life will be when we are aged and dependent on our "society". God knows few will be able to care for themselves with NIRP and the wealth confiscation we are facing.
Yeah, but..but... Obama promised us hope and change. He's still has two years left. He's still got time to fix it.
Fuck government.
Do you trust politicans to run health care and health insurance efficiently. They are out to take your freedoms, not provide good health care.
The U.S. maintains the "free market" aspect of healthcare by fiat.
You mean, "pretend free market." FIFY.
The fact that the free market aspect of healthcare is maintained by government decree is all you really need to know to see through the red team blue team "debate". The are both really one team who's sole mission is to siphon off as much as possible from the private sector.
I am surprised to see UK at the top of the list (it must exclude dental health).
We had a serious accident in the family which required a 3 year old to take a 75 mile Life Flight Helicopter ride from on city to a regional trauma center. Flight time under a half hour. $25,000 Bill for the flight. Kindly enough it is in nice round numbers. If you consider all costs, the profit margine must be astronomical!
I can't know, but is it possible the profits exceed $15,000 for that flight?
If the profits were that fat, would it not be possible that another firm could undercut these prices and still make a profit? If so, why not? Could it be a government regulation?
Payola, not government regulation.
It comes down to this - in the USA, doctors and nurses are paid several times what they are paid in other western countries with better cheaper healthcare. Drugs also cost several times as much.
It's reallly not complicated.
What is the difference between imposing a minimum wage and a maximum wage? We will never know as long as everything is paid by decree of the government.
And what are the overhead costs in the healthcare utopias? Legal insurance? What do they pay for their education?
I find it hard to bellieve that doctors in America are dropping out of the system left and right because they say they can't afford to stay in, yet foreign doctors work for peanuts. Whats the deal?
It is propaganda and self interest. Even without the new laws that make you pay a cut to insurance companies, a specialist in the USA makes $230,000.00 per year. In Canada, $161,000. In Germany, that is $77,000. Finland $74,000. Hungary $27,000, Mexico $25,000.
http://www.practicelink.com/magazine/vital-stats/physician-compensation-...
Michael Moore's Medical Utopia of Cuba?
"On average Cuban doctors are paid $15 a month of which is barely enough to support them." or enough to watch Michael Moore's movie. ;) from http://www.global-politics.co.uk/issue9/hanna/
USA has the most advanced
Profit from Disease System!
Community Organizers don't know about helfcare? Say whut, rayciss????
Socialized medicine is so great in Sweden, citizens opting for private insurance has increased 400% over the past decade;
http://www.thelocal.se/20111010/36648
http://www.thelocal.se/20140117/hospital-queues-tied-to-insurance-trend
http://mises.org/daily/6476/
It was great when it was just Swedes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_market
In economics, a perfect market is defined by several conditions, collectively called perfect competition. Among these conditions are
A free market in healthcare will always tend to be dominated by producer interests because of the specialist nature of the information needed to make consumer decisions and if it's dominated by producer interests then it will be very expensive.
State provision tends to just replace one set of producer interests with another.
It seems to me the solution in situations like this is state regulation that is designed to make the market work better than it would otherwise.
I'm no socialist but consider this scenario. You find yourself badly bleeding on the side of the road after a car accident. You are in no position to negotiate prices with ambulences, nurses, doctors or hospitals. You may not even be concious... and time may be of the essence. In this scenario we are talking about a "utility" rather than a market.
Sure - perhaps we should also regulate your occupation, whatever it is? Like, you are asking too much from your customers for investment advice, so it is in the interest of the community to cap your fees/salary etc.
FYI, here is the absolute best, most useful source of knowledge I have found to treat and prevent repetitive stress injuries like tendonitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, acute muscle pain (ex: back pain):
www.julstro.com
-> in particular, her book called "Treat Yourself to Pain-Free Living" is absolutely fabulous and has changed my life. I can train harder as a boxer at 41 than I could in my 20's and 30's, all thanks to this book!
The self-administered technique lets you release the tension in muscle, which otherwise accumulates and ends up pulling constantly on the tendons, causing tendonitis + etc.
If you are interested, I would strongly encourage you to buy a couple of the (cheap) rubber balls she sells (otherwise also found in physio supply shops), since that way you just have to lie on the balls to get the muscle to release.
Information like this is the bane of the medical community, 'cos thanks to it you won't need their help anymore, which often consists of nothing more than prescriptions for addictive pain-killers!
"Most Expensive Yet Worst In The Developed World"
The "worst" quality metric factors in cost in its analysis in multiple places. So, being the most expensive is what gives US Healthcare a low quality score.
Has anyone ever seen a price list for common procedures in any Amerikan hospital? Anyone, Bueller?
Im not sure if you understand that un the US the govt doesnt run the healtcare. it is run by corporations.
The other 10 countries have their healthcare systems run by government.
People seem to forget that when governments run healthcare (a public good in economic terms) there may be inefficiencies, but there is also no profit motive. It is well established through experimental economics that public goods (like healthcare) are always poorly managed by free markets. Healthcare can be considered a public good in that the general health level of the population directly affects the productivity of labour (sick people dont work well and take more time off).
Additionally, governments get the same cost-scale advantages that firms like wal-mart exert to lower their costs beyond what a single store can. Also governments can be held directly accountable for poor health services via the electoral process.
This given the last comment in the post has it *exactly* backwards.
The idiocy of the US system is in its mandatory insurance. Any time a government forces the whole population to buy something price rises by more than just the additional demand would indicate. In insurance this means that firms will charge more (by population average) than they could possibly ever get in a free market: ie insurance always costs more than the actual healthcare costs. Healthcare profits rise since they just charge the insurance wherever they want ($40 aspirin, anyone?). Since hospitals are charging whatever, medical supplies firms do likewise and all these profits are passed on to insurance policy holders.
You suck me in with "worst in the developed world" and then only at the end of the article you actually complete the sentence:
the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity." In other words: most expensive, yet worst in the developed world.
"
It's a political ranking, not a quality ranking. In Other Words, the US is last or near last in being socialist.
This is the second article in the last 10 minutes I've read on ZH that put so much spin in the headline and the interspersed editorial content, it was difficult to find any genuine information on the page. Is Sunday night the night of the grumpy statist bloggers?
Newsflash: The left got it's wetdream five years ago because of so called "studies" like this. Now whatever we have will get worse and more expensive. But hey, you can get the pill for nothing.
I guess that's why Brits, Canadians and the rest of the world come to the US for treatment. This story is 100% Bullshit - or as they say in the land of epic waits for even the most basic treatments, "poppycock"
Now Dentistry, that's another story. We all KNOW that the Brits are #1 there.