Americans understand something that the political classes are just beginning to take seriously: America’s health care system is dysfunctional.
As a poll of 1,281 Americans conducted in February and issued in March by CBS News and The New York Times, about nine in 10 say “the system needs at least fundamental changes, including 36 percent who favor a complete overhaul.”
Much of the concern, according to the poll, is due to cost. Most people say “they are generally satisfied with the quality of their own health care, including 41 percent who say they are very satisfied,” but only “one in five are very satisfied with what they pay for health care, while a majority (52 percent) are dissatisfied, including a third who are very dissatisfied.”
A report issued today by the Commonwealth Fund, a non-profit group that studies health care, offered a glimpse into where the dissatisfaction comes from.
The report, which studied health care in Germany, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, found that all five “provide better care for less money,” according to Reuters. The U.S. system “ranks last … on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes,” the non-profit group said in a press release.
“The United States is not getting value for the money that is spent on health care,” Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis told Reuters.
That seems pretty obvious, though Congress has made little effort to do more than nibble at the edges since the failure of the Clinton health care plan more than a decade ago.
Congress, President George W. Bush, many employers and insurers have all agreed in recent months to overhaul the U.S. health care system — an uncoordinated conglomeration of employer-funded care, private health insurance and government programs.
Despite spending about two times per capita what the other countries studied spend — $6,102 for the United States in 2004, compared with $3,005 for Germany, $3,165 for Canada, $2,083 for New Zealand, $2,876 for Australia and $2,546 for Great Britain – there are about 45 million Americans with no insurance.
And this disparity is likely to get worse, unless we change the way we manage our health-care system.
The answer? Single-payer, universal coverage.
Taking the profit out of the health-care system would level the playing field while addressing the long-term costs that our broken system creates — offsetting the cost to taxpayers of implementing universal coverage.
And it is the right thing to do — health care should not be a commodity but a right. No one should have to worry about whether he or she has enough to see a doctor.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 
True, the health care system in the US is not perfect. However, while the per capita expenditure in various countries is an interesting barometer, it\’s too easy to believe that these are relative indicators of excellence.Based on my own experience here in the UK, basic health care is generally accessible to all; and, but for the occasional bout with the flu, I am in good health – so I\’ve not needed to access the system for anything beyond the very routine. But news reports have the National Health Service operating at a profound and perilous deficit, and in near ruinous financial condition. Everyone is complaining – doctors, nurses, administrators and patients … even the politicians. At one end of the public furor are claims of staggering mismanagement of public funds and a growing chorus that too often health care decisions are made solely on a fiscal basis, while the medical needs of many patients are ignored. At the other end is the growing concern that there are insufficient doctors and dentists. It is a well established fact that vast numbers of the public are not able to locate a National Health Service dentist accepting patients (even for basic care).Ask anyone from the UK, and they will readily recount stories (as the norm, not the exception) of patients having to wait weeks – and even months – for services. However, let\’s ignore these (seemingly) prejudiced comments. Instead, let\’s look to information published on the NHS web site http://www.nhs.uk/England/AboutTheNHS/WaitingTimes/Search.aspx . A patient in the north of England can expect to wait as long as 140 days to be admitted cardiac surgery. The shortest wait one can expect from any of the nine hospitals in the region is 20 days, and the average wait is 55 days.Moving forward, a better place to start might be an honest reevaluation of the report crafted by the committee chaired by Mrs. Clinton. My recollection of the committee\’s report is that that it included recommendations that everyone had to give a bit: patients, doctors, nurses, hospitals, insurers and the government were all included.Frankly, I wish that the legacy of President Clinton\’s administration had been health care reform – it was \”critical\” then, and its condition has certainly not improved since. Sadly, a withering attack by opponents and uncharacteristic weak knees at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue relegated a good (albeit not perfect) first effort to the political trash bin.The quest for \”perfect\” should be ongoing, but it should not prevent us from achieving \”good\” today.