Who has the Best Health Care in the World??

[AllieBaba]

Further to my previous posting, did anyone read the American Human Development Report, which featured in yesterday's Guardian? It says that 'despite spending $230m an hour on healthcare, Americans live shorter lives than citizens of almost every developed country.' With the second highest income per head in the world, the 'States ranks
42nd in terms of life expectancy. It is 34th in terms of infants surviving to age one as well, and, incidentally, has a higher percentage of children living in poverty than any of the world's richest countries.

The US has many and great virtues, but capitalist healthcare in not amongst them, I think. The UK does a much better job at about half the cost.

We're fatter and more diverse with lots of genetic diseases floating about thanks to our melting pot population. It has nothing to do with actual quality of health care.

 

[editec]

Not me, that's for damned sure.

The structure of the question is, of course, absurd.

Define "best"

 

[AllieBaba]

That's right. Nobody wants to wait two years to be treated for cancer.

 

[Matrixx8]

But why does everyone in the world that can afford to do so, come to the US to receive the latest technology?

Help me out here, Jr. How did you get hold of the stats to back up this claim?

Or do you just pull assumptions out of a hat and hope for the best?

 

[Diuretic]

It amuses me when this topic comes up many of our American friends trot out the canard about US medical science being best in the world and so on. I don't know if it's best in the world but yes it's world class. But that isn't the point is it? I mean if you can't afford a procedure or treatment then it's a bit moot to boast about it being so good don't you think?

How does the average person fare? That's more to the point. And on that the US system fails the average person miserably. I mean it's the business of Americans as to how their health system works but it is a mess for sure.

 

[Charles_Main]

It amuses me when this topic comes up many of our American friends trot out the canard about US medical science being best in the world and so on. I don't know if it's best in the world but yes it's world class. But that isn't the point is it? I mean if you can't afford a procedure or treatment then it's a bit moot to boast about it being so good don't you think?

Yes, but at the same time if you are in some socialist country, and have to wait 6 months to even be diagnosed with cancer that is not so great either now is it.

 

[Rhys]

Yes, but at the same time if you are in some socialist country, and have to wait 6 months to even be diagnosed with cancer that is not so great either now is it.

Try normal capitalist countires like the UK or France then. Most civilized countries have a decent health service, without long waits, at a cost of about half what the US spends. Of course, people who don't go to the doctor don't get diagnosed; that's the case everywhere - tho' often used by the extreme-right noise machine. And, by the way, I'd gather that Cuba - if Cuba's a socialist country - has a health service, despite the blockade, that's a good deal more effective for ordinary people than the profiteering US one.

 

[Angel Heart]

Let's let the same idiots that run the VA hospitals run the rest of our hospitals... What could go wrong?

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, but at the same time if you are in some socialist country, and have to wait 6 months to even be diagnosed with cancer that is not so great either now is it.

No, of course not. A system that did that would need fixing.

 

[Diuretic]

Let's let the same idiots that run the VA hospitals run the rest of our hospitals... What could go wrong?

Why would you let incompetents run your system?

 

[Ravi]

Let's let the same idiots that run the VA hospitals run the rest of our hospitals... What could go wrong?

Actually, there is a lot of misinformation out there about the VA health care system. Here's a great article on it:

"The Best Care Anywhere" by Phillip Longman

 

[sealybobo]

“The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world - it has the best emergency care system in the world. Advanced U.S. medical technology has not translated into better health statistics for its citizens; indeed, the U.S. ranks near the bottom in list after list of international comparisons. Part of the problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. Another part of the problem is that America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality among all rich nations, and poverty affects one's health much more than the limited ministrations of a formal health care system.”


Each system has its flaws, however if we look at our Health Care vs. other countries such as Canada, Australia, France, Cuba and/or the UK we fall short in just about every category:
-We have a lower life expectancy age

- We have the lowest amount of doctors and nurses per 1000 people

-We have the lowest percent of health care cost paid by the government

- We have the lowest paid maternity leave; I think we have 0 paid leave

-We have the highest death rate

- We have the highest infant mortality %

- We have the most expensive health care; doctors incomes are the highest compared to other countries

- We ranked last in access to health care, patient safety, timeliness of care, efficiency and equity<--Britain got the top score in overall rankings

France = ranked #1 in the world in 2001 by the World Health Organization; cost about $3500 per capital vs. U.S. $6,100 per person.
WHO Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland says: "The main message from this report is that the health and well-being of people around the world depend critically on the performance of the health systems that serve them. Yet there is wide variation in performance, even among countries with similar levels of income and health expenditure. It is essential for decision- makers to understand the underlying reasons so that system performance, and hence the health of populations, can be improved."

Australia = publicly- funded universal healthcare system, ranked #9

Cuba = treats health tourists: from Latin America, Europe, Canada and the U.S. for free, 2nd in the world in creating national networks in Blood Banks, Nephrology and Medical Images




So if almost every other nation or rich nation can afford to provide universal healthcare to its people, and from the stats it appears its beneficial, why can’t we???????

Congress has the best healthcare in the world. And there is no reason we shouldn't have it too.

 

[editec]

Some of you keep claiming that WE have the best health care in the world.

Do YOU?

I rather doubt that.

I don't have health care coverage, at all.

Maybe some of you do.

So prove it.

Go ahead.

I dare you.

Show me your proof yours is "BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD".

I can't wait to see how you'll do that, I really can't.

 

[Wow]

Some of you keep claiming that WE have the best health care in the world.

Do YOU?

I rather doubt that.

I don't have health care coverage, at all.

Maybe some of you do.

So prove it.

Go ahead.

I dare you.

Show me your proof yours is "BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD".

I can't wait to see how you'll do that, I really can't.

Oh, neener, neener.

American Health Care: The Best in the World
American Health Care: The Best in the World
By Richard E. Ralston
September 19, 2006

In the run up to the November elections, as in most recent elections, we are hearing a lot about how America is supposedly suffering from bad health care. The debate is normally divided between those who want to wipe out the entire system and replace it with government micro-management of every detail of your health care, and those who want only to vastly increase government spending on what is left of "private" health care. Both usually ignore what is, or should be, unique about American health care—a foundation in individual rights and limited constitutional government. Usually, the argument carefully avoids this moral and political context entirely.

Rarely is the issue stated explicitly. One economist who writes regularly for the New York Times has stated that the only obstacles to universal health care are outmoded concepts of "ideology and personal choice." He is quite correct. Get rid of the ideas of individual rights and freedom of choice, and you remove all restraints on government power to rule individual lives. (That, itself, is an ideology.) Without this context, the debate is reduced to dueling pragmatists whose primary concern is who holds the reigns of political power. The result is a choice between Socialism and State Capitalism, neither of which offer much hope for health care.

In the last forty years, the government share of health care spending in the United States has increased from under 10% to over 50%, while the remaining elements of the free market have fallen under increasing regulations. What is left is still the best in the world. Canadians, we are told, have a better system because they live longer than Americans. Are there other demographic factors involved—didn't they also live longer before they nationalized their heath care system? Is it a better system because, although some prescription drugs are sold at a lower price, many more are not available in Canada at all? Is it better because Canadians wait an average of 17 weeks for referral to a specialist? Is the fact that Canadians come to the United States to spend more than $1 billion a year on health care an indication that Canada has better health care? One wonders why this superior system resulted in the Canadian Supreme Court striking down the law forbidding private insurance "because access to a waiting list does not constitute access to health care." Why did the Canadian Medical Association recently elect as their new President a physician who owns an illegal private clinic in British Columbia if they think Canada has a better system? Significant new spending by the federal government in Canada does not seem to be having much impact on improving the situation.

Neither has huge additional spending on the National Health Service in Great Britain over the last seven years improved their health care. Two years ago, many British hospitals stopped providing heart bypass surgery to smokers. The waiting lists were so long that they wanted to give priority to non-smokers who responded better to surgery. Last year several regions stopped providing knee and hip replacements to overweight patients because their response to surgery was not as favorable as thin patients on the waiting lists. This year the British Medical Journal reports that physicians in the National Health Service are often no longer treating patients age 80 or over for strokes. These are examples of how government makes rationing decisions. Many patients in Great Britain who survive the waiting lists undoubtedly receive excellent care. Just don't smoke, gain weight or get old. British waiting lists have provided the world with one important service: they have given great impetus to the medical tourism industry, in countries like India, for British patients who would rather pay for surgery in India than endure a long wait for free surgery in Britain. This industry is now also providing Americans with cost-saving surgical options.

The German government is presently struggling to increase taxes to pay for their health care system. Many other governments are looking for reforms and taking a step back from their government health care monopolies.

Americans want to afford health care costs that have risen as the result of increasing longevity and new drugs and technology. But health care costs have also increased in tandem with federal government involvement and with state regulations such as insurance mandates. But the remaining free elements provide better care than foreign governments provide their citizens for a reason: freedom. Individual freedom and personal choice, rooted in American values, provide principled health care, moral health care, and the best health care. That is why it is the best in the world.

 

[Red Dawn]

But why does everyone in the world that can afford to do so, come to the US to receive the latest technology?

Because if you have the $$$, we have some of the best specialists and technology in the world. IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT.




The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems.

Source: WHO World Health Report

Rank

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei

 

[Chris]

“The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world - it has the best emergency care system in the world. Advanced U.S. medical technology has not translated into better health statistics for its citizens; indeed, the U.S. ranks near the bottom in list after list of international comparisons. Part of the problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. Another part of the problem is that America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality among all rich nations, and poverty affects one's health much more than the limited ministrations of a formal health care system.”


Each system has its flaws, however if we look at our Health Care vs. other countries such as Canada, Australia, France, Cuba and/or the UK we fall short in just about every category:
-We have a lower life expectancy age

- We have the lowest amount of doctors and nurses per 1000 people

-We have the lowest percent of health care cost paid by the government

- We have the lowest paid maternity leave; I think we have 0 paid leave

-We have the highest death rate

- We have the highest infant mortality %

- We have the most expensive health care; doctors incomes are the highest compared to other countries

- We ranked last in access to health care, patient safety, timeliness of care, efficiency and equity<--Britain got the top score in overall rankings

France = ranked #1 in the world in 2001 by the World Health Organization; cost about $3500 per capital vs. U.S. $6,100 per person.
WHO Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland says: "The main message from this report is that the health and well-being of people around the world depend critically on the performance of the health systems that serve them. Yet there is wide variation in performance, even among countries with similar levels of income and health expenditure. It is essential for decision- makers to understand the underlying reasons so that system performance, and hence the health of populations, can be improved."

Australia = publicly- funded universal healthcare system, ranked #9

Cuba = treats health tourists: from Latin America, Europe, Canada and the U.S. for free, 2nd in the world in creating national networks in Blood Banks, Nephrology and Medical Images




So if almost every other nation or rich nation can afford to provide universal healthcare to its people, and from the stats it appears its beneficial, why can’t we???????

Because our country is run by idiots.

 

[Charles_Main]

Because if you have the $$$, we have some of the best specialists and technology in the world. IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT.




The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems.

Source: WHO World Health Report

Rank

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei

The WHO rates health care systems on a slanted scale which favors a socialist approach to it.

I am not going to get into the draw backs and problems of this kind of system. Suffice to say it has as many if not more problems as our system does.

As far as quality of care, if you can afford it, the US would be much higher on the list. IMO.

 

[Rhys]

In the run up to the November elections, as in most recent elections, we are hearing a lot about how America is supposedly suffering from bad health care. The debate is normally divided between those who want to wipe out the entire system and replace it with government micro-management of every detail of your health care, and those who want only to vastly increase government spending on what is left of "private" health care. Both usually ignore what is, or should be, unique about American health care&#8212;a foundation in individual rights and limited constitutional government. Usually, the argument carefully avoids this moral and political context entirely.

Don't you think that, rather than striking ideological poses, it might be better to examine reality? In the UK the government doesn't 'micromanage every detail of your health care' because it has other things to do and leaves the detail to doctors, who have a contract with it. You spend, as a people, twice what we do, on a 'choice' that leaves millions of people with no cover at all: that seems cruel and stupid to me. We can - to a large degree - stop worrying about 'buying' our lives from the doctors and get on with living.

Rarely is the issue stated explicitly. One economist who writes regularly for the New York Times has stated that the only obstacles to universal health care are outmoded concepts of "ideology and personal choice." He is quite correct. Get rid of the ideas of individual rights and freedom of choice, and you remove all restraints on government power to rule individual lives. (That, itself, is an ideology.) Without this context, the debate is reduced to dueling pragmatists whose primary concern is who holds the reigns of political power. The result is a choice between Socialism and State Capitalism, neither of which offer much hope for health care.

I hope you don't mind my pointing out that is not only naive but absurd. Who cares what some economist says: we have a better chance of living. There is no duel here: we are a poorer country, but by acting sensibly we are, in this respect HUGELY better off. Only the extremely rich could be at all better off at all under the money-for-life system.

In the last forty years, the government share of health care spending in the United States has increased from under 10% to over 50%, while the remaining elements of the free market have fallen under increasing regulations.

Why on earth hasn't it increased to 100% and seen to it that the 'free market' is prevented from exploiting the sick?

What is left is still the best in the world.

'Best' in what sense? Best for whom? I have never heard anyone other than a US citizen express this opinion, on my word of honour.

Canadians...

I don't know enough about Canada to comment, except I've never met a Canadian who preferred your system

Neither has huge additional spending on the National Health Service in Great Britain over the last seven years improved their health care. Two years ago, many British hospitals stopped providing heart bypass surgery to smokers. The waiting lists were so long that they wanted to give priority to non-smokers who responded better to surgery. Last year several regions stopped providing knee and hip replacements to overweight patients because their response to surgery was not as favorable as thin patients on the waiting lists. This year the British Medical Journal reports that physicians in the National Health Service are often no longer treating patients age 80 or over for strokes. These are examples of how government makes rationing decisions. Many patients in Great Britain who survive the waiting lists undoubtedly receive excellent care. Just don't smoke, gain weight or get old. British waiting lists have provided the world with one important service: they have given great impetus to the medical tourism industry, in countries like India, for British patients who would rather pay for surgery in India than endure a long wait for free surgery in Britain. This industry is now also providing Americans with cost-saving surgical options.

All this is extremely naive, and by no means answers to our experience of the service, which is astoundingly fair except when messed about with by ideologues such as yourself. All health services, however, inevitably 'ration' scarce resources to some degree. We do it by checking carefully the effectiveness of particular drugs: you do it by the wealth of the potential patient. It seems to me that our way is better: waiting lists have been hugely cut and everyone is treated, whatever the cost.

Americans want to afford health care costs that have risen as the result of increasing longevity and new drugs and technology. But health care costs have also increased in tandem with federal government involvement and with state regulations such as insurance mandates. But the remaining free elements provide better care than foreign governments provide their citizens for a reason: freedom. Individual freedom and personal choice, rooted in American values, provide principled health care, moral health care, and the best health care. That is why it is the best in the world.

Your profiteering doctors do not provide health care 'for citizens', surely, but for RICH citizens. What is the 'freedom' involved in having no health cover because the rich monopolise it and drive the cost up to twice what it is in civilized countries? And, to repeat, who but the very, very rich think your mad system 'the best in the world'? Nobody I ever met thinks anything so silly.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Exploiting the sick".

A fan of the urban legend that patients are dying in the streets for lack of care.

An unmitigated crock of shit.