The Best Healthcare System in the World?

[jpyaks3]

We have the greatest health care system in the world. Sure, it has flaws, but it saves lives in ways that other countries can only dream of. Abroad, people sit on waiting lists for months, so why should we squander billions of dollars to mess with a system that is the envy of the world? As Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama puts it, President Obama’s plans amount to “the first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=kristof&st=cse

Everytime the healthcare system debate comes up people claim that they don't want to change the best healthcare system in the world. I assume they mean ours but for the life of me I cannot figure out how the hell they come to that conclusion.

The United States ranks 37th in overall healthcare systems according to the WHO sandwiched between Slovenia and Costa Rico. The top 2 are France and Italy, both "universal healthcare systems".

We rank 14th in Preventable deaths, behind socialist systems like France, Spain, Italy, Canada, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, and a few others.

Our life expectancy is 24th in the world, behind once again France, Spain, Sweden and a host of other countries with socialized universal healthcare systems.

We spend the 2nd most percentage of our GDP on healthcare, only trailing the Marshall Islands.

So where do people like Senator Richard Shelby get this notion that we have the best healthcare system in the world? It can't be from statistics so where does this belief come from?

[MoeRedskins]

How do we save lives that only other countries dream of? Pretty sure their medicine is just as advanced as ours.

[Toe Jam]

Excellent thread.

The quote below is all anyone really needs to know.

Either Republicans can't read or they'd rather play politics than fix something that is very broken.

The United States ranks 37th in overall healthcare systems according to the WHO sandwiched between Slovenia and Costa Rico. The top 2 are France and Italy, both "universal healthcare systems".

[jpyaks3]

How do we save lives that only other countries dream of? Pretty sure their medicine is just as advanced as ours.

What does this even mean?

[MoeRedskins]

What does this even mean?

Ok, name me one disease that is curable only in America? And here is your quote that makes no sense to anybody but you.

Sure, it has flaws, but it saves lives in ways that other countries can only dream of.

[Bang]

"Other countries" includes places like Somalia.

~Bang

[techboy]

The ranking of 37th is a bit misleading, though, because as I understand it one of the biggest factors the WHO uses is whether or not the country has universal care.

In other words, people who say we need universal care because we're currently 37th are effectively saying that we need universal care because we need universal care. It's a tautology.

If we're debating whether or not universal care is a good idea, that ranking is worthless.

[jpyaks3]

Ok, name me one disease that is curable only in America? And here is your quote that makes no sense to anybody but you.

I totally agree with you that that quote is total bull**** and makes no sense, that is a quote from Senator Shelby and I misread it and thought you were making the argument. There is no disease that is only curable in America, and the notion that there is is insane.

[Burgold]

The ranking of 37th is a bit misleading, though, because as I understand it one of the biggest factors the WHO uses is whether or not the country has universal care.

In other words, people who say we need universal care because we're currently 37th are effectively saying that we need universal care because we need universal care. It's a tautology.

If we're debating whether or not universal care is a good idea, that ranking is worthless.

but that doesn't explain away our rankings in life expectancy and other metrics. The U.S. has fallen from its perch and the healthcare system today is not the best overall, especially for certain demographic groups and certain areas of the country.

[jpyaks3]

The ranking of 37th is a bit misleading, though, because as I understand it one of the biggest factors the WHO uses is whether or not the country has universal care.

In other words, people who say we need universal care because we're currently 37th are effectively saying that we need universal care because we need universal care. It's a tautology.

If we're debating whether or not universal care is a good idea, that ranking is worthless.

I believe that number combines preventable deaths, infant mortality, costs, and a few others into it, but it does not make a judgement on universal healthcare. Although it certainly helps if people can get the care they need that obviously helps out those numbers. But we are also not the best or top 5 in any other quantifiable category so you can even throw that number out if you want.

[Larry]

I made a reference to this op-ed in another thread, because I thought it had interesting things to say.

One of his statistics that I thought particularly worthy of discussion was:

Moreover, there is one American health statistic that is strikingly above average: life expectancy for Americans who have already reached the age of 65. At that point, they can expect to live longer than the average in industrialized countries. That’s because Americans above age 65 actually have universal health care coverage: Medicare. Suddenly, a diverse population with pockets of poverty is no longer such a drawback.

Now, I found his stat really interesting. But I also observe that his conclusion (that US seniors live longer than other countries because US seniors have government health care and other Americans don't) wasn't the only possible way to interpret that stat.

Another possible way to look at that stat would be to wonder if perhaps the stat for US life expectancy is being pulled downward, not because evil corporations make profits, but perhaps because of things like the large number of Americans who die at age 20 because of car accidents or because they got shot.

(Actually, one health stat that I heard that struck me as being really amazing. The claim was that, if you make it to age 80, then you have a 1/2 chance to make it to age 90, and a 1/3 chance to make it to 100.)

Still, I'm glad somebody posted this piece. I was considering doing so, myself.

[MoeRedskins]

I totally agree with you that that quote is total bull**** and makes no sense, that is a quote from Senator Shelby and I misread it and thought you were making the argument. There is no disease that is only curable in America, and the notion that there is is insane.

I apologize, I thought the quote was your own and was attempting to hear your defense of it. It is a nonsensical statement that has no basis in reality.

[JMS]

Excellent thread.

The quote below is all anyone really needs to know.

Either Republicans can't read or they'd rather play politics than fix something that is very broken.

Just to add to that a little. America is the only industrialized country in the world which hasn't gone to a universal coverage system. Back in the 50's 60's and early 1970's we did have the model healthcare system in the world. We regularly ranked #1 in the world for healthcare.

But that hasn't been the case since the early 70's. First the scandinavian countries passed us up, and then everybody else did too.

Today we are #1 in only one catagory. #1 in cost per capita.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If we have such a great healthcare system in America then why are so many people traveling around the world to have surgeries and to receive treatments? In case you're wondering google "medical tourism" the US is not the only place with world class medical care, heck even in India they have hospitals and medical care that rivals our own and guess what? Its cheaper to travel there and have the surgery than it is to have the same surgery in the hospital down the street, and don't give me the line about tort reform, there is a reason that the physician's lot is full of Porches and its not because they are going broke.

[Monrovia_Redskin]

The health care system will always be screwed up as long as health insurance remains so connected with our jobs. We don't rely on a job for car insurance or house insurance...why should your health insurance be different? It shouldn't. Some people keep crappy mediocre paying jobs just for the health insurance that's coming out of their salary. Self-employed people get screwed with this system bad.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just to add to that a little. America is the only industrialized country in the world which hasn't gone to a universal coverage system. Back in the 50's 60's and early 1970's we did have the model healthcare system in the world. We regularly ranked #1 in the world for healthcare.

But that hasn't been the case since the early 70's. First the scandinavian countries passed us up, and then everybody else did too.

Today we are #1 in only one catagory. #1 in cost per capita.

Absolutely, and I'm still trying to figure out how some people still try and defend our system. Well come to think of it they don't defend the system instead they blame other factors typically malpractice insurance. Insurance in this country knows that its cheaper for one person to get cancer than it is to provide preventative care for 100 others so they don't get cancer that's simply unconscionable.

The health care system will always be screwed up as long as health insurance remains so connected with our jobs. We don't rely on a job for car insurance or house insurance...why should your health insurance be different? It shouldn't. Some people keep crappy mediocre paying jobs just for the health insurance that's coming out of their salary. Self-employed people get screwed with this system bad.

That all started with the companies providing benefits to their employees, but now the insurance agencies have figured out how to exploit that trend to their benefit all while reducing coverage and raising rates. And the pure capitalists will cheer their every move because they are doing exactly what capitalism was designed to do, make some people very rich.

[techboy]

I believe that number combines preventable deaths, infant mortality, costs, and a few others into it, but it does not make a judgement on universal healthcare.

That's not correct. As you can see in this report from 2000, they use five criteria:

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

Notice especially the last criteria. Whether or not a country has universal care is a big factor in the ranking.

Which is fine if you believe in universal care already as a good, but is hardly an argument that should convince people that they should support it.

[PeterMP]

The WHO system is flawed with respect to actual medical care because it includes a "fairness" portioin in the analysis. By their estimation more universal systems/socialist systems are more fair.

In other words, given the same health out comes between two systems but one is a government mandated universal system and one is more similar to ours, WHO is going to rank the one w/ the mandated universal system over the other.

Life expectancies are not necessarily a good measure of health out comes. I believe it is Snyder_Shrugged who posted the study that said if you ignore homicides and car accidents, our life expectency is longer than most other countries.

In fact, according to WHO we die the more than most other western nations we are compared to because of all sorts of accidents. We are also number one in other diseases that are lethal through out the world, but largely preventable (e.g. we have more people with AIDS than European countries and not surprisingly, we have more people die from AIDS).

In many cases, for major diseases (e.g. stroke and cancer), we rank at or near the top in terms of positive health out comes. Of course, we also have higher incidents of these things, which is likely at least partly tied to issues w/ access to preventative care.

This has been discussed before in various threads:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=302648D

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=294982

I wouldn't take this as data that we have the best health care system, but it isn't as bad as it is routinely made out to be.

This REALLY becomes what is best. When you take into account the costs and only a portion of the population gets the best care (especially preventative care), I doubt any "good" system would have us as the BEST.

However, I truly believe based on the various studies IF you are seriously ill (will have stroke soon, have cancer, etc.), you are better off here than any where else in the world on AVERAGE.

If you are an "average" (not sick) person, you might be better off living in Canada or France.

[Kosher Ham]

The legal drug pushers dont help the system either. The pharmaceutical companies that is.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That's not correct. As you can see in this report from 2000, they use five criteria:

Notice especially the last criteria. Whether or not a country has universal care is a big factor in the ranking.

Which is fine if you believe in universal care already as a good, but is hardly an argument that should convince people that they should support it.

Here's my question: Why shouldn't availability of coverage be factored in? What good is having the best healthcare in the world if its only available to a few people who can afford it?

(Yes I know more than a few in America can afford it, but then we don't have the best healthcare either.)

[Larry]

That's not correct. As you can see in this report from 2000, they use four criteria:

Overall level of health, distribution of health, resposniveness, and distribution of financing.

Dig deep enough, and you will see that ultimately, whether or not a country has universal care is a large component of its overall rating, and is one reason the US is so low.

Which is fine if you believe in universal care already as a good, but is hardly an argument that should convince people that they should support it.

Unfortunately, what you're doing is pointing out why you don't like a statistic that, as near as I can tell, doesn't appear in the article.

Explain how universal health care is a major component in life expectancy, which is one of the statistics he uses.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I think its very obvious that the healthcare-government-insurance complex is terrible and badly broken

But we do have some great doctors, excellent medicine and state of the art techniques. It just costs way too much and is very inefficient in delivery

[Larry]

The WHO system is flawed with respect to actual medical care because it includes a "fairness" portioin in the analysis.

And does not appear anywhere in the article.

[PeterMP]

I made a reference to this op-ed in another thread, because I thought it had interesting things to say.

One of his statistics that I thought particularly worthy of discussion was:

Now, I found his stat really interesting. But I also observe that his conclusion (that US seniors live longer than other countries because US seniors have government health care and other Americans don't) wasn't the only possible way to interpret that stat.

Another possible way to look at that stat would be to wonder if perhaps the stat for US life expectancy is being pulled downward, not because evil corporations make profits, but perhaps because of things like the large number of Americans who die at age 20 because of car accidents or because they got shot.

(Actually, one health stat that I heard that struck me as being really amazing. The claim was that, if you make it to age 80, then you have a 1/2 chance to make it to age 90, and a 1/3 chance to make it to 100.)

Still, I'm glad somebody posted this piece. I was considering doing so, myself.

I think if you tie this to the idea from a study Snyder_Shrugged has posted that we have the a long life expectency if you remove car accidents and homicides, then this is good evidence that homicides and car accidents become a much smaller percentage of the reasons people die over 60.

I'd be curious to see the chances of you dying from, lets' say ages 40-60 in the US as compared to other countries.

[PeterMP]

And does not appear anywhere in the article.

From the OP:

"The United States ranks 37th in overall healthcare systems according to the WHO sandwiched between Slovenia and Costa Rico. The top 2 are France and Italy, both "universal healthcare systems""

?