Health Insurance vs Health Care
|
|
In 2000, the World Health Organization published a report ranking the 191 member nations using five performance indicators. In the report, the United States ranked 37th. Many proponents of having our government take over our health care system have cited this report (and our bad ranking) as a strong reason for their argument.
I wondered why we ranked so low. So I began to look at how the WHO measured health care systems.
Performance Indicator 1: Responsiveness. This looked at the availability of resources; speed of response to problems. It also includes respect for persons and the quality of the care. The United States ranked first.
Performance Indicator 2: Fairness of financial contribution. "Fairness" as defined by WHO refers to the amount of money spent on health care by a household after food expenditures are removed from income. This computation greatly assists nations where health care is very poor, and not surprisingly, has a low health care cost. It also greatly hinders nations with very good health care that, again not surprisingly, costs more. Based on the computation, the United States ranks 54-55. What this indicator completely misses is the fact that nations providing higher health care services (like cutting edge cancer-fighting programs) are penalized because these services are at a higher expense. The calculation fails to compare apples to apples. If a country simple fails to provide a high cost service, their 'cost' to their citizens is lower - but their citizens can't get the service. That's hardly a good option.
Performance Indicator 3: Overall Level of Health. This ranks countries based measuring the disability-adjusted life expectancy. I couldn't find the exact US ranking, but I believe it was 24th. Life expectancy does have a relationship with the health of a nation. But it is, at best, only loosely related to the health care provided by a nation. We in the US know that fast food, high-fat foods, lack of exercise, poor diets, etc. are bad for us. But that doesn't stop us from choosing to eat at McDonald's; choosing to play the wii instead of taking a walk. Our life expectancy may rank behind 23 other nations, but it's not due to having a poor health system. It's primarily due to our choice to live the way we live.
Performance Indicator 4: Distribution of Health in the Populations. This measures the overall health care available to the highest and lowest within a population. This is about the worst measurement factor I have seen. It sounds good. But it is very flawed. What this indicator says, is that if in one country people are universally getting terrible health care, that is better than a country that gives half the population average health care, and the other half very good health care. What? Really, can it get any more socialist than that? If everybody gets the same that is better than if there's a range of health care available. For the US, we would do better in this measurement if we got rid of our high-end health care options. According to the WHO, if we reduce our health care benefits, our ranking would be better. Yeah, that makes sense.
Performance Indicator 5: Distribution of Financing. This one was harder to understand. From my reading of it, the measurement is based on the amount of money (per capita) spent by the government on the health system. Of course, countries where medicine is socialized, there is a much higher amount spent than a free market system. So obviously the US would rank much lower.
My conclusion: Countries with socialized health systems are destined to rank high using these indicators. It's built in to the WHO's ranking system. It's as if they built the study based on the preference for socialized medicine. This system of ranking countries is poor at best. The WHO created a premise full of faults and have used it in an attempt to legitimize socialized medicine.
Don't fall for the hype. The United States provides one of the best health care systems in the world.
I wondered why we ranked so low. So I began to look at how the WHO measured health care systems.
Performance Indicator 1: Responsiveness. This looked at the availability of resources; speed of response to problems. It also includes respect for persons and the quality of the care. The United States ranked first.
Performance Indicator 2: Fairness of financial contribution. "Fairness" as defined by WHO refers to the amount of money spent on health care by a household after food expenditures are removed from income. This computation greatly assists nations where health care is very poor, and not surprisingly, has a low health care cost. It also greatly hinders nations with very good health care that, again not surprisingly, costs more. Based on the computation, the United States ranks 54-55. What this indicator completely misses is the fact that nations providing higher health care services (like cutting edge cancer-fighting programs) are penalized because these services are at a higher expense. The calculation fails to compare apples to apples. If a country simple fails to provide a high cost service, their 'cost' to their citizens is lower - but their citizens can't get the service. That's hardly a good option.
Performance Indicator 3: Overall Level of Health. This ranks countries based measuring the disability-adjusted life expectancy. I couldn't find the exact US ranking, but I believe it was 24th. Life expectancy does have a relationship with the health of a nation. But it is, at best, only loosely related to the health care provided by a nation. We in the US know that fast food, high-fat foods, lack of exercise, poor diets, etc. are bad for us. But that doesn't stop us from choosing to eat at McDonald's; choosing to play the wii instead of taking a walk. Our life expectancy may rank behind 23 other nations, but it's not due to having a poor health system. It's primarily due to our choice to live the way we live.
Performance Indicator 4: Distribution of Health in the Populations. This measures the overall health care available to the highest and lowest within a population. This is about the worst measurement factor I have seen. It sounds good. But it is very flawed. What this indicator says, is that if in one country people are universally getting terrible health care, that is better than a country that gives half the population average health care, and the other half very good health care. What? Really, can it get any more socialist than that? If everybody gets the same that is better than if there's a range of health care available. For the US, we would do better in this measurement if we got rid of our high-end health care options. According to the WHO, if we reduce our health care benefits, our ranking would be better. Yeah, that makes sense.
Performance Indicator 5: Distribution of Financing. This one was harder to understand. From my reading of it, the measurement is based on the amount of money (per capita) spent by the government on the health system. Of course, countries where medicine is socialized, there is a much higher amount spent than a free market system. So obviously the US would rank much lower.
My conclusion: Countries with socialized health systems are destined to rank high using these indicators. It's built in to the WHO's ranking system. It's as if they built the study based on the preference for socialized medicine. This system of ranking countries is poor at best. The WHO created a premise full of faults and have used it in an attempt to legitimize socialized medicine.
Don't fall for the hype. The United States provides one of the best health care systems in the world.
