Which country has the best Health Care System?

[Baggy Green]

Australia's is pretty good if I may say so.

[12th Doctor]

I have avoided this thread, because I personally think that there is no "better" health care system.  The best system is that which best suits the unique needs of the individual country.  In some (less diverse, populated and spread out) countries, like those in Europe, that means the system should be more socialized.  Here in the US, I prefere less socialization and more limits on greedy lawyers.

[David S]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/10271940?source=Evening%20Standard

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lovely.

This quote comes from the link Richius provided above.

" But hospitals say the £1 million (MRI) machines often lie idle due to lack of staff. "

This is a characteristic of socialist systems. Surpluses in one area and shortages in another, which render the system non-functional. Government planners can never match the efficiencies of a competitive free market system.

There is a free market concern with machines like the MRI as well. The machines are just affordable enough for most hospitals to acquire, so most do to be competitive. In order to recover their investment they need to be used a lot, but in many urban markets there are too many for the number of tests actually needed by the population. In many cases they become over used so that the hospitals get the needed return on their investamnet. This then raises the cost of health care to businesses supporting their employees and their families and to taxpayers supporting Medicare and Medicaid.

This may well be the case in the US, but as I have said before our healthcare system does not operate as a free market. In many, if not most cases, the person getting the MRI is not paying for it out of pocket. His insurance probably pays, or medicare. The patient may not question the need for the MRI, but if he has to pay a few hundred bucks out of his pocket he will be more inclined to question the need for it as well whether it can be purchased for less at other facilities. That puts cost incentives back in the picture and helps to keep costs down.

I had an MRI 10 years ago. There was no waiting period as I recall. It was only a matter of getting a mutually agreeable date, maybe two weeks. The MRI was done not at a hospital, but at a small facility that specializes in it. Everything was quick and easy. My insurance covered everything. Cost was never discussed. Therein lies the problem. In every other decision we make as consumers we consider cost.

If cost were no object I would live in a mansion on a lake, but I can't afford that so I settle for a nice house in the burbs.

I would like a state-of-the-art computer, but I know that speed comes at a premium, so I buy one thats somewhat slower and costs a lot less.

I would like two cars but I really only need one so thats all I have.

We have a cable internet hookup. The ISP offers speeds ranging from .5 to 4.0 MB/sec.  If cost was not a factor I'd get the 4.0, but cost is a factor so I settle for .5 which meets my needs and costs less. I also switched from a higher cost cable company last year.

In each case cost was a factor in my decision. In each case I chose something that met my needs at the lowest cost. Most people do the same thing at least to some degree. That's what keeps competitive pressure on sellers and keeps costs down.  The MRI and most other healthcare items don't work that way, so costs get out of control

[muon2]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/10271940?source=Evening%20Standard

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lovely.

This quote comes from the link Richius provided above.

" But hospitals say the £1 million (MRI) machines often lie idle due to lack of staff. "

This is a characteristic of socialist systems. Surpluses in one area and shortages in another, which render the system non-functional. Government planners can never match the efficiencies of a competitive free market system.

There is a free market concern with machines like the MRI as well. The machines are just affordable enough for most hospitals to acquire, so most do to be competitive. In order to recover their investment they need to be used a lot, but in many urban markets there are too many for the number of tests actually needed by the population. In many cases they become over used so that the hospitals get the needed return on their investamnet. This then raises the cost of health care to businesses supporting their employees and their families and to taxpayers supporting Medicare and Medicaid.

This may well be the case in the US, but as I have said before our healthcare system does not operate as a free market. In many, if not most cases, the person getting the MRI is not paying for it out of pocket. His insurance probably pays, or medicare. The patient may not question the need for the MRI, but if he has to pay a few hundred bucks out of his pocket he will be more inclined to question the need for it as well whether it can be purchased for less at other facilities. That puts cost incentives back in the picture and helps to keep costs down.

I had an MRI 10 years ago. There was no waiting period as I recall. It was only a matter of getting a mutually agreeable date, maybe two weeks. The MRI was done not at a hospital, but at a small facility that specializes in it. Everything was quick and easy. My insurance covered everything. Cost was never discussed. Therein lies the problem. In every other decision we make as consumers we consider cost.

If cost were no object I would live in a mansion on a lake, but I can't afford that so I settle for a nice house in the burbs.

I would like a state-of-the-art computer, but I know that speed comes at a premium, so I buy one thats somewhat slower and costs a lot less.

I would like two cars but I really only need one so thats all I have.

We have a cable internet hookup. The ISP offers speeds ranging from .5 to 4.0 MB/sec.  If cost was not a factor I'd get the 4.0, but cost is a factor so I settle for .5 which meets my needs and costs less. I also switched from a higher cost cable company last year.

In each case cost was a factor in my decision. In each case I chose something that met my needs at the lowest cost. Most people do the same thing at least to some degree. That's what keeps competitive pressure on sellers and keeps costs down.  The MRI and most other healthcare items don't work that way, so costs get out of control

I don't disagree with anything you have said here. However, I think that your well-taken points can't lead in the direction that you imply. If they could go that way, then you are correct, health-care decisions would become more market-driven.

On a personal note, we did some active health care shopping twelve years ago. It was during the seventh month of my wife's pregnancy, and we discovered that the ob-gyn team assigned by my health care plan at that time was not going to give my wife adequate care. We decided to go off-plan and out-of-pocket. We interviewed seven different providers associated with different hospitals and found an excellent provider at a fair price. That experience helps me agree with many of your statements.

Unfortunately I don't believe that health care acn return to the market. The problem is that two or more generations have been raised to expect high levels of insurance coverage. Forget about Medicare, the problem is that we have built health care into the American psyche as a benefit of work. Medicare and Medicaid merely extend this benefit to some of those not now working. This expectation will not be unlearned in my lifetime. So, I want to deal with the reality.

In the end, far too great a majority expects to get health care coverage from somewhere. As you point out the market fails wheter that coverage comes from employer-based insurance or a government program. As I talk to people I find the expectations for health care to be not unlike the expectations of security. People expect a basic level from the police, and know they can pay for extra alarm service or guards if they like.

Given the level of expectation, I find no reason to connect health care (like security) to one's place of employment. Let a minimum level be given to all (like catastrophic coverage and basic wellness service), and place the rest back to the consumer.

[David S]

Muon2
You're probably right about the expectations of free healthcare. All I can do is toss in my two cents worth and hope for the best. IMHO most likely the opposite will occur. Either Hillary Clinton or someone like her will become president and we will end up with socialized healthcare. That will probably work well initially, but in the long run it will end in disaster.

The experience with socialist programs in the US and probably elsewhere is that they keep expanding. That is the case with social security, medicare and medicaid. Even George Bush expanded medicare by adding Rx coverage. The government's accounting office shows that these programs are headed for a fiscal nightmare, but no one in government will do anything to rein them in.

[David S]

There is an interesting article on this subject at Cato's website http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf

It suggests that Americans receive more and better healthcare than other countries. They also don't wait as long. It also suggests some measures of quality other than life expectancy and infant mortality. For example American women diagnosed with breast cancer are less likely to die than their British or Canadian counterparts.

Its a long read. You can save yourself some time by scrolling down to the section titled Myth: "Higher Quality"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes... I'm sure that Cato is an unbiased source and doesn't have an agenda to run or something...

[Bono]

I'd prefer a system with at least some social equity to none though. If you can have a fair healthcare system that works properly, do it. Australia's system isn't perfect, but it is better then America's and it works AND Australia has posted budget surpluses for something like 12 of the last 15 years.

Yea, but the US can defend themselves, while you suck up un ANZUS for defense. If every country that prides in having a budget surplus, versus "dumb Bush, who can't even balance a budget", had to depend on themselves for defense, I'd like to see how many would still have a balanced budget.

BTW, don't worry about pointing out Portugal, we have a deficit even without big defense spending.

[David S]

Yes... I'm sure that Cato is an unbiased source and doesn't have an agenda to run or something...

The other side doesn't?

Yes Cato believes in free market solutions, but do you dispute their facts?