Polling Shows That On Health Costs, ObamaCare Was A Massive Failure

About your health"care" system:

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...-compared-to-10-other-countries/#486bbd6f576f

Major Findings
Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.
A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.
The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.
The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.
"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/us-health-care-spending-is-high-results-arenot-so-good.html

Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064#t=article

Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities

One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154484/

Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072

US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...-50th-out-of-55-countries-for-efficiency.html

The U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.
The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-us-healthcare-system-20140617-column.html

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/
 
It's sad that liberals make jokes while their fellow liberals push for a single payer system that will put us in the grave.

Yes, the american people should not have universal healthcare like all of the other advanced post-industrial nations on the planet that we intend to be globally competitive with. Same with education. MAGA.
 
I did. You appear to be wrong. Which data were you using, particularly?

Again, the timeline, where it shows parts of Obamacare being repealed before ever-so-slight differences in the doubling and tripling of everyone's costs could be detected (and again, even if you were right, that was worth more than a trillion dollars and tearing the Constitution to shreds).

Nothing on the first page supports your statement.

The bar graph showing more than 80% of Americans saying they were happy with the existing health care system...doesn't show that more than 80% of Americans were happy with the existing health care system? Um...okay. I stand

Did you misread it as a measure of what Americans in general thought about the system as a whole, as opposed to what those who had healthcare coverage thought about their own coverage?

Did you miss the part about those without coverage still receiving care and also still being happy with the existing system?

"70 percent of the estimated 46 million Americans ['Americans' including mostly illegal immigrants, who are not Americans and shouldn't be receiving any insurance or care here] who don't have insurance say they do, in fact, receive health care, and that a vast majority of them are satisfied with it."

Some "crisis."
 
Did you miss the part about those without coverage still receiving care and also still being happy with the existing system?

Well, that's because you're asking their happiness with the treatment, not with the insurance plan (or lack-thereof) that pays for the treatment. If you asked people if they're satisfied with their insurance, their satisfaction, or "happiness", starts to decline.

And you know why so many were satisfied with the current system? Because nearly a third of all patients are already on some kind of government-run insurance plan.

Patient satisfaction with private insurance ranks below all forms of government insurance and Union insurance plans, according to Gallup.
 
The bar graph showing more than 80% of Americans saying they were happy with the existing health care system...doesn't show that more than 80% of Americans were happy with the existing health care system? Um...okay. I stand

1. Nearly 1/3 of all patients are already on some kind of government insurance.

2. Government insurance plans rank higher than all forms of private insurance plans, according to Gallup surveys

3. You're conflating health care with health insurance.

4. 80% is a B-, not an A, and what is the % of people in single-payer countries who are happy with the health care system, to provide context? I'm willing to bet that the US' happiness ranks below almost all single payer nations. Suspicious that you leave that context out...almost as if you want us to believe an 80% happiness rate is good, without providing the context for comparison. Almost as if you know the rate is higher in single payer countries, but you're deliberately withholding that information because you know it's exculpatory.
 
Again, the timeline, where it shows parts of Obamacare being repealed before ever-so-slight differences in the doubling and tripling of everyone's costs could be detected (and again, even if you were right, that was worth more than a trillion dollars and tearing the Constitution to shreds).

People's costs were certainly not doubled or tripled, and in all this time Conservatives have been unable to provide one clear, certifiable, verifiable example of this actually happening. It's always anecdotes you're relaying second- or third-hand, with "take my word for it" as your base of support.

Well I'm not taking your word for it. You say someone's costs doubled or tripled as a result of Obamacare, I say prove that shit.

Because one of you pig-people tried and she was caught lying. Julie Boonstra. You remember her, right? You should because she's the fat, ugly, diseased GOP sow who starred in a Koch Bros-produced ad during the 2012 election where she falsely claimed Obamacare raised her insurance costs. Turns out Obamacare lowered her insurance cost by $2,400, according to her health insurance company. But Boonstra kept lying, much like how you're lying here. When confronted with the truth that her insurance costs declined because of Obamacare, her response was literally "I choose to not believe that."

So you lie and refuse to accept the truth, even when your insurance company confirms it. So I'm curious how you Conservatives choose to not believe the bill your insurance company sends you, where you save $2,400 just as Boonstra did thanks to Obamacare?
 
You'll get those Death Panels if Democrats are successful in their attempts to turn ObamaCare into single payer.

Death panels already exist and have existed since insurance companies first appeared.

They're the executives and directors at insurance companies who deny your coverage.

They're also the red state legislatures that refused to expand Medicaid.
 
It's sad that liberals make jokes while their fellow liberals push for a single payer system that will put us in the grave.

Single payer systems seem to work fine everywhere else in the world.

You only oppose it here because you know it will prove everything you've said about it wrong, and your ego cannot handle that bruising.
 
It's sad that liberals make jokes while their fellow liberals push for a single payer system that will put us in the grave.

You're not afraid that the single payer system will fail, you're afraid it will succeed and prove everything you've said about it wrong.

And since it will prove everything you said about it wrong, that will then throw into question everything else you've ever said.

So it's bigly important that it never get put into practice...not because it won't work, but because it will and thus, invalidate your arguments and credibility.
 
You're not afraid that the single payer system will fail, you're afraid it will succeed and prove everything you've said about it wrong.

And since it will prove everything you said about it wrong, that will then throw into question everything else you've ever said.

So it's bigly important that it never get put into practice...not because it won't work, but because it will and thus, invalidate your arguments and credibility.

A good insight.

My two cents: I take rightwingers at their word.

They have spent political careers and message board careers indulging their grievances about poor people (rightwing code word for "darkies") voting to get "free stuff".

It was never about whether single payer would work. Righty is fully aware of Norway, Scandinavia, Sweden, France, et al. and they know at a conceptual level that single payer is both effective and cheaper than our system.

They know it works.

What they really are upset about is the thought, the perception that some darkie might benefit from tax dollars being paid by a white Trump supporter.
 
What they really are upset about is the thought, the perception that some darkie might benefit from tax dollars being paid by a white Trump supporter.

I think it's that, but I think the prevailing emotion for them is the notion that their credibility must be thrown into question because the program succeeded when they said it wouldn't.

We should have already had this conversation with them about Medicare, but that never happened.

Conservatives were allowed to skate by with their credibility in tact after saying Medicare would fail, would be unpopular, and wouldn't work.
 
Back
Top