Only ever had good experiences with the NHS, but i don't see how it can be rated no1 when that study only looked at like 11 places
It's impressive what results you can get if you just torture the data enough.
Okay, here's the details: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/inte.../mirror-mirror
Note that for *outcomes* the UK ranks 10th, and the USA 11th. The UK leads in equity (meaning the same outcomes for rich & poor) and the care process, meaning basic (though by no means trivial) stuff like seeing the same doctor regularly etc. It's 3rd for access and administrative efficiency, but some of that is suspect: for example, the NHS will "see" you in A&E by sending a nurse out to get your details etc, which means you've been "seen" within the X hour window, according to the paperwork. The UK also had no data on whether a lot of time was spent on paperwork or bill-related disputes.
Similarly, you'd expect the results for complaints about insurance admin issues to be low in the UK, because few people (maybe 10% of the population?) use private healthcare or even insurance-based government healthcare, as in Germany etc. That will artificially improve the UK's score relative to other countries.
What else... check out the sample sizes in Appendix 7. 5,000 in Sweden, but only 379 in New Zealand, or 1,116 in the USA, for older adults. You're telling me that's not going to skew things a bit?
= + =
There's a lot more to go through, but basically, you probably want to see a US doctor for a good outcome*, but a British one for long-term care.
*The USA gets the worst score for healthcare outcomes, but let's look at all the data a minute:
Colon cancer: joint 3rd.
Breast cancer: joint 1st.
Ischemic stroke: 1st by a country mile.
Myocardial infarction: 3rd.
11th place (by a long way) on 10-year decline in healthcare-amenable mortality.
11th place (by a fair way) on deaths per 100,000 that are amenable to healthcare.
11th place on infant mortality.
11th place (by miles) on working age adults with 2/5 chronic conditions.
11th place on life expectancy at 60.
Now, why might the USA be worst on the list when it comes to infant mortality, say? Well, it's generally accepted that the US has some of the best doctors & hospitals in the world, so they're going to get saddled with the worst cases. Similarly, we know the US has a big fat problem with obesity, so lots of people with chronic conditions shouldn't be a shocker, nor should the slightly lower life expectancy at 60 be one.
Finally, the report doesn't go into the why of any of this. It just reports the number of infant deaths per 1,000 live births, or whatever. Unless you look into the details, it can seem quite bad. For example:
WaPo article that points out that the US records extremely preterm births as live births, whereas many others report them as stillborn. There's also a significant wealth gap, though whether that's due to wealth or whether the wealth is merely an indicator of something else (like a healthier lifestyle etc) is not gone into.
Still not tired of winning.
Okay, I have to ask... how expensive is insurance in US?
I am from a third world country, I have insurance and I can get a specialist appointment in about two weeks and the ER wait time for non threatening diseases is about 3 hours (I had food poisoning earlier this year and waited about that). The time I had appendicitis I waited five minutes at most.
Looking at those reports it almost seems that the treatment I have access to is better than the people in some first world countries. Don't get me wrong, if I had to rely on the public system I would be fucked, big time. But at least here I have the option to pay for an insurance.
Sure the US is bottom. Or does anyone really want to pretend capitalism is able to create a universal healthcare that actually helps everyone?
No it isnt. Capitalism fails when it is about social services.
Actually it needs a basic health insurance for everyone, controlled by the state.
Living here in UK for 3 years. Had few cases of sudden allergic reactions during work:
- Straight to doctor
- Quick examination
- Given medicine
- Observation
- Given doctor excuse for entire day
Not to shabby.
This is not purely about quality. Its a waste if only the upper classes can benefit from it anyway.
Its about the system.
You can have the highest quality, but whats the point if a large amount can't afford any health care, which is only getting worse with the new changes?
Last edited by JohnBrown1917; 2017-07-14 at 11:22 PM.
"It's time to kick ass and chew bubblegum... and I'm all outta ass."
I'm a British gay Muslim Pakistani American citizen, ask me how that works! (terribly)
......their dental plan proofs that is false....
and btw the bad straight from the article)
Only in one of the five themes looked at did the NHS perform poorly compared with the other nations - health outcomes. This covers general health of the population, early deaths and cancer survival among other measures.
So........your Health care is the best....It only sucks at the general health of the population, people die sooner and less likely to survive cancer...those are kinda not important ( sarcastic btw)
That saying something like you will not pay allot of money for your insurance for you car, the gas prise is very low. And it drives fast. But the brakes do not work correctly, the steering wheel is loose. And a tendency to pull to the right.
look at this one: https://www.theguardian.com/society/...his-is-the-nhs
And btw do you rank it by cost, by speed, by how old people get. Do you factor in how much they are sick. etc...
1 of my country's ( netherlands) is nr 3...and it also has allot of problems....
And in countries with universal healthcare, its nobody.
But sure, continue to think fucking over people is okay because its a 'small minority'. Have fun with the new bill that'll increase that amount.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/11/the-n...rter-2017.html
11% without insurance? Thats hardly small.
Last edited by JohnBrown1917; 2017-07-15 at 12:29 AM.