Talk:Health system

Mexico section

The Mexican section is out of date, compared to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Mexico

Mexican health care in terms of availability is pretty much on the same level of europe and canada. Americans now go down to Mexico for health care. Kind of sad if you think of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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:

1. unclear, as it is not made clear what countries are being compared.
2. 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)

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)

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-

The whole thing is opinion. Look at the France Section if you don't believe me. "It is better"? If that isn't a POV violation, I don't know what is. Mercruz (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not opinion if a credible agency has ranked it as number 1. This indeed makes it better than other systems. --Vreddy92 (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

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

AED 05:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Moved

The only use in this page seems to be the decent list of Health care systemS. Otherwise there's no difference in the titles meaning to health care as a whole. I'm adding an S to "system" in the title for that reason. Hope this is okay with everyone.Wikidea 08:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Health care system models

I am a bit troubled by this section because it implies that all systems are a form of insurance where costs incurred are reimbursed.

In the UK where I come from and in Finland where I live now, as well as in neighbouring Sweden, and further afield in Denmark, and I am sure in other countries too, the notion of public health as a form of insurance is completely foreign. People do not think of themselves as being "insured". Instead, the community provides a wide ranging health service which is principally financed from taxation. In other words, it is a public service. Just as schools, fire services and roads are. We pay for them through taxation and use them when we need them.

Insurance, in my head, means sharing risk against something unfortunate. Death is perhaps unfortunate, but birth usually isn't. And neither is health screening.

Health care in the UK and Nordic countries is mostly not rebate based. It is service based. It is focussed on health and wellness, and coping with and hopefully curing sickness comes bundled with it. Hence these systems spend a lot of money promoting wellness. Everything from childhood and adult vaccinations, through to funding anti-smoking programs, substance abuse clinics, STD clinics, family planning (contraception), occupational health, physiotherapy etc.

Just as the people need roads, schools, street lighting, fresh water and waste disposal, so too do they need health services from time to time, and the people in those countries, through their governments, have just decided to just provide this as a public service, paid from taxation. Just as public roads and schools are a form of public service, so is health service in those countries. It is not insurance. --Tom 17:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur.

Remmo (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the graphic

I have deleted the graphic from this article. The same graphic was at one time put into other health care articles and was removed for many of the reasons I shall discuss.

At one level, the graphic is good because it attempts to delineate two terms used in the current health care debate in the USA. These are single payer and socialized medicine. It also, on the face of it attempts to delineate two core issues. Government finance and government control.

However, at several other levels it is unhelpful for the following reasons.

1. The term socialized medicine is pejorative and not neutral.

2. The term socialized medicine does not represent a global view. It was invented in the USA and is not used in the English speaking world outside the USA. The most common term used outside the USA would be public health care system.

3. The designation of "socialized medicine" is not consistent with usage. Most users of the term "socialized medicine" in the US will describe Canada's health care system as "socialized medince" even though it is in fact a "single payer" system. Health care academics and professionals will prefer to talk of "public health care systems" or "publicly managed health care systems" but if they use the term at all they will not describe Canada's system as socialized, but rather as "single payer". Some even think that government control or regulation is the essence of "socialized medicine" and apply the term to private medicine in the USA not financed by government but which is beset by government regulation. Socialized medicine therefore has several meanings only one of which is thus represented here.

4. The term "single payer" does not represent a global view and its definition in the graphic does not even reflect usage in the USA. As a non-American I would argue that Britain's NHS is logically a single payer system because there is but one provider of finance. It is only single payer in the narrow US interpretation of that term which has come to mean "care paid for by government but delivered privately" (and not "paid for by government but not controlled by government" which is what the graphic suggests). I don't think anyone expect the US government to pay for something without there being controls!

5. It is oversimplistic. Most countries systems have a mix of public and private funding for health care and mixed levels of government control. I cannot think of a single health care system in the world that can be described accurately using one of the four labels given in each segment (even if they were accurately defined, which they are not).

6. The graphic introduces neulogisms to health care contrary to WP policy. For example "government monopoly" health care and "free market" health care. As far as I know, government monopoly health care does not exist anywhere in the world. And I suspect there are few if any of the poorer third world countries that have not yet introduced any form of government control or finance that actually would call their system "free market" health care. Do such populations describe their local vetinary services or motor mechanics as "free market vetinary services" or "free market motor mechanics"? It may be theoretically OK in terms of economic theory but it does not reflect the real world in health care.

7. I have a strong feeling that the graphic has been added to tap into a deep seated prejudice in the United States (which is not shared in many other countries) against both "government control" and "government finance" for anything, thus leading people to thinking that both "socialized medicine" and "single-payer" are somehow something less than the ideal state. In this sense it is, in my opinion, a very mild form POV pushing.

Papers on Yoruba Indigenous Healthcare Delivery System

I have a lot of puplishable papers on the Yoruba indigenous healthcare delivery system. They are all from my PhD Thesis. All interested Journals should contact:

 Oladele Caleb ORIMOOGUNJE, PhD
 Dept. of Linguistics, African and Asian Studies,
 University of Lagos, Akoka, Yaba,
 Nigeria. 
 Email: moogunje@yahoo.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.199.53.204 (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 

WHO rankings

I have twice removed the sporadic additions of WHO rankings for various countries from its year 2000 study. These rankings were controversial, so they should not be added as if they are facts (especially 8 years later) and without this article dealing with the controversy surrounding the WHO's methodology. If they are to be added, I believe they should be embedded into each country's section, placed in each section consistently, for example, at the end, and worded in a consistent way that notes that the rankings were done in 2000. The cites should be linked directly to the WHO's original ranking publication, not to a third-party website listing them. Other thoughts? --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest a listing relative to the time. There appears very little critical assessment of the various systems anywhere. Canada's for example, is frought with half-truths and out and out political lies. The rankings show that at 30th it is not 'the best in the world' as some claim.

The again each rating system is based on several parameters and they may have to be explained.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

% of GNP

It would be a good idea to include the % of GNP that these differnt health systems cost, and or a cost per person....

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The WHOSIS database has both % of GDP and per-capita expenditures (total as well as government) for 2005. I will add as I have time. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

now done. --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparative rankings.

I see that several sources rank different countries differently.

It may be a good idea to direct people to the sites or note the similarities and differences.

Heres are two.

World Health Organization Rankings

Euro-Canada Health Care Index

There is alot of misinformation in Canada about how 'great' the system is. These articles add valuable insight.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As I have previously noted, the WHO's 2000 rankings were controversial, so the only appropriate way to add them to this article would be to include the criticisms. Plus the rankings are now 8 years old. As for the Euro-Canada study, I fail to see how it's relevant here, as it does not include systems in other major population centers (US, Asia, Africa, Latin America). The purpose of this article is not to correct misinformation about Canada's health care. That would be more relevant to the article Health care in Canada, although again, any additions there would have to be done in a neutral, balanced fashion, with reliable sources, in a way that does not give undue weight to criticisms. --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be a start. To 'rate' a system, comprised of so many factors, can and will result in a variety of differences.

1. Doctor to patient ratios 2. Life span.

The reason I mention Canada, as a Canada, we always heard 'one of the best in the world'...well 30th is not that great, and based on cost factors, one of the more expensive in the world. Doctor shoratage (caused in part by the doctors union restricting supply....)

I believe criticism for any 'marking systems' or 'grading systems' should be included and or explained.

Just some insights into making the article better. A comparative analysis, is a good start to evaluate each system.

Salute !

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Important information about Canada's Health care system being censored ?

There are two important details about Canada's Health Care system that I attemtped to place in the article and were removed. Censored ?

1. The extreme shortage of doctors. Doctors Union does not want to allow more doctors into the system as it will have a negative impact on their revenue...

2. Self regulation of the doctors. Toronto Star conducted a study that reflected the reality that some 95% of complaints were swept under the rug...

Important details that should be included....

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete the text you mention but I think that the reason for the delete was clearly stated and valid. This article is not a place to air issues about a particular country's health system. The most we can do in this article is to summarise what the system is and let the reader find out more about it by following the link to the main article. I have to say though, reading one of your links I do not think the reference supports the argument you make about the doctor shortage. As I read it, the article reports a claim by a right-leaning think tank that the shortage in supply of training places has been the main factor, not the actions of a doctors union on the basis of self interest as you seem to have stated. --Tom (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, my link was superficial but I had hoped you would have read through the lines on this one...(I don't have the time to continue here I should be finishing my book...)

1. The system is self regulating, with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The Toronto Star (they called me on this one) did an investigation of this and found that the 'conflict of interest' non arms length situation resulted in some 95% of complainst being swept under the rug.

Wikipedia Link on College

2. The link suggested (if I recall that testing was the issue. First of all there are many doctors driving taxi who were trained in countries who have health care systems better than ours. Point two I sat directly next to the Chair of the Local Doctors Union, whose wife was the leader of the politica party of Ontario. We discussed ways of addressing the doctor shortage, and I told him to write down several suggestions including allowing for more foreign doctors. When it came time to present these views, he simply turned the page, and I had to raise my hand. Conclusion the current 'fee per visit' system promotes a doctor shortage. I hope you can find a suitable link on the net for this besides my origianl research.

When i mentioned to a doctor friend of mine that my cousin, born in Canada trained in Italy, was wanting to set up office to become a doctor in his hometown, the response i got, "what another Italian doctor in this city" You see, as a trained systems specialist this infers to me that the 'competition' for business is part of the problem. (the propaganda by the system to protect its intersts must be overcome...sorry if this sounds like a rant but it is critical to this issue)

Sorry to say but I have never seen so much fabrication of info on the doctor shortage as in this case...

Caesar J. B. Squitti H. B. Commerce

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Proposal - Jan 2009 - since withdrawn

Support I am the proposer. The article does not do what it sets out to do (describe various health care systems) but instead rambles on about types of health care financing which are well covered in existing articles. The article is badly written and seems to serve little purpose other than to highlight certain forms of non-main stream financing, to wit Health Savings Accounts, which are already described in other articles.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Health care systems/Health care policy is a large field, with many dedicated journals (such as Oxford: Health Policy and Planning Health affairs and Healthcare Policy). If something is "badly written" (what?), work out to improve it. As most of the content is not found in other articles, you seem to be misusing the template.LincolnSt (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the deletion proposal. The reason the article seemed to have lost all merit was because of the drastic changes which appear to verge on vandalism by one editor. I have therefore reverted the article back to an earlier state where the article at least did discuss health care systems. --Hauskalainen (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Major edits to this article by User:LincolnSt and blocking request

A dispute has broken out between me and this user over edits made to this article on 22/23 January. I contend that the edits were largely destructive because the article no longer describes health care systems but instead mostly focuses on health care financing. I have tried reverting the article to an earlier version but the other user strongly objects and has reverted the article back again. In the spirit of true WP co-operation, I would at this point like to cool down and allow other contributors to air their opinions on this matter. --Hauskalainen (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time this describes health care systems. As you can see, the article is now based on papers about health care system. Before this was just a chaotic and impartial (i.e. some 50 countries covered in Wikipedia were missing) duplication of health care in X country, which is easily replaced with links.

Wikipedia articles should be based on articles about the subject such as "Elizabeth Docteur and Howard Oxley. "Health-Care Systems: Lessons from the Reform Experience".LincolnSt (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors may wish to be aware that I have today placed a blocking request on User:LincolnStfor perisitently vilolating the spirit of editorial co-operation, for demonstrating bias in his edits, for depleting the usefulness of WP articles on health care to its readers and for making changes so rapidly that they seem to be planned aforethought and dumped on the editing community. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocking_request__User:LincolnSt for examples and to express your thoughts if you have any. healthcare.--Hauskalainen (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Cowboy (talk · contribs), who has teamed up with you on several pages, was already identified as a mass spammer by administrators. It's unfortunate that you too engage in nonconstructive behavior.LincolnSt (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not teamed up in any way with Cosmic Cowboy!

Examples of national implementations - reinstated

(LincolnSt): You placed an argument on the Administrators Noticeboard (which should have been made here) that the justification for deleting the examples of health care systems at Health care systems is because if we included every country's health care system the list would be too long. Another argument you have used is that if information is in multiple places it has to be changed more than one. But who says we have to include every country? A few examples of the different kinds of systems is surely sufficient to give an idea of the breadth of different systems. The list is just a list of examples. It isn't meant to be exhaustive. And as for the replication issue, that is a common issue in many articles. There is nothing unique about this one. I am therefore adding the long standing list of national examples back.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(LincolnSt): You complained that the list of national implementations was too long when it stretched to 19 countries. At this point you deleted this list stating that we can't put in every country and that do do so would replicate text in different articles. I reinstated the list for the reasons I gave above. Now you have expanded the list to 54 countries! And you have replicated information in other articles. Please explain your actions. Otherwise I will be forced to assume that you are merely playing devil's advocate and will be forced to revert the article back to the list of 19. Or we can come to some compromise as to a basis for deciding which countries best illustrate different health care systems.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

United States

The U.S. section seems to me not to cover the overall delivery system of health care in the U.S.(which is multifaceted) but rather focus on issues much meted out in other articles such as Universal Health Care. It is heavily laden with issues of coverage and cost and does not touch on other structural forms such as HMOs. It would be more useful in this section to actually describe the varied way in which health care is delivered and financed. I do not know, for example, what happens if I am insured in Ohio and fall ill in New York. There are state laws about insurance and I am not clear how that works in cross state contexts. HMOs as I understand are rather like mini versions of the UK's NHS providing structured care in a cost contained framework but based on in-network facilities and funded by insurers. Also, I believe I have read that Medicare and Medicaid have caps on costs (standard compensatory fees for types of services) but I am unclear what happens if the service provider wants to charge more. In the Japanese and Taiwanese systems, the provider is prevented from charging more than the standard fee. But somehow I get the feeling that this is not the way it works in the U.S. In short, I think this section leaves many unanswered issues about the delivery of care in the U.S. For example, preventative care. As I understand it, most insurers do not pay for preventative care. So is this left to the individual to determine and fund? Are there state or federal education programs to educate people in preventative health matters as there is in the UK for example with its Health Education Council.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, if we are really going to claim that the US is unique among industrialized nations for lacking public health access, we need a more reliable source than Green Party political propaganda: the footnote to this section, 51, points to Green Party political propaganda, NOT to substantiation. 68.166.189.82 (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison Table of select East Asian Countries

User:LincolnSt Can you please explain why you have re-inserted a table that looks at just East Asian countries? What is that supposed to tell the reader about Health Care systems in general? I would understand if the table had a more global perspective, but it doesn't.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a study about payment systems in five countries. You are welcomed to add studies about payments systems in other countries.LincolnSt (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see what it is. Just not why you added it. What is the point are you making?--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Health care systems

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Health care systems's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "us":

• From Health in Cape Verde: "Cape Verde". United States Bureau of Consular Affairs (May 05, 2008). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• From HIV/AIDS in Ethiopia: "2008 Country Profile: Ethiopia". U.S. Department of State (2008). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
• From HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe: "2008 Country Profile: Zimbabwe". U.S. Department of State (2008). Accessed August 25, 2008. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Consistency of links

In the "Health care by country" section there is a definite inconsistency of the links pointing to "Health_in_Country" and "Health_care_in_Country"

note:most of the Health_in_Country links are just redirects to Health_care_in_Country. ~~ 72.223.5.29 (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)