UK's healthcare top of league table out of 11 western countries. US = last

[Adam]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uks-healthcare-ranked-the-best-out-of-11-western-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html

dontcha wish your healthcare was free* like ours?
dontcha wish your healthcare was the best like ours?

dontcha
 

*already had this argument so don't even bother, Lit/semi/whoever

[Jack]

The table is illogical. Every line of criteria should have rankings of 1-11 and they don't. It also stands to reason, by adding the individual rankings of each line for an individual overall column ranking total, the country with the lowest column ranking totals would be the best overall rankings at the top, and the columns with the highest totals with the worst rankings. The US overall ranking is better than Canada, France, and Norway, with France ranking at the bottom. People who don't know how to analyze and graph their data shouldn't make charts.

[Parts]

One of the things I wonder about in a lot of these studies is the money do they go by what the hospital/doctor bill or by what they get from the insurance companies as there is a very big difference and it's billed out knowing the insurance company will knock the price down, I have seen as much as fifty percent knocked off comparing my bills to my insurance statements. 

[Jack]

One of the things I wonder about in a lot of these studies is the money do they go by what the hospital/doctor bill or by what they get from the insurance companies as there is a very big difference and it's billed out knowing the insurance company will knock the price down, I have seen as much as fifty percent knocked off comparing my bills to my insurance statements. 

It would stand to reason, the dollar figures of expense per capita would be health insurance premiums plus out of pocket expense for people in the US, and tax dollars plus out of pocket for countries with nationalized care. Though you're right, who knows exactly what figures are being used for those totals, or for any of the criteria in the chart.

[El]

The table is illogical. Every line of criteria should have rankings of 1-11 and they don't. It also stands to reason, by adding the individual rankings of each line for an individual overall column ranking total, the country with the lowest column ranking totals would be the best overall rankings at the top, and the columns with the highest totals with the worst rankings. The US overall ranking is better than Canada, France, and Norway, with France ranking at the bottom. People who don't know how to analyze and graph their data shouldn't make charts.

like this?

(What am I not seeing?)

[Jack]

(What am I not seeing?)

Are you seeing every row of criteria has a ranking of 1-11, because I don't. Also try adding up the rankings for a total, or dividing the total by the eleven criteria for an average. It's illogical.

[Parts]

One of the things I wonder about in a lot of these studies is the money do they go by what the hospital/doctor bill or by what they get from the insurance companies as there is a very big difference and it's billed out knowing the insurance company will knock the price down, I have seen as much as fifty percent knocked off comparing my bills to my insurance statements. 

It would stand to reason, the dollar figures of expense per capita would be health insurance premiums plus out of pocket expense for people in the US, and tax dollars plus out of pocket for countries with nationalized care. Though you're right, who knows exactly what figures are being used for those totals, or for any of the criteria in the chart.

Also as you mentioned who knows if it's an apples to apples comparison.  My insurance while not as good as it used to be before insurance companies panicked with the passage of obamacare  once we reach $3000 out of pocket  the insurance company pays 100% and that's for the family plan.  We have almost no wait for doctors,the list of the ones covered is fairly good,  the premiums are expensive but not that bad for a family of 5.   Maybe we are atypical

[Jack]

One of the things I wonder about in a lot of these studies is the money do they go by what the hospital/doctor bill or by what they get from the insurance companies as there is a very big difference and it's billed out knowing the insurance company will knock the price down, I have seen as much as fifty percent knocked off comparing my bills to my insurance statements. 

It would stand to reason, the dollar figures of expense per capita would be health insurance premiums plus out of pocket expense for people in the US, and tax dollars plus out of pocket for countries with nationalized care. Though you're right, who knows exactly what figures are being used for those totals, or for any of the criteria in the chart.

Also as you mentioned who knows if it's an apples to apples comparison.  My insurance while not as good as it used to be before insurance companies panicked with the passage of obamacare  once we reach $3000 out of pocket  the insurance company pays 100% and that's for the family plan.  We have almost no wait for doctors,the list of the ones covered is fairly good,  the premiums are expensive but not that bad for a family of 5.   Maybe we are atypical

Yes, not sure how the US ranked lower than the UK for timeliness of care; have heard horrible things about waits in countries with nationalized care. Speaking of atypical, everyone can breathe an embarrassed sigh that Cuba often ranks better than the US in health care studies.  Doncha wish you live in Cuba?

[Jack]

(What am I not seeing?)

Are you seeing every row of criteria has a ranking of 1-11, because I don't. Also try adding up the rankings for a total, or dividing the total by the eleven criteria for an average. It's illogical.

Also, the chart is categorized to give the impression that the row titled, quality care, is an average based on the four criteria listed beneath it; and the row titled, access, based on the two criteria beneath it. The ratings for those lines, if they're to be based on the rankings which compose them, make almost no sense at all.

[Semicolon]

One of the things I wonder about in a lot of these studies is the money do they go by what the hospital/doctor bill or by what they get from the insurance companies as there is a very big difference and it's billed out knowing the insurance company will knock the price down, I have seen as much as fifty percent knocked off comparing my bills to my insurance statements. 

It would stand to reason, the dollar figures of expense per capita would be health insurance premiums plus out of pocket expense for people in the US, and tax dollars plus out of pocket for countries with nationalized care. Though you're right, who knows exactly what figures are being used for those totals, or for any of the criteria in the chart.

Also as you mentioned who knows if it's an apples to apples comparison.  My insurance while not as good as it used to be before insurance companies panicked with the passage of obamacare  once we reach $3000 out of pocket  the insurance company pays 100% and that's for the family plan.  We have almost no wait for doctors,the list of the ones covered is fairly good,  the premiums are expensive but not that bad for a family of 5.   Maybe we are atypical

Yes, not sure how the US ranked lower than the UK for timeliness of care; have heard horrible things about waits in countries with nationalized care. Speaking of atypical, everyone can breathe an embarrassed sigh that Cuba often ranks better than the US in health care studies.  Doncha wish you live in Cuba?

[Jack]

The title of this graph should be, Here's some nonsensical crap someone pulled out of their butt because they really want to say the UK is the best and the US is the worst. Please don't do the math. Exhibit ES-1

["couldbecousin"]

  Several years ago, a UK guy I spoke to in a chatroom mentioned that he needed his gall bladder out
   but his expected wait was 18 weeks.  Was that a fluke, or is it usual for people in excruciating stomach
   pain to have to wait that long for surgery in the NHS?  I hope that is not the norm.   

[Parts]

  Several years ago, a UK guy I spoke to in a chatroom mentioned that he needed his gall bladder out
   but his expected wait was 18 weeks.  Was that a fluke, or is it usual for people in excruciating stomach
   pain to have to wait that long for surgery in the NHS?  I hope that is not the norm.   

My wife needed hers out and it was gone in less than a week

['andersom']

  Several years ago, a UK guy I spoke to in a chatroom mentioned that he needed his gall bladder out
   but his expected wait was 18 weeks.  Was that a fluke, or is it usual for people in excruciating stomach
   pain to have to wait that long for surgery in the NHS?  I hope that is not the norm.   

My wife needed hers out and it was gone in less than a week

Here it will depend on how urgently it needs to be gone.

[Parts]

The US system does have many flaws and problems that really need to be addressed and if they could come up with a reasonable system to nationalize heath care it would be great but one of the big things I fear it will become in an over bloated bureaucracy like the government seems to turn anything they touch into.  Also people outside the US don't really seem to understand the system in place now, nobody is denied care when they go to the emergency room, the very poor are generally on medicaid, my foster son when he was still living with us had better coverage than we did.  Where things get fucked up is when your poor but unable to qualify for assistance or opt not to have coverage.  A better system I feel would be a basic one that was nationalized then if you felt the need to have more coverage you could buy supplemental insurance.   In Canada workman's comp and disability are included in the governments offering which I would gladly welcome here,  I waive my own workman's comp because I am self employed and have heath insurance that covers my medical if I get hurt but if I had an employee on the books it I would have to pay roughly $30 for every $100 he gets paid.