What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World (1 Viewer)

gianmarco

Footballguy
US ranked worst in healthcare
 

The U.S. health care system has been subject to heated debate over the past decade, but one thing that has remained consistent is the level of performance, which has been ranked as the worst among industrialized nations for the fifth time, according to the 2014 Commonwealth Fund survey 2014. The U.K. ranked best with Switzerland following a close second.

The Commonwealth Fund report compares the U.S. with 10 other nations: France, Australia, Germany, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the U.K. were all judged to be superior based on various factors. These include quality of care, access to doctors and equity throughout the country. Results of the study rely on data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organization and interviews from physicians and patients.

Although the U.S. has the most expensive health care system in the world, the nation ranks lowest in terms of “efficiency, equity and outcomes,” according to the report. One of the most piercing revelations is that the high rate of expenditure for insurance is not commensurate to the satisfaction of patients or quality of service. High out-of-pocket costs and gaps in coverage “undermine efforts in the U.S. to improve care coordination,” the report summarized.

A striking take-home from the report was a need for equity throughout the nation. “Disparities in access to services signal the need to expand insurance to cover the uninsured and to ensure that all Americans have an accessible medical home,” it said. A lack of universal health care was noted as the key difference between the U.S. and the other industrial nations.

Despite these shortcomings, positives noted include the breadth of reforms spearheaded by the Affordable Care Act, including new databases for transparent information and financial assistance for low-middle-income families in gaining coverage. “Those efforts will likely help clinicians deliver more effective and efficient care,” the report concludes.
:loco:

 
Wholly unremarkable that a competitive, for profit system would be less than equitable.  Are we striving for health care or equity.  If equity we could simply deny care to all, except, I suppose, for religious healers as they would likely get some sort of dispensation from the court. 

 
This is why I maintain that TrumpCare/ObamaCare needs to be completely blown up and go with something else.  Putting a bandaid on the nub of your arm amputation ain't gonna stop the bleeding.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The level of performance of our health care is superior.  The only constant is these 'studies' heavily weight our lack of free government health care against us.   Why not do a study based on the actual quality of the care and not some preconceived notion that free markets suck?  

 
The level of performance of our health care is superior.  The only constant is these 'studies' heavily weight our lack of free government health care against us.   Why not do a study based on the actual quality of the care and not some preconceived notion that free markets suck?  
:link:

You’re on the border to Mexico and get bit by a snake or scorpion. You’re equidistant from a hospital in Mexico and one in the us. Go south and the anti venom is a few hundred dollars. Go north and it’s $10,000+.

Link to what I’m claiming

How are the studies skewed? How are the numbers unfairly influenced?

 
:link:

You’re on the border to Mexico and get bit by a snake or scorpion. You’re equidistant from a hospital in Mexico and one in the us. Go south and the anti venom is a few hundred dollars. Go north and it’s $10,000+.

Link to what I’m claiming

How are the studies skewed? How are the numbers unfairly influenced?
One in a million get bit by a snake.   Have a heart attack, and do you want a Mexican hospital or a US hospital.   I will take a US hospital any day even with it's hefty price tag.   I am talking quality of care, which is what the study claims.   Equality and affordability of care are a different animal.  

 
The level of performance of our health care is superior.  The only constant is these 'studies' heavily weight our lack of free government health care against us.   Why not do a study based on the actual quality of the care and not some preconceived notion that free markets suck?  
Uh yeah so what if our fellow countrymen are rationing insulin. 

 
The level of performance of our health care is superior.  The only constant is these 'studies' heavily weight our lack of free government health care against us.   Why not do a study based on the actual quality of the care and not some preconceived notion that free markets suck?  
If our healthcare quality is superior, why are infant mortality and life expectancy worse in the US than the other countries included in the Commonwealth report?

Free markets only works if your customer can afford your product, and the consequences of not buying it aren't life threatening.

 
As I look at these charts I wonder if we have higher rates due to the way we live/what we eat/high fructose corn syrup in everything.
That's likely a part of it, but doesn't explain things like infant mortality and medical errors, nor the obnoxiously high % GDP we spend for suboptimal care.

 
I posted this before but my neighbor is a female doctor from Brazil who is at St Joseph's in Ann Arbor MI now. When she was certified here she and took a position she was shocked at all the paperwork, billing and administrative BS here.   In Brazil she said 80% of her job was treating and working with her patients.  Here she said 80% of her job is making sure she is filling out the correct paperwork for billing and running unnecessary tests so that the hospital won`t get sued. 20% treating and working with her patients.

Main thing she said is not getting sued, said they have meetings once a month lawsuits and about expensive running tests even though they know they are not needed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I look at these charts I wonder if we have higher rates due to the way we live/what we eat/high fructose corn syrup in everything.
It's absolutely part of it.  But that's a critical part of the "the gubbment ain't gonna tell me what poisons I can/can't put in my body gosh darn it to heck" mentality.  What is allowed to be sold to us as "food" in this country is an embarrassment.

ETA:  The takeaway for me was that if you needed cancer treatment, you're in a pretty good place to save your life even if you're bankrupt in the end.  I doubt we get much comment on that link past our little conversation here though.  It's tough to get a broad overall picture of how anyone stacks up to the other, but even if you dig down into the specific areas, you'll see the US lagging behind the average in a lot of them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If our healthcare quality is superior, why are infant mortality and life expectancy worse in the US than the other countries included in the Commonwealth report?

Free markets only works if your customer can afford your product, and the consequences of not buying it aren't life threatening.
We’ve done this before.  The US measures infant mortality differently.  There isn’t a universal standard.  We also struggle with prenatal care for poor urban women due to the lack of free healthcare.

 
All those gunshot victims must be skewing the numbers.
When you dig into the Years of Life Lost sorts of statistics it's absolutely gut wrenching to see the impact guns have had in that arena.  I've linked to studies before.  Brutal.

 
I posted this before but my neighbor is a female doctor from Brazil who is at St Joseph's in Ann Arbor MI now. When she was certified here she and took a position she was shocked at all the paperwork, billing and administrative BS here.   In Brazil she said 80% of her job was treating and working with her patients.  Here she said 80% of her job is making sure she is filling out the correct paperwork for billing and running unnecessary tests so that the hospital won`t get sued. 20% treating and working with her patients.

Main thing she said is not getting sued, said they have meetings once a month lawsuits and about expensive running tests even though they know they are not needed.
I can believe that. No easy fix, though.

No health care system/legislation can or will.

 
Since 2006, the average deductible for single coverage has quadrupled. 

https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/1124000393166512128?s=21

This looks especially bad in light of things like this whistleblower case where doctors were being bribed to increase their prescriptions for an anti-seizure medication for babies. They also increased the price of it by 97,000% over the last 20 years.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/medical-devices-and-prescription-drug-policy/441428-whistleblowers-say-drugmaker

 
One in a million get bit by a snake.   Have a heart attack, and do you want a Mexican hospital or a US hospital.   I will take a US hospital any day even with it's hefty price tag.   I am talking quality of care, which is what the study claims.   Equality and affordability of care are a different animal.  
I really think you completely missed the point he was making.

 
I have some idle speculations about what potential advantages and disadvantages, in various respects, might be associated with a free-market health care system in an advanced economy.

It is necessarily just speculation, though. I don’t know of any empirical examples to consider.

For good or for ill, the health care system in the United States hasn’t been remotely based on free markets in many, many decades.

 
Not unusual, unfortunately, that someone would want to deflect (, deflect, deflect) from unwelcome facts.
:lmao: ...you guys can't help yourself.  My response was directly related to his response in the topic.   You guys have to make it personal.  I noticed no one answered my question, if you had a heart attack would you rather go to a US hospital or a Mexican hospital?  The same goes for cancer.   Which one you choose?   Come on, it is really easy.  I already know the answer. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We’ve done this before.  The US measures infant mortality differently.  There isn’t a universal standard.  We also struggle with prenatal care for poor urban women due to the lack of free healthcare.
Do we measure life expectancy differently as well? What about healthcare spending as a % of GDP?

 
I posted this before but my neighbor is a female doctor from Brazil who is at St Joseph's in Ann Arbor MI now. When she was certified here she and took a position she was shocked at all the paperwork, billing and administrative BS here.   In Brazil she said 80% of her job was treating and working with her patients.  Here she said 80% of her job is making sure she is filling out the correct paperwork for billing and running unnecessary tests so that the hospital won`t get sued. 20% treating and working with her patients.

Main thing she said is not getting sued, said they have meetings once a month lawsuits and about expensive running tests even though they know they are not needed.
Administrative costs are probably a bigger problem, as we've created scores of middle people to unnecessarily complicate the delivery of healthcare - coders, billers, utilization management, compliance officers, hospital and insurance admin, to name a few.

But defensive medicine is a big problem, too.

 
Since 2006, the average deductible for single coverage has quadrupled. 

https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/1124000393166512128?s=21

This looks especially bad in light of things like this whistleblower case where doctors were being bribed to increase their prescriptions for an anti-seizure medication for babies. They also increased the price of it by 97,000% over the last 20 years.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/medical-devices-and-prescription-drug-policy/441428-whistleblowers-say-drugmaker
How were the doctors bribed? I can't figure it out from your link.

 
How were the doctors bribed? I can't figure it out from your link.
The bribery part is difficult to prove but this is the heart of it:

The analysis, which looked at doctors who filed more than 10 Part D claims, found that Mallinckrodt and Questcor paid 288 prescribers more than $6.5 million for consulting, promotional speaking and other Acthar-related services between 2013 and 2016.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/health/mallinckrodt-whistleblower-lawsuit-acthar/index.html

 
:lmao: ...you guys can't help yourself.  My response was directly related to his response in the topic.   You guys have to make it personal.  I noticed no one answered my question, if you had a heart attack would you rather go to a US hospital or a Mexican hospital?  The same goes for cancer.   Which one you choose?   Come on, it is really easy.  I already know the answer. 
Yes, if I am dying, and I do not care about bankruptcy I for sure choose an American hospital to care for me. However, there is more to healthcare than dealing with heart attacks and cancer. And the fact that you need to go to certain extremes to find a good case does say a lot about the care we offer here in the states

 
Yep. That's the point here. The care, if you have access to it and can afford it, is generally superior here  If we collectively as leaders, voters, and consumers really wanted to MAGA we would insist on finding a way to maintain that superior quality while eliminating barriers to access and affordability.  We'd also make an equally concerted effort to focus on preventative health by taking a long hard look at nutrition and exercise (both nationally, locally, and personally).  But in general we don't and MAGA in this regard is just another empty platitude (pass the Cheetos). The political parties are incapable of doing much of anything and real change to health care in the US is unlikely. Fortunately, most individuals have the power to make better choices in what they eat and how they care for themselves on a daily basis and change here is likely the best path forward towards the improved overall health in our country.

 
Wholly unremarkable that a competitive, for profit system would be less than equitable.  Are we striving for health care or equity.  If equity we could simply deny care to all, except, I suppose, for religious healers as they would likely get some sort of dispensation from the court. 
Yes, maybe they should include other parts to the evaluation. Perhaps outcomes or even something like efficiency. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Yes, maybe they should include other parts to the evaluation. Perhaps outcomes or even something like efficiency. 
What are the outcomes fot those who do not have access. Spontaneous cures?

 
I for one am SHOCKED yet again that the link provided wasn't really discussed in any meaningful way sans Snorkelson's observation.

 
It's absolutely part of it.  But that's a critical part of the "the gubbment ain't gonna tell me what poisons I can/can't put in my body gosh darn it to heck" mentality.  What is allowed to be sold to us as "food" in this country is an embarrassment.
Want to make an immediate huge dent in health care costs?  Start with banning alcohol (again).

 
My six point plan to reduce the costs of healthcare

1) Reduce the cost of nurses, doctors and other healthcare professions by making the professions more attainable  Increased supply will decrease the demand and reduce employee costs. 

2) non-coverage for self induced health issues  (drunk driving, over eating, poor diet, alcoholism Etc.)

3) Reduce regulations such as HIPAA that add overhead to providers

4) Cap payor profits or find a way to remove payors altogether

5) Elective care such as child birth not covered, you want to have a kid, you pay for it

6) Expansion of "sin taxes" - soda, candy, donuts, mcdonalds - proceeds go to providing basic healthcare for the poor

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The level of performance of our health care is superior.  The only constant is these 'studies' heavily weight our lack of free government health care against us.   Why not do a study based on the actual quality of the care and not some preconceived notion that free markets suck?  
:goodposting:

 
My six point plan to reduce the costs of healthcare

1) Reduce the cost of nurses, doctors and other healthcare professions by making the professions more attainable  Increased supply will decrease the demand.   

2) non-coverage for self induced health issues  (drunk driving, over eating, poor diet, alcoholism Etc.)

3) Reduce regulations such as HIPAA that add overhead to providers

4) Cap payor profits or find a way to remove payors altogether

5) Elective care such as child birth not covered, you want to have a kid, you pay for it

6) Expansion of "sin taxes" - soda, candy, donuts, mcdonalds - proceeds go to providing basic healthcare for the poor
You have some of the worst ideas 

 
The level of performance of our health care is superior.  The only constant is these 'studies' heavily weight our lack of free government health care against us.   Why not do a study based on the actual quality of the care and not some preconceived notion that free markets suck?  
 :goodposting:

 
Any comment on the link i provided up thread?

 
Any comment on the link i provided up thread?
So you base the quality of care in how expensive it is for treating snake bites in the US vs. Mexico is and completely ignore my point about how superior US health care is in treating minor things like cancer and heart disease.  And all the liberals on this forum think it is some masterful point and refuse to acknowledge the much larger truth.   :lmao:

 
So you base the quality of care in how expensive it is for treating snake bites in the US vs. Mexico is and completely ignore my point about how superior US health care is in treating minor things like cancer and heart disease.  And all the liberals on this forum think it is some masterful point and refuse to acknowledge the much larger truth.   :lmao:
:confused:

either your reading comprehension sucks or you're not reading any of this at all. I made zero comments about snakes. I gave you a link for what you seemed to ask for. Are we now back on your stupid "der.... obviously when i said x i meant y.... any bozo should be able to figure that out!!!" shtick. 

It's absolutely part of it.  But that's a critical part of the "the gubbment ain't gonna tell me what poisons I can/can't put in my body gosh darn it to heck" mentality.  What is allowed to be sold to us as "food" in this country is an embarrassment.

ETA:  The takeaway for me was that if you needed cancer treatment, you're in a pretty good place to save your life even if you're bankrupt in the end.  I doubt we get much comment on that link past our little conversation here though.  It's tough to get a broad overall picture of how anyone stacks up to the other, but even if you dig down into the specific areas, you'll see the US lagging behind the average in a lot of them.
You claimed our care is superior. Full stop. You didn't specify an area or specific portion of medicine. So i chose one link out of many options comparing our overall quality of care to similar nations

And wouldn't you ####### know it. i made the same observation about cancer treatment as you did only i added the financial ramifications to my comment. Oh wait......

At this point i am hoping you're simply drunk and responding to the wrong person. 

 
:confused:

either your reading comprehension sucks or you're not reading any of this at all. I made zero comments about snakes. I gave you a link for what you seemed to ask for. Are we now back on your stupid "der.... obviously when i said x i meant y.... any bozo should be able to figure that out!!!" shtick. 

You claimed our care is superior. Full stop. You didn't specify an area or specific portion of medicine. So i chose one link out of many options comparing our overall quality of care to similar nations

And wouldn't you ####### know it. i made the same observation about cancer treatment as you did only i added the financial ramifications to my comment. Oh wait......

At this point i am hoping you're simply drunk and responding to the wrong person. 
Not drunk, just the wrong person.   The only response to my post was a link to antivemon costs which other posters jumped on.  I assumed that was the link you posted, but that was someone else. 

 
My six point plan to reduce the costs of healthcare

1) Reduce the cost of nurses, doctors and other healthcare professions by making the professions more attainable  Increased supply will decrease the demand and reduce employee costs. 

2) non-coverage for self induced health issues  (drunk driving, over eating, poor diet, alcoholism Etc.)

3) Reduce regulations such as HIPAA that add overhead to providers

4) Cap payor profits or find a way to remove payors altogether

5) Elective care such as child birth not covered, you want to have a kid, you pay for it

6) Expansion of "sin taxes" - soda, candy, donuts, mcdonalds - proceeds go to providing basic healthcare for the poor
I like 4 and 6, and to a lesser extent 1. Number 2 is pretty ridiculous, as the bulk of chronic illness is at least partially self-inflicted.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top