This is when you know reform is needed:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The Economist praises the Swedish health care system over the American on issues of incentives.

Article linked here:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13899647

Also....an image worth keeping in mind for defenders of the broken system:



Now, there's something wrong with this picture. See if you can tell me what it is.....

X-posted from my own LJ.

Comments

[redheadrat.livejournal.com]

still it is not a real comparison whether one is better than the other

USSR citizens believed that their education and healthcare were unsurpassed up until late 80s.

[weswilson]

Then feel free to find any metric you desire by which to compare the first world health systems.

Here's a few:
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1

http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/89

You'll find we never really outshine everyone in our health care. We have a comparable health system, where we pay several times as much for that comparable care.

[redheadrat.livejournal.com]

The thing is that I've had it with all the metrics.

The view on healthcare should be comprehensive and should come from observation of large samples of real people over some period of time.

Back in 1987 in USSR I got my shots in school, during 1st grade Russian language class. All the students got lined up and marched to nurses' office. Everyone got the required shots (copies of med records were held in school) using multiple use steam sterilized syringes. Same way the medical care was for dental checkups (there was a dental office in school) and just regular checkups. This is how to achieve 100% immunization rate simply, cheaply and effectively. I was lucky, this region was rich, but not hospitable (like Alaska), so in order to keep the population anywhere close to being in working condition, the medical system was setup pretty well and upto the spec; in other areas it was a disaster everywhere except the reports.

[weswilson]

The view on healthcare should be comprehensive and should come from observation of large samples of real people over some period of time.

What do you think I've been presenting here? That is what a metric is... a way to measure. If you can't find a way to measure, then you can't say one system is any better or worse than another.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What's telling is that we have "comparable" care using metrics that are not equal. Things like life expectancy (which is influenced by our homicide rate, a non-health indicator) or infant mortality (for which there is no international standard being used) knock us down quite a bit, yet we're still along the top by those same metrics that work against us.

[weswilson]

I have no problems looking for that information that discard the data incongruous with finding a good method of measurement.

But if we have no way to measure, then there is no way people can say our coverage is better. It's a double-edged sword.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, the thing is, there are objective results. People overhwelmingly like the care they get here, we have some of the best cancer survival rates around, and our innovation is unparalleled. What we lack in full coverage can be fixed without converting to the type of care that gives worse results in the rest of the areas.

[weswilson]

The only overwhelmingly part is how badly Americans rate their system compared to how other countries rate theirs.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html

I don't think I ever argued that our cancer survival rates weren't high, but I did argue that while we are high in some areas, we are low in others. We have COMPARABLE care.

Do you have some source for the other metrics you present?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The Commonwealth Fund has been a single-payer proponent for ages, I highly, highly suspect their results.

I don't think I ever argued that our cancer survival rates weren't high, but I did argue that while we are high in some areas, we are low in others. We have COMPARABLE care.

And I think comparable, again, is unfair based on the the inconsistencies in measurements.

What metrics are you referring to?

[weswilson]

Jeff... do I have to relink everything? You are aware this is part of a thread, right? Please be considerate and read it.

I haven't stated we have the worst. I've stated that every study I've read has found we have comparable service. I linked three above. As for the commonwealth results, perhaps some other poll will suffice:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/8/1/149.pdf