The definition of efficient.
Quote:
|
performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort;
|
'overall level of health system responsiveness'....
Seems to me that this is exactly what the WHO was looking for. At how efficient each health care system was at providing care in a timely fashion.
I mean, if they didn't bother to rank that, the US would surely be at the top of the list, considering they have the best actual 'care' in the world.
But no, the WHO ranks each system based on quality of care, obviously, ALONG with access to that care.
Quote:
|
satisfactory and economical to use:
|
"
a combination of patient satisfaction'....
The only thing they don't rank is cost, but based on what zuluking said there is no real difference in cost.
This is exactly what you said.
What's "proven in the real world to work for both people and government" is single-payer public health care. Of course, we don't really have that either, really--but moving in the other direction to some hybrid two-tier system seems very goofy to me, given the very bad example set by the U.S..
Where is your proof that single payer systems work better? Please provide it, since you're the one making the claim.
In fact, you're shooting yourself in the foot by claiming that the US is a good example of a two-tiered system, when it really isn't. The US is a good example of a country that has so much frickin' red tape involved in their health care system that the government has to simply pay billions to look after it all.
Mark my words: a true two-tier system will result in higher costs and less access.
Yes, mark your words. I wonder if the citizens of 7 of those top 10 countries are pissed off that they have to pay more than the US, who isn't even in the top 20 let alone 10 ten....for their health care.
Oh right, they don't. And still get good health care. Even despite having such an evil, costly and inaccessible two-tier health care system.