U.S. health care system ranks lowest in international survey




Secular/left wing CBS news reports based on the research done by this organization which is a promoter and financial supporter of Plannmed Parenthood as well as the International Women’s Health Coalition - which just happens to support and promote all forms of sexuality, as well as worldwide “safe and legal abortion.” So, all those women of color in their website pictures are not supposed to have babies of color. I think this is the KKK dressed in pink.

The Commonwealth Fund claims to support the “most vulnerable” while actively supporting organizations which profit from killing those same most vulnerable - the unborn!

Argument from affronted liberals to follow…


Britain is ranked among the two highest, despite the complaints we hear about delayed care, waiting in ambulances to get to an ER, etc. And how is that different from Canada, ranked among the lowest, which has essentially the same system as Britain? They also have a value added tax, which adds to the cost of everything. We don’t. So, the Brits make healthcare cheaper (or so it is said) by making everything else more expensive.

I don’t think this article tells us anything worth knowing.

The article, at least, doesn’t detail what “healthcare expenses” are, exactly. Does that include the cost of health insurance? And what, exactly, is the $3,000 or so the average Brit pays?

It needs to be noted too, that income taxes are much higher in Britain than in the U.S. Yes, the government pays for healthcare, but the people pay anyway, in one way or another.


Of course they pay, through taxes. I’m not a Brit, but a New Zealander, by the way. We’ve had a public health system since the 1930s that functions pretty well - not quite as comprehensive as Britain’s, for example, because there is a limit to what a tiny country can do or ask its citizens to pay in taxes.

But I can be 100% sure that, like us, the British willingly pay whatever taxes they have to to have their health care system. We Kiwis would rather pay MORE tax than less if we had to, because we value our public health care extremely highly and no government here would dream of trying to reduce what it offers. They wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected if they did!


… correct statistics of outcomes. The US life expectancy and perinatal death rates are worse than most other advanced countries.

Life Expectancy
US: 79.8 (35th)
UK: 81.0 (29th)
Canada: 84.5 (10th)

Source: WHO list

Perinatal deaths (per 1,000 live births)
US: 4
UK: 3
Canada: 4

Source: World Bank

The facts are against you. Better go back to pounding the table.



I have heard nothing but positive assessment from he many Canadians I know personally regarding their health care system.


These facts don’t tell us anything.

Life expectancy is always longer in an older population. If you take a group of 70-year-olds and a group of 7 year olds, the 70 year olds will always have a longer life expectancy because some of the 7 year olds will be killed by disease, accidents, wars, before they’re 70. The U.S. has a younger population than either Britain or Canada.

It may be noted as well that neither Britain nor Canada have anything remotely near the numbers of immigrants the U.S. has, from third world countries where healthcare and nutrition are not good.

Perinatal deaths are also misleading, because some countries count differently than others. In the U.S., for example, a child is considered born alive if he shows any sign of life at all. In some countries, he’s not counted as born alive unless he lives for a few days after birth.


This is why I thank God for my health.


There are differences among people, even in the Anglosphere. If Kiwis want to pay higher taxes, nothing is stopping them from it. Certainly I’m not.


Bingo. The stats are completely bogus. Until you actually compare apples to apples, it’s meaningless. If other countries counted live births like the US does, their perinatal deaths would skyrocket and our ranking would be at the top. Simpler for the govt-run healthcare system to just not count the baby as alive instead of looking for some way to help the baby live.


I don’t doubt you have, but that becomes meaningless when cost isn’t factored in. And that gets difficult, when costs are woven into a tax code.

Ruth’s Chris has better food that the Silver Diner as well, but costs 25 times more. To remove cost from the equation would presuppose that everyone would rather go to Ruth’s Chris for dinner ever single time.

It’s like arguing how much better the US military is than other nation’s - well, we spend way more then them, so why shouldn’t it be?

Any system that rates a service without factoring in the cost to each citizen isn’t really worth much.


This is nothing new. Whatever survey you look at the US almost universally fails miserably in terms of affordabilty, coverage, access, efficiency and morbidity.



Where’s your serenity? You’re a little edgy today, huh? I am not seeking to confound with numbers that may be meaningless and/or indecipherable. I firmly believe the adage that statistics are used mainly by rascals to impress fools. The numbers you tout are practically meaningless. They reflect more a declining culture than an increasingly competent medical technology. We are trying to focus on the American health care system here, not cultural factors that complicate its work.

Question: did you completely miss my point? My point is that CBS, in its crafting of this article, is advocating for essentially socialized medicine (their default), but is using many cultural factors rather than focusing on systemic failings. I find that typically deceptive.

On a moral standpoint, which may not matter to you at all, CBS supports death and perversity as much as life. The Commonwealth Fund funds death and perversity as much as it does life. The International Women’s Health Coalition and Planned Parenthood support death and perversity as much as life. You see no contradiction or hypocrisy here? The devil really is in the details.

As well, I frequent international health forums. What I hear there is anecdotal horror story after horror story about the failure of the socialized health systems that some so dearly love. But, these patients have conditions that fall outside of government averages for care. I am one such patient, and have survived a mostly fatal illness two, perhaps three times now. In America. How is that possible?

Many who support socialized medicine do not realize that it falls under the same economic theory as do all human behaviors. You don’t get something for nothing. Decrease its cost and you increase participation in it, leading ultimately to scarcity and shortages. We see this in both the English and Canadian systems.

But, your mind appears to be made up. You have challenged my thinking. Please allow yours to be challenged. Embrace diversity and keep an open mind. Isn’t that good?


If you look at the overall average tax burden (which includes indirect taxation) the US is at 29.6% and the UK is on 32.3%. Hardly a dramatic difference. VAT is zero rated on many items (including food) and so doesn’t add to the cost of everything as you said above.

And how much does the average US family pay for in healthcare premiums again?


Isn’t it strange that the countries with systems that supposedly support death all have lower abortion rates than the USA?


So give us the facts that do tell us something please.

Until then I will go with the facts that I do have.



It is back at the garage having its 20,000 Aummmm… service. :slight_smile:

I am not seeking to confound with numbers that may be meaningless and/or indecipherable.

So, what are you going to use instead of numbers? Numbers are not perfect, but they are a lot better than anything else we have for deciding these sorts of questions.

Question: did you completely miss my point? My point is that CBS, in its crafting of this article, is advocating for essentially socialized medicine (their default), but is using many cultural factors rather than focusing on systemic failings. I find that typically deceptive.

Since “socialized medicine” generally produces better outcomes then it is not surprising that a number of people support it. Pretty much every advanced nation has “socialized medicine” with coverage in the high ninety percent range, with the single exception of the US. About the only good thing about US medicine is that it provided the plot driver for ‘Breaking Bad’. That just wouldn’t work anywhere else:

“Doc, how much will it cost me to cure my cancer?”

“Nothing at all, you’re a taxpayer so you’re covered.”

“Then I don’t have to turn to crime to fund my treatment?”




This has been addressed before. I’ve posted on it. Others have posted on it. Here’s a couple of my previous posts:

Here’s a good link on why infant mortality and life expectancy are not good measures.


Concerning life expectancy, here’s a good snippet:
[indent]Yet the United States has the highest GDP per capita in the world, so why does it have a life expectancy lower than most of the industrialized world? The primary reason is that the U.S. is ethnically a far more diverse nation than most other industrialized nations. Factors associated with different ethnic backgrounds - culture, diet, etc. - can have a substantial impact on life expectancy. Comparisons of distinct ethnic populations in the U.S. with their country of origin find similar rates of life expectancy. For example, Japanese-Americans have an average life expectancy similar to that of Japanese.
The heterogeneous nature of the US makes it very difficult to do direct comparisons to other countries, especially with regard to these types of statistics. Better would be measures of health outcomes of those how have interactions with the health care system. And some studies have been done on that. For example, cancer survivability rates in the US exceed those of other countries.[/indent]


We’ve been over this. The difference of in infant mortality is explained by how countries define it.


From that paper:
[indent]In summary, infant mortality is measured far too inconsistently to make cross-national comparisons useful. Thus, just like life expectancy, infant mortality is not a reliable measure of the relative merits of health care systems.
Even the CBO acknowledges problems with this measure.

From that report;
Problems of definition and measurement, however, hamper cross-national comparisons of health statistics. Alternative measures of infant mortality may provide better information but cannot completely compensate for differences among countries in the overall rates of reporting of adverse pregnancy outcomes. For example, very premature births are more likely to be included in birth and mortality statistics in the United States than in several other industrialized countries that have lower infant mortality rates.

Variations in infant mortality rates among the states and between different racial and ethnic groups in this country are greater than the differences between the United States and many other countries. Black infant mortality rates, in particular, are exceptionally high, and the relative gap between black and white infant mortality rates has been increasing over time.[/indent]


WHAT??? Really? A single payer system would reduce homicides, automobile accidents, and suicides?

Did you even read the link I gave you? Note that studies have shown that if fatal injuries are taken out of the numbers, the US life expectancy is better than other industrialized nations.


The US is #1 in life expectancy when non-health related fatal injuries are eliminated from the statistics.

There are significant other factors besides


Excellent response. Now, if only all in this thread would read it and apply critical thinking skills to the entire question of the provision of medical services. The article referenced in the OP is so full of variables and subjectivity that it is essentially fluff. Critical, anti-American fluff, but fluff nonetheless. For this very reason I have disconnected from the MSM. Perhaps that is why I react strongly when exposed to it. :o


Where are you getting these numbers? An article that just came out yesterday is claiming that in the UK, the avg is 35-43%.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.