Healthcare Around the World...Which Model is Best?

[Unchecked Expansion]

The problem is that not getting healthcare can easily effect multiple people.
Say you get sick, but don't want to spend the money to get yourself treated, so you just take it easy for a while. Turns out, your disease is infectious, and you end up spreading it around. It might be something you get over, but your elderly neighbour and her grandkids might not be as tough.

You don't go to the doctor every time you get sick, do you? I thought the standard practice was to wait a week and then go, since that way you know if it's serious or not.

No. But last time I was sick with serious symptoms for more than a week, I did, and I made sure to finish the course of antibiotics I'd been given, and went to the doctors again as soon as I had a weird reaction.
Of course it turns out the doctor had misdiagnosed me and the weird reaction was a result of him giving me a contraindicated antibiotic in the first place. He was a private doctor as well - I'd got sick on holiday. Which goes to show, you don't always get the best quality care with private, when he made a mistake an NHS student doctor caught in seconds.

[Sovereign Spirits]

I'm just glad that the opinions of people in other nations don't directly affect the policies and laws of things in my nation, to include type and amount of said policies and laws. Relax, people. Unfortunately for you, we're quite self-centered so it's not making much of a difference. Fortunately for the ideologies of many participants in this discussion, your input isn't necessary for what you want to be introduced and touted. Everything you say here has been said and repeated numerous times by numerous persons and groups.

You see, a people are varied and different, internally and externally. Even within a nation, the differences are many, large, or both. But Governments, no, they are the same no matter where you go. They all push for the same things in the same way. They behave the same. They think the same. They want the same. Governments of nations on opposing sides of a war have more in common with each other than they do the people of their respective nations.

So, fear not. So long as your proposals involve Government interference in some way, you can be sure that it's being attempted as we speak and every day otherwise.

[Nyraubia]

I think the United States should adopt an entirely private healthcare system and abolish medicare and medicaid. And of course abolish the price floors that have been put on medicine and medical treatment that way everyone can afford it. It was that much cheaper and more easily accessible before the democrats passed those pesky price floors.

[Individual Impersonators]

Look at the Wikepedia list of life expectancies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Looking at the top 10 countries which I believe have a reasonable case
1 - Japan: Mostly thin, seafood diet, very low crime, like in large but unpoluted cities, tend to follow doctors directions. Whilst the longest, prehaps they are not challenged the most.
2 - Hong Kong: I just do not believe anything from China. Recently world figures regarding China suggest the econemy is weaker then they are saying, The UN has found them to lie about fish stocks in the ocean and in general the government lies about next to anything to sound good. High levels of pollution in the air and richer people. If true it may be the best but this is a bit like trusting tales from soviet Russia as far as I am concerned. Plus its only a city populaton
3 - Switzerland: Low crime by Western standards, fairly good diet but worse that Japan. Live in smaller cities and least densly populated country so far. Combined with hills the logistics of providing medicine may be a greater challenge. May have the best system.
4 - Israel: Only 0.2 years less than Hong Kong and has conscription for all its citizens which I would assume has an impact on life expectency. Not as hard to reach places as number 3 (assuming no road closuers, bombs ets) Very comparable to Switzerland.
5 - Iceland: Has to manage with ice. I am unsure of other challenges. Very good life expectency.
6 - Australia: The most sparsley populated country with a flying doctor service to cover some remote places. Considering the logistical challenges it faces, it fares very well. And I hear the price is lower per citizen even when considering required tax than the heavy majority of other Western countries. Due to the distance challenge and an emergency call response time impacting the change of life, it has an argument to make for being the best.
7 - Singapore: Like Japan but a bit poorer I believe. Plus no nucleur radiation at parts but I do not believe that has a very large influence. Japan is probably better
8 - Spain: For a poor EU country, well done.
9 - Sweden: Comparable to Switzerland in terms of wealth and wether. I believe therefor that Switzerland is better
10 - Macua: China again and similar arguments to Hong Kong

Trying to compare countries is hard but I believe this list has an example of a wide variety of countries. They all appear to have a somewhat socialised healthcare system.

[Shrillland]

I would have to say France, though the Canadian and Scandinavian models also are among the better models. The Dutch model, which in some ways is now the American model, doesn't work here in the US because many people still can't afford it even with everything that's going to be added. And in any case it'll be struck down by the Court soon enough.

[Running Dog Capitalists]

The American model is the best as it is the most innovative for medical technology and pharmaceuticals. It also has the best healthcare outcomes, which is how a system SHOULD be measured. The fact it isn't a choice on the little poll shows how biased people are against US healthcare. Perhaps too much Obama koolaid?

Oh well. Why does US healthcare cost so much then? Other than government regulation and interference I would say because it is worth it.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled socialist stroke-fest.

[Aethelstania]

Run cooperatively. Money comes from central government and a comitee of doctors, nurses, porters and managers decide how the money should be best invested the people on the ground no best. It would be expensive but it would mean that the people who knew about hospitals would be able to run them; as opposed to a private company seeking profit or a natoinalised health service run by politicians

[Disserbia]

France. Simply for the fact that I can walk into a Pharmacy and get 1g paracetamol pills for 2 Euros in less than 10 seconds.

[Socialdemokraterne]

I'm just glad that the opinions of people in other nations don't directly affect the policies and laws of things in my nation, to include type and amount of said policies and laws.

Cultural diffusion is going to be a major factor in the next generation, especially once you take into account the impact of globalization and the internet. You're thanking God for only experiencing a small tingle on the back of your neck. Wait until you see the flash and hear the thunderclap. Polling data indicated that opposition to something like the PPACA was a lot trendier in the older folks.

Relax, people. Unfortunately for you, we're quite self-centered so it's not making much of a difference.

The current conditions aren't permanent conditions. Things could change in the blink of an eye, from a historical perspective. Stranger things have happened.

Fortunately for the ideologies of many participants in this discussion, your input isn't necessary for what you want to be introduced and touted. Everything you say here has been said and repeated numerous times by numerous persons and groups.

Yeah, so I should never join those voices. I should just be content to let other people fight my battles for me.

You see, a people are varied and different, internally and externally. Even within a nation, the differences are many, large, or both. But Governments, no, they are the same no matter where you go. They all push for the same things in the same way. They behave the same. They think the same. They want the same. Governments of nations on opposing sides of a war have more in common with each other than they do the people of their respective nations.

Wait. Didn't you just say

"I'm just glad that the opinions of people in other nations don't directly affect the policies and laws of things in my nation, to include type and amount of said policies and laws"?

That would mean that governments actually behave quite differently, and that you're happy that ours hasn't adopted the policies of other, more left-leaning states. So governments are not the same, they don't act the same, they don't universally pursue the same goals (i.e. want the same), they are not the same. The Danish government is not the same as the Finnish government, which is in turn not the same as what the Soviet government was, which was in turn not the same as the government of the United States. They're all distinct. There may be parallels, but they're all distinct political units with distinct objectives, priorities, structures, and so forth.

So, fear not. So long as your proposals involve Government interference in some way, you can be sure that it's being attempted as we speak and every day otherwise.

And Heaven forbid I want to be a part of advancing something that I believe in, eh? I should just sit down and be glad that the Danes are mostly doing what I'd do.

[Angleter]

The scary thing is, it is heading towards the yankee model, full on privatisation. The UK Conservative/liberal Democrat coalition Gov. are raping the NHS. They have ConDem'd the NHS to an early grave...

No it isn't. No they're not. No they haven't.

[District 13]

Canada......... NOT!!

[Rio Cana]

In answering the OP questions, Taiwan.

They had a special on CNN a few weeks back comparing some nations healthcare. The US came in last among the developed first world nations when it comes to everyone being able to use healthcare. Yes, the US can provide top notch healthcare if you have the money. No money then its time to get to Canada, Taiwan or Europe.

On the CNN report they said chances are the US would most likely copy Switzerlands healthcare which involves private companies and people choosing.

The following is a video report on Switzerlands healthcare but from CBS.
Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VWANhILPEU

Taiwan healthcare in which everyone is covered is mostly like Medicare in the US. US should copy there healthcare system.
Recommend you watch this Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPalGlL2gGQ

[Emile Zola]

The American model is the best as it is the most innovative for medical technology and pharmaceuticals. It also has the best healthcare outcomes, which is how a system SHOULD be measured. The fact it isn't a choice on the little poll shows how biased people are against US healthcare. Perhaps too much Obama koolaid?

Oh well. Why does US healthcare cost so much then? Other than government regulation and interference I would say because it is worth it.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled socialist stroke-fest.

A country with 49 million uninsured, was ranked last in preventable deaths due to treatable conditions amongst industrialized countries, has 45000 people die each year from lack of insurance, 34th in infant mortality and paying twice the amount of other countries for health care. Has the best outcomes? That's your good? It's expensive because it's worth it? What does that even mean?

[Shrillland]

The American model is the best as it is the most innovative for medical technology and pharmaceuticals. It also has the best healthcare outcomes, which is how a system SHOULD be measured. The fact it isn't a choice on the little poll shows how biased people are against US healthcare. Perhaps too much Obama koolaid?

Oh well. Why does US healthcare cost so much then? Other than government regulation and interference I would say because it is worth it.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled socialist stroke-fest.

A country with 49 million uninsured, was ranked last in preventable deaths due to treatable conditions amongst industrialized countries, has 45000 people die each year from lack of insurance, 34th in infant mortality and paying twice the amount of other countries for health care. Has the best outcomes? That's your good? It's expensive because it's worth it? What does that even mean?

What I think s/he is saying, is that in terms of quality, it's quite true that the US is still the best with places like Mayo and Johns Hopkins and Cleveland Clinic, so in quality we are second to none. But when it comes to how many people end up receiving the benefit of this service, America is at the bottom when it comes to industrialised countries. Excepting Vermont there is no real Universal health care.

[Emile Zola]

A country with 49 million uninsured, was ranked last in preventable deaths due to treatable conditions amongst industrialized countries, has 45000 people die each year from lack of insurance, 34th in infant mortality and paying twice the amount of other countries for health care. Has the best outcomes? That's your good? It's expensive because it's worth it? What does that even mean?

What I think s/he is saying, is that in terms of quality, it's quite true that the US is still the best with places like Mayo and Johns Hopkins and Cleveland Clinic, so in quality we are second to none. But when it comes to how many people end up receiving the benefit of this service, America is at the bottom when it comes to industrialised countries. Excepting Vermont there is no real Universal health care.

A few good healthcare facilities alone isn't a good healthcare system as you do understand. I am just pointing out the bleeding obvious.

[Raeyh]

What I think s/he is saying, is that in terms of quality, it's quite true that the US is still the best with places like Mayo and Johns Hopkins and Cleveland Clinic, so in quality we are second to none. But when it comes to how many people end up receiving the benefit of this service, America is at the bottom when it comes to industrialised countries. Excepting Vermont there is no real Universal health care.

A few good healthcare facilities alone isn't a good healthcare system as you do understand. I am just pointing out the bleeding obvious.

There are plenty of free clinics and whatnot, though, even if you don't have insurance.

[Emile Zola]

A few good healthcare facilities alone isn't a good healthcare system as you do understand. I am just pointing out the bleeding obvious.

There are plenty of free clinics and whatnot, though, even if you don't have insurance.

I've got family in the US and whenever I go visit or they visit Australia we compare the different health care systems. They are always amazed at the level of care we get.

[Running Dog Capitalists]

A country with 49 million uninsured, was ranked last in preventable deaths due to treatable conditions amongst industrialized countries, has 45000 people die each year from lack of insurance, 34th in infant mortality and paying twice the amount of other countries for health care. Has the best outcomes? That's your good? It's expensive because it's worth it? What does that even mean?

49 million is the number now? What happens when you take away those who don't want insurance? What about those who don't want to take advantage of taxpayer-funded programs they already qualify for? What about when you take away illegal aliens? What about taking away those who can afford whatever care they want? Your 49 million quickly disappears.

We Americans have some of the worst lifestyles in the world for health and yet our life expectancy keeps going up and positive outcomes of medical procedures is amongst the hightest in the industrialized world.

If you are quote that UN ranking it is a load of shit. For example, one of the reasons that we supposedly have a high infant mortality is that we actually call an infant an infant as soon as it leaves the mother. In many countries they do not consider an infant an infant until it is between 24 to 48 hours old. Some even more. Most infant mortalities occur within the first 12-24 hours. The UN report does not take that into account. Also in the that report you have a rather nebulous "access to care" category that is quite biased towards socialized medicine even though anyone has instant access to medical care in the US should they require it.

I would like to know how the 45,000/year deaths from not having insurance is calculated. I am sure the statistical sodomy required to come up with that bit of fiction is quite comical.

So yes. American healthcare is the best. That is why the world's rich and well-connected come here for medical treatments. Expensive but worth it.

[Emile Zola]

A country with 49 million uninsured, was ranked last in preventable deaths due to treatable conditions amongst industrialized countries, has 45000 people die each year from lack of insurance, 34th in infant mortality and paying twice the amount of other countries for health care. Has the best outcomes? That's your good? It's expensive because it's worth it? What does that even mean?

49 million is the number now? What happens when you take away those who don't want insurance? What about those who don't want to take advantage of taxpayer-funded programs they already qualify for? What about when you take away illegal aliens? What about taking away those who can afford whatever care they want? Your 49 million quickly disappears.

We Americans have some of the worst lifestyles in the world for health and yet our life expectancy keeps going up and positive outcomes of medical procedures is amongst the hightest in the industrialized world.

If you are quote that UN ranking it is a load of shit. For example, one of the reasons that we supposedly have a high infant mortality is that we actually call an infant an infant as soon as it leaves the mother. In many countries they do not consider an infant an infant until it is between 24 to 48 hours old. Some even more. Most infant mortalities occur within the first 12-24 hours. The UN report does not take that into account. Also in the that report you have a rather nebulous "access to care" category that is quite biased towards socialized medicine even though anyone has instant access to medical care in the US should they require it.

I would like to know how the 45,000/year deaths from not having insurance is calculated. I am sure the statistical sodomy required to come up with that bit of fiction is quite comical.

So yes. American healthcare is the best. That is why the world's rich and well-connected come here for medical treatments. Expensive but worth it.

The 45000 comes from a Harvard Medical School study. Instead of the UN finding I can use the CIA Factbook ranking which is 49th for infant mortality. I had used the higher number to be kind to you. 49 million is every one who is uninsured but the costs of those who are uninsured pushes premiums in the US up by $1500 a year. In Australia before Medicare we had 17% of the population uninsured when we just had private insurance. Uninsured people are a liability which is why they are trying to mandate insurance so every has to pay. I don't agree with your Presidents approach. The Medicare levy we have is far more efficient and less of a burden. This is from a Reuters article.

France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.

If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.

Researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine tracked deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, and ranked nations on how they did.

They called such deaths an important way to gauge the performance of a country's health care system.

Instant access for some I guess but hey but you still got those rich people right? Actually there are excellent clinics in Europe. A lot of rich people now go there for treatment. But that doesn't matter. If you say you have the best health care then that is all that matters. It must be such a comfort to those average joes who one day might actually afford it. Expensive but worth it, I'm sure they will agree.

[Georgizm]

The scary thing is, it is heading towards the yankee model, full on privatisation. The UK Conservative/liberal Democrat coalition Gov. are raping the NHS. They have ConDem'd the NHS to an early grave...

No it isn't. No they're not. No they haven't.

Ohhhh yes they haaave!

[Liriena]

Well, I'll speak from my first hand experience of my motherland's (Argentina) healthcare system.

Here we have a three tier system:
-Private insurance
-"Obras sociales", which are kinda like money-pools created by the unions to provide a pseudo-insurance to workers, and there is at least one "obra social" for each profession (doctors, car manufacturers, lawyers, teachers, etc.).
-Public option, for those without insurance or "obra social".

In any of the three cases, you have some choice on where you want to get treatment at, and who do you want to treat you (but with a limit).
My "obra social" is pretty darn good. I get to go to some of the best private clinics in the area, and pay only small fees, and I haven't encountered any particularly mediocre doctors.

In general, private clinics are the ones in the best state and with the best equipment, though sometimes the doctors are downright incompetent. Meanwhile, in public hospitals, the doctors usually are the best in their field, and go out of their way to give you the best treatment, but the facilities are downright horror-movie worthy, and equipment is almost always obsolete, broken, or lacking.

Overall, if the current government actually invested money in it, our healthcare system could go back to being one of the best in Latin America. In the meantime? Meh...it looks good on paper, but not so much in practice.

My vote goes to the Japanese or the Swiss system, with a special mention of the Canadians, Frenchs and Italians.

[Grave_n_idle]

A few good healthcare facilities alone isn't a good healthcare system as you do understand. I am just pointing out the bleeding obvious.

There are plenty of free clinics and whatnot, though, even if you don't have insurance.

No, there aren't. And what there is, is heavily dependent on fortuitous geography.

No one is denying that the US has some good medical facilities, some good doctors, some good medicine. But it compares unfavourably on a number of metrics, has unequal distribution of care, and costs more for that. The system is broken, even if there are a few good spots.

[Grave_n_idle]

The American model is the best as it is the most innovative for medical technology and pharmaceuticals. It also has the best healthcare outcomes, which is how a system SHOULD be measured. The fact it isn't a choice on the little poll shows how biased people are against US healthcare.

People aren't 'biased against US healthcare' - it's a poor delivery system. It doesn't matter if the best hospital in the world is here, if no one sees the benefit. The fact that 60% of bankruptcies are caused by the cost of medical care, that many people are excluded by either their insurance or their capacity to pay, and that we pay MORE to get close - and often inferior - results here... all suggest something is institutionally wrong. The whole model is failing.

[Forster Keys]

The American model is the best as it is the most innovative for medical technology and pharmaceuticals. It also has the best healthcare outcomes, which is how a system SHOULD be measured. The fact it isn't a choice on the little poll shows how biased people are against US healthcare. Perhaps too much Obama koolaid?

Oh well. Why does US healthcare cost so much then? Other than government regulation and interference I would say because it is worth it.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled socialist stroke-fest.

I had to bump mine forward, I'm going to visit Katya on the collective farm at twelve. But entering into your Amero-centric, reasonless, world does sound fun all the same.

[Socialdemokraterne]

The American model is the best as it is the most innovative for medical technology and pharmaceuticals. It also has the best healthcare outcomes, which is how a system SHOULD be measured.

No. You can't measure the relative success of a system based on a single metric. If I presented a new synthetic process which generates a target substance with better purity, but only generates one quarter the amount of conventional syntheses and costs three times as much per synthesis, how many industries are going to pick me up? Not many outside of those that sell to analytical chemists, because they'd be losing tons of money on my economically and chemically inefficient process.

Better healthcare system outcomes are measured by more than one metric too, there's also the question of the now healthy patient's backbreaking poverty to be addressed (and no, simply vomiting "it's government interference" won't help you considering the scale of government interference in places like Norway is significantly more massive). The healthcare system is to be measured by more than the quality of the surgeon's work, just like my hypothetical chemical process, which generates better purity, needed to have other factors examined before it could be properly declared "the best". Which system is "the best" depends largely on your priorities and goals. You think that procedural outcome is all that matters, so the US system suits you best. I think there are things which are equally important (most especially individual cost and relative access), so the models present in the Nordic countries suit me better.