The Washington Post
The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Careby T. R. Reid
Bringing to bear his talent for explaining complex issues in a clear, engaging way, New York Times bestselling author T. R. Reid visits industrialized democracies around the world-France, Britain, Germany, Japan, and beyond-to provide a revelatory tour of successful, affordable universal health care systems. Now updated with new statistics and a plain-English… See more details below
Bringing to bear his talent for explaining complex issues in a clear, engaging way, New York Times bestselling author T. R. Reid visits industrialized democracies around the world-France, Britain, Germany, Japan, and beyond-to provide a revelatory tour of successful, affordable universal health care systems. Now updated with new statistics and a plain-English explanation of the 2010 health care reform bill, The Healing of America is required reading for all those hoping to understand the state of health care in our country, and around the world.
The Washington Post
The New York Times
Washington Post correspondent Reid (The United States of Europe) explores health-care systems around the world in an effort to understand why the U.S. remains the only first world nation to refuse its citizens universal health care. Neither financial prudence nor concern for the commonweal explains the American position, according to Reid, whose findings divulge that the U.S. not only spends more money on health care than any other nation but also leaves 45 million residents uninsured, allowing about 22,000 to die from easily treatable diseases. Seeking treatment for the flareup of an old shoulder injury, he visits doctors in the U.S., France, Germany, Japan and England-with a stint in an Ayurvedic clinic in India-in a quest for treatment that dovetails with his search for a "cure" for America's health-care crisis, a narrative device that sometimes feels contrived, but allows him valuable firsthand experience. For all the scope of his research and his ability to mint neat rebuttals to the common American misconception that universal health care is "socialized" medicine, Reid neglects to address the elephant in the room: just how are we to sell these changes to the mighty providers and insurers? (Sept.)Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Reid argues we should follow other countries, where health care is fairer and cheaper and produces better results. He's right that we can learn much from practices elsewhere. But the lesson I took away from his book was somewhat different: health-care systems are not just policy choices, but expressions of national character and values. The alternatives he describes work not just because they're well designed but because they reflect the expectations and traditions of their societies.
The book's clarity comes from its thesis: The way America does things is not the only way things can be done. That simple refusal to remain inside the strictures of America's political debate -- where the argument is over how best to cover everyone while offending no one and changing nothing -- allows T. R. Reid to elegantly demonstrate how unnecessarily complex and inefficient and expensive and cruel our health care system really is.
Unlike so many other commentators, Reid does not do this by exhaustively explaining the mechanics of the American health care system and wagging his finger at its many mistakes. He does it by offering insight into other health care systems. In particular, he examines the French, Canadian, German, Japanese, and British systems, alongside the pushes for reform that recently gave Sweden and Taiwan brand-new health care systems. The result is a sort of health policy travelogue: Reid flies around the world, investigating the workings of these systems and asking doctors in each to recommend a course of treatment for the chronic pain in his shoulder. This latter effort could be gimmicky, but it actually proves helpful: It allows Reid to view the various arrangements from both the high altitude favored by wonks and the ground level experienced by patients.
Reid's reporting results in two important contributions to the debate we're having here at home. First, the national health care systems enjoyed by residents of every other developed country are superior to the fractured health care industry that serves Americans. They are cheaper, they cover everyone, and there is no evidence that they produce worse outcomes. Second, these national health care systems are all different. Some are socialized and some are not. Some are single-payer and some are not. Some are private and some are not.
This first fact is a particularly hard one to swallow. We're America. We have the most highly trained doctors, the most astonishing medical equipment, that guy from House (although we imported the actor who plays him from Britain). We even spend the most, which is, in many areas of life, a sure sign of achievement. How can our medical system not be the envy of the world? This leads to a lot of strange rationalizations for the fact that we get less and spend more than every other country. But it shouldn't. If there were two stores in your town, and one was twice as expensive as the other and tended to be out of things that 15 percent of the people needed to buy, you wouldn't spend a lot of time concocting elaborate explanations for the superiority of the store that cost too much and couldn't provide everyone with the goods and services they required. You'd go to the other store.
But it's not just one other store. There are a variety of other business plans we could try. Reid groups the possibilities into four models. The Bismarck model, named for Germany's Otto von Bismarck, is a private system in which the government shapes the rules of the market to make certain that everyone is covered and that basic rules of decency and consumer protection are followed. The Beveridge model, named for England's William Beveridge, is a socialized system in which the governments owns the hospitals and employs the doctors and basically runs the whole thing. The National Health Insurance model is what's traditionally known as single-payer, and it's what we see in Canada: the government is the insurer, but the doctors and hospitals are private. And then the Out-of-Pocket model is what you have in developing countries: health services are available to those able to afford them.
None of these systems should be particularly alien to Americans. The Bismarck model is pretty close to what those of us with solid employer-based insurance experience. The Beveridge model is what our veterans enjoy in the Veteran's Health Administration. The National Health Insurance Model is Medicare. And the Out-of-Pocket model is what the uninsured and self-employed face. But unlike other countries that have chosen a single system and worked to make it run smoothly, America has a confusing patchwork of different arrangements and models. We don't so much have a store as a vast bazaar. And there's a good reason that the bazaar model has given way to Target.
Choosing a system, however, is only the first step. You also have to implement it. Savings will not emerge as if by magic. In other countries, health care providers make less money. Doctors have lower salaries. Pharmaceutical companies see less in profits. Those will be tough political fights. Similarly, other systems sometimes -- though not always -- furnish patients with less in the way of treatments. That, too, is a choice. A system can be biased toward more treatment, less treatment, or neither. Our system is currently biased toward more treatment: Doctors make money every time they do something to you. Britain's system is biased toward less treatment: Doctors lose money every time they do something to you. Other systems are somewhere in the middle. But Americans tend to believe that more medical care is better, even if the evidence doesn't quite back that up, and they don't like facing down the possibility that a new system would mean doctors might be more reticent with a pill or a surgery.
There are, in other words, hard decisions to be made. But they are decisions. Toward the beginning of the book, Reid says something quite radical: Letting people die or go bankrupt because they happen to be sick and happen to not have health insurance "is a fundamental moral decision America has made." That is not, in general, how we see it. The more traditional view is that health care is a problem we simply haven't solved. Not mustering the will or energy to solve that problem anytime during the 21st century is, however, a choice. A decision. It is to our discredit to fail. But it is in our power to change it. Others, as we can see, already have. -- Ezra Klein
Ezra Klein writes on economic and domestic policy for The Washington Post, at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein. He has been an associate editor at The American Prospect and contributes to the group food blog the Internet Food Association.
"You don't necessarily realize it while you're reading, but you're talking Comparative Health Economics 101. With a really fun professor." -Daily Kos
"Not many writers of any ilk... can match T.R.-Reid's ability to bring a light, witty touch to really serious topicslike health policy around the globe." -New America Foundation
- Penguin Publishing Group
- Publication date:
- Sales rank:
- Product dimensions:
- 5.40(w) x 8.30(h) x 0.70(d)
- Age Range:
- 18 Years
Read an Excerpt
A Quest for Two Cures
For all her majestic self-assurance, Mrs. Rama did not immediately inspire confidence in her patient. After asking some basic questions, she shuffled the stones and statuettes around her checkerboard and launched into my diagnosis. “In the summer of 1986, you got married,” she declared firmly. Well, not exactly. In the summer of 1986, my wife and I celebrated our fourteenth wedding anniversary; by then we had three kids, a dog, and a minivan. “In 1998,” she went on, “you were far from home and were treated for serious illness.” Well, not exactly. Our American family was, in fact, living in London in 1998; but in that whole year, I never saw a doctor.
Mrs. Rama kept talking, but I stopped listening. To me, the stones and shells and statues all seemed preposterous. Still, I kept my mouth shut. If Indian medicine required yajnopathic analysis before health care could begin (and Mrs. Rama did eventually conclude that the timing was propitious for treatment), that was fine with me. I was willing to go along, in pursuit of the greater goal. For I had traveled to the Arya Vaidya clinic—it’s in the state of Tamil Nadu, at the southern tip of the subcontinent, where the Bay of Bengal meets the Arabian Sea—on a kind of medical pilgrimage. I was on a global quest, searching for solutions to two different health problems, one personal and one of national dimensions.
On the personal level, I was hoping to find some relief for my ailing right shoulder, which I bashed badly decades ago as a seaman, second class, in the U.S. Navy. In 1972, a navy surgeon (literally) screwed the joint back together, and that repair job worked fine for a while. Over time, though, the stainless-steel screw in my clavicle loosened; my shoulder grew increasingly painful and hard to move. By the first decade of the twenty-first century, I could no longer swing a golf club. I could barely reach up to replace a lightbulb overhead or get the wineglasses from the top shelf. Yearning for surcease from sorrow, I took that bum shoulder to doctors and clinics—including Mrs. Rama’s chikitsalayam—in countries around the world.
The quest began at home. I went to a brilliant American orthopedist, Dr. Donald Ferlic, a specialist who had skillfully repaired another broken joint of mine a few years back. Dr. Ferlic proposed a surgical intervention that reflects precisely the high-tech ethos of contemporary American medicine. This operation—it is known as a total shoulder arthroplasty, Procedure No. 080.81 on the National Center for Health Statistics’ roster of “clinical modifications”—would require the orthopedist to take a surgical saw, cut off the shoulder joint that God gave me, and replace it with a man-made contraption of silicon and titanium. This new arthroplastic joint would be hammered into my upper arm and then cemented to my clavicle. The doctor was confident that this would reduce my shoulder pain—orthopedic surgeons tend to be confident by nature—but I had serious reservations about Procedure No. 080.81. The saws and hammers and glue made the procedure sound rather drastic. It would cost tens of thousands of dollars (like most major medical procedures in the United States, the exact price was veiled in mystery). The best prognosis I could get was that the operation might or might not give me more shoulder movement. And when I asked Dr. Ferlic what could go wrong in the course of a total arthroplasty, he was completely honest. “Well, you have all the risks that go with major surgery,” he answered calmly. And then he listed the risks: Disease. Paralysis. Death.
With that, a certain skepticism crept into my soul about this hightech medical intervention. I departed my American surgeon’s office and took my aching shoulder to other doctors, doctors all over the globe. Over the next year or so, I had my blood pressure and temperature taken in ten different languages. I ran into a world of different diagnostic techniques, ranging from Mrs. Rama and her star charts to a diligent, studious doctor (we’ll meet him in chapter 9) who told me he couldn’t possibly analyze my medical condition without tasting my urine. In Taipei, an acupuncturist twirled her needles in my left knee to treat the pain in my right shoulder. The shoulder itself was examined, X-rayed, patted, poked, palpated, massaged, and manipulated in countless ways. Some of these treatments worked, more or less; as we’ll see in chapter 9, Mrs. Rama’s colleagues at the chikitsalayam were helpful. Others proved no help at all.
This was not a major disappointment, though, because that aching shoulder was really just a secondary impetus for my medical odyssey. It would be ridiculous, after all, to go all the way to the southern tip of India—not to mention London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, and so on—to get treatment for a sore shoulder that isn’t, frankly, all that sore. The stiffness is tolerable most of the time. I have another arm to use for changing lightbulbs or getting glasses off the shelf. I don’t have a golf swing anymore, but even when I could swing a club I was a rotten golfer.
So the shoulder was not my top priority. Rather, the primary goal of my travels was to find a solution to a much bigger medical problem. It’s a national problem—a national scandal, really—that is undermining the physical and fiscal health of every American. With help from many scholars and the Kaiser Family Foundation, I traveled the world searching for a prescription to fix our country’s seriously ailing health care system. As Nikki White’s experience demonstrates, it’s fundamentally a moral problem: We’ve created a health care system that leaves millions of our fellow citizens out in the cold. Beyond the issue of coverage, however, the United States also performs below other wealthy countries in matters of cost, quality, and choice.
Most Americans can remember when our politicians used to boast—and we used to believe—that the United States had “the finest health care system in the world.” Today, any U.S. politician who dared to make that claim—it was last heard in a State of the Union address in 2002—would be hooted out of the room. Americans generally recognize now that our nation’s health care system has become excessively expensive, ineffective, and unjust. Among the world’s developed nations, the United States stands at or near the bottom in most important rankings of access to and quality of medical care. In 2000, when a Harvard Medical School professor working at the World Health Organization developed a complicated formula to rate the quality and fairness of national health care systems around the world, the richest nation on earth ranked thirty-seventh.1 That placed us just behind Dominica and Costa Rica, and just ahead of Slovenia and Cuba. France came in first. (For more about the WHO’s global ranking, see the appendix.)
The one area where the United States unquestionably leads the world is in spending. Even countries with considerably older populations than ours, with more need for medical attention, spend much less than we do. Japan has the oldest population in the world, and the Japanese go to the doctor more than anybody—about fourteen office
HEALTH EXPENDITURE AS A PERCENTAGE
OF GDP, 2005
Sources: OECD Health at a Glance, 2007; Government of Taiwan.
* * * * * * * *
There’s nothing particularly wrong with spending a lot of money on something important, as long as you get a decent return for what you spend. It’s certainly not wasteful to spend money for effective medical treatment. If a dentist who was about to drill a tooth offered her patient a choice between listening to pleasant music for free to lessen the pain, or a shot of Novocain for $50, most people would pay for the shot and would probably get their money’s worth. And there’s nothing wrong with paying more for better performance. Those fifty-two-inch high-definition plasma televisions that people hang on the family room wall these days cost five times what a top-of-the-line set would have cost ten years ago, but buyers are willing to shell out the extra money because the enhanced viewing quality is worth the price.
When it comes to medical care, though, Americans are shelling out the big bucks without getting what we pay for. As we’ll see shortly, the quality of medical care that Americans buy is often inferior to the treatment people get in other countries. And patients know it. Surveys show that Americans who see a doctor tend to be less satisfied with their treatment than Britons, Italians, Germans, Canadians, or the Japanese— even though we pay the doctor much more than they do.2
You don’t need an advanced degree in yajnopathy to recognize that the stars are aligned and the timing is propitious for the United States to establish a new national health care system. As Americans voted in the 2008 election, only 18 percent told the pollsters that the U.S. health care system was working well. Even American doctors, who generally do just fine, thank you, in financial terms, are unhappy with the ridiculously cumbersome and unjust system that has built up around them. And those Americans who want change in our system— which is to say, almost all Americans—are not willing to settle for minor tinkering or small-scale adjustments. Rather, 79 percent told the pollsters they want to see either “fundamental changes” or “a complete overhaul.”
The thesis of this book is that we can bring about fundamental change by borrowing ideas from foreign models of health care. For me, that conclusion stems from personal experience. I’ve worked overseas for years as a foreign correspondent; our family has lived on three continents, and we’ve used the health care systems in other wealthy countries with satisfaction. But many Americans intensely dislike the idea that we might learn useful policy ideas from other countries, particularly in medicine. The leaders of the health care industry and the medical profession, not to mention the political establishment, have a single, all-purpose response they fall back on whenever somebody suggests that the United States might usefully study foreign health care systems: “But it’s socialized medicine!”
This is supposed to end the argument. The contention is that the United States, with its commitment to free markets and low taxes, could never rely on big-government socialism the way other countries do. Americans have learned in school that the private sector can handle things better and more efficiently than government ever could. In U.S. policy debates, the term “socialized medicine” has been a powerful political weapon—even though nobody can quite define what it means. The term was popularized by a public relations firm working for the American Medical Association in 1947 to disparage President Truman’s proposal for a national health care system. It was a label, at the dawn of the cold war, meant to suggest that anybody advocating universal access to health care must be a communist. And the phrase has retained its political power for six decades.
There are two basic flaws, though, in this argument.
- Most national health care systems are not “socialized.” As we’ll
see, many foreign countries provide universal health care of
high quality at reasonable cost using private doctors, private
hospitals, and private insurance plans. Some countries offering
universal coverage have a smaller government role than the
United States does. Americans switch to government-run
Medicare when they turn sixty-five; in Germany and Switzerland,
seniors stick with their private insurers no matter how
old they are. Even where government plays a large role, doctors’
offices are operated as private businesses. As we’ll see in
chapter 7, my doctor in London, Dr. Ahmed Badat, was nobody’s
socialist; he was a fiercely entrepreneurial capitalist who
regularly found ways to enhance his income within the National
Health Service. Many countries have privately owned
hospitals, some run by charities, some for profit; Japan has
more for-profit hospitals than the United States.
In short, the universal health care systems in developed
countries around the world are not nearly as “socialized” as
the health insurance industry and the American Medical
Association want you to think.
- “Socialized medicine” may be a scary term, but in practice, Americans rather like government-run medicine. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the world’s purest models of socialized medicine at work. In the Medicare system, covering about 44 million elderly or disabled Americans, the federal government makes the rules and pays the bills. And yet both of these “socialized” health care systems are enormously popular with the people who use them and consistently rate high in surveys of patient satisfaction. That’s why President Obama has consistently promised to save both government-run systems, no matter what other changes he makes in health care.
The academics have a term for this approach to problem-solving: “comparative policy analysis.” The patron saint of comparative policy analysis was an American military hero who went on to become our thirty-fourth president: Dwight D. Eisenhower. That’s why this book is dedicated to his memory.
When Eisenhower became president, in 1953, the key domestic issue was the sorry state of the nation’s transit infrastructure. Almost all major highways then were two-lane country roads designed primarily to get farmers’ crops to the nearest market. Interstate travel was a torturous ordeal, marked by rickety bridges and long stretches of mud or gravel between intermittent paved sections. As postwar America embraced the automobile, it was clear that vast improvements were required. And most of the forty-eight states already had highway plans on the books. For the most part, those blueprints called for networks of two-lane highways that would run through the downtown Main Street of every city along the route. These were perfectly reasonable plans for the time. But Eisenhower, who recognized the value of comparative policy analysis, had a better idea.
As Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, Ike had commanded the long push by American and British soldiers toward Berlin after the D-day landings in June 1944. By the spring of 1945, the Allies had battled their way across France to Germany’s western border. Eisenhower’s strategic plan envisioned months of painful slogging across a shattered German countryside. But then his forward commanders reported an amazing discovery: a broad ribbon of highway, the best road system anybody had ever seen, stretching straight through the heart of Germany. This was the autobahn network, built in the 1930s, which featured four-lane highways; overpasses and ramped interchanges to avoid intersections; and rest areas for refueling every hundred miles or so. Once Eisenhower’s trucks, tanks, and troop carriers found the superhighway, they moved much faster than Ike had planned. By early May of 1945, the war in Europe was over. Those German roads came to mind when, in 1953, President Eisenhower was presented with rather timid plans for a two-lane highway network across America. “After seeing the autobahns of modern Germany, and knowing the assets those highways were to the Germans,” he wrote in his memoirs, “I decided, as President, to put an emphasis on this kind of road-building. I made a personal and absolute decision to see that the nation would benefit from it. The [American plans] had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land.”5 So Eisenhower built those “broader ribbons”: a state-of-the-art network designed to a single national standard, with four-lane divided highways; overpasses and ramped interchanges to avoid intersections; and rest areas for refueling every hundred miles or so. There was considerable debate about how to pay for this hugely ambitious engineering project. A giant bond issue was proposed. But in those more innocent times, it was considered irresponsible for the federal government to run up large debts; in the end, Ike settled on a highway trust fund financed by gasoline taxes.
Today, the interstates—formally designated the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways—comprise 47,000 miles of road, 55,500 bridges, 14,750 interchanges, and zero stoplights. The system has spawned such basic elements of American life as the suburb, the motel, the chain store, the recreational vehicle, the automotive seat belt, the spring-break trek to Florida, the thirtymile commute to work, and, on the dark side, the two-mile-long traffic jam. It’s one of the finest highway networks in the world—and nobody seems to care that the basic idea was copied from the Nazis.6 Eisenhower, the pragmatic commander, was willing to borrow a good policy idea, even if it had foreign lineage. In the same spirit, my sore shoulder and I hit the road, looking for good ideas for managing a nation’s health care. But where should I look?
What People are saying about this
"Important and powerful... a rich tour of health care around the world." --Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times
"You don't necessarily realize it while you're reading, but you're talking Comparative Health Economics 101. With a really fun professor." --Daily Kos
"Not many writers of any ilk... can match T.R. Reid's ability to bring a light, witty touch to really serious topics--like health policy around the globe." --New America Foundation
and post it to your social network
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews >
Timely and well-written, this tour of the major health care systems of the industrialized world provides an informed, open-minded, and realistic backdrop to the current health-care "debate". Mr. Reid takes his bad shoulder around the world and sees doctors in the UK, France, Japan, India, and Canada - describing along the way the various public & private systems those countries use to provide health care. Mr. Reid does not explicitly suggest how the US should change our system, but it's hard to miss his point that the US is alone among industrialized nations in not providing universal health care - and - the fact that everyone is covered in those nations means that the per-capita cost of health care is far lower than in the US. A fine antidote to the town-hall craziness that has dominated the news recently and well worth reading.
Having grown up in the UK and lived in the US for 20 years I have experienced both sides of the current health debate. I began to wonder if my memory of the British system was somehow too rose-colored or my disgust at the morality of the US system just an overreaction. This book underlines that neither is the case; it really should be a sobering read for all those apologists for the US system. Reid is no ideologue but simply sets out to compare health systems throughout the world. He expounds on the history and development of the various systems - there are really only 4 basic models - in various countries. His discussion is detailed and on the whole well organized, although there is some repetition at times. I should warn you, however, that this can make ugly reading for those of us in the USA.
while she was away. It took me until she returned months later until guilt forced me to open it. Then, of course, I wondered why I had waited so long. Mr. Reid sets out to compare public health care schemes in France, Germany, England, Canada, and Japan. At the beginning, he had been to his physician in the U.S., and been advised to have his ailing shoulder replaced. This gave him a good diagnosis to bring up with each foreign doctor he consulted along his route, with some surprising suggestions for repair of the shoulder, all of which suggested replacement only as a last resort. In the end, Mr. Reid combs through what he has learned in order to try to establish the best system he could devise by compiling the best aspects of each of the systems he had thouroughly investigated.
This book is essential reading for anyone interested the health carer debate in the US. It is written for the lay person and very informative. I now have a good idea about what other countries are doing and how parts of these plans can help us.
This book can be a real eye opener for anyone following the health care debate. Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that no other country can do health care like the U. S. Anyone who reads this will wonder why American media isn't telling us more about how health care is conducted in the other industrialized nations of the world. It's not the boogey man we are led to believe it is! Almost all of them do it better for a lot less cost.
Reid is clearly an advocate of health care reform, criticizing our "system" on several grounds, including the fact that it does not provide universal coverage, that health care takes up a ridiculous 17% of our GDP, that it is burdened by high administrative costs. Despite our constantly beating our chests about providing "the best health care in the world", millions of Americans do not have access to that care because they earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid, earn too little to afford health insurance, or are too young to be eligible for Medicare (which is also available to those who qualify for Social Security Disability). To make matters worse, we consistently rank behind many many other countries on such measures as life expectancy and infant mortality. With regard to the latter, we rank behind such countries as Cuba and Slovenia. Reid believes first and foremost that providing health care coverage to all citizens is a moral imperative. He notes repeatedly that the United States is the only industrialized, developed democracy that does not provide such coverage. But he argues compellingly that reform is also an economic imperative. He identifies four basic models which describe how health care is provided in other countries, then describes those models in detail by providing an in-depth description of how different countries have implemented those different models, including two countries, Taiwan and Switzerland, which adopted major reforms of their health care systems at the same time that our legislators were rejecting Clinton's proposal in the 1990's, a proposal that never even made it to a vote in Congress. Reid does not claim that that the other countries whose systems he describes are health care utopias. He is quick to detail the criticisms and problems that exist in the countries whose systems he describes. But what clearly emerges from his book is the fact that the other industrialized democracies all provide quality health care at affordable costs and with less burden on their economic systems than our current system provides. This is a must read for anyone interested in this debate, despite the passage of the recent bill, which, hopefully, represents just the beginning of significant health care reform in the United States.
This is a great book which really details the problems the US healthcare system is facing now and will continue to face in the future. The author goes to many countries and finds out what works and what doesn't. Its a sobering read for anyone living in the US. You will wonder why we cant get a more efficient system. The gist though is this. Our medical technology and care is A+. Our system for delivering it and its cost efficiency, and "fairness" is a D. I would hope every member of Congress would read this book, but of course I'd be surprised if even one of them has read it. They just are not that smart! So sad.
Here"s a snapshot of other people in "socialist" nations - Germany, France, England, Japan, Canada - are getting for their health care dollar and what we aren't. (How about $15 for an ordinary office visit-consultation in Japan?) Why they do it is simple: these countries have recognized that universal health care is a moral and ethical issue. How they do it is what Mr. Reid explains in detail. Read it, weep and get angry at our mindless approach.
The author does an excellent job in analyzing some of the glaring faults in U.S. healthcare by examining how European and other countries handle these same issues. What the author painstakingly brings to the attention of the reader is that many solutions for the predicaments facing U.S. healthcare have already been successfully utilized by other nations. Why then have we not adopted any of these policies? The author argues that the political atmosphere of the U.S., namely the lobbyists and special interest groups representing those who benefit from the status quo have effectively quelled any efforts for legitimate healthcare reform. The author makes many suggestions to improve both the financial and moral integrity of the U.S. healthcare and then proceeds to back them up with comparative data collected during his worldwide search for the cure to his own ailments.
T.R. Reid, the author, describes the 4 major patterns of health care found around the world based on his research and his personal experiences with the health care systems in many other countries outside America. He tells us that citizens in all the major industrialized countries are critical of their own systems but there is probably not one person who would exchange their system of health care for America's "system." He carefully describes his own experiences with and the structure of health care systems in France, Germany, Japan, the UK, and Canada as well as the "out of pocket" approach in India, Cuba and China. While he does not seek to replace the American "system" with any one of these as superior approaches, he does try to encourage America to choose the best elements of each countries approach when reforming the American health care system. Every other Industrialized Nation has better health care outcomes for dramatically less cost than we do in America and the author provides numerous data to support such an argument. Many other countries make available private insurance plans but they all seem to be non-profit plans where the sole focus is on the patient and not on the stock holders. All Industrialized Nations, with successful health plans, make health plan coverage mandatory for everyone, and in addition where health insurance companies exist they are clearly regulated as are the providers with respect to allowable charges. For beginners this seems to be the only way to get control of health care costs. France, in particular, has a Vital Card that is provided to every citizen. Reid describes how the card works with an embedded chip that is updated with all a patients medical history, blood types, allergies, etc. The Doctor's offices in France have no filing cabinets and the card is simply inserted into a lap top computer to reveal, for the doctor, an entire medical history. When the doctor is done with his diagnosis and recommended treatment, he/she presses the enter key and the bill for services is immediately forwarded to the insurance company which, by gov't regulation, must pay the bill within a very brief window or be penalized. This book is a must read by anyone who is involved in the present health care debate or even by people who just want to understand how other governments have developed health care systems that really work giving access to all providing efficient and excellent care to their people. The author debunks many of the myths circulating around in America regarding health care reform in an easily understood yet concise way with much supporting material based on his own experience and research. T.R. Reid has done an incredible job organizing his material and presenting it in a way that is readily understandable and makes for easy understanding which holds the interest of any reader. I cannot help but wonder why this book was not used by our congress in developing a reform package that could have been much simpler for all of us to understand.
With the publishing of this book T.R. Reid has provided an invaluable asset for anyone who wishes to become more informed on America's health care system and would like to learn how it can be fixed. By undertaking a mission to find a cure for his ailing shoulder, and more importantly, health care in America, Reid travels across the world to find out what practices work in other developed nations as well as which ones don't. From these experiences, he develops a concise and clear database of information that allows the readers to develop their own opinion of the subject. Without doubt this is one of the most informational and interesting books I have read.
Of course, the healthcare systems in the countries visited by Mr. Reid are much more complex than illustrated in this book; his anecdotes make this overview both interesting and readable.
I am astonished that there are only twelve reviews before mine, given that health care reform is at the forefront of our national conversation, and that T.R. Reid's careful presentation dispels so many half-truths and outright lies. As a retired physician, this book fascinated me. Over the 50 years I spent as a doctor, I worked under socialized medicine (the VA, the Indian Health Service and the National Institutes of Health), in our private and academic sectors, in a Medicare-only practice, and travelled and observed in a Third World country (Paraguay). T.R. Reid paints a clear picture. We do *not* have the best system in the world. Some things are good about it, and yes, sheiks and kings come to the U.S. for health care; but what good is that if 47 million of our own citizens cannot afford health care in their own country? My wife and I were in Washington in October to lobby for health care reform. We met with our Congressman's senior staff member. She'd not heard of Reid's book, so in follow-up we sent her a copy. It didn't change our Congressman's vote, but if he reads it he'll be better informed. How is it possible that the average Japanese can afford to visit his doctor 13 times in a year, or how is it that a CT or an MRI costs on-tenth there as it would in the U.S.? How can hundreds of private insurers in Switzerland stay in business, challenged by a public, government-run plan? How is it that Germans have had health care since the Emperor set up their system 100 years ago, while so many Americans go without today? Why is it that primary care doctors do better in England than they do here in the U.S? Why is it that Canadians believe in fairness so much more than we U.S. citizens? Is it because we are morally deficient? (my question). The deficiencies in the healthcare systems in other wealthy, democratic societies are correctable. Just think of what they could do with what we spend today ... about twice what they spend, and we get less for it! Reid's observations make me wonder ... Does our faith in unconstrained, unregulated free-market capitalism trump our concern for our fellow human beings? Perhaps his most timely message is that none of the countries he surveyed is completely satisfied with its solution to its health care needs. In France, despite its incredibly successful system, there are strikes and complaints. In Canada there are lines, although emergencies are seen promptly. I suspect that even if the Senate bill goes forward, we'll be tinkering with health care legislation for generations. How is it that we can barely muster enough votes to debate these and related issues in Congress, despite the fact that each and every one of us is in jeopardy of losing our right to health care? We are only a single potentially lethal diagnosis away from denial of coverage. The Sword of Damocles is wielded by United Healthcare. How is it that nearly two thirds of bankruptcies are the result of illness and high cost of health care? Our system is broken and unsustainable. The "Obama Plan" isn't 2,000 pages long. It's 3 words long: quality, accessible and affordable. We'll be debating it formally in Congress over the next six weeks. The more we can learn from the successes and failures of other countries' answers, the better our solutions will be. The "Healing of America" is the right book at the right time.
T.R. Reid, true to his training as a reporter, provides an informative analysis of several of the world's most successful healthcare systems set against the search for solutions to a personal health problem (I'll let you read the details for yourself). Reid's personal encounters with the doctors and healthcare leaders of several nations provide a natural backdrop for his evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of several foreign healthcare systems. The information on these systems is accurate and well documented. The search for the ideal healthcare system naturally proves unsuccessful, but the journey is informative. The reader cannot escape the comparisons to the U.S. healthcare system, which, of course, invite a certain degree of thought concerning U.S. efforts at healthcare reform. As a researcher and writer on the subject of foreign healthcare systems for TheCenter for Health Care Policy Research and Analysis, I appreciate the first-hand point of view in this book, and I agree with all but a couple of Mr. Reid's conclusions. Mr. Reid suggests that non-profit status for private insurance companies in many foreign nations is the reason for their success at cost containment. For another point of view on this, and other issues, I suggest two other books: "Handbook for Healthcare Reform: Foundation and Framework," and "Chronic Crisis." Both are available through Barnes and Noble, or through Acacia Publishing, Phoenix, AZ.
The debate surrounding health care reform in the US is one of the most confusing yet compelling issues affecting us all as citizens of the USA. T.R.Reid has outlined one of the most informative ways of helping me understand both our healthcare system, and the systems of other nations. After reading this book I am convinced we can make the necessary changes in the way we do business in this country around taking care of our citizens. This book should be mandatory for all high school students taking Health 101!!!!
Describes how other first world countries have approached health care delivery, their strengths and weaknesses. There is no perfect delivery system but all others are far cheaper, provide coverage for everyone and none ration critical care. If only our Congressional gurus would read this book it would open their eyes to the distortions and out right lies proffered by the special interests. On the other hand, maybe not.
T.R. Reid's book, The Healing Of America is a book about how other industrialized countries provide health care for ALL their people at a lower cost and with better results than the United States. His review of other countries health systems is based on first hand experience while living with his family in Japan and Britain and other world travels. He describes the different "models" in each country and explains in plain language, how each country provides health care, the results, costs, advantages and pitfalls. And, he does this in a simple, clear and entertaining way. As someone who lost his job this year, I have been thrust into the nightmare of trying to provide myself and family with health care insurance. Something is seriously wrong when in the United States of America, you lose your job, and need the help the most, you are burdened with astronomical health insurance cost. Why is it that my health insurance cost is higher than my mortgage? Everyone in America who wants to really understand why our health care system needs reform should read this book. Highly recommended!
Reid does an excellent job of explaining what other industrialized countries have achieved in healthcare at much lower costs that we currently spend in the US. This should be required reading for all of our senators and representatives in Washington.
I found this book to be very informative, interesting, and relative. The author did a very nice objective and comparative evaluation of various Helathcare plans in other nations while combining it with personal experiences and observations. I thought it was concise enough to be easy to read yet detailed enough to provide a thorough understanding of the topic.
Reid has compiled and detailed health care delivery around the world. He explores how other countries have organized their delivery and insurance systems hoping to find the best of each one so that policy makers in America can benefit from cross-fertilization. I can only hope the guys and gals on capital hill will take the time to read this. OK, maybe their health care staffers will read this and relay the salient points. An easy and compelling read.
Excellent book. Must read if you want to understand what is wrong with health care in the US.