![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
The Economist praises the Swedish health care system over the American on issues of incentives.
Article linked here:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedsta tes/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.
Article linked here:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedsta
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.
(no subject)
Date: 13/8/09 21:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/8/09 22:05 (UTC)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?
(no subject)
Date: 13/8/09 22:07 (UTC)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?
(no subject)
Date: 13/8/09 22:24 (UTC)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