10 Oct 13
The US comes in at 46 just above Serbia and Brazil. What alternatives have the GOP proposed?
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries
"Among advanced economies, the U.S. spends the most on health care on a relative cost basis with the worst outcome"
1 Hong Kong
2 Singapore
3 Japan
4 Israel
5 Spain
6 Italy
7 Australia
8 South Korea
9 Switzerland
10 Sweden
11 Libya
12 United Arab Emirates
13 Chile
14 United Kingdom
15 Mexico
16 Austria
17 Canada
18 Malaysia
19 France
20 Ecuador
21 Poland
22 Thailand
23 Finland
24 Czech Republic
25 Netherlands
26 Venezuela
27 Portugal
28 Cuba
29 Saudi Arabia
30 Germany
30 Greece
32 Argentina
33 Romania
34 Belgium
35 Peru
36 Slovakia
37 China
38 Denmark
38 Hungary
40 Algeria
41 Bulgaria
42 Colombia t
43 Dominican Republic
44 Turkey
46 United States
47 Serbia
48 Brazil
10 Oct 13
Originally posted by moon1969[/b]Do you think Obamacare will change this for the better?
The US comes in at 46 just above Serbia and Brazil. What alternatives have the GOP proposed?
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries
"Among advanced economies, the U.S. spends the most on health care on a relative cost basis with the worst outcome"
1 Hong Kong
2 Singapore
3 Japan
4 ...[text shortened]... 3 Dominican Republic
44 Turkey
[b]46 United States
47 Serbia
48 Brazil
10 Oct 13
Originally posted by TeinosukeYes it is Iran, but what would Iraq have been say 20 years ago? A lot of nations are not on the list. I take it they were too low to make it.
Presumably, if it moves the US system closer to the systems used by countries higher on the list...
By the way, what is No 45?
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15Methodology
Am I the only person that looks at this list and thinks it's a load of BS?
Each country was ranked on three criteria: life expectancy (weighted 60% ), relative per capita cost of health care (30% ); and absolute per capita cost of health care (10% ). Countries were scored on each criterion and the scores were weighted and summed to obtain their efficiency scores. Relative cost is health cost per capita as a percentage of GDP per capita. Absolute cost is total health expenditure, which covers preventive and curative health services, family planning, nutrition activities and emergency aid. Included were countries with populations of at least five million, GDP per capita of at least $5,000 and life expectancy of at least 70 years.
---
Part of the list can be explained through the lifestyle choices of the respective populations, but another (significant) part is probably due to laughably inefficient health care system in the US.
10 Oct 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo if you were ill you'd be way better off in Libya (#11) than Denmark (#38)?
Methodology
Each country was ranked on three criteria: life expectancy (weighted 60% ), relative per capita cost of health care (30% ); and absolute per capita cost of health care (10% ). Countries were scored on each criterion and the scores were weighted and summed to obtain their efficiency scores. Relative cost is health cost per capita as a percen ...[text shortened]... nother (significant) part is probably due to laughably inefficient health care system in the US.
Sorry, I just don't think so.
10 Oct 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadDoesn't sound like such a rosy picture to me:
But you would get better for less.
That list is bogus, placing Libya at #11 in the world for best health care system is a retarded claim.
http://www.who.int/features/2012/libya_health_system/en/
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15Now I get it:
Doesn't sound like such a rosy picture to me:
That list is bogus, placing Libya at #11 in the world for best health care system is a retarded claim.
http://www.who.int/features/2012/libya_health_system/en/
"More efficient" does not mean better. Some of those countries rated higher than the US have pretty crappy medical care for the general population. But it's *kewl* here to dump on the US.