most expensive and not very good: american health care system

[Truthmatters]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/

 

[Truthmatters]

Report: U.S. health care expensive, inefficient
America ranks last among six countries on key measures, group finds



Updated: 2 hours, 9 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries, according to a report released on Tuesday.

Germany, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all provide better care for less money, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

“The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes,” the non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a statement.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Right.

That's why people from those countries keep coming here (at least the ones who can afford to come here) for most important operations instead of getting them in their own countries.

(Yawn)

Same unsupported bunk.....

 

[Truthmatters]

I think maybe you need to read about this study and realise it is the people who can PAY anything who do that.

BTW they also go to these other countries mentioned also depending on the specialty they need performed.

People come here for the best plastic surgery.

 

[Truthmatters]

Canada rates second worst out of the six overall. Germany scored highest, followed by Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

“The United States is not getting value for the money that is spent on health care,” Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis said in a telephone interview.

The group has consistently found that the United States, the only one of the six nations that does not provide universal health care, scores more poorly than the others on many measures of health care.

Congress, President George W. Bush, many employers and insurers have all agreed in recent months to overhaul the U.S. health care system — an uncoordinated conglomeration of employer-funded care, private health insurance and government programs.

The current system leaves about 45 million people with no insurance at all, according to U.S. government estimates from 2005, and many studies have shown most of these people do not receive preventive services that not only keep them healthier, but reduce long-term costs.

Davis said the fund’s researchers looked at hard data for the report.

“It is pretty indisputable that we spend twice what other countries spend on average,” she said.

Per-capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102, twice that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New Zealand $2,083 and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per person.

Key measures
“We focus primarily on measures that are sensitive to medical care making a difference — infant mortality and healthy lives at age 60,” Davis said. “Those are pretty key measures, like how long you live and whether you are going to die before age 75.”

Measures of other aspects of care such as cataract surgery or hip replacements are harder to come by, she said.

They also looked at convenience and again found the United States lacking — with a few exceptions.

“We include measures such as waiting more than four months for elective, non-emergency surgery. The United States doesn’t do as well as Germany but it does a lot better than the other countries on waiting time for surgery,” Davis said.

“We looked at the time it takes to get in to see your own doctor ... (or) once you go to the emergency room do you sit there for more than two hours, and truthfully, we don’t do well on those measures,” Davis said.


According to the report, 61 percent of U.S. patients said it was somewhat or very difficult to get care on nights or weekends, compared with 25 percent to 59 percent in other countries.

“The area where the U.S. health care system performs best is preventive care, an area that has been monitored closely for over a decade by managed care plans,” the report reads.

The United States had the fewest patients — 84 percent — reporting that they have a regular doctor.

And U.S. doctors are the least wired, with the lowest percentage using electronic medical records or receiving electronic updates on recommended treatments.

 

[William Joyce]

Most of your healthcare dollar goes to lawyers, via malpractice insurance. But I don't hear liberals like John Edwards saying we should rein that in. For some crazy reason.

 

[CSM]

Dang, I'm convinced. The US is the worst place in the world to live! I guess I'll join those long lines of folks at the borders just waiting for permission to leave the country.

 

[Diuretic]

I was just thinking the other day - and please feel free to critique my idea - that the problems besetting GM (just as an example) regarding liabilities for employees' health fund benefits might have been reduced if the US had a socialised health care system like ours in Australia. Now don't go nuts on me. An employer here doesn't bear the cost of employees health/dental etc programmes because we have our Medicare system and people can - like me - get extra cover through private health programmes. The cost is shared out and the employer, especially an employer like GM that must have many thousands of employees, isn't burdened with the costs through (I assume) labour/labor contracts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Socialized health care sucks. It may provide "bang" for the buck but that doesn't change the lack of options and the LONG lines to use it. There is a reason a Doctor degree is more likely to appeal to someone in a place like the United States.

 

[red states rule]

Hard-up hospital orders staff: Don't wash sheets - turn them over
by DANIEL MARTIN - More by this author »

Last updated at 23:22pm on 13th April 2007

Cleaners at an NHS hospital with a poor record on superbugs have been told to turn over dirty sheets instead of using fresh ones between patients to save money.

Housekeeping staff at Good Hope Hospital in Sutton Coldfield, have been asked to re-use sheets and pillowcases wherever possible to cut a £500,000 laundry bill.

Posters in the hospital's linen cupboards and on doors into the A&E department remind workers that each item costs 0.275 pence to wash.

Good Hope reported a deficit of £6million last year and was subject to a report by the Audit Commission because of its poor financial standing.

It recorded 36 cases of MRSA from April last year to January, while cases of clostridium difficile have more than doubled in less than a year to 327. A Government hit squad was drafted in to solve the infection problems last year but the trust is still failing to hit MRSA targets.

Tony Field, chairman of Birmingham-based MRSA Support, said: 'Is that all the safety of a patient's life is worth? 0.275 pence?

'It is utterly disgraceful and tantamount to murder because hygiene like changing sheets is essential to protect patients.

'It proves beyond all doubt that cost- cutting is directly contributing to hospital acquired infections.'

A Good Hope spokesman said the posters went up around two years ago and should all have been taken down by now. But a medic insisted the posters were still on display in A&E and the maternity unit as recently as the past month.

'It is clear the trust is encouraging staff to "top 'n' tail" used sheets on a bed instead of replacing them between patients,' said the health worker, who did not wish to be named.

'The very nature of A&E should be enough reason to change sheets between every patient as casualty sees patients who have come in with a variety of infections, traumatic injuries and blood spill.'

Conservative healthvehealth spokesman John Baron said: 'This sounds ludicrous and is a real cause for concern given that MRSA is such a problem in our hospitals.

'This matter needs to be investigated at a higher level. Patient safety must never be compromised.'

Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb said: 'If we are to beat healthcareacquired infections we need the highest possible standards of cleanliness. The idea of turning over sheets like this is extraordinary and scandalous.'

The scheme is one of many ways that cash- strapped trusts are trying to save money.

In January, staff at West Hertfordshire NHS Trust were amazed to receive a memo urging them to save £2.50 a day by prescribing cheaper medicines, reducing the number of sterile packs used, cutting hospital tests and asking patients to bring drugs in from home.

Epsom and St Helier Trust in South London has removed every third light bulb from corridors.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1774
__________________

 

[Diuretic]

Socialized health care sucks. It may provide "bang" for the buck but that doesn't change the lack of options and the LONG lines to use it. There is a reason a Doctor degree is more likely to appeal to someone in a place like the United States.

Actually it works very well here, but I suppose I would say that. As I pointed out before the mix with private insurance works okay, despite the misgivings of those of a more ideological bent (I tend to be a bit more pragmatic). Anyway enough of that, we're happy with it so I suppose we shouldn't try and proselytise.

 

[red states rule]

Actually it works very well here, but I suppose I would say that. As I pointed out before the mix with private insurance works okay, despite the misgivings of those of a more ideological bent (I tend to be a bit more pragmatic). Anyway enough of that, we're happy with it so I suppose we shouldn't try and proselytise.

Hillarycare is not working very well in the UK and Canada

 

[Diuretic]

Hillarycare is not working very well in the UK and Canada

I think it's probably under-funded in the UK. From what I understand of the Canadian system it's managed on a province-by-province basis and I wonder about that. My country has a small population, we have about 20m as opposed to Canada's approx 30m I think and the US 300m and the Brits about 53m. But we federalised our system back in the early 1970s and for a big country (land wise) with a very small population that probably makes sense.

As I said, I'm not preaching here, different countries need different solutions, but at the risk of sounding like a blowhard I think we've probably got a pretty useful mix - for our situation (I stress that last bit)l.

 

[red states rule]

I think it's probably under-funded in the UK. From what I understand of the Canadian system it's managed on a province-by-province basis and I wonder about that. My country has a small population, we have about 20m as opposed to Canada's approx 30m I think and the US 300m and the Brits about 53m. But we federalised our system back in the early 1970s and for a big country (land wise) with a very small population that probably makes sense.

As I said, I'm not preaching here, different countries need different solutions, but at the risk of sounding like a blowhard I think we've probably got a pretty useful mix - for our situation (I stress that last bit)l.

UNDER - FUNDED?

The taxes in the UK are insane

 

[Truthmatters]

there is a differance between a single payer system and socialised medicine.

What Hilary proposed was not socialized medicine either.

People need to truely understand what things really are instead of lumping it all together like there are no new ideas in this field.

The study I provided in this thread shows how our system is the least effective and most costly of the group of plans.

Now if you insult what the others have then you are insulting what we have.

If the UKs sucks then what how does our system rate do to the fact that they get better results then we do?

 

[Truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_payer_health_care

 

[Truthmatters]

Single-payer health care is an American term for a system of paying for health care, in which a single government entity pays for all health care costs, usually from taxes. Private hospitals and doctors' practices may remain private. Single-payer health care is distinct from socialized medicine, in which hospitals are run by the government and medical professionals are employed by the government.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/SinglePayer101.pdf


Lets all know waht we are talking about when we discuss this stuff OK?

You see truth matters.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=23544168&brk=1

 

[Truthmatters]

LOS ANGELES (CBS.MW) -- Despite a weak economy and soaring medical costs, U.S. health insurers have raked in earnings at a far greater pace than the rest of corporate America, with annual profits and margins doubling in the last four years.

As U.S. companies struggled with leaner profits amid double-digit increases in employee-health premiums, insurers spent less on medical costs but ate up more of America's health-care dollars in profits and claims processing.

With healthcare one of the main issues in next month's presidential vote, the debate over costs has yet to focus in on how much insurers have made over the last four years. Health-industry analysts say employers they talk to are under the impression it was rising costs that were pressuring margins, hence the need for higher premiums.

"The reality is, we don't know what we're buying for the increased expenditure," said Dr. Kenneth Kizer, chief executive of the National Quality Forum, a nonprofit watchdog group.

Profits for the 17 top U.S. health insurers rose 114 percent to $414 million from $193 million on average in 2000, according to research by CBS MarketWatch. Profit margins doubled to 5 percent -- the highest level in at least a decade for the industry's top 10 insurers -- and revenue climbed 21 percent to $9.3 billion on average.

See interactive graphic on 17 top insurers' profits, stock growth, and executive pay.

By comparison, the S&P 500 saw profits rise a meager 5 percent over the four years, the CBS MarketWatch study found. Margins fell to 6.8 percent last year from 8.5 percent in 2000.

Average pay for the five top executives at 16 of the health insurers almost doubled to $3 million a year from $1.6 million, based on data from insurers' annual reports and proxy statements. The 17th company, WellChoice (WC), became a public company in late 2002, and 2000 data were unavailable.