Far too many Americans have no health insurance or are underinsured. And, meanwhile, far too large a percentage of America’s Gross National Product goes toward health care. Our health care system is inadequate— yet it costs too much, threatening the economy.
How do we cover more people yet bring the costs down? That is the problem that all of America, from the president on down, is weighing and debating.
Yet press coverage of the debate has often been lacking. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, for example, found that so far this year 55 percent of coverage of health care has been about the political battles, 16 percent about the protests, and only 8 percent about substantive issues like how the system works now, what will happen if it remains unchanged, and what proposed changes will mean for ordinary people.
To help reporters understand and analyze the debate, The Commonwealth Fund has sponsored a special supplement to the September/October issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. Below is a link to the digital version.
We hope you find it useful,
The editors
The commonwealth report looks fishy to me. I wonder why they didn't include Canada in the cost comparisons.
The 'savings' they describe under a proposed plan are based on a dubious scheme of increasing 'efficiency' in the health care system. For example:
"A better-coordinated system of care that is accessible to all would save lives and billions of dollars, according to the Scorecard. For instance, if everyone with diabetes and high blood pressure had their conditions under control at rates achieved by the top performing health plans, $1 billion to $2 billion dollars and an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 lives could be saved each year."
http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care/health-care-overview/5360001-1.html
(The actual Commonwealth Fund website is down at the moment)
I sincerely doubt that a nation of 300 million people can be 'coordinated'. Rather, you have to have a system that allows people to make their own decisions but which makes it affordable and easy to manage conditions rather than waiting for them to worsen - such as a free and accessible system as in Canada.
I would be very leery of representing the Commonwealth Fund report as fact.
Posted by Stephen Downes on Mon 7 Sep 2009 at 06:33 PM
Stephen you show your bias for socialist style healthcare with one line "such as a free and accessible system as in Canada".
Learn more before you believe Canada is even in the ballpark of a good idea for healthcare.
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/hl856.cfm
http://kevincolby.com/2008/06/27/the-canadian-healthcare-system-and-its-problems/
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=80257
Posted by Thomas on Tue 8 Sep 2009 at 06:49 AM
Stephen, Canada expends approx. 1/2 per-capita of what the US spends (private + public combined). I'm not saying that the Commonwealth Fund conclusion is correct, just that Canada's numbers would not change the 'big-picture' (US outspending all other countries).
Posted by Ernst Kaufmann on Tue 8 Sep 2009 at 12:51 PM
> I'm not saying that the Commonwealth Fund conclusion is correct, just that Canada's numbers would not change the 'big-picture' (US outspending all other countries).
Um, what?
The post above (which I assumed is what you wrote, though it is unsigned) certainly implies that the Commonwealth Fund report can be trusted., Certainly, implicit trust is why the Commonwealth Fund paid (?) to have it inserted into CJR.
And I ahve no idea what you're saying here: 'Canada's numbers would not change the 'big-picture' (US outspending all other countries." I made no such poin, nor even suggested that it would. Nor does either the insert or articles about the Commonwealth Fund talk about anything other than per capita spending.
So I really have no idea what you're trying to say, and wonder whether you read my comment.
Posted by Stephen Downes on Tue 8 Sep 2009 at 06:07 PM