"The US has the best health care system in the world" you will hear them scream. According to who? What were the criteria. Which criterion were we 1st, 2nd, last?
That's a canard. A lie repeated long enough that people take it for granted. We don't have the #1 health care system in the world, period.
The very first time someone attempted to figure which nation had the best care system in the world, was 1991. Has not been repeated since. When the World Health Organization ranked 191 nations, France and Italy took the top two spots and the United States came 37th.
WE HAVE THE 37TH BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.
Truth hurts.
According to more recent rankings using the criteria of Insurance Coverage, Access, Quality, Fairness, Healthy Lives, Life and Death, Patient Satisfaction, among other, we did way better, but not number one for sure.
Consolation: yes those countries with universal care have longer waits than the US. The US does better than all of them, except, GERMANY. Why? Here is a clue. They have the oldest universal health care system in the world, dating back to 1883. In Germany people who work pay premiums based on their income and those with low wages have their premiums capped.
Instead of insulting the rest of the world care systems maybe can learn something. Can the GOP stop insulting canadians or will they continue demonizing their care systems and later ask them for help to go bomb Iran?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 60
And we are all the worse for it.
You never hear the truth like the fact that the mail gets delivered everyday, or that seniors have health care. It seems to me that a great number of those against health care reform are hearing or have arrives at medicare time. You don't hear them complaining about having to go on Medicare.
Or the government can't do anything. Really, why afraid of them as competition then?
Does not make sense. But the people who repeat it can't think for themselves.
The insurance companies only take what's profitable and no one is doing the heavy lifting.
For the first time in at least 50 years - the Democrats (I'm a moderate Independent who voted for Obama) have a real chance to change health care.
The Grossly Obstructionist Party and the special interest whores are scared - the see the gravy train coming to an end - if REAL healthcare reform is passed - it is RIP GOP - they will join the Whigs as footnote in American Political history.
They are stepping up the fear and smear - a sure sign of desperation - they say "The government will come in between us and our doctor" - Yeah - with a check, which is more than what the insurance companies do now.
If we had let the right wing fear get in the way in the past:
A) we would still be a British colony
B) Never made it to the moon
C) Never have nominated and African American to become President
You Democrats have to keep the pressure on your leaders - we need reform and need it now
You Republicans - I have a great idea - why don't you take your August break now.
You righties like talking points - I'll give you one:
You're not part of the solution - you're part of of the problem.
Either get on board - or get the hell out of the way
Obama's speech tonight made me laugh. He thinks that since the government isn't in it for profits, that a public plan will be less expensive than a private one. Is he for real? The costs of government programs are absurd.
Maybe you feel that anyone getting sick should automatically be hauled off to the local incinerator.
The numbers of persons who truly cannot afford insurance or health care (without including illegals or persons who merely choose not to buy it) is very small.
I don't think we have any business trying to change an entire system for that small number of people. We have medicaid as an existing program, and they could be added to that.
What kind of health care do you recommend for the millions of people that have been put out of work because their jobs have been sold off to the communists through no fault of their own?
Maybe your congressional representatives should have to pay the entire cost of their health insurance and stop using our military hospitals so we could give better care to our wounded vets.
Why don't you try feeding a family of five on a pension of $2300 after getting hurt on the job and getting retired. Where do I find this money so I can be responsible for myself?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Think for a second. What is the unemployment rate right now? Where do people get health insurance? Helloooooooo employers.
How long after being terminated do you lose your health insurance? try 3 months max if you are in a very good company like my buddy the engineer from Analog Devices who has been told he will be laid of in October. In January he loses his health care if he does not find another job. He has money to pay for health care through March 2010. After that, he will not have money for a car or health care, and he is selling his house right now because he won't be able to pay the mortgage, a cheaper rent will be safer.
Bottom line, you don't have a clue. That's just one example. A bunch of other folks are losing health care now
about 12 million are illegal immigrants for whom we should not be providing medical care.
about 12 million are those who will be without for 30-90 days (usually because they're in between jobs or just starting a job and waiting to be eligible)
about 12 million choose not to buy insurance, either because they say it's too expensive (but they could really afford it if they changed their lifestyle) or because they don't need it (because they can afford to pay for medical issues)
That leaves...about 9 million people who really cannot afford health care or insurance. Those we should put on Medicaid which already exists.
Think about this. If there are 306,980,267 people in the US (according to this site on 07/23/09 at 03:42 GMT http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html)
and if 45 million need coverage, that's 14.65%.
If the real number is only 9 million as shown above, that's only 3% of the population.
Should we be trying to change an entire system for 3% or 14% of the population? No. Should we not care? Of course not. But we have a Medicaid program already in place. If these people can show that they truly cannot afford care, they should be added to that program.
My son doesn't have insurance either, Lisa. But that doesn't mean I want the rest of the country to suffer so that he gets insurance.
You do realize that the bills they're doing now are not for immediate coverage, don't you? The services start 2013 IF they can actually get a program up and running by then. They're not talking immediate fixes.
But we could have immediate fixes. If they took all the people out that I mentioned above and were left with only the 9 million or so, they could be added to Medicaid. And Mark, doing that would change the requirements, of course.
Any conservative web site has these stats, Mark. I've listed the links before. It's been on the news too, but I'm sure you don't watch anything but CNN.
I do not understand any government even considering changing health care when such a large percentage of people are happy with their health care. They need to be concentrating only one those who need help, not trying to control the lives of the rest of us.
Obama spoke very well tonight and actually said something instead of the same old "all the options are on the table."
National health care is not something to be afraid of its something to be proud of. The party of "no" will never come around to help what they have messed up.
Obama travels a very bumpy road with his hopes of bipartisan leadership that will never be possible in with a party that continues to suck up to nothing but corporate payoffs.
If the democratic party does not come down off cloud nine soon I think we are going to see Obama starting to take a very hard stand with them and shame them into doing what they already know they should be doing. Congress has the president and public majority behind it to fix what has been destroyed through very careful planning by the party of "no."
Doing nothing is NOT an option - if leave the things the way we are - we will end up paying on AVERAGE an extra 1800 per year - and in 10 years be paying 30,000 a year and we'll be paying for more uninsured ANYWAY
don't believe me - watch what happens if we don't get real healthcare reform
What we need to do as consumers is refuse to pay high prices that are too high. Can we do that? Yes. At one company where I worked years ago, employees got together and found a cheaper plan and asked that our insurance be changed. What we don't need to do is to assume that only the government has the answers. They don't and it's not their job to take care of us.
Blue Cross should not be responsible for the well being of Americans.
Every one of you should be skeptical of a Congress that will not put its members under the same program as the masses. That is not how it's done in other countries.
And you should be skepitcal of a Congress that wants to exempt unions too. I wonder who they will exempt next? I wonder who can pay them to be exempted. Doesn't that bother you?
Have you ever looked at what Tennessee tried to do? You might research that. They attempted to have a public option that competed with the private options. Of course it didn't work. Prices were increased all around - not decreased. You should look at that story.
The best health care in the world line is plain silly. They hear that in France and Italy and just laugh off. 100% of their citizens are covered and there is no line to see a doctor or denying in coverage. They have plenty of money to do medical research and are now leading in research with stem cells.
The GOP is taking this country backward.
Socialized medicine is a horrible idea. It doesnt work well at all. Give me one country that uses socialized medicine that does not come to the USA for treatment....
~M
I've told people before that when I lived in FL, in the mobile home park my folks lived in - for senior citizens - the majority were owned by Canadians. They hated their health care and often came to the US instead of waiting in line for care.
My hubby has 2 friends in the UK that he's known for 30+ years. They think we're nuts in the US to be even considering socialized health care.
Is this what we are about? To take care of the wealthy and the well connected of the US, France, Italy and neglect our poor citizens?
In a post recently, I showed that if you take number everyone keeps brandishing - 45 million uninsured - and subtract 12 million illegals and 12 million who can afford to not have insurance and 12 million who really need insurance but refuse to spend the money (opting to be a good consumer instead), we're left with only 9 million persons really needing help. If that's the case, they can be put on Medicaid unti something better can be done.
Meanwhile, if things are working so great in other countries (which is doubtful), let's get their organziers and planners here to help us - people who cannot be bribed by anyone for votes - and let them take as long as it did in Canada to create a fairly decent program. Twenty years. That's how long it took to create the Canadian program, then they tried it out in a few provinces before making it go national.
So to answer your post.... No we are not first and yes you are wrong that we are 37th.
~M
There. 25 COUNTRIES WITH POPULATION LAGER THAN A MILLION, thereby debunking your claim.
Austria: 8.4 million
Norway: 4.6 million
Portugal: 10 million
Greece: 10.2 million
Belgium: 10.4 million
Ireland: 4.6 million
Swiss: 7.5 million
Finland: 5.2 million
Denmark: 5.8 million
Costa Rica: 4.2 million
There are 11 that are 10 and under. Being we have 305 million, it isnt fair to compare them. I meant 10 million not 1...
Also, Columbia? Yeah... who would want to live there with the constant war and drug czars...?
~M
How do states with 10 million people compare to Belgium?
Still healthcare rocks for me. I've always had insurance and never had anything serious happen to me. I see specialist for stiff hamstrings. I have coverage for seeing a nutrionist. That does not mean the state of healthcare in the country is great.
You are utterly absurd.
How is this a "bad" thing regarding care??? Dont be such a primadona. Things are not as bad as the media would like to cast it.
~M
I'd rather die than trust the government to give me health care.
Look what hte government did to Social Security.
Mooch
Should we have privatized it like repubs wanted?
"In July 2008 the Office of the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration calculated an unfunded obligation of $13.6 trillion for the Social Security program." -Wikipedia (emphasis mine)
I'm 19 and I never expect to see any taxes I would pay into SS come back to me. The system will collapse long before I could retire. It is an example of socialism failure. I wonder if the government could do any better with health care- probably not.
The fact that many canadians want 15 million tests, which doctors over there won't allow them to take because it's absurd, cross the border to come here and get those stupid tests done, is not a sign that we provide superior care. We provide more tests, thereby spending more money on procedures that are redundant.
We have 85 year old smokers who spent their entire lives with bad habits who want health insurance money to keep them on medications, oxygen tanks, and weekly checkups. Nobody wants to talk about. There is a point where people ought to pay for their own expenses if they want a certain number of tests/procedures.
ask one of them to give up thir current care and enroll in one of our "choice programs"
oh yeah we do have choice:
Being ripped off by company A
or being ripped off by Company B
The insurance companies don't want competiton - that'll cut into their profits and their CEO's will only make 5 million instead of 10 million - gee how could they scrape by on that?
I am pretty sure we have some of the best doctors, the best MEDICAL DEVICES. That's not health care. If people don't have access to that, what good does it do. If you wait one week in France from some non time sensitive procedures as opposed to 1 day in the US, that's not a deal breaker here. Waiting one week and being treated fairly, with the besst available is far better than waiting a day and being dispatch quickly because the next patient in line flew from England because he is too wealthy and too important to wait in line in England and is paying the American doctor cash.
A) the provision that prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions
B) the provision that closes the "doughnut hole" in prescription plans
C) eliminating Medicare Part D - once again allowing the government to negociate drug prescription prices
Each of which - if properly implimented will save us Billions in tax revenue and health care premiums
Or are you against anything involving choice?
~M
I'm all for health care improvement and reform, but not if it involves government takeover. That's simply not the government's job.
We have an incredible unsustainable deficit and we absolutely cannot afford anymore deficit spending.
I would like to hear about other options other than a government run plan.
Marilyn M, having insurance does not guarantee that the insurance companies will honor their coverage. You could pay your premiums for years to a healthcare insurer, then get sick, and then have your insurance canceled.
..."Blue Cross of California encouraged employees through performance evaluations to cancel the health insurance policies of individuals with expensive illnesses, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) charged at the start of a congressional hearing today on the controversial practice known as rescission." ...
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17
Taiwan shifted from the U.S. model to a single payer system in 1995, health coverage increased from 57% to 97% with little increase in spending -- 6 percent in GDP.
And...from those same web sites, it appears that France is also not doing well in terms of the cost of health care either. Back when one site posted, the US was using 13.5% GDP as the amount we were spending on health care and France was at 9.8%. It appears that we're both in "crisis" mode according to these numbers. So should we be copying everything France is doing? Probably not.
This doc says it's the latter:
First of all, we hear a lot about how terrible the infant mortality rate is in the United States, with supposedly the worst in the civilized world. Is this true? Not really. U.S. health officials count all live births, while many other countries only count full-term births or infants who live at least 28 days. Obviously, premature infants, who are counted in the U.S., but not in other countries, have a much higher risk of mortality.
Second, it is repeatedly said that people in the U.S. do not live as long as in other countries. Again, this is true. However, deaths from homicide and accidents distort the picture. When the data is adjusted for these categories, life expectancy in the U.S. is as high as in other countries. Homicide and trauma certainly reflect a country’s social problems, but they tell us little about a country’s health care system.
Third, we hear that each year there are nearly 100,000 unnecessary hospital deaths in the U.S., a clear indictment of our health care quality. A panel of physicians reviewed the hospital data, however, and found that the great majority of these deaths occurred at the end of the patient’s natural life, when the outcome would have been the same regardless of what hospital staff did or did not do. In other countries, these older, desperately ill people might not even be sent to a hospital, dying instead at home, and are thus not included in national medical statistics.
A comparable study in Canada, adjusted for population size, found 200,000 “unnecessary” hospital deaths, even though political activists regularly push Canadian-style health care for the U.S.
Fourth, we hear people are often forced to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills. It turns out advocates count any bankruptcy case involving even a single medical bill, whether or not health costs had anything to do with causing the bankruptcy.
Also, people ages 55 to 65, who have more personal control over their health coverage, are less likely to declare bankruptcy, while people over 65, who are on government-run Medicare, have seen a doubling of their bankruptcy rate. In the case of the elderly, tax-funded health care has not reduced financial problems for older Americans.
Fifth, what about the 45.7 million uninsured? Who are they, and are medical costs and availability the reasons they don’t have health insurance? If we look at the actual numbers, it turns out that one-third of these people are eligible for existing government programs (Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, etc.) but haven’t applied. Half of this 45.7 million are transitioning between jobs, and nearly one-fourth of the total are not U.S. citizens.
It turns out advocates count anyone who was without health coverage at any time during a calendar year.
Out of the entire 45.7 million, only about 8 million are chronically uninsured. This represents less than 5% of our total population. While an important number, it is arguably not large enough to be the primary motivator for an entire government overhaul of our health care system that would impact the other 95% of our population.
Last we are told we rank 37th in health care compared to other countries. This figure comes from the U.N.’s World Health Organization. Three of the five criteria to rate nations were biased in favor of nationalized, single-payer systems, and the U.N. admitted they had an 80% uncertainty level in their data. Amazingly, none of the five criteria included actual health outcomes, such as cancer or heart attack survival rates.
Because the U.S. does not have total, nationalized health care, our system was severely disadvantaged before the study began. Any health study that ranks Greece (#14), Columbia (#22), and Morocco (#29) ahead of the U.S. clearly has serious methodological problems.
Any debate about how to improve health care needs serious research honestly presented, not skewed data or false comparisons with other countries. Using the arguments discussed above only serves to shift our focus away from the real problems - overregulation and high costs. Only when the system re-connects patients with control of their own health care dollars, and when decisions about care are made by doctors talking with patients, not by government program managers, will we be in a position to control costs and extend coverage to the chronically uninsured.
From: What's Not Wrong With US Healthcare
"More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine."
Maryiln, you can cite Dr. Stark as your authority, I'll stick with Harvard Medical School and Ohio State University.