Again, no one is proposing turning the entire US health care industry into the VA system. However what I said was true, based on the Time magazine article that we already discussed here that compared the two systems. The VA system may not have all the choices, but it sure is more efficient.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

A one horse farm is always going to be more efficient than a two horse farm, its the law of diminishing returns.

You're ignoring the obvious...



THE BOOBERMINT SUCKS.

PERIOD.


..............easier on the eyes of the reader............

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

I did not read the bit about military deaths, but heard it, so I haven't yet found the source, but here is some interesting reading from Philadelphia Examiner:


The World Health Organization (WHO) published a ranking in 2000 of the health care systems of 191 countries in the world. The United States ranked 37th. Our WHO ranking has been used as proof by some that we need fundamental change to health care in America-along the lines of nationalized health care. Our WHO ranking of 37th out of 191 countries causes people to rethink our existing health care system until the components of the ranking are uncovered.
The WHO ranking is more directly related to equity and less related to quality of health care. To rank based on equity assumes that it is the government's job to provide health care. The battle over nationalized health care in the United States is directly related—do we want government to tax and regulate our country’s health care so that there is equity? Europeans and Canadians have decided they do want the government to play that role. But, America is split pretty much down the middle on the same question. Many Americans do not want government to be arbiters of equity just as other Americans see it as the only way.
The Cato Institute has a paper breaking up the WHO ranking into the five factors and the weight each factor was given in the ranking:
WHO rankingsComponents Weight Columbia America Canada France England
Health Level 25% 74th 24th 12th 3rd 14th
Health Distribution 25% 44 32 18 12 2
Responsiveness 12.5% 82nd 1st 7th 16th 26th
Responsiveness Distribution 12.5% 93-94 3-38 3-38 3-38 3-38
Financial Fairness 25% 1st 54th 17th 26th 8th
By viewing the components, the weight each component is given, and comparing our system with other countries, we can see how some components might be seen as more important.

* America is ranked 1st in Responsiveness--a health care system in which waits are short for appointments, where doctors can be self-selected, where there are modern amenities, and where there is a higher satisfaction level of the health care system. However, this component is only 12.5% of the total ranking. In essence, quality is given less weight than quantity.
* Columbia ranks 1st in Financial Fairness--it is the spreading out of costs where the rich and poor pay more equal portions of their income for health care. Basically, this is the measure of the extent a country has nationalized health care and how many of its inhabitants get the same level of care. Columbia distributes the costs equally and everyone gets equally poor health care. However, this component gets a full 25% of the total ranking.

The health distribution and responsiveness distribution used in the ranking account for 37.5% of the total ranking and yet do not really tell much. According to the Cato Institute's paper by Glen Whiteman:

There is good reason to account for the quality of care received by a country's worst-off or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution factors do not do that. Instead, they measure relative differences in quality. To account for the quality of care received by the worst-off, the index could include a factor that measures health among the poor, or a health care responsiveness to the poor.

There are a few other interesting comparisons that were in the 2000 WHO report:

Life expectancy (176) in all the countries listed above: America has a 70 year life expectancy, Canada's is 72, France's is 73.1, England's is 71.7, and Columbia's is 62.9.

Out-of-pocket expenditures as percentage of total expenditures on health (192): America's is16.6%, France's is 20.4%, Canada's is 17.0%, England's is 3.1%, and Columbia's is 25.9%.

The WHO has compiled many worthy snapshots measuring various health-related data in its 2000 report and the WHO's concern for the health of the world is admirable. However, the components they chose to put together and highlight seem driven by an idea that large, all-encompassing governments are the only answer the world's health problems.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Again, look at the spreadsheet if you're interested in the data. I would agree that it's important to look at the weights that each factor was given, and I'll admit I didn't know what those weights were. But nobody including me has used the WHO ratings as the sole evidence of the need to reform our health care system. There was another, more recent study by the Commonwealth fund that compared only a handful of developed countries and that I had a thread about. As to responsiveness, it varies. The US in fact does rather poorly when it comes to responsiveness of primary care. Specialist care OTOH is fairly fast if you have good insurance and your specialist is not too busy. My wife still had to wait 3 months for her cancer surgery, so it's not necessarily lightning fast. Overall based on the WHO ratings the responsiveness is not too different in the US compared to other countries like the UK or Canada once the distribution (3-38) is taken into account. Personally if it's not an emergency situation I'd rather wait longer and pay less than the other way.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

I fear Big governemt as much ( and no more) that I fear Big Business, Big Pharma, Big Unions. Anything that big ( as in too big to fail) has undue influence in the legislative process--thats not evil--its just good business ( ask Bill Gates).
Ideally, I'd like a balance of all the "BIG" forces that didn't crush the rest of us.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags