Healthcare study ranks Australia second best in developed world, while US comes in last

Healthcare study ranks Australia second best in developed world, while US comes in last
Healthcare study ranks Australia second best in developed world, while US comes in last

Chin up, America, you're still first in military spending and number of incarcerated citizens!

Bonus fact: with regards to maternal mortality, you're (14 deaths per 100000 births) nestled between Turkey(16) and Kazakhstan(12).

If ten olympians raced Danny DeVito in the 100 yard dash, one of them would come in 10th.

This is because healthcare in America is about profit, and not actually about healthcare.

"We lead the world in only three categories: Number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies."

Because they are legally bribed by those companies

Some criticism of the study from another thread where it was posted:

tl;dr: Created by a lobbying group and doesn't measure what you think it does

I used to think the newsroom was good television until I realized it's rationality porn. It's set in an alien dimension where making your point calmly and rationally can change people's minds.

Also he can't write women for shit.

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)

Australia's healthcare system has been ranked among the best in the developed world by a team of American researchers who have ranked their own country's system the worst.

In their study of 11 different national health care models, researchers at the New York-based Commonwealth Fund ranked Australia's mixed public-private system second best.

"The top performing countries - the UK, Australia and the Netherlands - could offer important lessons to the US and other countries," they said.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Australia#1 system#2 health#3 Trump#4 countries#5

...and we pay at least DOUBLE per capita than any other country. We are getting ripped off. Why doesn't the GOP care about this?

Link to the actual study:

11 countries were included. Here are the overall rankings:

1) UK

2) Australia

3) The Netherlands

4*) New Zealand, Norway

6*) Sweden, Switzerland

8) Germany

9) Canada

10) France

11) US

I love our (UK) NHS dearly but I'm wondering how we managed to score top if our "health outcomes" is second to bottom?

Like "Oh yeah, my friend received the best level of service and care, really industry-leading. Course he went in with a broken ankle and came out dead but the service itself was impeccable".

Am French. Doesn't understand ranking.

TBH, both sides are being bribed pretty heavily by big pharma and the healthcare industry. That's why we haven't seen any real change.

Oh man, this post is reddit bait if I ever saw it...

France has the best healthcare system in the world according to the World Health Organization which ranked 191 countries, so ranking 10 out of 11 on the this random list seems a bit weird. The WHO list is a bit old so it makes sense it would change a bit, and of course methodology varies a bit.

I really don't trust any list that just picks an arbitrary 11 countries to analyze. Even the "developed world" includes at least 33 countries up to 50+ depending on the definition. This list doesn't include even include most of the countries that are normally considered to be among the best in the world for healthcare like Singapore, Italy, Spain, Japan, Iceland, etc. It's not a list of the most developed countries or the biggest developed countries, but 11 random countries picked out of a pool of the 35 most developed countries.

I like watching that opening scene repeatedly but I also knew after watching the first scene that it would be a self-congratulatory show about one guy doing the right thing, then forgetting to do the right thing, and being reminded by a woman to do the right thing.

So I don't need to watch it now.

pro socialised healthcare just as australians are logging onto their comupters after dinner just as americans are checking their phones during breakfast

I like that.

Also 11 countries, could/should have more.

Because one of those health outcomes is death in hospital or hospices. Which includes death from old age or other fairly normal conditions.

Old people in the UK tend to die in hospitals or hospices being cared for by medical staff more often than in the US where they die at home.

I've had wisdom teeth that ache and get infected for 5 years now. I'm on a waiting list for the surgery since I can't afford it. I gave up and I've paid for private health for 9 months. 3 more and I can claim some of the cost of extracting all 4 in a hospital.

This is in Australia.

Probably because this article, like so many other politically motivated ones, has the data and then makes up the most important aspects to get the rankings they want. I don't know if that's the case but you're surprise could be a sign that it's not accurately portraying different health organizations

If the USA cut its military budget in half and stopped allowing insurance companies to ridiculously overcharge along with stopping privatised prisons, legalising marijuana nationwide and put all that money into health care, they would by far have the highest funded public health system in the world, this would help head towards making it the best in the world. A developed nation should not bankrupt someone because they got a broken arm or an illness they cannot help.

Edit: because this has caused a lot of controversy, I should clarify, it's more about smart spending than less spending, the budget could be cut without too many cutbacks if the military weren't so wasteful, similar for the health care system.

Not to mention the headline writer also thinks there are only 11 countries in "the developed world".

It's a list of the top 10 countries that make the US look bad in a headline.

So there's only 11 countries in the developed world? Good to know.

NB if you're not Australian: the Liberals are our conservative party. It's confusing.

It's OK, the Liberals are working hard to drop us lower like they have with the Internet.

European here, why do the republicans exist? It just looks like they purposefully try to do what's worst for everyone...

Per capita healthcare spending in the US is ridiculously higher than any other country

So what is it that liberals did to the internet?

Edit: op is talking about libs in Australia, not Libs in the US.

It's so much worse than that, I'm having a hard time articulating how bad it can be... my father in laws doctor was insisting that he have a biopsy on his pancreas when the radiology report stated that most of what should be his pancreas was likely a tumor. This was a 74 year old man complaining of severe abdominal pain and had been unable to eat for two days. The biopsy was scheduled a week out and he was denied treatment for that time by his General Practitioner. He never went in for the biopsy because he was bedridden within three days. He died 14 days later and literally hours after his hospice intake interview.

There are many, many ways to deny someone care in the American Healthcare system.

Watch this instead:

'Please leave us alone in our living rooms, well I'm not going to leave you alone, I want you to get mad'

'I'm a human being god damn it! My life has value!'

Because they've taken advantage of Christianity and the fear Christians have over here of losing power for the most part.

Without FOX News and Christians the Republican Party doesn't have shit.

When you put it that way we sound like dangerous morons.

Hey now! We're dangerous morons with guns, thank you very much!

God damn you half Japanese girls.

But they broke their arm because bad choices, and they're not rich because they're not righteous enough.

They should have prayed more and given more cash to their millionaire megachurch pastor.

Also it is one of the most funded systems, it's just drowning in a morass of insurance company complexity. Where else do you find people with full time jobs just trying to justify why a medical procedure should charge the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE to insurance providers?

No doubt Democrats are being brided too but they have made many efforts in the past to push single payer insurance through Congress. Compromises were made to satisfy Republicans and that's how we ended up with the current Obamacare.

At a guess, very good access, low administrative costs compared to other countries, good treatment outcomes, all at decent spending as a proportion of GDP.

Healthcare cost is also ridiculously higher than any other country, since for some reason, we allow it to be a profit-driven market instead of a municipal service.

And considering Healthcare you could easily find 10 more.

And when change does come, people don't vote enough for people like Bernie Sanders, and the DNC does sketchy stuff to help Clinton's cause

Professional level posting.

Except that the Netherlands has a private (albeit more regulated) healthcare system too, and we rank third.

Am American..... yeahhhh.... coughs up blood

Yet when the most advanced cases need to be treated nobody hesitates to hop on that plane for the States.

For non-Australians: Medicare (our public healthcare system) doesn't cover general dental.

They are looking at HSMR scores (hospital-wide mortality ratios). HSMR scores can be very misleading and don't correlate well with the proportion of avoidable deaths (which take more work to measure).

Avoidability of hospital deaths and association with hospital-wide mortality ratios: retrospective case record review and regression analysis

One example of how they can be misleading is that in the UK the vast majority of people die of old age in hospitals or hospices which are also run by the NHS. These people are all counted as being "NHS deaths". In other countries (like the USA), most people will go home to die or they will be cared for until death in a private nursing home - in their surveys this isn't counted as a hospital death. Obviously if somebody dies of old age that isn't an avoidable death and if that person chooses to die in a hospital then that shouldn't be counted as a black mark against that hospital.


Yea. I notice South Korea isn't on that list. Our health care is awesome. It's one of the things that keeps me from moving back to the US.

How the fuck is the UK best? The NHS is in crisis due to chronic underfunding from a government determined to dismantle it.

Australia has both public and private, both work together and the system is pretty easy to navigate for the patients, at least most of the time

Texas state rankings (includes DC):

#1 in hazardous waste generated

#1 in population uninsured

#1 in executions

#2 in births

#2 in uninsured children

#3 in subprime credit

#3 in population living in food insecurity/hunger

#4 in teen pregnancy

#4 in percentage of women living in poverty

#8 in obesity

#47 in voter registration

#50 in percentage of high school graduates

#50 in spending on mental health

#50 in percent of women receiving prenatal care

#51 in voter participation

#51 in welfare benefits

#51 in percent of women with health insurance

(These are from the Texas Legislative Study Group, which used to produce these stats every year:

The state government has drawn some of the worst gerrymandered drawn district lines in the country to keep Republican cont..., and Texas Republicans focus their time and energy and the state's considerable resources on Southern Strategy racial resentment, anti-sex ed, women's sexuality regulation, anti-LGBT, randomly removing liberal historical figures from textbooks, while spending billions subsidizing corporate welfare for oil companies and other companies that benefi....

Texas has highest maternal mortality rate in developed world, study finds

As the Republican-led state legislature has slashed funding to reproductive healthcare clinics, the maternal mortality rate doubled over just a two-year period


Per capita is worse though.

If the USA cut its military budget in half

you'd have another huge economic crisis. There are so many companies and people involved in that (not just the arms/tech manufacturers themselves, but also all the small suppliers, etc.) that reducing the military budget significantly would mean a whole lot of companies would be severely hit or outright go belly-up, costing tens of thousands of jobs. Sad reality for the US: paying so much for the military hurts the country, but reducing military spending will hurt as well.

Edit: Note that I didn't say that it can't be done or shouldn't be done. Just that there are consequences you have to take into account and that you better have good plans ready to mitigate those problems..

(albeit more regulated)

That is a substantial difference.

Your country spends ~11% of its GDP on healthcare. The US spends ~17%, or roughly 55% more. Per capita, your country spends ~$5,500 annually, while the US spends ~$10,000 annually, or roughly 80% more.

Loads of healthcare systems have mixes of public and private services; the US differs from essentially every other system by having an incredibly bloated and under-regulated middleman "industry" in health insurance, lobbyist-driven pharmaceutical patenting and import restrictions, and the tremendous administrative overhead required by companies to navigate our mess.

I don't get it. I've always had the help I needed form the hospitals, never paid too much money. The healthcare is just terrible at glasses and teeth but that's just it.

If I have a cancer tomorrow, I will fear that I will probably die, not how much in debt I will leave my family with.

Also, add the fact that my healthcare from France has some agreeements with the Quebec's healthcare (RAMQ) and I actually have a protection now in both Quebec AND France !

I don't see why that inherently makes it bad television though. It was an idyllic show, but that was the point. It was illustrating what our news media should operate like, and made us subconsciously begin comparing the fictional journalists with the real ones we see every day. The complaint reminds me of my friend who hated watching Hannibal on NBC because everyone was too smart and "real people don't talk like that". Well, no shit. I interact with real people all day, I come to television to see the extraordinary.

And he managed to make Olivia Munn not only tolerable, but enjoyable to watch, a feat no other writer has managed to do.

American here. The Republican Party is heavily supported by big business and they generally reflect the interests of big business.

The republicans gain support among the general population by representing socially conservative issues (e.g., supporting religion, opposing abortion). For those voters, those social issues are hugely important so the republicans lock up that vote reliably.

Is it a list of the top ten countries an American is most likely to emigrate to?

This bot is awesome!

A.U.S! A.U.S! A.U.S!

Imagine the graph goes like this:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,









As an American, I wonder why they exist as well.

To be fair, that's a really bias list. Texas is a huge state so they are going to be naturally high on a lot of metrics due to their size and population. You listed per-capita rankings for things which look bad when they are low (i.e. lowest percentage of women with prenatal care!)... but then listed the raw number for things that look bad when they are high (i.e. #4 in teen pregnancy, #3 in subprime credit!). Why not list the per capita ranking for subprime credit and the overall number of total number of women with prenatal care compared to other states?

Given that Texas is the 2nd most populous state, they are supposed to be #2 in net teen pregnancy and total subprime credit, they fact that they are #4 in total number of teen pregnancies while being #2 in population is actually a really good ranking for Texas, it means they are doing much better than the rest of the country.

I mean Texas still has plenty of negative stats, but that list is hardly being fair.

If you cut defence spending though you're going easy on terrorists and you're not supporting the troops! /s

It's to easy to use shit logic to shout down good logic.

it is just an anagram for USA so we are fine.

A lot of people in this thread are talking about how people in the US pay a lot more for healthcare than other places, which is true but misleading.

The reason that healthcare costs are so high is because the insurance model allows that. Most Americans pay very little for healthcare, but rather spend the majority on their insurance. In turn, the insurance company pays the bulk of their health expenses when/if they need it.

Because of this, most Americans never really see the full bill. They have to pay a $100 co-pay or something on a much larger ticket. Because consumers don't care about prices and insurance companies are going to pay it regardless, hospitals and the like can set their prices to essentially whatever they would like.

The benefit of this is that it allows for research and development of new medical technology without concern for the cost that it would put towards a patient, but the downside is that people who don't have or can't get insurance have to pay astronomically sized bills to get even the most simple help.

So, costs are not high because it's a for-profit field. They're high because of the insurance model. I don't know the laws of other countries, but I'm sure that they have different systems in place and that hospitals have some sort of incentive to not drive up prices, with the cost of perhaps slowing innovation.

So UK health care look after you till your final moments but in America you are sent home to die?

Am Canadian. Completely understand ranking.

Are you saying the US is going to destroy france? This is the first I've heard of this invasion.

I have a friend that said we have the best healthcare in the world....

I replied "only if you can afford it."

Am Chinese. Not even ranked.

Oh, you have a pre-existing condition.

healthcare coverage rejected

"if you can't afford health insurance, just become richer" -GOP

Maybe the other 9 countries have good glasses and teeth healthcare :)

Yes. If you have coin we have health.

Doesn't work the same for the poor or middle class.

Money is more important.

I have to say, I'm not totally sure what to make of this. I am from the UK, so yay - go NHS, but yet have not seen anything about this in UK media (surely we would be all over it?).

Also this more comprehensive study from a months ago created a very different set of results:

So UK is marginally ahead of US (30th to 35th) and miles behind most of Europe.

I obviously want to believe we're the best and all that but not sure about the study? Maybe someone with a bit more insight can clear it all up..?

Crappy click bait headlines is why.

Much like reducing any industry, it would be a plan set of 10+ years, giving companies time to adapt to the new system and not making a sudden change.

Finland nowhere to be seen. All is good in the world.

But people who work three jobs to make rent and still cannot afford healthcare are just lazy! /s

Do it to me every time!

Classic Liberalism*

Yeah, seriously, fuck that noise. We need infrastructure, badly. Let's get those soldiers some gov't jobs building roads, electrical grids, and maybe even utility internet, to undermine comcast/verizon/your regional monopoly asshole ISP.

Australia was once 100% incarcerated, maybe the US can turn things around as well

That is absolutely horrible. How is it not common sense that someone with a life threatening disease should be treated immediately? What the fuck kind of doctor says, "well looks like you're probably gonna die soon, you better go home and rest for awhile. Oh, and we'll try to help you in a few weeks if you're not dead yet."

The biggest mistake was setting it in the real world, compared to say, the West Wing.

Because obviously no asian countries are developed. /s

Why would it mention the 2nd best specifically lol.

Edit: I get it, it's an aussie website, i saw the abc news but missed the AU in the address.

Soon to be 10, good luck USA !

The study is very US-centric. It's not so much about determining the ranking of the world's countries as it is taking a number of countries whose health systems they know are better, identifying those things that make them better, and finding opportunities to make the US system more like them. It seems to me like they didn't even need the ranking in order to achieve this, but it is useful for drawing attention to the already-known fact of the US placing.

We are indeed! To be fair, I should read up on how it's actually spent before making wild assumptions as I don't have the full story!

Both sides are corrupt and work in concert to keep out candidates like Bernie.

Had to look up the specifics: 1 in 2,000 U.S. residents is incarcerated; 1 in 9 incarcerated are serving life sentences. Regardless of your theory of justice, that cannot be efficient.

This is the exact reason why I found the "we did it!" moments at the end of their coverage so annoying.

Hooray we did news better than everyone else, with the benefit of meta 20/20 hindsight

CJ Cregg absolutely disagrees with your last point, as does (in my opinion) Ainsley Hayes, but CJ is really an amazingly well written character - one of Sorkin's best.

It amazes me that our American cousins aren't absolutely up in arms (no pun intended) about "DEFENCE" spending in context of that statistic. It's utterly beyond belief.

The problem is that most Christians still believe that the Republican party has them in their best interest. But that's not really true anymore, and the majority of Christians stick with what they knew beforehand. As a young Christian voter, it sucks to see your friends vote republican simply because they don't do any research on what their party really supports. I'm not a fan of either presidential candidate personally. Though in terms of congress, democrats want good things.

Equity in a health context involves ensuring that all groups have access to all forms of health care as well as the ability to lead the healthiest life they possibly can.

An equitable health system works to ensure no one group of people is disadvantaged in regards to their health by removing any systematic or social barriers that may exist.

A health system could be inequitable if it works to block poor people from accessing health care or if it doesn't have systems in place to assist those who speak different languages.

Didn't Obama try to do that only to be completed destroyed by the Republicans over it? I'm not that well informed about US politics so, I might be off the mark but, that is how it seemed to me.

Edit: I'm getting quite a few replies to this and am not going to be able to read them all straight away. Clearly I am wading into a contentious issue (and I knew that) but, to be honest, I thought I was far enough down the comment tree that I would get less replies than I am. I expect to read and reply as appropriate to the whole tree of comments under this comment eventually but, I am not able to do so promptly so, I am going to come back to some later.

I think I have learnt some things from people's replies. I guess my current view is that Obama made a probably genuine effort to improve things but, that it is a contentious issue and, for political reasons and because of lobbying from companies with an economic interest in maintaining the status quo, it hasn't really worked out as anyone hoped. Blaming the Republicans is simplistic but, it is also the case I think that many of them aren't without blame in the whole mess (but, some/many? Democrats, possibly Joe Lieberman (I am yet to read his side of the story), the system as a whole, other factors aren't without blame too). I'll continue reading replies later and perhaps my view will be changed.

For being an American website Reddit seems very anti American

If you keep saying it it becomes USA

Am Dutch. Doesn't understand ranking.

Bonus: that'll degrade Australia healthcare standards too. We'll really close the gap now.

This is also good, maybe better, and written decades earlier.

it doesn't elevate anything... if you think this was put together to make the US look good youre insane. I'd rather be 36th out of hundreds than 11th out of 11.

Efficient for who?

It's pretty efficient for the private prison industry, and the companies that partner with them to have inmates built their products for essentially free.

It's pretty efficient for the stock holders of those companies.

It's pretty efficient for the correctional officer unions.

It's pretty efficient for Session's war on grass.

It's just not so efficient for the people who wanted their taxes to pay for prison system that rehabilitates while dealing Justice, or the people who get caught up in a broken system because they can't afford not to be.

Might be cheaper to move all our prisoners to Australia and set up a military blockade around it.