The U.S. Health Care System Is Terrible, In 1 Enraging Chart

[homersapien 12,226]

Hello, did you know the American health-care system is terrible? It is. Don't letJohn Boehner tell you otherwise.

If you're unconvinced, here is a chart that demonstrates its terribleness. It shows, using OECD data, how much money different countries spend on health care per person, charted against life expectancy in each of those countries. As you can see, there is a pretty close relationship between health-care spending and life expectancy. Except for one very, very terrible country. Can you spot it?

Yes, among this group of big countries, the U.S. spends far and away more on health care than any other. And yet it has among the lowest life expectancies of any developed country. People live longer in pretty much every country in Europe, including Greece, where the economy has been wracked by austerity for years.

"What bothers me most is not that we’re all the way on the right, or even that we are lower than we should be," Aaron Carroll, professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine wrote on his blog of the chart. "It’s that we are all alone. We are spending so, so, so much more than everyone else."

This confirms what we pretty much already knew about the terribleness of U.S. health care. The U.S. ranks 46th among 48 developed economies in health-care efficiency, according to a Bloomberg ranking, below China, Iran, Colombia and, you know, pretty much everybody else.

Why is our system so terrible? Largely because it is built for profit. Unlike many other countries, the government has no role in either providing care or setting prices, and so prices skyrocket. It's also too complex, which is one reason the Affordable Care Act, President Obama's signature reform law, has gotten off to such a bad start.

The health care law is supposed to help with the cost problem somewhat. But it is built on the existing privatized system, which means it will probably not make a significant difference. A public option, also known as a "single payer" plan, would help. But that still seems like a pipe dream -- although maybe Obamacare's clumsy rollout will bring it closer to reality.

http://www.huffingto..._n_4324967.html

[TitanTiger 21,237]

I wonder what the life expectancy numbers in the US look like if you remove the uninsured from the calculation? In other words, compare just those who are covered in all countries. Because there are two different issues at play here. Universal care obviously improves care for those who currently scrape by on emergency care. But does universal, single-player health care improve care for those who already have decent to good plans under the current system? I don't think the chart really addresses that.

[Grumps 3,706]

The American healthcare system is NOT terrible. It is ridiculously expensive, but it is not terrible.

[TexasTiger 14,273]

The American healthcare system is NOT terrible. It is ridiculously expensive, but it is not terrible.

I think it's the greedy doctors, how about you, Grumps?

[DKW 86 7,898]

Does the graph take into account Tort Law losses and Malpractice Costs in American Medicine?

If so, then there is your answer. in GB, they have an Equitable Loser Pays system that weeds out the frivolous "coffee burned my lap" lawsuits and awards.

[TexasTiger 14,273]

Does the graph take into account Tort Law losses and Malpractice Costs in American Medicine?

If so, then there is your answer. in GB, they have an Equitable Loser Pays system that weeds out the frivolous "coffee burned my lap" lawsuits and awards.

David don't need no stinking evidence-- he's got right wing ideology on his side!

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[DKW 86 7,898]

Does the graph take into account Tort Law losses and Malpractice Costs in American Medicine?

If so, then there is your answer. in GB, they have an Equitable Loser Pays system that weeds out the frivolous "coffee burned my lap" lawsuits and awards.

David don't need no stinking evidence-- he's got right wing ideology on his side!

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

You are a certified looney tunes lib. Of course it was hot, it was...coffee.

When i sat on a jury several years ago, even the plaintiff's attorney admitted that the McDonald's Coffee case was a total joke. He then explained that even he abhorred ridiculous settlements like Liebecks and that that case had made his job as an attorney that much harder in every other case he tried.

And A+ for not addressing the question...;-)

[TexasTiger 14,273]

Does the graph take into account Tort Law losses and Malpractice Costs in American Medicine?

If so, then there is your answer. in GB, they have an Equitable Loser Pays system that weeds out the frivolous "coffee burned my lap" lawsuits and awards.

David don't need no stinking evidence-- he's got right wing ideology on his side! ;)/>

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

You are a certified looney tunes lib. Of course it was hot, it was...coffee.

When i sat on a jury several years ago, even the plaintiff's attorney admitted that the McDonald's Coffee case was a total joke. He then explained that even he abhorred ridiculous settlements like Liebecks and that that case had made his job as an attorney that much harder in every other case he tried.

And A+ for not addressing the question...;-)

So you and a plaintiffs attorney are both ignorant of something for which you have strong opinions.

[ertrader 218]

Health care in the US is way too expensive - but it's not for any of the reasons in the first post (I can't believe the author can say the US "government has no role in either providing care or setting prices" with a straight face).

I will make two comments:

1) Life expectancy stats are misleading. For instance, after eliminating deaths due to injury (car accidents, murders, etc) which do not involve health care at all, the US comes first or near first in life expectancy

2) The better your health care system is, the more it costs, because people live longer. For instance, for many types of cancer, the US has the highest 5-year survival rates in the world. A cancer patient who lives 5 years uses a lot more resources (and therefore spends a lot more money on healtcare) than one who only lives two years. And I think we all agree that's a good thing.

[telling tiger 156]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-a-secretive-panel-uses-data-that-distorts-doctors-pay/2013/07/20/ee134e3a-eda8-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html

Actual cost are not the only factors involved.

[TitanTiger 21,237]

I wonder what the life expectancy numbers in the US look like if you remove the uninsured from the calculation? In other words, compare just those who are covered in all countries. Because there are two different issues at play here. Universal care obviously improves care for those who currently scrape by on emergency care. But does universal, single-player health care improve care for those who already have decent to good plans under the current system? I don't think the chart really addresses that.

Bump.

[homersapien 12,226]

I wonder what the life expectancy numbers in the US look like if you remove the uninsured from the calculation? In other words, compare just those who are covered in all countries. Because there are two different issues at play here. Universal care obviously improves care for those who currently scrape by on emergency care. But does universal, single-player health care improve care for those who already have decent to good plans under the current system? I don't think the chart really addresses that.

First, that wouldn't address the primary question, which is measure costs/outcome by country on an equivalent basis.

The countries we are being compared to include everyone. So it's invalid to disregard entire classes of people (the uninsured) in in making a comparison.

And a "decent" plan is a "decent" plan. It certainly doesn't matter who provides it. The real issue is what we pay for a decent plan.

[homersapien 12,226]

The American healthcare system is NOT terrible. It is ridiculously expensive, but it is not terrible.

I didn't care for that adjective either. It was the chart that attracted me, not the rhetoric.

[homersapien 12,226]

Does the graph take into account Tort Law losses and Malpractice Costs in American Medicine?

If so, then there is your answer. in GB, they have an Equitable Loser Pays system that weeds out the frivolous "coffee burned my lap" lawsuits and awards.

I think that's a very good question. I have read that malpractice liability costs are not as significant as people assume, but I haven't researched it.

I seriously doubt if the cost numbers include direct legal settlement costs. Of course, there is also the issue of how liability costs affect price. As you point out, other systems deal with this issue head-on.

[TexasTiger 14,273]

Does the graph take into account Tort Law losses and Malpractice Costs in American Medicine?

If so, then there is your answer. in GB, they have an Equitable Loser Pays system that weeds out the frivolous "coffee burned my lap" lawsuits and awards.

I think that's a very good question. I have read that malpractice liability costs are not as significant as people assume, but I haven't researched it.

I seriously doubt if the cost numbers include direct legal settlement costs. Of course, there is also the issue of how liability costs affect price. As you point out, other systems deal with this issue head-on.

It's a question followed by an unsupported assumption.

[homersapien 12,226]

Does the graph take into account Tort Law losses and Malpractice Costs in American Medicine?

If so, then there is your answer. in GB, they have an Equitable Loser Pays system that weeds out the frivolous "coffee burned my lap" lawsuits and awards.

I think that's a very good question. I have read that malpractice liability costs are not as significant as people assume, but I haven't researched it.

I seriously doubt if the cost numbers include direct legal settlement costs. Of course, there is also the issue of how liability costs affect price. As you point out, other systems deal with this issue head-on.

It's a question followed by an unsupported assumption.

I would say its followed by a non-sequitur. What does the McDonalds coffee suit have to do with healthcare liability?

[TexasTiger 14,273]

Does the graph take into account Tort Law losses and Malpractice Costs in American Medicine?

If so, then there is your answer. in GB, they have an Equitable Loser Pays system that weeds out the frivolous "coffee burned my lap" lawsuits and awards.

I think that's a very good question. I have read that malpractice liability costs are not as significant as people assume, but I haven't researched it.

I seriously doubt if the cost numbers include direct legal settlement costs. Of course, there is also the issue of how liability costs affect price. As you point out, other systems deal with this issue head-on.

It's a question followed by an unsupported assumption.

I would say its followed by a non-sequitur. What does the McDonalds coffee suit have to do with healthcare liability? :dunno:/>

It is followed by both.

[AUFAN78 4,156]

Health care in the US is way too expensive - but it's not for any of the reasons in the first post (I can't believe the author can say the US "government has no role in either providing care or setting prices" with a straight face).

I will make two comments:

1) Life expectancy stats are misleading. For instance, after eliminating deaths due to injury (car accidents, murders, etc) which do not involve health care at all, the US comes first or near first in life expectancy

2) The better your health care system is, the more it costs, because people live longer. For instance, for many types of cancer, the US has the highest 5-year survival rates in the world. A cancer patient who lives 5 years uses a lot more resources (and therefore spends a lot more money on healtcare) than one who only lives two years. And I think we all agree that's a good thing.

In other words, this was a poorly researched report trying to justify the worst piece of legislation in history.

[DKW 86 7,898]

Defensive medicine is a significant force driving the high cost of healthcare in the U.S. Not only are the vast

majority of physicians practicing defensive medicine, more and more younger physicians are taught to do so in

order to protect their livelihoods and reputations against the threat of lawsuits.

Plus, defensive medicine appears to be unique to U.S. physicians in the private sector.

Here are highlights from Jackson Healthcare’s ongoing research:

Ì Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine to be in the $650-$850 billion range, or between

26 and 34 percent of annual healthcare costs in the U.S.

Ì Physician compensation accounts for only about eight percent of total U.S. healthcare costs

Ì About six percent of physicians’ total compensation comes from medical orders such as prescriptions,

imaging, lab tests, admissions and surgery fees

http://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media/8968/defensivemedicine_ebook_final.pdf

Researching this, there are tons of manufactured surveys on both sides.

We will never really know the truth about all this.

BUT, IF THESE NUMBERS ARE ANYWHERE NEAR TRUE, THAT WOULD JUST ABOUT ACCOUNT FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FIRST GRAPH.

[tgr4lfe 220]

ACA/Obama supporters, how will you feel about the costs of healthcare, as/when ACA makes it even worse??

[homersapien 12,226]

Defensive medicine is a significant force driving the high cost of healthcare in the U.S. Not only are the vast

majority of physicians practicing defensive medicine, more and more younger physicians are taught to do so in

order to protect their livelihoods and reputations against the threat of lawsuits.

Plus, defensive medicine appears to be unique to U.S. physicians in the private sector.

Here are highlights from Jackson Healthcare’s ongoing research:

Ì Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine to be in the $650-$850 billion range, or between

26 and 34 percent of annual healthcare costs in the U.S.

Ì Physician compensation accounts for only about eight percent of total U.S. healthcare costs

Ì About six percent of physicians’ total compensation comes from medical orders such as prescriptions,

imaging, lab tests, admissions and surgery fees

http://www.jacksonhe...ebook_final.pdf

Researching this, there are tons of manufactured surveys on both sides.

We will never really know the truth about all this.

BUT, IF THESE NUMBERS ARE ANYWHERE NEAR TRUE, THAT WOULD JUST ABOUT ACCOUNT FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FIRST GRAPH.

And lawyers would undoubtedly argue liability laws minimize healthcare costs from malpractice.

What we need here is a dispassionate, independent analysis.

[TitanTiger 21,237]

I wonder what the life expectancy numbers in the US look like if you remove the uninsured from the calculation? In other words, compare just those who are covered in all countries. Because there are two different issues at play here. Universal care obviously improves care for those who currently scrape by on emergency care. But does universal, single-player health care improve care for those who already have decent to good plans under the current system? I don't think the chart really addresses that.

First, that wouldn't address the primary question, which is measure costs/outcome by country on an equivalent basis.

The countries we are being compared to include everyone. So it's invalid to disregard entire classes of people (the uninsured) in in making a comparison.

And a "decent" plan is a "decent" plan. It certainly doesn't matter who provides it. The real issue is what we pay for a decent plan.

It's a valid question. Because universal care may improve numbers overall because the uninsured now have coverage and get treatments sooner and preventative care. But what may also happen is that people who currently have good insurance see the quality of their care actually decrease.

Put another way, if the life expectancy of someone in the U.S. who has insurance is higher than that of someone in a country with universal coverage, would that indicate that we need to find a way to improve the quality of care in those countries?

[Grumps 3,706]

Defensive medicine is a significant force driving the high cost of healthcare in the U.S. Not only are the vast

majority of physicians practicing defensive medicine, more and more younger physicians are taught to do so in

order to protect their livelihoods and reputations against the threat of lawsuits.

Plus, defensive medicine appears to be unique to U.S. physicians in the private sector.

Here are highlights from Jackson Healthcare’s ongoing research:

Ì Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine to be in the $650-$850 billion range, or between

26 and 34 percent of annual healthcare costs in the U.S.

Ì Physician compensation accounts for only about eight percent of total U.S. healthcare costs

Ì About six percent of physicians’ total compensation comes from medical orders such as prescriptions,

imaging, lab tests, admissions and surgery fees

http://www.jacksonhe...ebook_final.pdf

Researching this, there are tons of manufactured surveys on both sides.

We will never really know the truth about all this.

BUT, IF THESE NUMBERS ARE ANYWHERE NEAR TRUE, THAT WOULD JUST ABOUT ACCOUNT FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FIRST GRAPH.

I COMPLETELY agree with the point of this post. In my opinion, the healthcare cost due to defensive medicine is FAR greater than is the healthcare cost due to actual liability--such as malpractice insurance and litigation costs and actual payments. From what I see, defensive medicine is getting more and more prevalent. Physicians are increasingly concerned with protecting themselves and making their patients happy, when they should be concerned with doing what their training and experience tells then is the best thing for the patient. In general, I'd say that a fearful physician is far more dangerous than a fearless physician.

[au75 75]

If I promise not to build nuclear weapons can I get my Obamacare sanctions reduced?

[japantiger 4,116]

If I promise not to build nuclear weapons can I get my Obamacare sanctions reduced?

Nice one.