Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, June 21, 2014

Britain's healthcare has been lauded as the best out of 11 of the world's wealthiest countries, following a far-reaching study by a US-based foundation. In a report entitled "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall," the quality, efficiency, cost and performance of the US health system was compared to Canada and nine other countries in Europe and Australasia. Conducted by The Commonwealth Fund, the report ranks the UK first overall, scoring it highly for its quality of care, efficiency and low cost at the point of service, with Switzerland coming an overall second. It says that despite being the most expensive health care system in the world, the US continually underachieves "on most dimensions of performance."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Robson

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

This is a worthy independent report to read, versus the propaganda we get from the corporate owned and advertisement supported USA media and government, that will inevitably soft pedal this. The USA healthcare industry from media that makes advertising profits, to well compensated physicians, to profitable hospitals, to big PHARMA - they all benefit from a system that costs too much and is not as effective as others that cost much less.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This NHS?

NHS inquiry: Shaming of health service as care crisis is laid bare
The shocking conditions in Britain's hospitals have been laid bare by an official report which disclosed that failings uncovered in NHS wards were so bad that inspectors felt compelled to abandon their impartial roles and step in to alleviate patient suffering.
Eleven NHS trusts were put into "special measures" after an investigation found thousands of patients died needlessly because of poor care.
The report blamed poor staffing levels and lack of oversight, and said that staff did not address the needs of patients. It concluded the hospitals investigated were "trapped in mediocrity".
www.telegraph.co.uk

Thousands die of thirst and poor care in NHS
Up to 40,000 patients die annually because hospital staff fail to diagnose a treatable kidney problem, a figure that dwarfs the death toll from superbugs like MRSA
At least 1,000 hospital patients are dying needlessly each month from dehydration and poor care by doctors and nurses, according to an NHS study.
The report comes less than a year after the NHS watchdog NICE was forced to issue guidelines on giving patients water after it found that 42,000 deaths a year could be avoided if staff ensured the sick were hydrated.
www.telegraph.co.uk

It must really suck in the US?

#1 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-18 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"... following a far-reaching study by a US-based foundation."

Anyone want to guess which way the foundation leans?

#2 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-06-18 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've heard for some time that many of the European countries with socialized medicine have great outcomes/better pricing than the USA...but not the UK...I heard that was the worst in all of Europe.

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-18 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.dailymail.co.uk

it's a little old though.

#4 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-18 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The US came last, as it has done in four other editions of "Mirror, Mirror" since 2004."

it's going to continue. Even with the full implementation of Obamacare, the USA will remain last, based on the metrics of how they measure these rankings.

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-18 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#2 | POSTED BY MSGT

Good question, I forgot my basic mis-trust of liberals for a second on this one.

Source: The Commonwealth Fund

Last in Credibility
Reuters, June 23, 2010
The liberal campaign to discredit American health care.

Typical of the Commonwealth Fund is a recent study claiming that the U.S. health care system ranks last when compared with seven industrialized countries. It's just the latest in a string of policy studies from organizations that want to see a European-style, government-run health care system brought to these shores. Democratic politicians and their allies then use those studies to bolster the case for dramatic reforms.

No, and no. Of course, it's not as if these groups actually hide their leanings. Karen Davis, who was an economics professor before becoming president of the Commonwealth Fund, served as deputy assistant secretary for health policy in the Department of Health and Human Services for all four years of the Carter administration. She advocates a Canadian-style single-payer health care system. And under her leadership, the Commonwealth Fund has published a steady stream of studies that tout the joys and efficiencies of government-run health care systems.

www.weeklystandard.com

#6 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-18 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Oh boy ..... Another MSM link to a favorable infotainment, ideological comfort food buffet stocked high with sanctimonious indignation.

It's like, who does this dweeb think he is fooling? It could be communicated by toilet paper and crayons and this faithful tool would be here eagerly pointing to it as "proof".

Good grief this is getting old

#7 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-06-18 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

#7 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

Please plonk me, it will save us both a lot of time.

#8 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-18 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Mitt Romney had the nerve to criticize Britain's NHS for making his son wait for a colonoscopy while living in the UK in 1995. He claims they put his son's life at risk ? ?

Mitt Scissorhands Roney is rich enough to have flown his son anywhere in the world and had the procedure done immediately But Romney
took FULL advantage of the poor tax payers in Britain to get a FREE medical procedure he then complained about. Romney's kid should have had private insurance in force (since it's such an irresponsible thing to be without according to the GOP),
What does Mitt spend his money on, anyway? Not protecting the life of his son, evidently ??

#9 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-18 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

#9 | POSTED BY SAMMYAZ_RI

Lots of hate going on there, but what you don't understand is that private medical care in most socialized medicine countries is illegal.

#10 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-18 08:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

I had a friend who was obviously pregnant and she was traveling to England to visit a friend. The Brits detained her at the airport and grilled her about when she was due and how long she was staying. They apparently have uninsured Americans coming into their country to have babies and other procedures for their great health care. No one would sneak into the US for that!

#11 | Posted by 4doxies at 2014-06-18 09:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#11 4doxies> No one would sneak into the US for that!

Nah, nobody would cross the southern U.S. border just so they could benefit from our health system ... and garner citizenship for the newborn. Sheesh!!

#12 | Posted by AKat at 2014-06-18 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Nah, nobody would cross the southern U.S. border just so they could benefit from our health system ... and garner citizenship for the newborn. Sheesh!!"

"Public Health care delivery is accomplished via an elaborate provisioning and delivery system instituted by the Mexican Federal Government. Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution."

en.wikipedia.org

#13 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-18 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lots of hate going on there, but what you don't understand is that private medical care in most socialized medicine countries is illegal.

#10 | Posted by paneocon

Its not illegal anywhere in the UK.They have had a 2 tier system since 1948.It is also legal in Canada to provide private medical care.My two back surgeries were done in a private surgical hospital in Calgary.

#14 | Posted by Scotty at 2014-06-19 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

#14 | POSTED BY SCOTTY

I don't know on the UK but you are incorrect on Canada

Under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Regardless of this legal issue, many do offer such services.

www.canadian-healthcare.org

#15 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-19 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

As long as highly connected USA corporations and individuals and the establishment itself are making a killing off of our privatized over priced marketing driven healthcare system, most of society will pay a big price for lesser service and politicians will reap benefits from corruption.

#16 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-19 07:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#14 | POSTED BY SCOTTY

I don't know on the UK but you are incorrect on Canada

Under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Regardless of this legal issue, many do offer such services.

www.canadian-healthcare.org

#15 | Posted by paneocon

No I didn't make it up.btw your link is pretty outdated and simplistic.

www.centrichealthsurgicalcalga
ry.ca

They do most of the wcb Alberta surgeries as well as RCMP members hurt on the job.The federal influence on Provinces is limited to transfer money and as healthcare is a provincially run program.In short all provinces cover the bare minimum but what is public and private vary by province.In Alberta if your hurt at work,your given a choice.BTW Calgary is where ted Cruz was born so Pretty sure it is in Canada.

#17 | Posted by Scotty at 2014-06-19 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

#17 | POSTED BY SCOTTY

Yes my link is the official Canadian health care website, what was I thinking.

#18 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-19 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

Yes my link is the official Canadian health care website, what was I thinking.

#18 | Posted by paneocon
No that would be this one run by the Canadian government

www.hc-sc.gc.ca

Your source is in south Pasadena but the owner of the website is from Oshawa and also runs the site lesbian matchmaking based on his domain registry here.www.statscrop.com
and google search of companies phone number www.google.ca

#19 | Posted by Scotty at 2014-06-19 09:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

The illegality of private health care in Canada

All provinces except 2 (New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island) specifically prohibit extra-billing by opted-in physicians. In other words, opted-in physicians cannot bill patients more than they or the patient would receive from the public plan, including amounts for non-insured goods or services they provided in connection with the insured services.25,26,27,28,29,30,31,
32,33 Alberta34 and British Columbia21 provide for a narrow exception to this latter prohibition, whereby an opted-in physician may charge more for non-insured goods or services provided in connection with the insured medical services if, in the view of the public plan's administrator, the physician has "reasonably determined" that materials or equipment related to a publicly insured service are necessary for the provision of that service.

If opted-in physicians in those provinces that explicitly prohibit extra-billing nonetheless choose to do so, they may be subject to a range of penalties, including fines, suspension from participation in the public plan and even disciplinary proceedings before professional regulatory bodies.35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42 For instance, in Alberta, physicians who extra-bill are subject to fines of $1000 for the first occurrence and $2000 for the second and subsequent occurrences. In addition, depending on the number of infractions, Alberta physicians are subject to a range of additional measures, ranging from written warnings and referral to the professional regulatory body to an order that the physician is deemed to have opted out of the public plan.35

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

#20 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-20 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nice try, from your chosen source

"A Canadian physician may, at any time, choose to give up his or her rights to bill the public plan and take up practice in the private sector."

#21 | Posted by Scotty at 2014-06-20 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

#21 | POSTED BY SCOTTY

Not just nice but my post proved my point.

#22 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-20 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Doctors and hospitals charge too much for a variety of legitimate and illegitimate reasons. Useless paper shuffling Health Insurance Companies skim 15-30% of every health care dollar without providing any health care. Its a system only a greedmiester lining his pocket would appreciate. The last two CEOs of United Health Care are billionaires, a feat accomplished by denying appropriate care to patients. Even under Obamacare they can still invoke "pre-existing condition" if your last policy lapses for more than 60 days. Improvements under Obamacare are real but very small. The system remains a profit driven rip-off. In the UK it costs a foreigner $200/day to be hospitalized. In the USA $2000/day and up. In the UK Citizens are free, there is no billing or collection system. The billing and collection system in the USA is a monstrous overhead requiring teams at the Doctors office and insurance companies, collection agencies and credit bureaus to make the money flow. Teams at insurance companies change the rules every year and rely on the ignorance of patients to pocket extra health care dollars and saddle patients with collections bills double what any insurance company would pay. That is the state of "for profit" health care in the USA. Patients are incidental to the business model, expendable and replaceable.

#23 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-21 09:14 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

When the WTO did their last healthcare assessment in 2000, the one where the US came in at 37th place, 65% of the criteria employed in the study was egalitarian. Was it as equally available to the poorest patient as the richest, what percentage of average income did it cost, and so on. When it came to actual quality, the US crushed most of the competition.

Using this same logic, a Geo Metro is a better car than a McLaren F1 because it is available to a greater number of people. Doesn't make much sense, does it.

There are two big, unchangeable reasons why US healthcare costs more than other places. First, US patients pay for the vast majority of medical research that is done on earth. In many cases US patients also pay for those drugs to be provided to poor people in other countries via indigent drug programs. The other big rock is surplus healthcare availability. Outside the US, getting something as simple as an MRI takes no more time that a doctor to determine you require an MRI. In other countries it may take weeks. The reason for this is that the US has lots of MRI machines, most of which are not in use 100%. In other countries, those assets are being used 100% of the time.

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-06-21 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Not just nice but my post proved my point."

You can be a private doctor in Canada, you just can't do so if your payer in the Canadian government. Up until 2005, you had no choice but to accept the public option. Here is the background story:

"www.nytimes.com"

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-06-21 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Outside the US, getting something as simple as an MRI takes no more time that a doctor to determine you require an MRI. In other countries it may take weeks. The reason for this is that the US has lots of MRI machines, most of which are not in use 100%. In other countries, those assets are being used 100% of the time.
#24 | Posted by madbomber

Other systems are more efficient. Can't argue with that.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-21 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are two big, unchangeable reasons why US healthcare costs more than other places. First, US patients pay for the vast majority of medical research that is done on earth. In many cases US patients also pay for those drugs to be provided to poor people in other countries via indigent drug programs. The other big rock is surplus healthcare availability.

You're telling half the story.

Neither of those things explain why our outcomes are poor compared to other modern countries where health care costs less.

While it's problematic that our health care costs more, it wouldn't be nearly such a problem if, in return for that investment, we got better health. But we pay more and get less.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-21 05:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

The reason for this is that the US has lots of MRI machines, most of which are not in use 100%. In other countries, those assets are being used 100% of the time.
#24 | Posted by madbomber

And the reason for that is summed up in reports like these. (Spoiler alert: They do it for the money.)

"MRIs less likely to show a problem when referring doctors have a financial interest in the imaging facility" medcitynews.com

"When physicians refer patients to facilities in which they have ownership ("self-referral"), the physicians receive payment for their professional services and share in the profits of the facilities they own." www.chrt.org

"Many studies have concluded that paying physicians for each service that they provide creates incentives for physicians to increase the volume of services, which also increases their income and society's spending for health care" www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-21 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mitt Romney is rich enough to have flown his son anywhere in the world and had the procedure done immediately But Romney took FULL advantage of the poor tax payers in Britain to get a FREE medical procedure he then complained about.
What does Mitt spend his money on, anyway? Not protecting the life of his son, evidently ??

#29 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-21 05:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

The reason for this is that the US has lots of MRI machines, most of which are not in use 100%. In other countries, those assets are being used 100% of the time.

So you are saying you cant compare the larger U.S. system with that of Europe?

Oh, only when you are trying to make a point about socialized medicine?

#30 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-21 08:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Other systems are more efficient. Can't argue with that."

Nope. You can't. 100% utilization is more efficient than

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-06-21 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you are saying you cant compare the larger U.S. system with that of Europe?

You're right, possibly without realizing it, because there is no "U.S. system."
(And people such as yourself are terrified of a "U.S. system" and oppose it every chance you get.)
What we have is a patchwork of mostly independent health intervention networks.
Ever watch little kids play soccer, and there's just a mass of bodies around the ball with no concept of positioning? That's about how our "system" operates. The kids are the middlemen, all trying to get a piece of the ball which represents the patient's bank account.

So while we can't really compare systems, since we don't have one, we can compare costs and outcomes. Those comparisons are not favorable to us. In fact they're a national disgrace.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-21 10:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

From the comments in the second Telegraph article you posted;

" Pat Meave Hopkins • 2 months ago

As a nurse who practiced in the US for over a quarter of a century I am both saddened and provoked when I read these statistics. In the US in 1999 the Institute of Medicine released a report that stated 98,000 people lost their lives to preventable causes in US hospitals yearly. What ensued was a plethora of research and patient safety initiatives to counter this tragedy. The research evidence that pointed to the correlation of safe nurse staffing and care was undeniable. Yet as a nurse who practiced at the bedside I witnessed continued short staffing of nurses, unsafe working conditions that required nurses to work excessive shift lengths, no proper breaks for food or hydration, nurses being forced to work in areas that they were not properly oriented, competent, or qualified to work in. In Sept of 2013 in The Journal of Patient Safety an article entitled "A New, Evidence-based Estimate of Patient Harms Associated with Hospital Care" by John T. James PhD wherein the estimated preventable deaths is reported in excess of 400,000 a year. That my UK friends is 1000 preventable deaths a DAY."

#33 | Posted by Rincewind at 2014-06-22 12:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

I thought I woke up on April Fools Day when I read british-dental-service-best-
dentalcare...

But then my eyes adjusted....

#34 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-22 01:31 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

You're right, possibly without realizing it, because there is no "U.S. system."

Oh, there is a system, it's called "Pay for your healthcare without making someone else do it".

It works when people are responsible for themselves.

#35 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-22 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

madbum is trying to draw a conclusion about healthcare costs and outcomes from MRI machine utilization. Get real. There are many more factors which drive costs here. The for profit Insurance Industry has a greater effect than MRI utilization. So do Doctor's salaries and the staff required to force insurance companies to pay up. Most nurses in independent clinics spend more time forcing payments than they do serving patients. Then there is the deadbeats that never pay. Like TV advertising, most Americans do not realize its all unnecessary.

#36 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-22 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Public Health care delivery is accomplished via an elaborate provisioning and delivery system instituted by the Mexican Federal Government. Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution."

#13 | Posted by danni

Is that why our SW states have ER waiting rooms full of mexicans?

#37 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-22 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, there is a system, it's called "Pay for your healthcare without making someone else do it".
It works when people are responsible for themselves.
#35 | Posted by boaz

That's not what "system" means in this context. What you've described a "funding instrument."

Beyond that, a man whose spent his life attached to the government teat lecturing about "personal responsibility" is rather pathetic.

What is it you think you're "defending," I wonder? Why bother defending the country? Every man can defend his own home, every business their own interests.

It works when people are responsible for themselves.

Maybe you need to revisit that notion and realize that's not how the world works, kid.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-22 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort