The usual claim that US healthcare costs more and delivers less comes from statistics by the UN World Health Organization.

The WHO health statistics are biased. The WHO itself ranks the US #1 in health care delivery that is important to patients. It issues another ranking of 37th because this quality of care costs more and is not delivered by government in a “fair” way! Critics of US health care always refer to the ranking at 37th. That is a political judgement by the WHO.

The arguments offered against the quality of US health care are based on flawed infant mortality and life expectancy comparisons.

Just two points, with more at the link:

(1) The US follows the WHO definitions exactly for counting a live birth, “even one breath”. Other countries do not count premature births or babies with severe birth defects. The increased deaths of these children raise US numbers for infant mortality and decreases average US life expenctancy accordingly.

(2) The US has far more death from auto accidents and violent crime, but higher survival for cancer and other chronic diseases. Overall mortality is not a good statistic for judging health care effectiveness or population health.

USA Healthcare is First – Infant Mortality is Low

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Cross-country_comparisons

Lovely plot of flags below the table of numbers. I could be wrong, but a most of the flags at the top look suspiciously European to me.

e.g. http://www.health-tourism.com/angioplasty-surgery/germany/

Perhaps France, like Canada makes private clinics and hospitals more or less illegal, I don’t know for sure. But in England and many other part of Europe there is a second tier.

I recently had to replace that coverage as a private individual. It is not possible at that price. It is not possible at any price as that level of coverage does not exist in the private inusrance marketplace where I live. I elected not to buy dental insurance as the coverage is at best break even. Which leaves the medical.

The primary cost drivers that can be controlled include prescription coverage and deductibles. The presence or absence of preventive care was not the largest driver of cost. Prescription coverage, even bad coverage, is expensive. Lower deductibles (which are coupled with copays) are expensive. You can’t get catastrophic coverage with low deductibles. And if you could it wouldn’t save you any money. Or put another way, in any truly low cost plan, a hospital visit will be a catastrophic due to the deductibles and copays. At which point you might as well buy the plan that covers doctor visits….

Yes, he would have access to the procedure as long as he paid for it in some way, including credit card, health care financing programs, payment plans, etc. His problem is not financial, it’s lack of people/procedure space to see him.

PS No cath labs if you’re having an active MI in England or France either. You get tPA if anything.

At the end of the day, either you are willing, as a society, to pay to provide some minimal level of healthcare to everyone, or you aren’t. No society is rich enough to give everybody absolutely world class care. But without some framework for universal coverage you don’t even have a system to fix when it does take too long for a cath.

In England, Germany, Switzerland, and probably quite a few other places in Europe, you can apply for supplemental insurance, and such insurance does increase your access to care. So you actually have a choice, assuming that you can pay for the additional cover. In the US the choice often seems to be what your employer happens to provide or nothing.

Such a plan does not seem to encourage efficient patient behavior, especially when the patient is choosing between paying for a doctor visit or the week’s meals.

A plan which makes regular preventive care visits free would be cheaper over the long run. An annual physical, biannual dental cleaning, routine vaccinations and the like should all be covered with no deductible and no hassle.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cigna+settles+class-action+suit+with+physicians+for+$400M+%2B-a0109025518

Perhaps if you greedy physicians weren’t suing them for so much money, and threatening them with sympathetic juries, they’d be able to give more people health insurance at a better rate. When can we get some protection for health insurers like the physicians want for their liability carriers?

It all depends on whose ox is being gored for you, doesn’t it WC?

And the irony of a physician engaging in the “They already make lots of money” cry is rich! You hate it when health reformers start talking about physicians’ salaries.

At least be consistent man.

Better start to learn to garden and kill squirrels in the backyard for stew, ladies, because everything’s about to get way, way, way more expensive come 2014. Buy all the crap you want for the next decade or so now.