US Last In Health Care

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/were-last-again-u-s-health-care-ranks-poorly-n132081

[Weegle777 78]

That's racist.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

That's racist.

How so?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

So, who was last in 2012, 2011, 2009, 2008 and 2005? And do any of those have socialized medicine?

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

So, who was last in 2012, 2011, 2009, 2008 and 2005? And do any of those have socialized medicine?

It appears that this not a annual report, so we've finished last in all the reports. So 07-09 are surveys are included in 2010 and 11 and 12 are included in 14.

[Kassc22 0]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/flawed-study-ranks-united-states-as-the-worst-health-care-system/article/2549790

"The problem with the Commonwealth Fund study is that it's rigged to produce a result that favors socialized health care systems. The study determines that the U.S. system is worse because it lacks universal health insurance coverage and the report emphasizes "equity"; as one of the key factors in evaluating a health care system. But it's an ideological decision to view equity as one of the most important factors in judging a health care system, just as it is for the study to leave out a factor such medical innovation, which would work to the advantage of the U.S., or choice, which would work against the centralized NHS.

The study also doesn't mention cancer outcomes. As it turns out, the U.S. ranks well ahead of the U.K. in five-year survival rates for 22 out of 23 types of cancers, according to data from the American Cancer Society.

The study also relies on surveys of patient satisfaction, which are subjective, because they vary based on people's expectations. If people have low expectations, then a system with objectively bad health outcomes could still be viewed as satisfactory."

[TexasTiger 13,557]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/flawed-study-ranks-united-states-as-the-worst-health-care-system/article/2549790

"The problem with the Commonwealth Fund study is that it's rigged to produce a result that favors socialized health care systems. The study determines that the U.S. system is worse because it lacks universal health insurance coverage and the report emphasizes "equity"; as one of the key factors in evaluating a health care system. But it's an ideological decision to view equity as one of the most important factors in judging a health care system, just as it is for the study to leave out a factor such medical innovation, which would work to the advantage of the U.S., or choice, which would work against the centralized NHS.

The study also doesn't mention cancer outcomes. As it turns out, the U.S. ranks well ahead of the U.K. in five-year survival rates for 22 out of 23 types of cancers, according to data from the American Cancer Society.

The study also relies on surveys of patient satisfaction, which are subjective, because they vary based on people's expectations. If people have low expectations, then a system with objectively bad health outcomes could still be viewed as satisfactory."

It's biased because it asks folks if they're satisfied?

[Kassc22 0]

No. It's biased because of the way it asks for the information. It basically is a poll. That makes the way it asks for the information and the wording of the questions a factor. The sample used in the poll also becomes a factor. I went to the organizations website and looked it up. They are not very clear on their polling methods or on their data. That article just summed it up in a much better way.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

http://washingtonexa...article/2549790

"The problem with the Commonwealth Fund study is that it's rigged to produce a result that favors socialized health care systems. The study determines that the U.S. system is worse because it lacks universal health insurance coverage and the report emphasizes "equity"; as one of the key factors in evaluating a health care system. But it's an ideological decision to view equity as one of the most important factors in judging a health care system, just as it is for the study to leave out a factor such medical innovation, which would work to the advantage of the U.S., or choice, which would work against the centralized NHS.

The study also doesn't mention cancer outcomes. As it turns out, the U.S. ranks well ahead of the U.K. in five-year survival rates for 22 out of 23 types of cancers, according to data from the American Cancer Society.

The study also relies on surveys of patient satisfaction, which are subjective, because they vary based on people's expectations. If people have low expectations, then a system with objectively bad health outcomes could still be viewed as satisfactory."

Is it equity or access they are attempting to measure?

[Kassc22 0]

They seem to be attempting to measure both. This is from their complete report:

Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without

needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were

the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to

specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than

people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial

burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that

trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however,

the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while

maintaining quick access to specialty services.

Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were

much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick;

not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping

doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in

the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=

[AUFAN78 4,061]

It's NBC News. Of course it's biased. I am just shocked someone would question that premise.

[homersapien 11,812]

I don't think there's ever been much doubt that the US has an excellent system for wealthy people.

[AUFAN78 4,061]

I don't think there's ever been much doubt that the US has an excellent system for wealthy people.

I hear you Homey, but wealth can be a privilege in many facets of life, not just in medicine.

[TexasTiger 13,557]

I don't think there's ever been much doubt that the US has an excellent system for wealthy people.

I hear you Homey, but wealth can be a privilege in many facets of life, not just in medicine.

But should it be the difference between life and death in civilized society?

[AUFAN78 4,061]

I don't think there's ever been much doubt that the US has an excellent system for wealthy people.

I hear you Homey, but wealth can be a privilege in many facets of life, not just in medicine.

But should it be the difference between life and death in civilized society?

I am not aware that it is. I can't wait for you to indulge me with facts. Shoot!

[TheBlueVue 177]

I don't think there's ever been much doubt that the US has an excellent system for wealthy people.

I hear you Homey, but wealth can be a privilege in many facets of life, not just in medicine.

But should it be the difference between life and death in civilized society?

Probably not but lets face it, it has ALWAYS has been thus and my best guess is it will ALWAYS be thus. When heaven arrives on earth 100% of the people will have 100% of everything they need just given to them.

Until then, those who can pay will always be better served and, while its noble to ask should it be the difference in a civilized society, its a bit naive to think it'll ever change. Let us not forget, the practice of medicine is a business. Let the govt take the business out of it and everyone will suffer.

I dont buy the results of the this survey, 85% of the citizens in the US had health insurance they were happy with. Nobody got turned away at emergency rooms so, nobody was denied care. Was it perfect? Of course not but nothing is ever going to be perfect. The question becomes how to make it better.

In that context, I am not sold that the federal govt, in America, is better equipped than the private sector to provide health care to its citizens.The recent roll out of O-care and the scandal at the VA seems to support that belief. As it is, people are paying more in premium and higher deductibles for about what they had with a few bells and whistles added that most people will never need.

Going forward, I wont be the least bit surprised to see a 2 tier system wherein those who have the money and can afford it will always have the most access and the best care while everyone else will have to rely on the system and all the red tape and delays and mediocre care. I'll be shocked, in fact, if that doesn't happen over time.

[AUFAN78 4,061]

I don't think there's ever been much doubt that the US has an excellent system for wealthy people.

I hear you Homey, but wealth can be a privilege in many facets of life, not just in medicine.

But should it be the difference between life and death in civilized society?

Probably not but lets face it, it has ALWAYS has been thus and my best guess is it will ALWAYS be thus. When heaven arrives on earth 100% of the people will have 100% of everything they need just given to them.

Until then, those who can pay will always be better served and, while its noble to ask should it be the difference in a civilized society, its a bit naive to think it'll ever change. Let us not forget, the practice of medicine is a business. Let the govt take the business out of it and everyone will suffer.

I dont buy the results of the this survey, 85% of the citizens in the US had health insurance they were happy with. Nobody got turned away at emergency rooms so, nobody was denied care. Was it perfect? Of course not but nothing is ever going to be perfect. The question becomes how to make it better.

In that context, I am not sold that the federal govt, in America, is better equipped than the private sector to provide health care to its citizens.The recent roll out of O-care and the scandal at the VA seems to support that belief. As it is, people are paying more in premium and higher deductibles for about what they had with a few bells and whistles added that most people will never need.

Going forward, I wont be the least bit surprised to see a 2 tier system wherein those who have the money and can afford it will always have the most access and the best care while everyone else will have to rely on the system and all the red tape and delays and mediocre care. I'll be shocked, in fact, if that doesn't happen over time.

Wait just a minute. Just curious if you or Tex have ever worked in an ER? I can tell you there are a lot more lower waged persons treated than higher and no one is treated or not treated based on their income level. Just need to get that on the record. Carry on.

p.s. I overlooked your ER comment initially, so cred for that. My apologies.

[cptau 169]

I don't think there's ever been much doubt that the US has an excellent system for wealthy people.

I hear you Homey, but wealth can be a privilege in many facets of life, not just in medicine.

But should it be the difference between life and death in civilized society?

Probably not but lets face it, it has ALWAYS has been thus and my best guess is it will ALWAYS be thus. When heaven arrives on earth 100% of the people will have 100% of everything they need just given to them.

Until then, those who can pay will always be better served and, while its noble to ask should it be the difference in a civilized society, its a bit naive to think it'll ever change. Let us not forget, the practice of medicine is a business. Let the govt take the business out of it and everyone will suffer.

I dont buy the results of the this survey, 85% of the citizens in the US had health insurance they were happy with. Nobody got turned away at emergency rooms so, nobody was denied care. Was it perfect? Of course not but nothing is ever going to be perfect. The question becomes how to make it better.

In that context, I am not sold that the federal govt, in America, is better equipped than the private sector to provide health care to its citizens.The recent roll out of O-care and the scandal at the VA seems to support that belief. As it is, people are paying more in premium and higher deductibles for about what they had with a few bells and whistles added that most people will never need.

Going forward, I wont be the least bit surprised to see a 2 tier system wherein those who have the money and can afford it will always have the most access and the best care while everyone else will have to rely on the system and all the red tape and delays and mediocre care. I'll be shocked, in fact, if that doesn't happen over time.

That last paragraph describes the system in the UK. The poor and middle income people use the government NHS hospitals and doctors The rich also use the NHS but can use private insurance to go to private hospitals and doctors there if they want. They typically start out with the NHS doctor and use their private insurance to get faster access to private specialists.

Germany allows people over a certain income to opt out of the public healthcare insurance and get private insurance. So those that can afford it can do that. The German system sounds a lot like the US ACA....

[AFTiger 282]

Medicine is a service not a right. Even witch doctors were paid.

[homersapien 11,812]

I don't think there's ever been much doubt that the US has an excellent system for wealthy people.

I hear you Homey, but wealth can be a privilege in many facets of life, not just in medicine.

Of course. That goes without saying.

[homersapien 11,812]

Medicine is a service not a right. Even witch doctors were paid.

Oh, I expect in societies that used witch doctors cared for anyone who became ill, regardless of their ability to pay. It's one of the differences that (supposedly) distinguish us from non-sentient animals.

[Weegle777 78]

This is why it is imperative that programs are made available to educate or teach trades to every person no matter their income level. Which is why I am not opposed to the recent student loan bill that Obama pushed through. Get people educated and working and this won't be such a big issue.

[homersapien 11,812]

This is why it is imperative that programs are made available to educate or teach trades to every person no matter their income level. Which is why I am not opposed to the recent student loan bill that Obama pushed through. Get people educated and working and this won't be such a big issue.

True enough, but there will always be people who cannot pay directly for their healthcare.

And even people who are otherwise self-sufficient can be bankrupted by a catastrophic problem. A large part of the problem is the cost of services.

[The Flipside 0]

No one seems to want to address the root cause of any of this: costs.

And why do we have high costs? In this answer lies where the solution should start. All else is a red herring.

[AFTiger 282]

This is why it is imperative that programs are made available to educate or teach trades to every person no matter their income level. Which is why I am not opposed to the recent student loan bill that Obama pushed through. Get people educated and working and this won't be such a big issue.

True enough, but there will always be people who cannot pay directly for their healthcare.

And even people who are otherwise self-sufficient can be bankrupted by a catastrophic problem. A large part of the problem is the cost of services.

Why does that only apply to health care? Why should legal representation be allowed to drive one into bankruptcy????