Rick Newman

4 Countries With Better Healthcare Than Ours

By Rick Newman

Posted: September 15, 2009

If the healthcare systems in Canada and Europe are so much worse than ours, somebody ought to tell the Canadians and Europeans.

There's little dispute that the United States has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. Our nation spends about $7,300 per person on healthcare every year, nearly 2.5 times the average for developed countries, which is $2,964, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

[See 4 conundrums that impede healthcare reform.]

But there's intense argument over whether our system is better than that in other countries. Just about everybody with an opinion on the matter has a horror story to support it. To make his case for reform, President Obama has cited several Americans who suffered or died because they couldn't get adequate care or an insurance company denied coverage. Defenders of the U.S. system trot out examples of Canadians or Brits who had to wait so long for rationed care that they developed several new diseases in the meantime. And everybody loves to pick on France, where care is generous but taxes are high and work optional.

Anecdotal snapshots, however, tell us nothing meaningful about an issue as complex as healthcare, since the plight of a given individual reveals nothing about the effectiveness of the overall system. Now we know something more useful: how citizens in various countries rate their own healthcare systems. The Deloitte Center for Health Solutions surveyed 14,000 people in six countries, asking them to grade their own healthcare system from A to F. The standardized results allow comparisons among all six countries.

[See 4 problems that could sink America.]

If you're expecting to hear that the United States scored worst, then surprise! America was only second worst. Germany got the lowest grades, with just 18 percent of Germans giving their healthcare system an A or B. In the United States, 22 percent of respondents gave the healthcare system an A or B. Switzerland got the highest marks, with 66 percent of people giving the system top grades; France was next, at 63 percent.

Here's how all six countries fared. The survey data are from Deloitte. Also included are cost data from the OECD, to give a sense of who's getting the most satisfaction per healthcare dollar:

Canada: Percent rating the healthcare system A or B: 46 percent; D or F: 15 percent; annual healthcare spending per person: $3,895

France: A or B: 63 percent; D or F: 12 percent; spending: $3,601

Germany: A or B: 18 percent; D or F: 44 percent; spending: $3,588

Switzerland: A or B: 66 percent; D or F: 14 percent; spending: $4,417

United Kingdom: A or B: 32 percent; D or F: 20 percent; spending: $2,992

United States: A or B: 22 percent; D or F: 38 percent; spending: $7,290

Many critics of American healthcare would like to see the United States adopt a single-payer system modeled on Canada or the U.K., while free-market defenders insist that government-run healthcare would be a disaster. Deloitte's survey data show that socialized medicine in Canada and Britain is more popular than the quasi-capitalist healthcare system in America—which costs far more. Brits and Canadians may be more satisfied partly because they have a higher tolerance for government bureaucracy than Americans do. But the findings also undercut claims that the British and Canadian systems don't work.

[See why postal-style healthcare might not be so bad.]

The Economist recently derided American critics of Britain's National Health System for creating a bogus bogeyman meant to scare Americans anxious about reform. "Painting an inaccurate picture of the British system . . . helps blind Americans to weaknesses in their own one," the magazine wrote. "The NHS costs half as much per person as the American system costs. Yet it delivers results which are on some plausible measures actually superior. . . . And it does this while avoiding the disgrace that so shames America, of leaving around 46 million people, some 15 percent of its population, without any form of health insurance."

But don't bother asking the Brits about their own system. What do they know?

Pay Now or Pay Later

Nothing is for free; we have to pay for services, sooner or later, either as individuals or as a nation unless we start shipping the aged and / or the unhealthy and / or the incurable to some 3rd world country or a remote place and just forget about them.

Either we pay now or pass on the costs to our kids and grand kids; it's as simple as that.

We didn't plan and save for the long term; as individuals and as a nation, we borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent and continue to do so and not have the discipline and the courage to face the problems head-on. Our population is aging so our health care problems / costs are going to increase, and surviving in retirement is going to get harder and harder.

Let's wake up and stop lot of these stupid ideological arguments (left vs right, socialist vs capitalist, democrat vs republican, etc) and implement some practical and realistic solutions, otherwise we will go down, albeit very slowly but painfully, as all the great nations / empires did in the past.

If we care about our future US generations and long term viability as a leading / developed nation, we better face the music, swallow some bitter pills and pay some price.

MLA of CA @ Jan 26, 2010 16:04:08 PM

Get rid of waste and fraud

To Lilly of CO: The quality of care in Britain is in line with what it spends on health services, relative to US. Britain spends $2992 while US spends $7290. We spend almost 2.5 times more than Britain I don't think the care and services in the US are that much better. Not everyone is covered here in the US and amongst the developed nations, we have one of the highest rates of obesity and the associated diseases (diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, etc.).

We all need to seriously think, good / decent health care at what cost ? Look at all the budget deficits we have at local, state and national level. Where is the money to provide all the services that we all expect ? How long can we keep printing (extra) money of ~trillion dollars a year without going bankrupt as a nation. We will have to make some hard choices for health care, medicare, social security, etc.

Our costs are bloated due to

- defensive medicine (lot of expensive tests just to fend off lawsuits)

- lawyers and our legal system

- insurance companies not being able to sell insurance across state boundaries

and exempt from anti-trust rules

- politicians not able to stand up to lobbyists from big pharma, insurance

companies, lawyers, AARP-senior citizens, health care providers (doctors, etc)

- shortage of health care providers

- health care for illegals and uninsured at Emergency rooms, which charge a lot

just to treat a common cold

- consumers not knowing and not caring to know as to what they are paying

for health care services because it's between the employers, insurance

companies and health care providers

- waste and fraud in the system: providers overcharging or charging for

procedures / tests, etc that were not provided

- aging population

- we want all the latest and greatest care without doing the cost-benefit

analysis

If we just get rid of

- the waste and fraud

- all the unnecessary defensive medicine

- frivolous lawsuits

- stop providing health care to illegals and redirect non-emergency cases of

uninsured / under-insured cases to clinics

By doing the above, we may be able to lower the costs by 20% to 30%, which should be enough to provide health care to all the 40+ million uninsured in this country and still cost less than what it is costing us now.

As for health insurance, somehow we need to provide health coverage / care to everyone by providing a combination of private and government coverage options with range of coverage options and costs. Those who can afford can opt for the best coverage but pay big dollars for it and those who can't afford, at least get the basic services (without having to go to emergency rooms). Keep in mind though, those with basic (bare minimum coverage) will get major / serious illnesses at some point in life, for which we will have to have buffer / reserves to deal with; these reserves will have to be funded in some fashion (direct and/or indirect taxes on those who can afford).

MLA of CA @ Jan 26, 2010 15:31:04 PM

Nicole

I agree with Jeb's statements. At the age of 28 I have been on gvmnt.-funded

disability for my entire adult life due to uncontrolled epilepsy; but I am also one

of the individuals in my community who makes the least appointments. I get

ticked off everytime I wake from a seizure to find myself laying on an ER cot.

I don't need a private nurse, a 20 pg. hospital record, & an inefficient amount of tax-payer spending to help me in the care of a condition I've dealt with all of my life! It's wasted time, money, & energy, & if anything, I think my private neurologist & I know my body 100 times better than a random stranger licensed with a phd. As odd as it may sound, indiviuals with legitimate disabilities are probably those who milk the system to the least of their personal advantage.

I know the drawbacks of public healthcare first-hand, you get what you pay for. If you want to pay 75% less, then your care quality will also decrease by 75% & your wait-time will rise by 75%. Sure, Canada has a great healthcare system but they also have a different gvmnt system. You can't successfully combine the two; in the end this is probably going to blow up in our faces.

If we would start saving that 10% every month & taking better care of ourselves with better diet, activity, $10 over-the-counter supplements, & rest then healthcare probably wouldn't be such a big issue. It's about self-care, frugality, & common-sense.

Nicole Gallucci of TX @ Jan 23, 2010 16:50:26 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

Rick Newman

Rick Newman

The global economy is mysterious, even scary. Chief Business Correspondent Rick Newman connects the dots. In addition to his writing for U.S. News, Rick is the co-author of two books: Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11, and Bury Us Upside Down: The Misty Pilots and the Secret Battle for the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!