AP Photo/ John Bazemore
America has the best health care in the world: a startling claim perhaps but one that can indeed be supported for one definition of "best".
The controversy will come, of course, from whether you agree with the specific metric used to measure best or not.
I should mention that while I am indeed a right wing lunatic, fully equipped with the ability to scream "Commies!" with the best of them, even to froth at the mouth upon demand while doing so, I'm not going to invent any strange measurement device to prove this point.
No, rather, I'm going to use the numbers from the World Health Organisation (WHO), the very ones that they themselves use to determine which is the best health care system in the world.
At one level, of course America has the best health care system in the world. We spend more on it than anyone else, both as an amount of money and as a percentage of the total economy. If we were to be both complacent and stupid about it we would, in common with a certain strand of leftish thinking, say that because we are spending more money, because the inputs are higher, then we must be doing the right thing (there really are people for example who support green energy precisely because more people have to work to provide it, that is, it's good because inputs are higher).
However, we can be a tad more intelligent than that and have a look at what it is that we actually get for those inputs. At first glance it doesn't seem like much: life expectancy isn't noticeably different: it's a little lower than some other countries at birth, a little higher than those same at age 65. Indeed, the WHO rates the US health care system as a whole as being only 37th, which isn't all that good an outcome for spending the most money.
We need to go behind those numbers though and have a look at how they are calculated. It's not all that unusual for international statistics of these kinds to contain some, well, how to put this, odd assumptions. The answers to that are here. This is what the WHO uses to calculate those numbers and the weightings they put upon them.
1. Health Level: 25%
2. Health Distribution: 25%
3. Responsiveness: 12.5%
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5%
5. Financial Fairness: 25%
As you can see, there's a great deal of assuming going on there about what makes a decent health care system. In fact, only 37.5% of the weighting is actually about health care itself: the other 62.5% is about distribution and fairness, how equal or unequal it all is.
These may be fair things to worry about, of course, but it does seem a little odd to assume that we must judge health care by equity. Judging it more (rather than only very much in part) by how good the actual health care is might seem more sensible.
What happens if we take a step further and look at the numbers for each of those five measurements that make up the total system ranking?
In terms of the health level, the US is 24th, distribution 32 nd, responsiveness 1st, responsiveness distribution joint 3-38th and financial fairness, joint 54- 55th.
I take it from that that what the (yes, hugely expensive) US health care system actually offers is responsiveness. That when we desire to be looked at, we get looked at. When we need or desire treatment then we get it faster than any place else on the planet. That's simply an extremely expensive thing to provide.
Note that this isn't a series of he said she said tales about waits at free clinics, or 18 weeks to get an operation in Britain, nor I fell over and had an MRI scan in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. These are the straight international statistics about which health care system does what around the world. The US, averaging out over all of us, those with private insurance, government insurance or no insurance, responds to our need to treatment faster than any other.
Now it might be that we don't need the system to react to our desires that quickly: it might also be that we're quite happy to pay for it to do so. This is something that needs to be discussed: and preferably before we go changing the system itself.
Is responsiveness something we value? Or not?
My own take on this is that it is indeed the responsiveness that we're actually paying for. The way in which if your doctor thinks there's something wrong he can fire off all manner of diagnostic tests immediately, get the results and then get you into whatever (or none) treatment is needed. That's what makes the system cost so much, makes us the number one spenders. And if we want to continue to have that responsiveness then we're not going to be able to cut costs that much. If at all in fact, for if we lower those two distribution numbers by insisting upon high quality insurance for the 47 million currently without it, the resouces required to maintain the slack in the system which allows that responsiveness will simply have to increase.
As I say, this is my own take at the end here, not something proven by those international statistics. But I do not see how we can maintain that number one position, that facet where the American health care system is the best in the world, and not increase costs when we extend that best in the world system to those who do not currently enjoy it.
Either we're going to end up introducing the waiting that the system currently doesn't have or it's going to cost us all more money.
Comments
WHO is part of the CORRUPT United Nations, presently controlled by U.S. enemies. The "statistics" from WHO are propaganda. The WHO presents as "statistics" propaganda from Fidel Castro, for example.
What Obama is saying now regarding Obamacare is what has been decided will be the best way to LIE, MANIPULATE, INTIMIDATE and COERCE us into socialism of the XXI century (Marxism), the same socialism that has destroyed Cuba and is destroying Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, and the rest of the countries with Obama-like Marxists.
We all want to IMPROVE health care, but Obamacare has nothing to do with improving health care. It's just another power grab to impose socialism.
I don't understand this post. Tens of millions of our neighbors have no health insurance for their families. How is the system "responsive" if they are unable to afford to see a doctor? I don't see how this post advances the discussion.
As for "AntonioSosa's" comment, it is at least a good representative of the level of discourse among the opponents of health care reform. By the way, I wonder if Mr. Sosa is in favor of abolishing Medicare and VA healthcare.
I don't understand your logic. If the responsiveness is so good then why is the health level 24th ? It should be higher. By all measures, the US lags far behind any other industrialized nation.
Obama and the Dems often argue that we must reform healthcare so we can insure the 47 million who are currently uninsured. But let’s look at the 47 million more closely:
11 million are non-citizens.
12 million are eligible for public programs but not enrolled.
9 million are temporarily unsinsured due to a job change, but Cobra is available.
7 million can afford insurance but have chosen not to buy it.
8 million (it’s estimated) can’t afford insurance.
So let’s think about this for a moment. We’re going to scrap the entire healthcare system for a new one just so that we can provide coverage to 8 million people? Have we lost our minds??? Just say “NO” to Obamacare because it’s too expensive and it solves nothing.
Dan the Man: the 47 million consensus estimate is pre-recession. The likely number of Americans who have no insurance for their families has now likely risen. The availability of self-paid COBRA benefits is usually of little comfort to anyone who has faced the cost of such benefits. The "choose not to buy insurance" demographic falsely assumes that families making $50K annually can purchase insurance without breaking their family budgets. The fact that some Americans are eligible for programs such as "S-CHIP" just shows how fragmented, confusing an bureaucratic such programs really are. So I am not convinced by your effort to mimimize the scope of the health insurance crisis. But there is another problem - any one of us can lose our family's health insurance if we lose our job. Think what a drag that is on entrepreneurship and job mobility. Finally, we spend much, much more per capita on health care than any of our economic competitors, yet our health levels are much lower.
I don't think that those with their fea mongering about socialism actually under the terminology of 'socialism'. Most progressive nations have some form of socialism. They take care of their citizens and don't use corrupt free market practices to sell off their nations, unlike ours.
The U.S. has the most costly health care cost compared to all other developed nations. And yet, there are more than 46 million Americans without health care, and our infant mortality rate is the highest among developed nations, and Americans, on average, have a lower life span than 49 countries in the world. As a country's most important resource is its human resource, never expect it to compete against progressive nations if its human resource isn't as healthy as theirs. I've compiled the comparative health care statistics of the U.S. to 8 countries: Australia, Canada France, Germany, Sweden, UK, Japan, and Singapore. Check it out and see how shameful our health care system is compared to all the 8.
h
I don't think that those with their fea mongering about socialism actually under the terminology of 'socialism'. Most progressive nations have some form of socialism. They take care of their citizens and don't use corrupt free market practices to sell off their nations, unlike ours.
The U.S. has the most costly health care cost compared to all other developed nations. And yet, there are more than 46 million Americans without health care, and our infant mortality rate is the highest among developed nations, and Americans, on average, have a lower life span than 49 countries in the world. As a country's most important resource is its human resource, never expect it to compete against progressive nations if its human resource isn't as healthy as theirs. I've compiled the comparative health care statistics of the U.S. to 8 countries: Australia, Canada France, Germany, Sweden, UK, Japan, and Singapore. Check it out and see how shameful our health care system is compared to all the 8.
h
My apologies that the same post was duplicated. I notice that the URL link was missed out. If you like to read my thoughts and study the comparative data between the U.S. and the 8 nations, visit wordpress for thoughtsjany
I have great health insurance. So do all of my friends and family. Of course, we work our asses off, have suitable levels of education and make good decisions. Think there might be a connection?
Greg - I think the connection is with the fact that you have a job that provides health insurance. Literally millions of our neighbors and their families do not. Perhaps, as your post implies, people who work at Wal-Mart, or other employers which do not provide health insurance coverage to their workers, are not as morally worthy as you are. Nor, I suppose, are the children of those workers. Nor are the Americans who get denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Bus I suspect that most of us think that the problem is not that millions of Americans do not work as hard as you do or that they are not as "well educated" as you are. Instead, many of us think the problem is a completely irrational system that costs us much more per capita than that of any of our economic competitors, yet delivers dramatically worse health care outcomes.
Wow, responsiveness. Sure, our health care is fast to get you in and pretty fast to bill you something crazy. Your health insurance company is also very responsive to drop your coverage or deny you. I think left and right wingers are all crazy and that we should really look at the cold hard facts. Most of the world has a single pay system with private health care as their premium service. They, unlike us, have more options and spend less money. In America, there are just some things that should not be so money motivated. Helping the sick is one of them.
As for right wingers, do you call your local fireman commies too! That is a social service? How about your public library? Also the local police department? COMMIES! I dare you to call them that and see what happens.
My wife has universal health care in her country and they love it! She refuses to get sick here in America. haha.
I see providing a minimum level of health insurance as a public service akin to providing roads, schools, and other infrastructure. When an uninsured person gets sick, I end up paying for their care in several non-tax ways already: they go bankrupt, their survivors end up on welfare, etc., etc.
My government mandates that I pay taxes, and they use that money to provide all sorts of "free" things to people: visitors to my county get to drive on my street for free. It's understood that this is a common good, and makes for a better life for all.
The author is not correct.
In Thailand there is a public system that is free to everyone and an excellent private system. Both operate side by side.
If you are poor or have a medical issue that "can wait" you can choose the public hospital system. It's free. If you want to get taken care of right away and don't mind paying you can choose the private hospital and get seen right away.
That is the kind of choice Americans need to have.
Right now all you have is a good private option....available to those who can afford to pay. Poor people don't get to have regular health checkups or a regular doctor they can see on a regular basis.
When it comes to "financial fairness" America scores low compared to 36 other nations around the world
Greg said "I have great health insurance. So do all of my friends and family. Of course, we work our asses off, have suitable levels of education and make good decisions. Think there might be a connection?"
Greg. I am self employed. I have a college degree. I try to make good decisions. And I too work my ass off. (I have been self employed for 20 years.)
But unlike many of you and your friends:
1. No one helps to pay for my insurance premiums. I pay them all...100%
2. I pay my health premiums with "after tax" out of pocket dollars. While many of you have employer based plans that are tax free.
3. Unlike many of you, I have no group plan to hide behind so health insurance companies underwrite me and at 62 they always find something.
Result: My wife and I pay $922 a month ($11,000 a year) in premiums and have a $8000 deductible.
How would you feel about health care in America if YOU a health insurance plan like mine??
When you become self-employed you give up a lot of things that the employed take for granted. Presumably there are benefits to offset: if not, get a job. Don't whinge about the consequences of your own decisions.
I can tell you from the trenches that most of the people "unable" to see a doctor can. At the very least, EMTALA guaranties that anyone with an emergency condition has to be seen and stabilized in any emergency department in the United States. Also, alot of these people have finances to see a private doctor but choose not to (cigarettes, body art, cellphones being the priority.
PS. I am in favor of doing away with Medicare and VA...I would like to see vouchers so that these people can buy the best private insurance available. Look at the costs and the quality of care and everyone covered under these plans would be much better served through private insurance with all its problems.
I'm not sure what you think you're proving here. Let's assume that you're right about responsiveness and our need to pay for it (which you're probably not, as you seem to anticipate). You still haven't supported the claim you make in the title of this article. Being responsive doesn't mean we're the best! We can be responsive while providing poor service, responsive when we don't need to be, etc. And given that our survival rates (for all ages!!) are not the best, my questions are not irrelevant.
I would like to congradulate you for being the first conservative to really engage with the WHO statistics. Unfortunately, the critique you made is about as good as they come.
WHAT the hell are you talking about this country is based on change about progress do you even know what Communism is? REAL communism has no government everyone takes care of each other the only example that i can give you is a family is a communism to the core. So get your facts straight. Also your talking out of your ass if you think we have the best health care if you weren't so struct by fear and really look at the bill you might learn something but im sure you will learn to accept this bill fast after your health care denies you coverage because of your preexisting condition. Oh right now we are at 37 below Costa Rica for health Care COSTA RICA pull your head out of your ass
Oh i almost forgot our soldiers has the best health care and guess what ITS A GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAM
AntonioSosa ok one shut up 2 do you even know what socialism is it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.God damn look up words before you use them
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!