Quote:
Originally Posted by First Lady
http://www.corymorgan.com/?p=309
BTW: France has a universal coverage system, it's just that it allows an increased amount of private provision. They are consistently ranked number one.
|
I wonder if anyone actually bothered to read it. Probably not, because most people are still stuck in the 'we don't want US health care' ideal.
Which ironically, is exactly what the article talks about.
Why do we even give a crap what the US does? There are numerous other countries with FAR better systems that we could model ourselves after. And just in case nobody noticed, like the French, and other European countries, most of us actually see the good in some form of a public system.
The Americans don't, and probably never will. Mostly because their government sucks.
To argue that the top-ranked countries didn't actually get ranked based on efficiency? Really?
I would tend to assume that having an efficient health care system means having a system that provides timely care at a low cost. Which is what most of those top 10 systems do. I mean, if you actually bother to go look up each different country and read about their health care instead of just whining that the word 'efficient' wasn't mentioned.
No efficiency means waiting lists, it means high costs, it means unsatisfied patients. And in case you didn't notice IFF, one of the 5 ways that the WHO measured each system was based on level of satisfaction. I would think a people satisfied with their health care says more about its efficiency that anything else.
But I guess the WHO, Cato Institution and numerous other organizations that have all ranked most of those countries in the top 10 are all wrong.
So lets all continue bickering about these small stupid things, and maybe in 50 years we'll come to the conclusion that maybe, just MAYBE there are other countries in the world OUTSIDE of the US that we should be looking at to improve our own health care system.