British women conned into appearing in anti-health reform ads

Two British women who appeared in anti-health reform ads in the United States say they were duped into thinking they were participating in a documentary about health care, the UK’s Daily Mail reports.

"Furious Kate Spall and Katie Brickell claim that their views on the NHS have been misrepresented by a free market campaign group opposed to Mr Obama’s reforms in a bid to discredit the UK system," the newspaper states.

The "free market campaign group" in question is Conservatives for Patients' Rights, which is headed up by Rick Scott, the former head of private health provider Columbia/HCA. Scott was forced out of his position after revelations of billing fraud at the company.

More at Raw Story

Another Story from The UK

A must read personal story about a son born in the UK with significant health issues. The conclusion:

Has there ever been an issue about Leo not receiving care because he is profoundly disabled? Never!
Have we ever had to stand before a "Death Panel" and justify the vast ongoing expense of Leo's care, even though he will never be a productive member of society? NO!
When surveys ask people what is the single thing they are proudest about the UK, the winner is The National Health Service.

Read this story and imagine it happening to you. Even if you are middle class with good insurance through your job, a good bit of the time you would want to spend with your sick child, would be spent sending in forms to an insurance company and working with the medical staff to jump through the hoops the insurance company required to justify the treatments.

Then imagine we had a single-payer, Medicare for All, system where you presented your card once.

How Effective is American Healthcare?

From Umair Haque at HarvardBusiness.org

Be sure to click link above to read it all and check out the charts.

Where does the United States stand compared to other countries? It loses the most potential years of life amongst developed countries. In the United States, 6397 years of life are lost per 100,000 males — compared to just 4574 in the United Kingdom, or 4018 in Italy.

The United States (the bright red line) has seen the smallest reductions in PYLL, by a wide margin. In fact, Korea — the bright blue line — now loses fewer potential years of life than the United States, and has done so since approximately 1999.

The United States gets the smallest bang for the buck in terms of life itself amongst developed countries: it realizes the lowest level of "life returns." The U.S. healthcare system returns the fewest life years for each dollar spent. The United States, for example, has invested an additional 8.3% of GDP in health since 1971. That investment yielded a PYLL reduction of 5157 years. America realized a return of 621 potential years of life gained for each additional percentage point of GDP invested in health.

The United Kingdom invested an additional 3.3% of GDP in health since 1971. That investment yielded gains of 4421 fewer potential years of life lost. The United Kingdom realized a return of 1340 potential years of life gained for each additional percentage point of GDP invested in health. The United Kingdom healthcare system delivers life returns more than twice those of the American healthcare system.

Canada, in contrast, has invested a marginal 2.6% of GDP in health since 1971. That investment yielded a PYLL reduction of 5393 years. Canada realized a return of 2074 years for each additional percentage point of GDP invested in health. The Canadian healthcare system delivers life returns more than three times greater than those of the American healthcare system.

Now, please take all this with a grain of salt. PYLL is an imperfect measure, and it doesn't capture all the richness of healthcare inequities and imperfections. Equating life years lost to life years gained might have methodological issues. Comparing PYLL over time might need statistical adjustment. This is a blog post, not a journal article, and I crunched these numbers on a Sunday afternoon over a quick coffee.

The point isn't that this is the best, only, or final measure of healthcare effectiveness. The point is this:

A more productive debate begins with assessments of effectiveness, so costs can be compared to benefits. Debate is the lifeblood of a democracy — but the current debate lacks those. And that, perhaps, is why it's so frustrating for both sides. I hope this post offers a measure of effectiveness that everyone can use to have a more productive debate.

Are Patients in Universal Healthcare Countries Less Satisfied? : denialism blog

"The usual complaints levied against the universal systems are that they will ration care, you have long waiting times for doctors, and quality of care then suffers. It seems to be a given that in the United States with our private system that we have better access, better quality, and fewer mistakes. But what do the data show?"

Check the actual data - great article.

Read it all: