The US Sucks - We’ll Prove It!

John Stossel tears apart a recent “study” that showed the US system is inferior to everyone else.

But while the U.S. lost points for not having national health insurance, the authors added, “[I]f insured, patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services.” That’s an understatement. Insured Americans have almost immediate access to cutting-edge procedures performed by some of the best-trained doctors. It’s why our outcomes for such diseases as prostate and breast cancer are markedly better than in Canada’s and Britain’s socialized systems. The Commonwealth Fund doesn’t mention that.

I’ll add that uninsured Americans often have access to cutting-edge medicine as well. My dad treats gunshot and car crash victims who are often insured but get astonishing care, surviving injuries that would have killed them just ten years ago. Recently, a disabled friend of mine, who is uninsurable, came down with a serious illness. Not only did he get outstanding healthcare but hospital social workers are helping him acquire retroactive Medicaid.

The Commonwealth Fund’s study has other problems. It was based on telephone interviews with patients and doctors. So it grades nations on people’s perceptions without controlling for their expectations. Yet patients who live in a country with long waits for medical care and bureaucratic inefficiency may have low expectations.

More ridiculous is the arbitrary way the Commonwealth Fund assigns weight to each of its measures. The proportion of patients who say they got infected at a hospital counts about the same in the “quality” measure as the proportion of doctors who use automated computer systems to remind them to tell patients their test results. Those things aren’t equal in my book.

Read the whole thing. It’s ridiculous for anyone to cite this “study” to prove the US healthcare system stinks.

Which, of course, makes it perfect fodder for the Moore-ons who love anything that sounds factual but isn’t.