The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Retirement Discussions / Retire Early CampFIRE


Subject:  Re: FOX "News" Knows Wazzup Date:  10/31/2013  1:10 PM
Author:  2828 Number:  703346 of 807435

France runs a multi-payer system that is UHC. It is rated #1 in the world in terms of providing healthcare. And it costs 40% LESS (per capita, in real terms) than what the per capita US cost is currently. Thus, it is the system that is broken in the US--otherwise, the US would be competitive in price as well.
Wow, thanks for the link, oh wait, you didn't provide one, i know why:

The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world's health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan.
Wow! You're completely right! NOT!

During the long debate over health care reform in 2009 and 2010, the advocates for the legislation made several key arguments, suggesting most of all that a health care financing system that covered a large number of the currently uninsured would be fairer — that a primary goal of health care reform was redistribution. This argument reflected the conclusions of a 2000 study by the World Health Organization, which made fairness the most important single aspect in its evaluation and comparison of health care systems around the world.
So if everyone dies of a flu outbreak it's fairer, so France wins. Stupid.

Wait there's more!
An article in the current issue of Commentary (subscription only) suggests that the WHO study, which provided the “moral” basis and primary justification for ObamaCare, is deeply flawed. The study, which ranked the United States 37th of 191 countries in overall performance, relied on incomplete data, flawed comparisons, and estimates by “experts” to fill in the many data gaps. But mostly, it evaluated health care systems not on outcome, but on inputs — who pays for it, how much do they pay, and who is covered. This would be similar to evaluating the performance of a school system on the dollars of tax money spent per student, and on the student teacher ratio, but not on educational outcomes (for the record, teacher unions oppose any such outcomes measurement).

For the WHO study, higher scores were awarded for health care systems which came closest to the goal of providing the same insurance coverage for all, paid for by governments, and with minimal individual out-of-pocket contributions (other than for higher taxes, where the rich would pay more). Where individuals paid for their coverage, the ideal was a system where the rich paid more for the same insurance coverage provided to all residents.

The WHO might well have called their analysis “a comparative analysis of the level of redist