Comparative Health Care Systems

[Mogura]

Which country has the best health care system which all other industrialized nations should adopt or mimic? Which country has the worst health care system which other nations should avoid? What is the best judge of the success of a given country's health care system? Average life expectancy? Infant mortality? Botched health care mortality? Some other criteria?

Note: This is not a thread to debate the health care system/universal coverage in the U.S.; there is already a thread for that--I'm sure (however, for comparative purposes you can use the U.S. model to support or refute your stance). Also, this is not a thread to bash countries. If you make critical statements, please support them with facts.

[Warrior]

I've been thinking about this a little and I've come to the conclusion that there really isn't an answer. No country should adopt another's health care system because every country has different constraints, weighting of values, and problems. Simply importing a system from one country to another is most likely not going to meet the needs of the second country.

For example, a country with a high infant mortality rate and exploding population needs a completely different system than one with a low infant mortality rate and declining population. Perhaps this example doesn't apply to industrialized countries so much, but I'm using it to point out that different coutries have different needs and desires. Without considering the individual needs and principles of each country, importing a system from the outside is likely going to not do what the citizens of that country desire.

[Mogura]

I've been thinking about this a little and I've come to the conclusion that there really isn't an answer. No country should adopt another's health care system because every country has different constraints, weighting of values, and problems. Simply importing a system from one country to another is most likely not going to meet the needs of the second country.

For example, a country with a high infant mortality rate and exploding population needs a completely different system than one with a low infant mortality rate and declining population. Perhaps this example doesn't apply to industrialized countries so much, but I'm using it to point out that different coutries have different needs and desires. Without considering the individual needs and principles of each country, importing a system from the outside is likely going to not do what the citizens of that country desire.

Granted, any sort of adoption would entail some tweaking and localization to fit their own needs. But by the same token, no one's running out to model their health care system after Somalia's, so there's gotta be some that are "better" than others, no? No system is perfect, but that does not necessarily mean that we should give up, nor not strive for perfection or excellence IMO.

So far, we've had a couple of votes for Sweden. I have heard from time-to-time that Sweden does have an excellent health care system (from a comparative perpective), but I do not know exactly why their's is "the best". Would definitely like to know why, or how their health care system excels...

[Paul Siraisi]

So far, we've had a couple of votes for Sweden. I have heard from time-to-time that Sweden does have an excellent health care system (from a comparative perpective), but I do not know exactly why their's is "the best". Would definitely like to know why, or how their health care system excels...

It probably excels in all areas because you get what you pay for (er... except in the US).

The Swedish poplulation is one of the most heavily taxed on the planet.





Paul Siraisi added to this post, 2 minutes and 56 seconds later...

On the poll: I said 'other' meaning Switzerland. I say that because it has major private sector involvement. It's the model we're headed for in the US.

[Warrior]

Granted, any sort of adoption would entail some tweaking and localization to fit their own needs. But by the same token, no one's running out to model their health care system after Somalia's, so there's gotta be some that are "better" than others, no? No system is perfect, but that does not necessarily mean that we should give up, nor not strive for perfection or excellence IMO.

So far, we've had a couple of votes for Sweden. I have heard from time-to-time that Sweden does have an excellent health care system (from a comparative perpective), but I do not know exactly why their's is "the best". Would definitely like to know why, or how their health care system excels...

Agreed, but I think the definition of perfection is so radically different between countries, that it would be a mistake to import an outside system.

It probably excels in all areas because you get what you pay for (er... except in the US).

The Swedish poplulation is one of the most heavily taxed on the planet.



This is a good example. If I were in Sweden, I would certianly not consider myself to be getting what I paid for. In my opinion, the benefits claimed for Sweden's system are not worth the tax rates being paid. I'd gladly forgo those beenfits for a lower level of taxation. The people of Sweden may be quite happy with their tradeoff, but I would certianly not be. I don't know where the consensus of the entire US would be on that spectrum, but I doubt it would be the same.

This is also a good example of how principles that, on the surface, are not related to health care can have a very big impact on health care systems.

[MaleVolentworld]

What is the best judge of the success of a given country's health care system? Average life expectancy? Infant mortality? Botched health care mortality? Some other criteria?


I don't think average life expectancy is a good indicator since there are factors not related to healthcare that influence it, such as crime, suicide, individual diet and health (if someone eats crap and never exercises, is an alcoholic, takes dangerous drugs, they are responsible for any problems), accidents (deaths in car crashes are high) and other things.

It also depends on how these statistics are measured, I read somewhere that infant mortality rates are measured differently. In one country they exclude deaths if the baby has been born less than a certain time, and all the times are different, an hour, a day, a week, a month. Since governments are in charge of healthcare worldwide, they don't want their nation to be seen as bad with high infant mortality rates, so they lengthen the time of measurement, increasing chances of survival.

What would good healthcare consist of?
-short duration to surgery (I want to have surgery on my knee urgently, not wait 5 months)
-minimal errors
-success of surgery
-access to drugs
-access to the best equipment
-knowledge and skills of healthcare staff
-any other factor that I can't think of

[CaptainA]

It's early days yet, but I see a pattern developing that mimics the findings that Micheal Moore came up with in Sicko. The 2 he raved about the most were France and Sweden. UK also came for favorable comment from Moore, though as an Ex-pat myself I am not so sure.

In truth I don't know enough about other countries health care to vote.

[Mader]

I don't know enough about any of the systems, except for my own (US) to vote. I do agree with others that we need to compare apples to apples, tho.

Also, health care cannot be compared when humans make poor choices or when conditions exist that health care cannot control/fix/assist. If food is not available, for example, then all the best medical care in the world cannot be effective. If someone chooses to drink alcohol excessively during pregnancy, then health care can only do so much for the newborn/child.

And, (sorry, not trying to beat you up on this poll) comparing urban countries to rural countries is difficult. Small countries (either geographically or population-wise) compared to large countries is difficult, as well. Some US states are as large, or larger, than some countries.

What do we consider quality health care? Access to medical care for normal needs such as broken legs, childhood immunizations, flu? Or do we consider emergency needs more important, car accidents, cancer, etc. Easy access to MRI's or easy access to a physician? How much of our quality health care really means peace of mind?