Can Public Option Work?

[SmellyLemmings]

President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist

I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.

This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!

 

[Big Black Dog]

I am very leary of this whole Obama Health Care Reform business for several reasons. The first being the socialized medicine if the Public Option portion of it is passed. The government has no business in the insurance business at all. It isn't allowed by the Constitution. I believe there is a need for health care reform in the US - I think most people do - but if done so by the government it will just grow the size of government, give the government even more control over your life and privacy and cost way too much money. The government can't even manage social security and medicare. Those two programs are just for a small portion of Americans. How in the world does anybody with any brains think the government can manage health care for the whole nation with their past track record? Another big problem is the cost. Just where is the money going to come from for this reform package being pushed by the government? The US already is very deeply in debt to China and others. The money we owe China alone is frightening and now they want to borrow more to pay for the reform? A very bad move I am sure. It will bankrupt the country. The government says they will save enough from revamping medicare alone to pay for most of the reform. I don't believe it. The government never has saved anything in it's past history of financial endeavors. Let's have them physically show us the savings before we jump like frogs into this mess. It is a time for people to think with their brains and not with their hearts.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If it is run with the efficiency and integrity of Social Security, a public option makes sense.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I am very leary of this whole Obama Health Care Reform business for several reasons. The first being the socialized medicine if the Public Option portion of it is passed. The government has no business in the insurance business at all. It isn't allowed by the Constitution. I believe there is a need for health care reform in the US - I think most people do - but if done so by the government it will just grow the size of government, give the government even more control over your life and privacy and cost way too much money. The government can't even manage social security and medicare. Those two programs are just for a small portion of Americans. How in the world does anybody with any brains think the government can manage health care for the whole nation with their past track record? Another big problem is the cost. Just where is the money going to come from for this reform package being pushed by the government? The US already is very deeply in debt to China and others. The money we owe China alone is frightening and now they want to borrow more to pay for the reform? A very bad move I am sure. It will bankrupt the country. The government says they will save enough from revamping medicare alone to pay for most of the reform. I don't believe it. The government never has saved anything in it's past history of financial endeavors. Let's have them physically show us the savings before we jump like frogs into this mess. It is a time for people to think with their brains and not with their hearts.

You say there is a need for health care reform and I disagree. I see it as a need for health financial and health data management reform.

It's not the doctoring in America that needs attention, it's deciding what we should pay for and how we should structure the bureaucracy we employ to manage our health and financial data.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I am very leary of this whole Obama Health Care Reform business for several reasons. The first being the socialized medicine if the Public Option portion of it is passed. The government has no business in the insurance business at all. It isn't allowed by the Constitution. I believe there is a need for health care reform in the US - I think most people do - but if done so by the government it will just grow the size of government, give the government even more control over your life and privacy and cost way too much money. The government can't even manage social security and medicare. Those two programs are just for a small portion of Americans. How in the world does anybody with any brains think the government can manage health care for the whole nation with their past track record? Another big problem is the cost. Just where is the money going to come from for this reform package being pushed by the government? The US already is very deeply in debt to China and others. The money we owe China alone is frightening and now they want to borrow more to pay for the reform? A very bad move I am sure. It will bankrupt the country. The government says they will save enough from revamping medicare alone to pay for most of the reform. I don't believe it. The government never has saved anything in it's past history of financial endeavors. Let's have them physically show us the savings before we jump like frogs into this mess. It is a time for people to think with their brains and not with their hearts.

You say there is a need for health care reform and I disagree. I see it as a need for health financial and health data management reform.

It's not the doctoring in America that needs attention, it's deciding what we should pay for and how we should structure the bureaucracy we employ to manage our health and financial data.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. I mean, why should it cost more in Los Angeles and New York City then it does in Dixon, Illinois to fix a broken arm? Shouldn't it cost the same thing in every hospital in America? Why do the hospitals bill the insurance companies, say $2,500.00 for medical services but accept only $950.00 that the insurance company pays them and writes the rest off? Why does it cost over $100.00 to walk into an Emergency Room for any kind of a problem and then be charged more by the doctors, X-ray department, etc., etc., etc. The point I am trying to make is the reform needs to be in the price structure of it all. Nothing is a standard throughout America. This is where the reform needs to start. Granted, it costs lots of money to get through medical school, set up a medical practice, and all the rest that goes along with that but why not charge the same thing for office visits all across the country? This is the point I am trying to make.

 

[Chris]

President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist

I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.

This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!

National health insurance and socialized medicine are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Socialized medicine is when the doctors and hospitals are owned by the government. Very few countries have socialized medicine, and it doesn't work as well as national health insurance alone IMHO.

National health insurance is when the government acts as the insurance company, and this seems to work pretty well. There are inherent efficiencies in a national health insurance system, and that is why the other industrialized countries pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. France seems to have the best system of all IMHO.

A nice overview can be found at this link....

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[veritas]

President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist

I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.

This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!

There is no death panel debate. That's a hoax for stupid people.

Insurance is the very definition of socialism, except without the good parts. Pooling risk over a large sampling, or spreading risk by paying in is like socialism, except it's not egalitarian, which is where the profit motive comes and claims are denied and people dropped or excluded from participating at all.

The public option has not been shown to be a huge cost, nor such a small factor, that's rhetoric.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am very leary of this whole Obama Health Care Reform business for several reasons. The first being the socialized medicine if the Public Option portion of it is passed. The government has no business in the insurance business at all. It isn't allowed by the Constitution. I believe there is a need for health care reform in the US - I think most people do - but if done so by the government it will just grow the size of government, give the government even more control over your life and privacy and cost way too much money. The government can't even manage social security and medicare. Those two programs are just for a small portion of Americans. How in the world does anybody with any brains think the government can manage health care for the whole nation with their past track record? Another big problem is the cost. Just where is the money going to come from for this reform package being pushed by the government? The US already is very deeply in debt to China and others. The money we owe China alone is frightening and now they want to borrow more to pay for the reform? A very bad move I am sure. It will bankrupt the country. The government says they will save enough from revamping medicare alone to pay for most of the reform. I don't believe it. The government never has saved anything in it's past history of financial endeavors. Let's have them physically show us the savings before we jump like frogs into this mess. It is a time for people to think with their brains and not with their hearts.

You say there is a need for health care reform and I disagree. I see it as a need for health financial and health data management reform.

It's not the doctoring in America that needs attention, it's deciding what we should pay for and how we should structure the bureaucracy we employ to manage our health and financial data.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. I mean, why should it cost more in Los Angeles and New York City then it does in Dixon, Illinois to fix a broken arm? Shouldn't it cost the same thing in every hospital in America? Why do the hospitals bill the insurance companies, say $2,500.00 for medical services but accept only $950.00 that the insurance company pays them and writes the rest off? Why does it cost over $100.00 to walk into an Emergency Room for any kind of a problem and then be charged more by the doctors, X-ray department, etc., etc., etc. The point I am trying to make is the reform needs to be in the price structure of it all. Nothing is a standard throughout America. This is where the reform needs to start. Granted, it costs lots of money to get through medical school, set up a medical practice, and all the rest that goes along with that but why not charge the same thing for office visits all across the country? This is the point I am trying to make.

Nothing is standard. A 2BR Apartment in Dixon IL doesnt cost nearly what it does in NYC. A gallon of milk in Hawaii is a lot mroe than the same gallon in WI. Costs vary throughout the country, including medical. So what?
Hospitals bill lots more than they end up accepting because frequently they bill and collect nothing. They are not allowed to turn away people because they can't pay. So their unreimbursed expenses are large.
But none of that is responsive to the idea that we need the gov't intruding into what ought to be a private sector decision. What will standardizing rates throughout the country do??

 

[The Rabbi]

President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist

I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.

This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!

There is no death panel debate. That's a hoax for stupid people.

Insurance is the very definition of socialism, except without the good parts. Pooling risk over a large sampling, or spreading risk by paying in is like socialism, except it's not egalitarian, which is where the profit motive comes and claims are denied and people dropped or excluded from participating at all.

The public option has not been shown to be a huge cost, nor such a small factor, that's rhetoric.

Death panels are not a hoax. Their absence is a trap for the credulous. The way the system is set, there must inevitably be death panels because care will eventually have to be rationed. It is pure economics 101: set the cost below market and you create shortages. The shortages must be adjudicated in the same way the pricing mechanism would have done so. Here, there will be a bunch of bureaucrats making the decision instead of the marketplace.
Insurance is not socialism. It is the opposite in fact. Socialism is not egalitarian either, despite whatever rhetoric the communists are using these days.
Whenever this type of thing has been tried, the costs skyrocket and quality stinks. This has been shown over and over and is supported by the economics of it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I am very leary of this whole Obama Health Care Reform business for several reasons. The first being the socialized medicine if the Public Option portion of it is passed. The government has no business in the insurance business at all. It isn't allowed by the Constitution. I believe there is a need for health care reform in the US - I think most people do - but if done so by the government it will just grow the size of government, give the government even more control over your life and privacy and cost way too much money. The government can't even manage social security and medicare. Those two programs are just for a small portion of Americans. How in the world does anybody with any brains think the government can manage health care for the whole nation with their past track record? Another big problem is the cost. Just where is the money going to come from for this reform package being pushed by the government? The US already is very deeply in debt to China and others. The money we owe China alone is frightening and now they want to borrow more to pay for the reform? A very bad move I am sure. It will bankrupt the country. The government says they will save enough from revamping medicare alone to pay for most of the reform. I don't believe it. The government never has saved anything in it's past history of financial endeavors. Let's have them physically show us the savings before we jump like frogs into this mess. It is a time for people to think with their brains and not with their hearts.

You say there is a need for health care reform and I disagree. I see it as a need for health financial and health data management reform.

It's not the doctoring in America that needs attention, it's deciding what we should pay for and how we should structure the bureaucracy we employ to manage our health and financial data.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. I mean, why should it cost more in Los Angeles and New York City then it does in Dixon, Illinois to fix a broken arm? Shouldn't it cost the same thing in every hospital in America? Why do the hospitals bill the insurance companies, say $2,500.00 for medical services but accept only $950.00 that the insurance company pays them and writes the rest off? Why does it cost over $100.00 to walk into an Emergency Room for any kind of a problem and then be charged more by the doctors, X-ray department, etc., etc., etc. The point I am trying to make is the reform needs to be in the price structure of it all. Nothing is a standard throughout America. This is where the reform needs to start. Granted, it costs lots of money to get through medical school, set up a medical practice, and all the rest that goes along with that but why not charge the same thing for office visits all across the country? This is the point I am trying to make.

There are a slew of particulars that are both symptoms and causes of the inconsistencies, expense and paperwork of healthcare but it boils down to one problem:

We are encouraging the management of our health and financial data to be run at a profit.

Can you imagine buying food like we buy health care?

We need two types - some sort of maintenance program for physicals and such and 'insurance' for if your kid gets leukemia.

Right now the private insurance bureaucracies are making bank because they have us paying in from our 20's through our working years when we don't make much in the way of claims statistically and as soon as we hit 65 and start seeing more doctors, they dump us on to the public rolls of Medicare.

We, the working tax-payers and insurance premium payers should be getting a smoke offered to us by the insurance-for-profit industry.....

 

[Chris]

President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist

I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.

This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!

There is no death panel debate. That's a hoax for stupid people.

Insurance is the very definition of socialism, except without the good parts. Pooling risk over a large sampling, or spreading risk by paying in is like socialism, except it's not egalitarian, which is where the profit motive comes and claims are denied and people dropped or excluded from participating at all.

The public option has not been shown to be a huge cost, nor such a small factor, that's rhetoric.

Death panels are not a hoax. Their absence is a trap for the credulous. The way the system is set, there must inevitably be death panels because care will eventually have to be rationed. It is pure economics 101: set the cost below market and you create shortages. The shortages must be adjudicated in the same way the pricing mechanism would have done so. Here, there will be a bunch of bureaucrats making the decision instead of the marketplace.
Insurance is not socialism. It is the opposite in fact. Socialism is not egalitarian either, despite whatever rhetoric the communists are using these days.
Whenever this type of thing has been tried, the costs skyrocket and quality stinks. This has been shown over and over and is supported by the economics of it.

Lies, all lies.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no death panel debate. That's a hoax for stupid people.

Insurance is the very definition of socialism, except without the good parts. Pooling risk over a large sampling, or spreading risk by paying in is like socialism, except it's not egalitarian, which is where the profit motive comes and claims are denied and people dropped or excluded from participating at all.

The public option has not been shown to be a huge cost, nor such a small factor, that's rhetoric.

Death panels are not a hoax. Their absence is a trap for the credulous. The way the system is set, there must inevitably be death panels because care will eventually have to be rationed. It is pure economics 101: set the cost below market and you create shortages. The shortages must be adjudicated in the same way the pricing mechanism would have done so. Here, there will be a bunch of bureaucrats making the decision instead of the marketplace.
Insurance is not socialism. It is the opposite in fact. Socialism is not egalitarian either, despite whatever rhetoric the communists are using these days.
Whenever this type of thing has been tried, the costs skyrocket and quality stinks. This has been shown over and over and is supported by the economics of it.

Lies, all lies.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

And they get about a tenth of the quality of care when they get sick.
No thanks, I'll stick to our present system.

 

[Old Rocks]

President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist

I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.

This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!

There is no death panel debate. That's a hoax for stupid people.

Insurance is the very definition of socialism, except without the good parts. Pooling risk over a large sampling, or spreading risk by paying in is like socialism, except it's not egalitarian, which is where the profit motive comes and claims are denied and people dropped or excluded from participating at all.

The public option has not been shown to be a huge cost, nor such a small factor, that's rhetoric.

Death panels are not a hoax. Their absence is a trap for the credulous. The way the system is set, there must inevitably be death panels because care will eventually have to be rationed. It is pure economics 101: set the cost below market and you create shortages. The shortages must be adjudicated in the same way the pricing mechanism would have done so. Here, there will be a bunch of bureaucrats making the decision instead of the marketplace.
Insurance is not socialism. It is the opposite in fact. Socialism is not egalitarian either, despite whatever rhetoric the communists are using these days.
Whenever this type of thing has been tried, the costs skyrocket and quality stinks. This has been shown over and over and is supported by the economics of it.

We have death panels right now. They are when the insurance companies deny claims. They are when insured people find themselves bankrupted by medical bill because the insurance companies only cover certain things.

No, what you claim is a bald faced lie. Little Costa Rica, which has had universal health care for 60 years, has the third highest average longevity in the world. And their infant mortality rate is far better than ours. In a nation where the average income is less than a tenth of that we enjoy.

Every other industrial nation in the world covers all of their citizens, and pay one half to three quarters of what we do, and they have far better results for their money.

If their quality stinks, why do they live longer, have healthier old ages, and a far lower infant mortality rate than we do? What stinks is your continued lying on this subject.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are a slew of particulars that are both symptoms and causes of the inconsistencies, expense and paperwork of healthcare but it boils down to one problem:

We are encouraging the management of our health and financial data to be run at a profit.

Can you imagine buying food like we buy health care?

We need two types - some sort of maintenance program for physicals and such and 'insurance' for if your kid gets leukemia.

Right now the private insurance bureaucracies are making bank because they have us paying in from our 20's through our working years when we don't make much in the way of claims statistically and as soon as we hit 65 and start seeing more doctors, they dump us on to the public rolls of Medicare.

We, the working tax-payers and insurance premium payers should be getting a smoke offered to us by the insurance-for-profit industry.....

We do buy food like we buy healthcare. Arguably we need to do more of it. CUrrently no one asks about the price of a drug or treatment, even though cheaper and equally effective alternatives are out there. Ask your doc next time if he knows what a particular prescription costs. I would guarantee the answer is no.
The major problem is the people using the service are not the ones paying for it. So there is little incentive to reduce costs. No one needs insurance to cover a $50 office visit. They do need it for a $15k hospital stay.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no death panel debate. That's a hoax for stupid people.

Insurance is the very definition of socialism, except without the good parts. Pooling risk over a large sampling, or spreading risk by paying in is like socialism, except it's not egalitarian, which is where the profit motive comes and claims are denied and people dropped or excluded from participating at all.

The public option has not been shown to be a huge cost, nor such a small factor, that's rhetoric.

Death panels are not a hoax. Their absence is a trap for the credulous. The way the system is set, there must inevitably be death panels because care will eventually have to be rationed. It is pure economics 101: set the cost below market and you create shortages. The shortages must be adjudicated in the same way the pricing mechanism would have done so. Here, there will be a bunch of bureaucrats making the decision instead of the marketplace.
Insurance is not socialism. It is the opposite in fact. Socialism is not egalitarian either, despite whatever rhetoric the communists are using these days.
Whenever this type of thing has been tried, the costs skyrocket and quality stinks. This has been shown over and over and is supported by the economics of it.

We have death panels right now. They are when the insurance companies deny claims. They are when insured people find themselves bankrupted by medical bill because the insurance companies only cover certain things.

No, what you claim is a bald faced lie. Little Costa Rica, which has had universal health care for 60 years, has the third highest average longevity in the world. And their infant mortality rate is far better than ours. In a nation where the average income is less than a tenth of that we enjoy.

Every other industrial nation in the world covers all of their citizens, and pay one half to three quarters of what we do, and they have far better results for their money.

If their quality stinks, why do they live longer, have healthier old ages, and a far lower infant mortality rate than we do? What stinks is your continued lying on this subject.

I think you need to move to Costa Rica and enjoy that workers paradise.

 

[Chris]

Death panels are not a hoax. Their absence is a trap for the credulous. The way the system is set, there must inevitably be death panels because care will eventually have to be rationed. It is pure economics 101: set the cost below market and you create shortages. The shortages must be adjudicated in the same way the pricing mechanism would have done so. Here, there will be a bunch of bureaucrats making the decision instead of the marketplace.
Insurance is not socialism. It is the opposite in fact. Socialism is not egalitarian either, despite whatever rhetoric the communists are using these days.
Whenever this type of thing has been tried, the costs skyrocket and quality stinks. This has been shown over and over and is supported by the economics of it.

Lies, all lies.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

And they get about a tenth of the quality of care when they get sick.
No thanks, I'll stick to our present system.

Horseshit.

The medical schools in France are much cheaper, so they have a third more doctors per capita than we do.

Their doctors can spend more time with their patients. More doctors, more time spent, equals better care. And they cover everyone for much less cost than we do.

Do a little reading. Seriously.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lies, all lies.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

And they get about a tenth of the quality of care when they get sick.
No thanks, I'll stick to our present system.

Horseshit.

The medical schools in France are much cheaper, so they have a third more doctors per capita than we do.

Their doctors can spend more time with their patients. More doctors, more time spent, equals better care. And they cover everyone for much less cost than we do.

Do a little reading. Seriously.

I would take that seriously except that you've proven yourself the chief dim bulb on this board.
Go look at cure rates and survival rates for major adverse health events. The US has far better ratings than any other country.

 

[Old Rocks]

We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.

 

[Old Rocks]

Death panels are not a hoax. Their absence is a trap for the credulous. The way the system is set, there must inevitably be death panels because care will eventually have to be rationed. It is pure economics 101: set the cost below market and you create shortages. The shortages must be adjudicated in the same way the pricing mechanism would have done so. Here, there will be a bunch of bureaucrats making the decision instead of the marketplace.
Insurance is not socialism. It is the opposite in fact. Socialism is not egalitarian either, despite whatever rhetoric the communists are using these days.
Whenever this type of thing has been tried, the costs skyrocket and quality stinks. This has been shown over and over and is supported by the economics of it.[/QUOTE]

We have death panels right now. They are when the insurance companies deny claims. They are when insured people find themselves bankrupted by medical bill because the insurance companies only cover certain things.

No, what you claim is a bald faced lie. Little Costa Rica, which has had universal health care for 60 years, has the third highest average longevity in the world. And their infant mortality rate is far better than ours. In a nation where the average income is less than a tenth of that we enjoy.

Every other industrial nation in the world covers all of their citizens, and pay one half to three quarters of what we do, and they have far better results for their money.

If their quality stinks, why do they live longer, have healthier old ages, and a far lower infant mortality rate than we do? What stinks is your continued lying on this subject.

I think you need to move to Costa Rica and enjoy that workers paradise.

I think you need to stop lying.

 

[Old Rocks]

And they get about a tenth of the quality of care when they get sick.
No thanks, I'll stick to our present system.

Horseshit.

The medical schools in France are much cheaper, so they have a third more doctors per capita than we do.

Their doctors can spend more time with their patients. More doctors, more time spent, equals better care. And they cover everyone for much less cost than we do.

Do a little reading. Seriously.

I would take that seriously except that you've proven yourself the chief dim bulb on this board.
Go look at cure rates and survival rates for major adverse health events. The US has far better ratings than any other country.

Cannot resist lying, can you.

U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency

The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes, in the third edition of a Commonwealth Fund report analyzing international health policy surveys.
While the U.S. did well on some preventive care measures, the nation ranked at the bottom on measures of safe care and coordinated care.

Another new Commonwealth Fund report comparing health spending data in industrialized nations published today reveals that despite spending more than twice as much per capita on health care as other nations ($6,102 vs. $2,571 for the median of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] countries in 2004) the U.S. spends far less on health information technology, just 43 cents per capita, compared with about $192 per capita in the U.K.

"The United States stands out as the only nation in these studies that does not ensure access to health care through universal coverage and promotion of a 'medical home' for patients," said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. "Our failure to ensure health insurance for all and encourage stable, long-term ties between physicians and patients shows in our poor performance on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and health outcomes. In light of the significant resources we devote to health care in this country, we should expect the best, highest performing health system."