Based upon what criteria...just because a study was published ranking the US 37...what does that say? It doesn't say much to me. And it certainly doesn't support the idea that socialized medicine is superior to capitalism. Canada was ranked 30....and I didn't see Cuba on their. Wa the study done by a group of french researchers? And at what cost are they number 1? 10%+ unemployment? Poor in their country who are so upset with the sytem and current conditions that they rioted for weeks and destroying private property(torching cars) is a way of life? Seems to me to be a hefty price for everyone to go to the doctor once a year and get a free flu shot. Let's face it, for most people, that's all they do.
You're right that the report, criteria and rankings are controversial but it's quite obvious that the US system is falling behind and that Universal Healthcare is cheaper and works better. ...the WHO report basically measures bang for the buck: comparing a population's health with how effectively governments spend their money on health, how well the public health system prevents illness instead of just treating it and how fairly the poor, minorities and other special populations are treated. When each country's measurements were added together, even study co-author Dr. Christopher Murray, a Harvard health economist and the health organization's chief of health policy evidence, was surprised. He had expected Scandinavian countries or Canada to be the world's best, because they're always presented as models. Instead, Norway hit No. 11, Canada 30. Britain, with its much-debated free national health service, came in 18th. The report sparked immediate controversy. "Any set of rankings that puts Finland at 31 and Italy at 2, or even France at No. 1, raises questions," said Nick Bosanquet, health policy professor at London University's Imperial College, noting that previous studies have been highly critical of Italy. Italians themselves have expressed dissatisfaction with health care, said a surprised E. Richard Brown, director of the University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Health Policy Research. It's long been clear "the U.S. is woefully lacking," Brown said. Proof, he said, is in the 40 million uninsured Americans amid a patchwork of different quality private insurance and government programs. While good at expensive, heroic care, Americans are very poor at the low-cost preventive care that keeps Europeans healthy, said Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt. Take prenatal care, vital to a healthy start in life. Reinhardt called France the world's role model, while many poor Americans never get prenatal care. Regardless of debate over rankings and what criteria to use, the World Health Organization won wide praise for establishing a way countries' improvement, or worsening, can be measured. The United States spends a stunning $3,724 per person on health each year. But measuring how long people live in good health -- not just how long they live -- the Japanese beat Americans by 4{ years, and the French lived three more healthy years. Yet Japan spends just $1,759 per person on health and France $2,125. "That's a pretty big gap," noted Murray. "For the money we're spending, we should be able to do a lot better." http://dir.salon.com/story/health/wire/2000/06/21/rankings/index.xml
Yes I disagree, because capitalism = greed + regulation is not true. Capitalism is an economic system based upon open competition in a free market. Winning and Greed are not the same thing.
The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world - it has the best emergency care system in the world. Advanced U.S. medical technology has not translated into better health statistics for its citizens; indeed, the U.S. ranks near the bottom in list after list of international comparisons. Part of the problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. Another part of the problem is that America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality among all rich nations, and poverty affects one's health much more than the limited ministrations of a formal health care system. All statistics here are for the year 1991; they have generally become worse for the U.S. since then. Health Care Expenditures (percent of GDP) (1) United States 13.4% Canada 10.0 Finland 9.1 Sweden 8.6 Germany 8.4 Netherlands 8.4 Norway 7.6 Japan 6.8 United Kingdom 6.6 Denmark 6.5 Doctors' incomes: (2) United States $132,300 Germany 91,244 Denmark 50,585 Finland 42,943 Norway 35,356 Sweden 25,768 Percent of population covered by public health care: ALL NATIONS (except below) 100% France, Austria 99 Switzerland, Spain, Belgium 98 Germany 92 Netherlands 77 United States 40 Average paid maternity leave (as of 1991; this changed with Clinton's signing of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act): Sweden 32 weeks France 28 United Kingdom 18 Norway 18 Denmark 18 Japan 14 Germany 14 Netherlands 12 United States 0 Life Expectancy (years): Men Women Japan 76.2 82.5 France 72.9 81.3 Switzerland 74.1 81.3 Netherlands 73.7 80.5 Sweden 74.2 80.4 Canada 73.4 80.3 Norway 73.1 79.7 Germany 72.6 79.2 Finland 70.7 78.8 United States 71.6 78.6 United Kingdom 72.7 78.2 Denmark 72.2 77.9 Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births): United States 10.4 United Kingdom 9.4 Germany 8.5 Denmark 8.1 Canada 7.9 Norway 7.9 Netherlands 7.8 Switzerland 6.8 Finland 5.9 Sweden 5.9 Japan 5.0 Death rate of 1-to-4 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year): United States 101.5 Japan 92.2 Norway 90.2 Denmark 85.1 France 84.9 United Kingdom 82.2 Canada 82.1 Netherlands 80.3 Germany 77.6 Switzerland 72.5 Sweden 64.7 Finland 53.3 Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year): United States 203 Switzerland 175 Canada 161 France 156 Finland 154 Norway 128 Germany 122 Denmark 120 United Kingdom 114 Sweden 109 Japan 96 Netherlands 90 Note: the murder rate for the above age group is 48.8 per 200,000. Even subtracting this entirely still puts the U.S. near the top of the list. Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people): United States 5.8 years Denmark 4.9 Finland 4.8 Canada 4.5 Germany 4.5 United Kingdom 4.4 Norway 4.3 Switzerland 4.1 Netherlands 4.0 Sweden 3.8 Japan 3.3 Percent of people with normal body mass: Men Women Germany 53% 37 Finland 51 37 United Kingdom 46 38 Canada 52 29 Switzerland 49 30 France 44 30 Denmark 44 25 United States 47 22 Sweden 44 25 Percent of people who believe their health care system needs fundamental change: United States 60% Sweden 58 United Kingdom 52 Japan 47 Netherlands 46 France 42 Canada 38 http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm
As a matter of thact there'll be no lsavings to pass along, doctors are ripped off by insurance companies, their huge and growing malpractice insurance premiums have absolutely nothing to do with malpractice payouts: From 2000 to 2004, the increase in premiums collected by the leading 15 medical malpractice insurance companies was 21 times the increase in the claims they paid, according to the study. ... According to the association's data, collected on a voluntary basis by its membership, 70 percent of malpractice cases closed in 2003 were dismissed, 24 percent were settled, 5 percent were tried and found in favor of the defendant and 0.8 percent were settled in favor of the plaintiff. http://www.ohsu.edu/oregonruralhealth/newsitem70705.htm
Both of you should go back and review the definition of capitalism. Competition brings lower prices and/or higher quality. A review of basic economics would help both you, may I suggest the cliff notes. Check on amazon, I'm sure you can find it there. I'm going to dinner now....I'm out!
But, here's the problem I see. Take an Industry where the big boys of that industry get together and establish pricing schemes to milk the public. Besides milking the public, the combined power limits the ability for an upstart company (or a less resourceful ($) company) from being able to compete in a fair market. The big boys will always be the big boys, and the others will have that much more of a struggle to compete and participate in the big boy controlled domain. Don't get me wrong, mchey, I believe in capitalism, competition, and free-markets. But, just like in government, without "checks and balances" the ability of abuse is prevalent.
Boy... you know your business... Try to answer this question: what is the single most influential factor in the failure of all the major world economies historically?
Competition only brings lower prices where collusion between competitors is not possible and there are substitutes available for goods. Markets need to be efficient for capitalism to work. Otherwise the system can be gamed. That's why we have terms like monopoly, oligopoly, cartel, barriers to market entry, etc... The real point is that the US system of regulation has been gamed by special interests and pandering politicians. Falling back on basic economic rhetoric without actually looking the facts of the matter in the face is rather weak argument at best and more realistically disingenuous.