Fixed.
Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
Fixed.
Ironic that morons in Europe don't know they are paying MORE. Dumb fuck.
Me and everyone else with firing neurons. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-cost-cuba-130-billion-un-says-idUSKBN1IA00T Cuba was extemely dependent on Amrican trade when the embargo started. When other nations were not tough enough, we passed the Helms-Burton act which punished nations that traded with Cuba. Of course you do not know the point was to destroy the Cuban government. We did not want a communist success .
I am amused that leftist dumb fucks don't think one pays more and live shorter lives as a result of Government health care systems.
Health Care in a Free Society
Rebutting the Myths of National Health Insurance
...........
Wherever national health insurance has been tried, rationing by waiting is pervasive, putting patients at risk and keeping them in pain. Single-payer systems tend to leave rationing choices up to local bureaucracies that, for example, fill hospital beds with chronic patients, while acute patients wait for care. Access to health care in single-payer systems is far from equitable; in fact, it often correlates with income—with rich and well-connected citizens jumping the queue for treatment.
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa532.pdf
Rebutting the Myths of National Health Insurance
...........
Wherever national health insurance has been tried, rationing by waiting is pervasive, putting patients at risk and keeping them in pain. Single-payer systems tend to leave rationing choices up to local bureaucracies that, for example, fill hospital beds with chronic patients, while acute patients wait for care. Access to health care in single-payer systems is far from equitable; in fact, it often correlates with income—with rich and well-connected citizens jumping the queue for treatment.
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa532.pdf
Myth No. 1: In Countries with National Health Insurance Systems, People Have a Right to Health Care
In fact, no country with national health insurance has established a right to health care. Citizens of Canada, for example, have no right to any particular health care service. They have no right to an MRI scan. They have no right to heart surgery. They do not even have the right to a place in line. The 100th person waiting for heart surgery is not entitled to the 100th surgery. Other people can and do jump the queue.
One could even argue that Canadians have fewer rights to health services than their pets. While Canadian pet owners can purchase an MRI scan for their cat or dog, purchasing a scan for themselves is illegal (although more and more human patients are finding legal loopholes, as we shall see below).
Countries with national health insurance limit health care spending by limiting supply. They do so primarily by imposing global budgets on hospitals and area health authorities and skimping on high-tech equipment. The result is rationing by waiting.
........
Among the patients waiting, many are waiting in pain. Others are risking their lives. Delays in Britain for colon cancer treatment are so long that 20 percent of the cases considered curable at time of diagnosis are incurable by the time of treatment. During one 12-month period in Ontario, Canada, 71 patients died waiting for coronary bypass surgery while 121 patients were removed from the list because they had become too sick to undergo surgery with a reasonable chance of survival.
In fact, no country with national health insurance has established a right to health care. Citizens of Canada, for example, have no right to any particular health care service. They have no right to an MRI scan. They have no right to heart surgery. They do not even have the right to a place in line. The 100th person waiting for heart surgery is not entitled to the 100th surgery. Other people can and do jump the queue.
One could even argue that Canadians have fewer rights to health services than their pets. While Canadian pet owners can purchase an MRI scan for their cat or dog, purchasing a scan for themselves is illegal (although more and more human patients are finding legal loopholes, as we shall see below).
Countries with national health insurance limit health care spending by limiting supply. They do so primarily by imposing global budgets on hospitals and area health authorities and skimping on high-tech equipment. The result is rationing by waiting.
........
Among the patients waiting, many are waiting in pain. Others are risking their lives. Delays in Britain for colon cancer treatment are so long that 20 percent of the cases considered curable at time of diagnosis are incurable by the time of treatment. During one 12-month period in Ontario, Canada, 71 patients died waiting for coronary bypass surgery while 121 patients were removed from the list because they had become too sick to undergo surgery with a reasonable chance of survival.
Myth No. 2: Countries with National Health Insurance Systems Deliver High Quality Health Care
In countries with national health insurance, governments often attempt to limit demand for medical services by having fewer physicians. Because there are fewer physicians, they must see larger numbers of patients for shorter periods of time. U.S. physicians see an average of 2,222 patients per year, but physicians in Canada and Britain see an average of 3,143 and 3,176 respectively.
Family practitioners in Canada bear even higher patient loads—on the average, more than 6,000 per year.
Thus it is not surprising that 30 percent of American patients spend more than 20 minutes with their doctor on a visit, compared to 20 percent in Canada and only 5 percent in Britain.
In countries with national health insurance, governments often attempt to limit demand for medical services by having fewer physicians. Because there are fewer physicians, they must see larger numbers of patients for shorter periods of time. U.S. physicians see an average of 2,222 patients per year, but physicians in Canada and Britain see an average of 3,143 and 3,176 respectively.
Family practitioners in Canada bear even higher patient loads—on the average, more than 6,000 per year.
Thus it is not surprising that 30 percent of American patients spend more than 20 minutes with their doctor on a visit, compared to 20 percent in Canada and only 5 percent in Britain.
Myth No. 3: Countries with National Health Insurance Make Health Care Available on the Basis of Need Rather Than Ability to Pay
“The United States alone treats health care as a commodity distributed according to the ability to pay, rather than as a social service to be distributed according to medical need,” claims Physicians for Single-Payer National Health Insurance. The idea that national health insurance makes health care available on the basis of need rather than ability to pay is an article of faith among supporters of socialized medicine.
But is it really true that national health insurance systems make care available on the basis of need alone? Precisely because of rationing, inefficiencies, and quality problems, patients in countries with national health insurance often spend their own money on health care when they are given an opportunity to do so. In fact, private-sector health care is the fastest-growing part of the health care system in many of these countries. For example, in Britain, 13 percent of the population has private health insurance to cover services to which they presumably
are entitled for free under the NHS, and private-sector spending makes up 15 percent of the country’s total health care spending.
In Canada, the share of privately funded health care spending rose from 24 percent in 1983 to an estimated 30.3 percent in 1998. In Australia, private health insurance coverage has risen from around 31 percent of the population in 1998 to almost 45 percent by March 2002. In New Zealand, 35 percent of the population has private health insurance (again, to cover services theoretically provided for free bythe state), and private sector spending is about 10 percent of total health care spending.
“The United States alone treats health care as a commodity distributed according to the ability to pay, rather than as a social service to be distributed according to medical need,” claims Physicians for Single-Payer National Health Insurance. The idea that national health insurance makes health care available on the basis of need rather than ability to pay is an article of faith among supporters of socialized medicine.
But is it really true that national health insurance systems make care available on the basis of need alone? Precisely because of rationing, inefficiencies, and quality problems, patients in countries with national health insurance often spend their own money on health care when they are given an opportunity to do so. In fact, private-sector health care is the fastest-growing part of the health care system in many of these countries. For example, in Britain, 13 percent of the population has private health insurance to cover services to which they presumably
are entitled for free under the NHS, and private-sector spending makes up 15 percent of the country’s total health care spending.
In Canada, the share of privately funded health care spending rose from 24 percent in 1983 to an estimated 30.3 percent in 1998. In Australia, private health insurance coverage has risen from around 31 percent of the population in 1998 to almost 45 percent by March 2002. In New Zealand, 35 percent of the population has private health insurance (again, to cover services theoretically provided for free bythe state), and private sector spending is about 10 percent of total health care spending.
And another, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29936901 Akl those medical experts have much to learn from you in medical terminology.
Myth No. 4: Although the United States Spends More per Capita on Health Care Than Countries with National Health Insurance, Americans Do Not Get Better Health Care
This myth is often supported by reference to two facts: (1) that life expectancy is not much different among the developed countries and (2) that the U.S. infant mortality rate is one of the highest among developed countries. If the United States spends more than other countries, why don’t we rate higher than the others by these indices of health outcomes? The answer is that neither statistic is a good indicator of the quality of a country’s health care system. Other indicators are much more telling.
Average life expectancy tells us almost nothing about the efficacy of health care systems because, throughout the developed world, there is very little correlation between health care spending and life expectancy. While a good health care system may, by intervention, extend the life of a small percentage of a population, it has very little to do with the average life span of the whole population. Instead, the number of years a person will live is primarily a result of genetic and social factors, including lifestyle, environment, and education.
.........
The infant mortality rate in the United States is higher than the average among developed countries, at 7.2 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1998, compared to an average of about 5.0. Why does the United States have a much higher infant mortality rate than countries with comparable living standards?Like the life expectancy rate, the U.S. infant
mortality rate is a composite average.
Overall, the chances that an infant will die at birth vary widely according to such factors as race, geography, income, and education:
[indent =2]Race:
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 1997, the mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) for infants born to black mothers was 13.7 compared to 8.7 for American Indian mothers, 7.9 for Puerto Rican mothers, 6.0 for nonHispanic white mothers, and 5.0 for Asian mothers.
Geography:
Among the 60 largest U.S. cities, infant mortality ranged from a high of 15.4 (Memphis) to a low of 4.5 (Seattle); among U.S. states, rates varied from a high of 10.2 (Alabama) to a low of
4.4 (New Hampshire).
Income and education:
Infants born to low-income mothers who did not finish high school were about 50 percent more likely to die than infants whose mothers finished college.[/indent]
This myth is often supported by reference to two facts: (1) that life expectancy is not much different among the developed countries and (2) that the U.S. infant mortality rate is one of the highest among developed countries. If the United States spends more than other countries, why don’t we rate higher than the others by these indices of health outcomes? The answer is that neither statistic is a good indicator of the quality of a country’s health care system. Other indicators are much more telling.
Average life expectancy tells us almost nothing about the efficacy of health care systems because, throughout the developed world, there is very little correlation between health care spending and life expectancy. While a good health care system may, by intervention, extend the life of a small percentage of a population, it has very little to do with the average life span of the whole population. Instead, the number of years a person will live is primarily a result of genetic and social factors, including lifestyle, environment, and education.
.........
The infant mortality rate in the United States is higher than the average among developed countries, at 7.2 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1998, compared to an average of about 5.0. Why does the United States have a much higher infant mortality rate than countries with comparable living standards?Like the life expectancy rate, the U.S. infant
mortality rate is a composite average.
Overall, the chances that an infant will die at birth vary widely according to such factors as race, geography, income, and education:
[indent =2]Race:
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 1997, the mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) for infants born to black mothers was 13.7 compared to 8.7 for American Indian mothers, 7.9 for Puerto Rican mothers, 6.0 for nonHispanic white mothers, and 5.0 for Asian mothers.
Geography:
Among the 60 largest U.S. cities, infant mortality ranged from a high of 15.4 (Memphis) to a low of 4.5 (Seattle); among U.S. states, rates varied from a high of 10.2 (Alabama) to a low of
4.4 (New Hampshire).
Income and education:
Infants born to low-income mothers who did not finish high school were about 50 percent more likely to die than infants whose mothers finished college.[/indent]
Myth No. 5: Countries with National Health Insurance Create Equal Access to Health Care
One of the most surprising features of national health insurance systems is the enormous amount of rhetoric devoted to the notion of equality and the importance of achieving it—especially in relation to the tiny amount of progress that appears to have been made. Aneurin Bevan, father of the NHS, declared that “everyone should be treated alike in the matter of medical care.” But more than 30 years into the program (in the 1980s), an official task force (the Black Report) found little evidence that access to health care was any more equal than when the NHS was started. Almost 20 years later, a second task force (the Acheson Report) found evidence that access had become less equal in the years between the two studies. Across a range of indices, NHS performance figures have consistently shown widening gaps between the bestperforming and worst-performing hospitals and health authorities, as well as vastly different survival rates for different types of illness, depending on where patients live. The problem of unequal access is so well known in Britain that the press refers to the NHS as a “postcode lottery” in which a person’s chances for timely, high-quality treatment depend on the neighborhood or “postcode” in which he or she lives.
Canadian officials also put a high premium on equality of access to medical care. In 1999, for instance, Health Minister Allan Rock stated that “equal access regardless of financial means will continue to be a cornerstone of our system.” How well have the Canadians done? A series of studies from the University of British Columbia in the 1990s consistently found widespread inequality in the provision of care among British Columbia’s 20 or so health regions. These studies are unique because researchers identified patients by the region in which they lived rather than the region where they received care. This allowed investigators to identify inequities in the amount of care received by residents of each region, including those patients forced to travel hundreds of miles (from one region to another) for treatment.
One of the most surprising features of national health insurance systems is the enormous amount of rhetoric devoted to the notion of equality and the importance of achieving it—especially in relation to the tiny amount of progress that appears to have been made. Aneurin Bevan, father of the NHS, declared that “everyone should be treated alike in the matter of medical care.” But more than 30 years into the program (in the 1980s), an official task force (the Black Report) found little evidence that access to health care was any more equal than when the NHS was started. Almost 20 years later, a second task force (the Acheson Report) found evidence that access had become less equal in the years between the two studies. Across a range of indices, NHS performance figures have consistently shown widening gaps between the bestperforming and worst-performing hospitals and health authorities, as well as vastly different survival rates for different types of illness, depending on where patients live. The problem of unequal access is so well known in Britain that the press refers to the NHS as a “postcode lottery” in which a person’s chances for timely, high-quality treatment depend on the neighborhood or “postcode” in which he or she lives.
Canadian officials also put a high premium on equality of access to medical care. In 1999, for instance, Health Minister Allan Rock stated that “equal access regardless of financial means will continue to be a cornerstone of our system.” How well have the Canadians done? A series of studies from the University of British Columbia in the 1990s consistently found widespread inequality in the provision of care among British Columbia’s 20 or so health regions. These studies are unique because researchers identified patients by the region in which they lived rather than the region where they received care. This allowed investigators to identify inequities in the amount of care received by residents of each region, including those patients forced to travel hundreds of miles (from one region to another) for treatment.
Robo
Verified User
INTERPRETATION: iolo's attention span only last long enough to parrot the propaganda he's feed by leftist neo-communist.
Myth No. 6: Countries with National Health Insurance Hold Down Costs by Operating More Efficient Health Care Systems
A widely used measure of hospital efficiency is average length of stay (LOS). By this standard, U.S. hospitals are ahead of their international counterparts (see Figure 11).
The average length of a hospital stay in the United States is 5.4 days compared to 6.2 days in Australia, 9.0 in the Netherlands, and 9.6 in Germany. Whereas patients from other countries routinely convalesce in a hospital, American patients are more likely to recover at home.
It is an inefficient use of resources to fill an acute care hospital bed with a patient waiting for non-emergency care, a geriatric patient waiting to transfer to a non-acute facility, or simply because the hospital has not gotten around to discharging that patient. This is especially true when there are lengthy waiting lists for hospital admission. Generally, the more efficient the hospital, the more quickly it will admit and discharge patients.
Long-term care patients who should be in nursing homes, in geriatric wards, or at home are often found occupying acute care beds in Britain—a practice known as “bed blocking.” As a result, many patients must wait for admission and treatment because patients treated earlier are waiting for discharge to an appropriate facility and thus “blocking” access to a bed. Officials estimate that about 3.3 percent of beds are blocked at any given time. Many public health officials think the actual number may be far higher. Liam Fox, admittedly the British Conservative Party’s shadow health secretary and thus a Labor government critic, has estimated that the true number of blocked beds is closer to 15 percent.
The statistics on bed utilization indicate bed management in Britain is highly inefficient. More than one million people are waiting for medical treatment in British hospitals at any one time, and an estimated 500,000 surgeries were cancelled in the past five years because of the shortage of NHS hospital beds. Yet close to 30,000 beds (16 percent of the total) are empty on any given day. These estimates imply that as many as one out of three NHS hospital beds is unavailable for acute care patients.
A widely used measure of hospital efficiency is average length of stay (LOS). By this standard, U.S. hospitals are ahead of their international counterparts (see Figure 11).
The average length of a hospital stay in the United States is 5.4 days compared to 6.2 days in Australia, 9.0 in the Netherlands, and 9.6 in Germany. Whereas patients from other countries routinely convalesce in a hospital, American patients are more likely to recover at home.
It is an inefficient use of resources to fill an acute care hospital bed with a patient waiting for non-emergency care, a geriatric patient waiting to transfer to a non-acute facility, or simply because the hospital has not gotten around to discharging that patient. This is especially true when there are lengthy waiting lists for hospital admission. Generally, the more efficient the hospital, the more quickly it will admit and discharge patients.
Long-term care patients who should be in nursing homes, in geriatric wards, or at home are often found occupying acute care beds in Britain—a practice known as “bed blocking.” As a result, many patients must wait for admission and treatment because patients treated earlier are waiting for discharge to an appropriate facility and thus “blocking” access to a bed. Officials estimate that about 3.3 percent of beds are blocked at any given time. Many public health officials think the actual number may be far higher. Liam Fox, admittedly the British Conservative Party’s shadow health secretary and thus a Labor government critic, has estimated that the true number of blocked beds is closer to 15 percent.
The statistics on bed utilization indicate bed management in Britain is highly inefficient. More than one million people are waiting for medical treatment in British hospitals at any one time, and an estimated 500,000 surgeries were cancelled in the past five years because of the shortage of NHS hospital beds. Yet close to 30,000 beds (16 percent of the total) are empty on any given day. These estimates imply that as many as one out of three NHS hospital beds is unavailable for acute care patients.
Robo
Verified User
Again Nordi you avoid the question. HOW MANY OF THOSE COUNTRIES YOU POSTED WHERE PEOPLE GO FOR THEIR HEALTHCARE ARE SINGLE PAYER COUNTRIES????????????????? I understand Nordi why you won't answer the question!!!!!
Skipping 7
Myth No. 8: Countries with National Health Insurance Systems Have Been More Successful Than the United States in Controlling Health Care Costs
The United States spends more on health care than any other country in the world, both in dollars per person and as a percentage of GDP. Does that mean that our predominantly private health care system is less able to control spending than developed countries with national health insurance? Not necessarily.
Almost without exception, international comparisons show that wealthier countries spend a larger proportion of their GDP on health care. In his classic 1977 and 1981 studies, health economist Joseph Newhouse found that 90 percent of the variation in health care spending among developed countries is based on income alone.
Most international statistics on health care spending are produced by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. However, OECD statistics are not always useful because different countries use different methods to report costs. No effective international guidelines exist, and some countries include services that others do not. For instance, the OECD definition of health care expenditures includes nursing home care. But while Germany includes nursing home care as part of total health expenditures, Britain does not. Some countries count hospital beds simply by
counting metal frames with mattresses, whether or not they are in use. In others, a “bed” is counted only if it is staffed and operational.
........
As the figure shows, the countries of the OECD have been no more successful than the United States in controlling costs and many have been far less successful. During the 1990s, health care spending in all but 3 of 15 OECD countries studied grew at about the same rate as in the United States—or higher. The notable exception to the spending trend among OECD countries is Canada. The Canadian federal government limited spending increases by cutting funding. It reduced block grants to provinces for health care as a percentage of GDP in 1986 and again in 1989; funding to the provinces was frozen at 1989-90 levels through 1995, and further cuts were made in the second half of the 1990s.
Myth No. 8: Countries with National Health Insurance Systems Have Been More Successful Than the United States in Controlling Health Care Costs
The United States spends more on health care than any other country in the world, both in dollars per person and as a percentage of GDP. Does that mean that our predominantly private health care system is less able to control spending than developed countries with national health insurance? Not necessarily.
Almost without exception, international comparisons show that wealthier countries spend a larger proportion of their GDP on health care. In his classic 1977 and 1981 studies, health economist Joseph Newhouse found that 90 percent of the variation in health care spending among developed countries is based on income alone.
Most international statistics on health care spending are produced by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. However, OECD statistics are not always useful because different countries use different methods to report costs. No effective international guidelines exist, and some countries include services that others do not. For instance, the OECD definition of health care expenditures includes nursing home care. But while Germany includes nursing home care as part of total health expenditures, Britain does not. Some countries count hospital beds simply by
counting metal frames with mattresses, whether or not they are in use. In others, a “bed” is counted only if it is staffed and operational.
........
As the figure shows, the countries of the OECD have been no more successful than the United States in controlling costs and many have been far less successful. During the 1990s, health care spending in all but 3 of 15 OECD countries studied grew at about the same rate as in the United States—or higher. The notable exception to the spending trend among OECD countries is Canada. The Canadian federal government limited spending increases by cutting funding. It reduced block grants to provinces for health care as a percentage of GDP in 1986 and again in 1989; funding to the provinces was frozen at 1989-90 levels through 1995, and further cuts were made in the second half of the 1990s.
Must look after the stockholders and if more Americans cannot afford insurance premiums and higher deductibles.. there is always cost shifting and more cost shifting. Sirthinksalot won't mind.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
This is like a boy calling himself a girl. It isn’t a vaccine. It is a treatment.
They are not the same.
If you would like me to explain to you what a vaccine is, I will.
You can find 500 sites that all probably copied and pasted the same information. It still doesn’t make it correct.
I may be a jerk but you are stupid.
No, there's an easier solution. If you cannot afford the premiums, cannot afford to pay the bill, and one of you bleeding hearts that only cares with words and not deeds won't personally pay the bill, go without. That way there is no cost shifting because there's nothing to shift.
Why should any healthcare provider be forced to provide care when someone can't pay? People can't go to the grocery store, fill up their cart, and walk out without paying because they don't have the money to pay. They'd be arrested. Why don't we arrest those that go into a medical facility, get treatment, then walk out without paying?
Don't ask me to answer questions if you refuse, cunt. Interesting how you ignore a viable option when it involves YOU having to personally do what you claim should be done.