Talk:Health care system
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Health care system, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Canadian Healthcare
- The country with the least private involvement is Canada, where pride is widespread in their one-tier system of only government-provided healthcare.
The statement is:
- unclear, as it is not made clear what countries are being compared.
- false as, for example, many other countries have state only insurance (to varying levels of quality) and a communist state like North Korea would be also unlikely to have any private care.
Changed to
- In Canada the lack of private care is notable, and pride is widespread in their one-tier system of only government-provided healthcare.
Dainamo 11:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Private versus Public
Does anyone know of any studies that compares the quality of the healthcare between private systems and public? RJII 20:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I believe RAND did a study in the seventies on different cost levels in health care (i.e. higher deductibles, lower rates, etc.), to determine their effect on overall health. Most people on the right refer to the study, as I recall, since it seemed to indicate not much difference in health between the various levels of accessibility. No idea if it's still relevent though... health costs were a lot less back then. BillyL 14 March 2005
In the summer of 06, Journal of American Medical Assn published a study of medical care in the US vs. England. They found that the poorest third of Brits (public system) have a longer life expectancy than the richest third (mostly private system) in the U.S. By this large study, those bearing the cost of the U.S. "system" are not getting the value for their money. Also, while the U.S. is #1 in money spent for health care, #2 is Switzerland, spending money at about 48% rate of the U.S. in this category. Homebuilding 12:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I do not think this issues is as simple as some make it out to be. Access to health care and quality of health care received are two different things. Similarly, the quality of health care received and factors affecting health are also different. The authors of that study do not state that "those bearing the cost of the U.S. 'system' are not getting the value for their money":
- The fact that the English government provides health care to all its citizens while the United States does not may contribute to the disparity, the authors said. "But it is equally important to recognize that health insurance can not be the central reason for the better health outcomes in England because the top socioeconomic tier of the U.S. population have close to universal access but their health outcomes are often worse than those of their English counterparts," the authors said.[1]
- Also, comparing cost/benefit ratios in countries offering universal health care to those not offering universal health care is a bit more complicated that what you have suggested. No doubt that high administrative and marketing costs contribute to the high expenditure of health care dollars in the United States, but that is not necessarily always a drawback. The cover of this week's BusinessWeek states: "What's Really Propping Up The Economy: Since 2001, the health-care industry has added 1.7 million jobs. The rest of the private sector? None ".[2] -AED 17:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Special Circumstances
This first section is pure opinion. Although there are “special circumstance” regarding healthcare I would disagree with most of what is listed: (1) food is also regarded as a basic human right, as well as shelter, etc. (2) Monopolists! How exactly are you defining monopolists? (3) Consumers also lack the information or understanding when it comes to choosing a cell phone plan or a house painter. you are not explaining a special circumstance here.
Yes there are differences, but not as described in article as is. ($%&#&#$ -- flame deleted by author) -jcp-
[edit] History of healthcare systems
The following information was removed from the section entitled "History of healthcare systems". I am preserving it here for future reference and expansion:
-
-
- needs fleshing out
- religious-based health systems (the Catholic system)
- philanthropy in health systems
- needs fleshing out
-
AED 05:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Canadian Health care
I have removed the sentence concerning Canada as it seemed a bit POV anyhow (The word lack suggests that there should be more private health care, which is an opinion), but is out-dated.
--A Sunshade Lust 05:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Healthcare
Why to merge with Healthcare - main reason: topics covered (minor: also interwiki). wiki-vr 07:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I can see the logic but on balance I think there is enough scope in this article for it to prosper as a separate entity with a see also link from Health care (which I have added). --Vince 08:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed move to Health care system
I would like to see this page moved to Health care system, with Healthcare system redirecting to it. My reasoning is this: The term "health care" is more frequently used than "healthcare". ("Health care" receives 637,000,000 Google hits, whereas "healthcare" receives 475,000,000.) Similarly, "health care system" is used more frequently than "healthcare system". ("Health care system" receives 27,600,000 Google hits; "healthcare system" receives 11,700,000.) -AED 20:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
