This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
for me it seems that the article about Hong Kong talk more of medicine in Hong Kong than the health care system. if somebody believe it so, please make the necesary changes (if he knows about the health care system). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedy 30 ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
How do you edit to add? The Austrian Health System should be covered since there is a great article on it from the JAMA. I am not a Wiki editor, but thought someone who knows how to do this editing should read and write an Austrian section.
Charles L. Bennett; Bernhard Schwarz; Michael Marberger Health Care in Austria: Universal Access, National Health Insurance, and Private Health Care JAMA, Jun 1993; 269: 2789 - 2794.
( 67.184.121.92 ( talk) 23:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)).
On July 8, an IP address added to the lead that Turkey doesn't have universal health care ( [1]). I reverted that edit, because the original text that asserts that the US is the only wealthy, industrialized nation not to have uhc, was cited to two different sources supporting that assertion, whilst the new text was not supported by those two sources nor did the IP address add its own source(s) to support its assertion. I have asked the address to point out some sources that say Turkey doesn't have uhc, but I thought to bring this query to this talk page; does Turkey have uhc, and if not should we adjust the text in the lead accordingly? Otumba ( talk) 14:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Not only in the US section, but the entire article is 100% pro socialized healthcare. There is no talk about rationing bodies in the UK and Canada, and the "facts" stating that life expectancy is the lowest in the US in completely false. There is also no mention that most Americans are satisfied with health care especially at the beginning of 2008 before we were told there was a "crisis" with our system. Also no mention that of the 47 mil that dont have insurance in the US, 50% arent even citizens and another 10 mil make 75k or more and chose not to purchase it. And finally there is no mention of the millions of people from other countries who come here because their systems either wont spend the money to heal them or that our care is superior. The American health system as it is, is one of the best in the world. We provide inovation and the latest equipment to the entire world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 ( talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I tried to make this a little more fair in the respect that the entire article glorifies universal health care, but reading the replies to everyone else i understand now why it is so liberal in the first place. Dont try and make this article seem like universal is the way to go by supporting it with entirely liberal sources. This isnt the huffington post its supposed to be a biased online encyclopedia. If our system is so bad, why do millions flock here every year to see our doctors? exaclty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 ( talk) 19:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There is also no mention that most Americans are satisfied with health care especially at the beginning of 2008 before we were told there was a "crisis" with our system.
-- Jorfer ( talk) 06:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Realise that the problem in America is not peoples access to medicine; hosptials are legally required to treat any patient that enters. The problem is the cost to some people, especially those with pre-existing conditions. All Obama has to do is regulate prices.
It also seems like nobody has updated the info on this page, like for instance the fact that more americans are now opposed to the president's proposed bill, and even more are happy with their current plan. There is no evidence that a government run health plan is any better than a free market anywhere in the world. It may be cheaper for the individual, but seniors recieve less coverage, long waits for ordinary procedures are unavoidable, and quality of care and innovation drop dramatically, and these things can NOT be argued. Please, in the name of journalism and unbiased info sources, make this article less bias. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
136.160.191.18 (
talk)
19:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read through the article and it's pretty damn well unacceptable as is. I'll be making sourced edits this weekend to improve arguments against healthcare, because a number of arguments were skimmed and removed. -- 170.97.167.61 ( talk) 19:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors to this article may wish to know that the article Shona Holmes (who has appeared in advertsements and in congress campaiging against health care reform and especially against single payer) has been nominated for deletion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shona_Holmes_(3rd_nomination)#Shona_Holmes Please feel free to add your comments about this proposed deletion as you see fit. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
There should be a section on Cuba (main article: Healthcare in Cuba). They have one of the best health care systems in the world, despite economic hardships.-- 87.162.34.82 ( talk) 17:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The politics section begins by waffling about far reaching changes being necessary to health care systems globally. This is, surely, disputable. The document it quotes does not even appear to be in the public domain. I suspect the main reason for this preamble is to justify the sections that follow, which re-iterate all the arguments going on in the United States. The fact is that most health care systems around the world with UHC do not seem to have the same problems that the US has.
Because the U.S. does not actually have a UHC system and the political issues being played out in the U.S. are covered in other articles, I would argue that most of this politics section does not belong in this article. It should be merged into Health care reform in the United States with a reference to this main article being put in its place. Comments please. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually Hauskalainen you're being a WP:ASSHOLE. That was a good section and now I can't get ANY of the references. If there's a way to restore the hard work that was put into that, and possibly suspend Hauskalainen, I would greatly appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.175.26 ( talk) 12:38, 27 October 2009
I stand by my argument. The United States of America does not have Universal Health Care but many countries do have it. It is crazy to have such a large section devoted to politics in the United States and say nothing about health care politics in the countries that actually DO have Universal Health Care. I wouldn't mind if the politics in the U.S. actually reflected political debate about health care in the countries which have Universal Health Care, but as far as I can see, it simply does not. There are places in Wikipedia for texts such as these such Health care in the United States for example, and even that other article Health care reform in the United States (which is highly biased in what it includes and especially what it omits - see my recent on its talk page. Other editors are welcome to try and fix it or get it deleted, nut I for one will no longer edit it). But the text I deleted certainly does not belong here. If you need the references you can easily get them from history but most of the text has been culled from other articles en bloc. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I come back to this article every few months - it is much improved from a few months ago! Good stuff -- Nmcclana ( talk) 09:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
OK we obviously disagree on this paragraph:
Conservatives can favor universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. This would allow the U.S. to adopt universal health care, while simultaneously cutting government spending and cutting taxes.
Reference: A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage, Randall Hoven, December 12, 2007
Not just is conservatives ability to favor universal health care being listed in that section an Ad hominem argument against non-conservatives (conservatives can support it, so Universal Health Care should be approved), but it is a statement that takes a very diverse group of people and concludes a common attribute...that needs more sourcing than an editorial. That wording also reads like and advertisement.-- Jorfer ( talk) 04:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but you don't seem to know what Ad hominem means. The argument that conservatives can support it for the reasons listed in that section IS an argument in favor of UHC, not only for the reasons listed, but because it shows it's possible to get conservative support. And it doesn't say all conservatives support it (obviously) but that there are good reasons that align with traditional conservative interests that would allow conservatives to support it.
Also it would be possible to both cut spending and cut taxes. Mystylplx ( talk) 05:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Well if the argument is wholly wrong and one can prove it then it is fair game to challenge it. For example one might accept that UHC based on single payer could lower costs but this has to be balanced against potential issues of choice (for example, will the single payer system pay for the branded medicine I have always used or do I have to switch to a cheaper generic? If that trade off had to be made and you felt choice of medicine was more important tham cost, a conervative might not go for the cheaper option.--Hausk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen ( talk • contribs) September 12, 2009
It should not be used as a source at all, as it a man's personal opinion. And he even admits, in the piece, that it is -not- compatible with conservative principles. The crux of his case is that that the only thing compatible with very conservative, or his own librertatioan principles, would be for the government to stop interfering all together- but since the government is interferring, he thinks we should get our money's worth. This piece, being pure opinion, and not that of any historical figure or person of note regarding health care, should not be used - and it does not make a convincing case nor a support for a conservative platform for universal healthcare, so it is extremely misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.204.79 ( talk) 06:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, all this source says is that -one- conservative is supporting it for certain reasons. It is not claiming that 'many conservatives are supporting universal health care for these reasons' or 'some conservatives feel they can support government run health care for this reason' it is saying 'I now support universal health care for this reason.' So at most you could say in the article 'One conservative supported Universal Health Care in 2007 for these reasons' and cite this source. You would likely have to ask the author of the article if he still feels the same way to cite that he feels that way now, since this is his most current article dealing with health care: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/merry_christmas_from_harry.html It might be interesting to ask him how his theory that American universal health care would be great turned into a battle against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.204.79 ( talk) 07:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The map suggests that Italy and Greece have compulsory insurance systems, like the systems of central and eastern europe, when in fact they don't and have publicly owned systems.
Alpha-ZX ( talk) 11:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Greenland The map indicates no health system in Greenland, however the text describes a Greenland healthcare system.
Also, should not the Greenland discussion be integrated with mother country Denmark? gerenr ( talk) 12:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the USA be green now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.91.83 ( talk) 03:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Nope, The USA Health Care Reform Bill does not technically conform to the global definition of "Universal Healthcare" as defined by the World Health Organisation.
Unfortunately, there is a reason it's called "HCR" not "UHC"
121.203.38.39 ( talk) 07:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It's "UHC", they just don't call it that because of the political opponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.91.83 ( talk) 13:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I just returned from Egypt, where I learned that there is Universal access to some level of health care . Is this enough to give that country some color on the map???
23-march-2010 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
140.247.109.18 (
talk)
16:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
THE US SHOULD BE GREEN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.165.93 ( talk) 14:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Well even in some countries with UHC not everyone is covered, but those are usually illegal immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.165.93 ( talk) 21:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I have updated the map: added Egypt and some other countries that I was able to find an article from reliable source that proves it has a universal healthcare. Please let me know if anything I have missed. About US: as I understand, the map is "As of March,2010". That mean at the current moment we here in US still do not have a universal healthcare (I live in US, so I know). Lets wait until 2014, then I with pleasure color US blue (if nothing stops the reform). May be I should add color like "yellow" for "reform in transition"? Let me know if anybody object. Innab ( talk) 15:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It is quite surprising that some of the most successfull - according to many surveys - healthcare systems are not mentioned. Could someone add these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.34.207 ( talk) 14:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know enough about this topic to write one myself, but there is no section on France, where universal health care exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.68.114 ( talk) 08:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a more rigorous definition of universal health care provided by an outside source. Recent debate in the US shows that what different people mean when they say "universal health care" is not consistent.
I haven't been able to find an organization that attempts to classify health care systems around the world as coarsely as this article does, as either universal or not. Not surprisingly the grouping of countries in this article is not applied uniformly. This is inevitable--to take the US as an example, one can find sources that say the new system will be universal and sources that say it won't be. Some say the current US system is universal, through a combination of private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, free clinics, or that fact that ERs can't turn people away, all of which is subsidized by the government.
Without a single source to rely on, or a clearer definition of what comprises universal health care, all of the classification done in this article is original research. We either need a better definition, or to remove the map and the attempt to determine whether every country's health care is universal. Mforg ( talk) 15:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the map for several reasons.
The article has great potential, but seems to be in need of a re-design in order to reach the next level.
How about drafting an attached "List of Countries by Health Care Delivery System?" and a discussion on what should be in such a table? If the table were designed appropriately, a map could represent that compilation. One or more of the critiques (noted just above) of the map could then be resolved - as the table could include reference citations, and be designed to be globally applicable (rather than favouring a single national point of view).
I am the creator of the Human Security Index, and could really see benefit from a table that was (1) globally comprehensive (e.g. listed all the countries/states covered in the CIA World Factbook at a minimum), and (2) had columns for, say, (a) universal health coverage in effect?, (b) universal health coverage legislated and in process of implementation?, (c) type of coverage (e.g. single-payer, multi-tier, mandated insurance (with gaps covered by government or other service), (d) other (whatever might be agreed to), (3) year(s) of implementation/revision, and (4) reference citation(s) documenting the country's universal health coverage or lack of same. It might be better to have separate columns "checked off" for type of coverage, as some countries combine more than one aspect. It might also be worth considering where state, non-profit private sector, profit-making private sector modalities are in play, and whether people can lose coverage or financial benefit by technicalities (e.g. by ringing 999 for an ambulance, and getting one that your provider will not reimburse).
With such a table, and a map based thereon, the article itself could go deeper into the issue. It could do deeper analysis on successes and challenges of each methodology, and discuss (perhaps in a separate article, or on country-specific articles perhaps hyperlinked from the List_of_countries_by_health_care_delivery_system) situations in individual countries/states.
I have been working on such a table (but not in a Wiki environment). It now seems to have over 130 countries/states with universal health care by various means. It is far from "publication-ready" but suggests that a few more eyes doing design and peer review might lead to a useful compilation. 192.153.129.137 ( talk) 17:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Hastings
The problem you would have is that the topic is multidemensional and there would not be agreement on how to break out the analysis, how label the data or get data that was compiled in the same way to get comparable. Most countries have a mix of private and public services but the content of each public service would be radically different as would be the methods of funding, reimbursement, etc. By all means think about further and bring your ideas back but I suspect it will be hard to get even near unanimity from the editing community. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 23:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh, your points imply (rightly, IMHO) that the discussion seeking to partially agree on how to break out the analysis, etc. are part of the point. This would not be research per se, but design of the presentation. The draft table that I have now lists SP (Beveridge "single payer"), IM (Bismarckian "insurance mandate"), MSM (Modified Semashko - which seems to be evolving toward IM with some multi-tier aspects in several countries), and TT (two-tier but maybe should be reworded MT for multi-tier), with blends allowed (as they occur in various administrations). I am grinding through WHO and other documents, country by country - but unfortunately they are not fully consistent in their presentations in the documents that I find on the Web. After discussing issues with others, I get the impression that qualifying modalities could involve subsidy, non-profit, or profit (but not "profiteering") by financial mechanisms (ministries, tax and health administrations, or "insurance providers") or service providers (clinics, others). An additional thought - agreement on what constituted universal health care would not be necessary in the table. The goal of the table would be to provide information on health delivery mechanisms in countries - which the reader could use to help determine what constitutes universal coverage. And, of course, we're talking Wiki - something that would hopefully encourage others to be more complete, up-to-date, or otherwise better than anything that I or anyone else might initially draft. 192.153.129.137 ( talk) 17:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Hastings
There is a sentence using the word 'medicare' when describing the health care coverage in Canada. That is inaccurate, as medicare does not exist it Canada. 68.247.32.156 ( talk) 05:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)chitniss
"probably because of the 40% cost savings associated with universal preventive care" I read this and thought wow that's amazing so I read the source and found it is unfortunately not applied correctly and is very misleading.
It is important to note that not once did this study mention "universal preventive care".
The source says: "On a yearly basis the net cost saving to the government is $191,733 per year (2003 $Can) equating to $3,687 per physician or $63,911 per facilitator, an estimated return on intervention investment and delivery of appropriate preventive care of 40%."
In the Discussion section of the report: "The significant reduction in inappropriate testing and increase in appropriate testing resulted in net savings of $191,733 per year in 2003 dollars to the government or a return on investment of 40%. "
This is based on the single study shown, which does not apply to all of heath care.
Unfortunately the study is based on: "The Prevention Facilitator intervention involved Health Service Organizations (HSOs) in Ontario. HSOs are community primary care practices that have a payment system based primarily on capitation and not fee-for-service"
and
" rates of delivery for preventive screening tests were from a randomized controlled trial in a HSO setting. Therefore, caution must be used when generalizing the potential cost savings to other settings."
And accordingly: " However, this study involved HSO physicians who may not be representative of all family physicians and research has demonstrated that the intervention does not work in chaotic practices "
Believing in good faith I believe this article was misunderstood. Though it is important to note that not once did the article mention "universal preventive care" or even the word "universal".
This is why I made the change. 67.183.129.200 ( talk) 00:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone should mark this article to put it at the concern of as many users as can be, so it gets reviewed letter by letter. A good way to improve it is to add a spreadsheet putting very clear which countries really have universal health, and some kind of scoring system borrowed from some ngo. If China is there then im pretty sure there are lot of countries that should not be there. And economics section is a joke, that wikipedia is not a dictionary does not mean you are not supposed to search word universal and look what it actually means.
This article is defenitively biased by some megalomaniac company and needs to be under close surveillance. Preceding unsigned comment added by Userwords ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, would like to propose a major revision to this article, towards the following new outline:
The biggest change will be to remove the country-specific descriptions of UHC to a separate page (for example, Universal health coverage by country or Health financing by country, which would mirror the Health systems by country article but focus on short paras for each country that detail the financing arrangements in that country, and then link out to the main health system#financing link for each country. I suggest this because for now the country-specific descriptions take up the bulk of the article, and the broader definitional and generic issues around UHC are not covered well. Please share your thoughts on the above proposal.-- Karl.brown ( talk) 20:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The map rather confusingly lists Iraq and Afghanistan as having their "health care coverage provided by the United States war funding." I know of some commitments by the US military to provide medical attention to civilians injured as a by-product of American military action, but no universal health care. Could someone clarify? -- Indolering ( talk) 19:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Most countries have constitutional guarantees for universal health care. I think we need to add another color to the map indicating these countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.196 ( talk) 00:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I read the article and thought it would be nice to see more information included about the history and different funding models. I have included sources in my proposal.
Could there be a comparison made between the funding models? Possibly the implementation issues? http://www.healthpaconline.net/universal-health-care.htm
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/11/07-049387/en/index.html
Under the funding models section in the Social health insurance sub-section there did not appear to be much information. If Social Health Insurance is too dissimilar to be elaborated on in this article could there be an inclusion of a link to another wiki article and/or website that goes in depth about social health insurance? "Social health insurance:Key factors affecting the transition towards universal coverage" by Guy Carrin and Chris James for the World Health Organization Geneva.
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/98443/E84968.pdf
Also the community-based health insurance sub-section was lacking too in information. There are countries that are implementing this funding model and it would be interesting to see them included in the article.
http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/3/147.full.pdf
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/69023/1/EIP_FER_DP.E_03.1.pdf
Thank you.
-- D wing200 ( talk) 22:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
If yes, File:Universal health care.svg should be updated accordingly. Dodoïste ( talk) 08:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). — Preceding
Wikipedia:Signatures comment added by
98.220.38.52 (
talk)
13:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
According to Health care in Poland Poland has universal health coverage, which is not reflected on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.2.98 ( talk) 20:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
According to the map Russian Federation is not country with UHC. Document provided as a proof does not contain proof itself (inside) and only has short statement (page 15) telling that "Russia did not have healthcare insurance among more than 90% of population", which is ridiculous as long as permanent health insurance is given for all and everywhere any time and the only actual reason for denial can be if you lost your passport. According to The Federal Fund for Mandatory Medical Insurance (Rus), 141,4 million are insured 2.92.144.127 ( talk) 06:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I've tagged the section of the article that contains this map as it doesn't belong in this article. According to the source, "Social health protection is defined by the ILO as a series of public or publicly organized and mandated private measures against social distress and economic loss caused by the reduction of productivity, stoppage or reduction of earnings, or the cost of necessary treatment that can result from ill health." In other words, SHP doesn't necessarily involve health care, which is only a component of SHP. It's also not synonymous with "Compulsory insurance" so having it in that section doesn't make sense. What it does do is paint the U.S. in a flattering light, even though the U.S. doesn't have universal health care. User:Obiwankenobi created the graphic in 2012 and appears steadfast on it remaining in this article. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 09:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I also find it really ironic that this SHP map is being attacked. One of the main reasons I added it was to balance the initial graph, which is partially based on this data, but also sets thresholds for service delivery. As a result, many countries which have very high levels of insurance coverage were *not* considered to have UHC. Thus, I felt, adding the map to demonstrate that there are many countries with high levels of SHP - even if they don't meet service delivery threshholds, would inform the reader. This is a complex subject, and it's not black and white (e.g. X has it, Y doesn't) - each country is at a different point along a multi-dimensional spectrum. One of APatens original critiques about the map was that it highlighted countries with legislation but poor coverage, while not highlighting those with good coverage, perhaps no formal legislation, and not meeting service threshholds. The ILO map was intended to help show a different side of the story. I admit that not creating a SHP section was my fault, so rather than keep arguing, lets just work together on that.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 17:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed the Universal health care map File:Universal_health_care.svg added on July 17, 2012 and the Social health protection map File:Social_health_protection.svg added on August 1, 2012 by Karl.brown/Obiwankenobi ( talk | contribs) because they were inaccurate and misleading and their sources were not reliable.
The Universal health care map File:Universal_health_care.svg was sourced to:
The Social health protection map File:Social_health_protection.svg was sourced to:
Both sources used health insurance coverage percentages from Table A2.2. Formal coverage in social health protection on pages 83–90 of Appendix II in:
Which for OECD countries is based on 2003 statistics in:
But major discrepancies/errors are found in Table A2.2 of the 2008 ILO paper vs. OECD Total public and primary private health insurance coverage statistics for 2003 for Chile (96.0% vs. 66.1%), Israel (9.0% vs. 100%), Mexico (78.6% vs. 46.5%), United States (100% vs. 85.0%), making all ILO-based health insurance coverage data (and world maps based on it) unreliable.
In addition to being based on unreliable ILO health insurance coverage data, the 2010 Stuckler et al. symposium background paper has other problems:
This Wikipedia article's Universal health care map File:Universal_health_care.svg was altered from the 2010 Stuckler et al. paper map to include an additional 17 countries that the paper (dubiously) says have passed health legislation that explicitly states that the entire population is covered by a health plan that grants them access to a core set of services, but have not achieved >90% skilled birth attendance (4 countries) or >90% health insurance coverage (12 countries + the United States which the ILO says has achieved 100% health insurance coverage but has not). This Wikipedia article's Universal health care map File:Universal_health_care.svg highlights these 17 additional countries as: "Nations with legislated mandate for Universal health coverage, but which have not yet reached thresholds above." It is not credible to highlight El Salvador (ILO 59.6%), Bolivia (ILO 66.9%), and the Congo (ILO …%) as being closer to providing universal health care than Poland (OECD 97.5%), Lithuania (ILO …%), and Lebanon (ILO 95.1%).
Apatens (
talk)
17:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the readdition of misleading, inaccurate maps based on an unreliable ILO source by IP-hopping anonymous editor 88.232.225.122/ 88.232.227.246/ 81.213.226.125/ 88.224.21.194, who has reintroduced misleading, inaccurate maps without reliable sources to this article four times without consensus, talk page discussion, or edit summaries. Apatens ( talk)
I re-added the two maps. I have moved the discussion to the talk pages of the maps in question, in order to centralize the discussion.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 20:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The Social_health_protection.svg map created by Karl.brown/Obiwankenobi ( talk | contribs) on August 1, 2012 is inaccurate and misleading and its source is not reliable:
Which uses health insurance coverage percentages from Table A2.2. Formal coverage in social health protection on pages 83–90 of Appendix II in:
Which for OECD countries is based on 2003 statistics in:
But major discrepancies/errors are found in Table A2.2 of the 2008 ILO paper vs. OECD Total public and primary private health insurance coverage statistics for 2003 for Chile (96.0% vs. 66.1%), Israel (9.0% vs. 100%), Mexico (78.6% vs. 46.5%), United States (100% vs. 85.0%), making all ILO-based health insurance coverage data (and world maps based on it) unreliable.
Apatens (
talk)
16:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstood. It is one set of data—misused by the International Labour Office.
The U.S. Census Bureau data on U.S. health insurance coverage in 2003—was used by the OECD for their statistics about U.S. health insurance coverage in 2003—which was published by the OECD in 2006—and was misused by the International Labour Office in Table A2.2 of their 2008 "Social health protection" paper to produce the absurd result that:
This ridiculous claim was then replicated in the ILO's 2010 World Social Security Report, where it was used as the basis for its Figure 3.7 map, which was used as the basis for Obiwankenobi's Social_health_protection.svg map used in this Wikipedia article.
It is not valid to add the population percentage of Medicare beneficiaries and the population percentage eligible for Medicaid (ignoring the duplication of "dual eligibles" who receive Medicare and Medicaid) to the population percentage with private health insurance (ignoring the duplication of including complementary private health insurance—which most Medicare beneficiaries have to cover some of their cost sharing), as is made apparent by the absurd result that:
• 100% of the United States population has health insurance coverage!!!
Table A2.2 of the 2008 ILO "Social health protection" paper contains other errors, e.g.: miscopying OECD health insurance data for Israel (substituting 9.0% for 100%) and an error copying Mexico's 78.6% total insurance coverage to the following line for Moldova, instead of using Moldova's 100% social health insurance coverage.
Per
WP:EXCEPTIONAL: Any exceptional claim requires multiple independent high-quality sources.
The following are exceptional claims made by the Obiwankenobi's Social_health_protection.svg map based on the ILO's 2010 World Social Security Report:
The above are blatant errors from "Table A2.2. Formal coverage in social health protection" on pages 83–90 of Appendix II in:
A map based on misinformation and making exceptional claims SHOULD NOT be re-added to this or any other Wikipedia articles without consensus and multiple independent high-quality sources. Apatens ( talk) 23:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
for me it seems that the article about Hong Kong talk more of medicine in Hong Kong than the health care system. if somebody believe it so, please make the necesary changes (if he knows about the health care system). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedy 30 ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
How do you edit to add? The Austrian Health System should be covered since there is a great article on it from the JAMA. I am not a Wiki editor, but thought someone who knows how to do this editing should read and write an Austrian section.
Charles L. Bennett; Bernhard Schwarz; Michael Marberger Health Care in Austria: Universal Access, National Health Insurance, and Private Health Care JAMA, Jun 1993; 269: 2789 - 2794.
( 67.184.121.92 ( talk) 23:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)).
On July 8, an IP address added to the lead that Turkey doesn't have universal health care ( [1]). I reverted that edit, because the original text that asserts that the US is the only wealthy, industrialized nation not to have uhc, was cited to two different sources supporting that assertion, whilst the new text was not supported by those two sources nor did the IP address add its own source(s) to support its assertion. I have asked the address to point out some sources that say Turkey doesn't have uhc, but I thought to bring this query to this talk page; does Turkey have uhc, and if not should we adjust the text in the lead accordingly? Otumba ( talk) 14:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Not only in the US section, but the entire article is 100% pro socialized healthcare. There is no talk about rationing bodies in the UK and Canada, and the "facts" stating that life expectancy is the lowest in the US in completely false. There is also no mention that most Americans are satisfied with health care especially at the beginning of 2008 before we were told there was a "crisis" with our system. Also no mention that of the 47 mil that dont have insurance in the US, 50% arent even citizens and another 10 mil make 75k or more and chose not to purchase it. And finally there is no mention of the millions of people from other countries who come here because their systems either wont spend the money to heal them or that our care is superior. The American health system as it is, is one of the best in the world. We provide inovation and the latest equipment to the entire world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 ( talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I tried to make this a little more fair in the respect that the entire article glorifies universal health care, but reading the replies to everyone else i understand now why it is so liberal in the first place. Dont try and make this article seem like universal is the way to go by supporting it with entirely liberal sources. This isnt the huffington post its supposed to be a biased online encyclopedia. If our system is so bad, why do millions flock here every year to see our doctors? exaclty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 ( talk) 19:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There is also no mention that most Americans are satisfied with health care especially at the beginning of 2008 before we were told there was a "crisis" with our system.
-- Jorfer ( talk) 06:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Realise that the problem in America is not peoples access to medicine; hosptials are legally required to treat any patient that enters. The problem is the cost to some people, especially those with pre-existing conditions. All Obama has to do is regulate prices.
It also seems like nobody has updated the info on this page, like for instance the fact that more americans are now opposed to the president's proposed bill, and even more are happy with their current plan. There is no evidence that a government run health plan is any better than a free market anywhere in the world. It may be cheaper for the individual, but seniors recieve less coverage, long waits for ordinary procedures are unavoidable, and quality of care and innovation drop dramatically, and these things can NOT be argued. Please, in the name of journalism and unbiased info sources, make this article less bias. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
136.160.191.18 (
talk)
19:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read through the article and it's pretty damn well unacceptable as is. I'll be making sourced edits this weekend to improve arguments against healthcare, because a number of arguments were skimmed and removed. -- 170.97.167.61 ( talk) 19:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors to this article may wish to know that the article Shona Holmes (who has appeared in advertsements and in congress campaiging against health care reform and especially against single payer) has been nominated for deletion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shona_Holmes_(3rd_nomination)#Shona_Holmes Please feel free to add your comments about this proposed deletion as you see fit. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
There should be a section on Cuba (main article: Healthcare in Cuba). They have one of the best health care systems in the world, despite economic hardships.-- 87.162.34.82 ( talk) 17:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The politics section begins by waffling about far reaching changes being necessary to health care systems globally. This is, surely, disputable. The document it quotes does not even appear to be in the public domain. I suspect the main reason for this preamble is to justify the sections that follow, which re-iterate all the arguments going on in the United States. The fact is that most health care systems around the world with UHC do not seem to have the same problems that the US has.
Because the U.S. does not actually have a UHC system and the political issues being played out in the U.S. are covered in other articles, I would argue that most of this politics section does not belong in this article. It should be merged into Health care reform in the United States with a reference to this main article being put in its place. Comments please. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually Hauskalainen you're being a WP:ASSHOLE. That was a good section and now I can't get ANY of the references. If there's a way to restore the hard work that was put into that, and possibly suspend Hauskalainen, I would greatly appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.250.175.26 ( talk) 12:38, 27 October 2009
I stand by my argument. The United States of America does not have Universal Health Care but many countries do have it. It is crazy to have such a large section devoted to politics in the United States and say nothing about health care politics in the countries that actually DO have Universal Health Care. I wouldn't mind if the politics in the U.S. actually reflected political debate about health care in the countries which have Universal Health Care, but as far as I can see, it simply does not. There are places in Wikipedia for texts such as these such Health care in the United States for example, and even that other article Health care reform in the United States (which is highly biased in what it includes and especially what it omits - see my recent on its talk page. Other editors are welcome to try and fix it or get it deleted, nut I for one will no longer edit it). But the text I deleted certainly does not belong here. If you need the references you can easily get them from history but most of the text has been culled from other articles en bloc. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I come back to this article every few months - it is much improved from a few months ago! Good stuff -- Nmcclana ( talk) 09:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
OK we obviously disagree on this paragraph:
Conservatives can favor universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. This would allow the U.S. to adopt universal health care, while simultaneously cutting government spending and cutting taxes.
Reference: A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage, Randall Hoven, December 12, 2007
Not just is conservatives ability to favor universal health care being listed in that section an Ad hominem argument against non-conservatives (conservatives can support it, so Universal Health Care should be approved), but it is a statement that takes a very diverse group of people and concludes a common attribute...that needs more sourcing than an editorial. That wording also reads like and advertisement.-- Jorfer ( talk) 04:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but you don't seem to know what Ad hominem means. The argument that conservatives can support it for the reasons listed in that section IS an argument in favor of UHC, not only for the reasons listed, but because it shows it's possible to get conservative support. And it doesn't say all conservatives support it (obviously) but that there are good reasons that align with traditional conservative interests that would allow conservatives to support it.
Also it would be possible to both cut spending and cut taxes. Mystylplx ( talk) 05:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Well if the argument is wholly wrong and one can prove it then it is fair game to challenge it. For example one might accept that UHC based on single payer could lower costs but this has to be balanced against potential issues of choice (for example, will the single payer system pay for the branded medicine I have always used or do I have to switch to a cheaper generic? If that trade off had to be made and you felt choice of medicine was more important tham cost, a conervative might not go for the cheaper option.--Hausk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen ( talk • contribs) September 12, 2009
It should not be used as a source at all, as it a man's personal opinion. And he even admits, in the piece, that it is -not- compatible with conservative principles. The crux of his case is that that the only thing compatible with very conservative, or his own librertatioan principles, would be for the government to stop interfering all together- but since the government is interferring, he thinks we should get our money's worth. This piece, being pure opinion, and not that of any historical figure or person of note regarding health care, should not be used - and it does not make a convincing case nor a support for a conservative platform for universal healthcare, so it is extremely misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.204.79 ( talk) 06:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, all this source says is that -one- conservative is supporting it for certain reasons. It is not claiming that 'many conservatives are supporting universal health care for these reasons' or 'some conservatives feel they can support government run health care for this reason' it is saying 'I now support universal health care for this reason.' So at most you could say in the article 'One conservative supported Universal Health Care in 2007 for these reasons' and cite this source. You would likely have to ask the author of the article if he still feels the same way to cite that he feels that way now, since this is his most current article dealing with health care: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/merry_christmas_from_harry.html It might be interesting to ask him how his theory that American universal health care would be great turned into a battle against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.204.79 ( talk) 07:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The map suggests that Italy and Greece have compulsory insurance systems, like the systems of central and eastern europe, when in fact they don't and have publicly owned systems.
Alpha-ZX ( talk) 11:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Greenland The map indicates no health system in Greenland, however the text describes a Greenland healthcare system.
Also, should not the Greenland discussion be integrated with mother country Denmark? gerenr ( talk) 12:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the USA be green now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.91.83 ( talk) 03:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Nope, The USA Health Care Reform Bill does not technically conform to the global definition of "Universal Healthcare" as defined by the World Health Organisation.
Unfortunately, there is a reason it's called "HCR" not "UHC"
121.203.38.39 ( talk) 07:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It's "UHC", they just don't call it that because of the political opponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.91.83 ( talk) 13:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I just returned from Egypt, where I learned that there is Universal access to some level of health care . Is this enough to give that country some color on the map???
23-march-2010 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
140.247.109.18 (
talk)
16:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
THE US SHOULD BE GREEN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.165.93 ( talk) 14:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Well even in some countries with UHC not everyone is covered, but those are usually illegal immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.165.93 ( talk) 21:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I have updated the map: added Egypt and some other countries that I was able to find an article from reliable source that proves it has a universal healthcare. Please let me know if anything I have missed. About US: as I understand, the map is "As of March,2010". That mean at the current moment we here in US still do not have a universal healthcare (I live in US, so I know). Lets wait until 2014, then I with pleasure color US blue (if nothing stops the reform). May be I should add color like "yellow" for "reform in transition"? Let me know if anybody object. Innab ( talk) 15:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It is quite surprising that some of the most successfull - according to many surveys - healthcare systems are not mentioned. Could someone add these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.34.207 ( talk) 14:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know enough about this topic to write one myself, but there is no section on France, where universal health care exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.68.114 ( talk) 08:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a more rigorous definition of universal health care provided by an outside source. Recent debate in the US shows that what different people mean when they say "universal health care" is not consistent.
I haven't been able to find an organization that attempts to classify health care systems around the world as coarsely as this article does, as either universal or not. Not surprisingly the grouping of countries in this article is not applied uniformly. This is inevitable--to take the US as an example, one can find sources that say the new system will be universal and sources that say it won't be. Some say the current US system is universal, through a combination of private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, free clinics, or that fact that ERs can't turn people away, all of which is subsidized by the government.
Without a single source to rely on, or a clearer definition of what comprises universal health care, all of the classification done in this article is original research. We either need a better definition, or to remove the map and the attempt to determine whether every country's health care is universal. Mforg ( talk) 15:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the map for several reasons.
The article has great potential, but seems to be in need of a re-design in order to reach the next level.
How about drafting an attached "List of Countries by Health Care Delivery System?" and a discussion on what should be in such a table? If the table were designed appropriately, a map could represent that compilation. One or more of the critiques (noted just above) of the map could then be resolved - as the table could include reference citations, and be designed to be globally applicable (rather than favouring a single national point of view).
I am the creator of the Human Security Index, and could really see benefit from a table that was (1) globally comprehensive (e.g. listed all the countries/states covered in the CIA World Factbook at a minimum), and (2) had columns for, say, (a) universal health coverage in effect?, (b) universal health coverage legislated and in process of implementation?, (c) type of coverage (e.g. single-payer, multi-tier, mandated insurance (with gaps covered by government or other service), (d) other (whatever might be agreed to), (3) year(s) of implementation/revision, and (4) reference citation(s) documenting the country's universal health coverage or lack of same. It might be better to have separate columns "checked off" for type of coverage, as some countries combine more than one aspect. It might also be worth considering where state, non-profit private sector, profit-making private sector modalities are in play, and whether people can lose coverage or financial benefit by technicalities (e.g. by ringing 999 for an ambulance, and getting one that your provider will not reimburse).
With such a table, and a map based thereon, the article itself could go deeper into the issue. It could do deeper analysis on successes and challenges of each methodology, and discuss (perhaps in a separate article, or on country-specific articles perhaps hyperlinked from the List_of_countries_by_health_care_delivery_system) situations in individual countries/states.
I have been working on such a table (but not in a Wiki environment). It now seems to have over 130 countries/states with universal health care by various means. It is far from "publication-ready" but suggests that a few more eyes doing design and peer review might lead to a useful compilation. 192.153.129.137 ( talk) 17:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Hastings
The problem you would have is that the topic is multidemensional and there would not be agreement on how to break out the analysis, how label the data or get data that was compiled in the same way to get comparable. Most countries have a mix of private and public services but the content of each public service would be radically different as would be the methods of funding, reimbursement, etc. By all means think about further and bring your ideas back but I suspect it will be hard to get even near unanimity from the editing community. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 23:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh, your points imply (rightly, IMHO) that the discussion seeking to partially agree on how to break out the analysis, etc. are part of the point. This would not be research per se, but design of the presentation. The draft table that I have now lists SP (Beveridge "single payer"), IM (Bismarckian "insurance mandate"), MSM (Modified Semashko - which seems to be evolving toward IM with some multi-tier aspects in several countries), and TT (two-tier but maybe should be reworded MT for multi-tier), with blends allowed (as they occur in various administrations). I am grinding through WHO and other documents, country by country - but unfortunately they are not fully consistent in their presentations in the documents that I find on the Web. After discussing issues with others, I get the impression that qualifying modalities could involve subsidy, non-profit, or profit (but not "profiteering") by financial mechanisms (ministries, tax and health administrations, or "insurance providers") or service providers (clinics, others). An additional thought - agreement on what constituted universal health care would not be necessary in the table. The goal of the table would be to provide information on health delivery mechanisms in countries - which the reader could use to help determine what constitutes universal coverage. And, of course, we're talking Wiki - something that would hopefully encourage others to be more complete, up-to-date, or otherwise better than anything that I or anyone else might initially draft. 192.153.129.137 ( talk) 17:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Hastings
There is a sentence using the word 'medicare' when describing the health care coverage in Canada. That is inaccurate, as medicare does not exist it Canada. 68.247.32.156 ( talk) 05:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)chitniss
"probably because of the 40% cost savings associated with universal preventive care" I read this and thought wow that's amazing so I read the source and found it is unfortunately not applied correctly and is very misleading.
It is important to note that not once did this study mention "universal preventive care".
The source says: "On a yearly basis the net cost saving to the government is $191,733 per year (2003 $Can) equating to $3,687 per physician or $63,911 per facilitator, an estimated return on intervention investment and delivery of appropriate preventive care of 40%."
In the Discussion section of the report: "The significant reduction in inappropriate testing and increase in appropriate testing resulted in net savings of $191,733 per year in 2003 dollars to the government or a return on investment of 40%. "
This is based on the single study shown, which does not apply to all of heath care.
Unfortunately the study is based on: "The Prevention Facilitator intervention involved Health Service Organizations (HSOs) in Ontario. HSOs are community primary care practices that have a payment system based primarily on capitation and not fee-for-service"
and
" rates of delivery for preventive screening tests were from a randomized controlled trial in a HSO setting. Therefore, caution must be used when generalizing the potential cost savings to other settings."
And accordingly: " However, this study involved HSO physicians who may not be representative of all family physicians and research has demonstrated that the intervention does not work in chaotic practices "
Believing in good faith I believe this article was misunderstood. Though it is important to note that not once did the article mention "universal preventive care" or even the word "universal".
This is why I made the change. 67.183.129.200 ( talk) 00:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone should mark this article to put it at the concern of as many users as can be, so it gets reviewed letter by letter. A good way to improve it is to add a spreadsheet putting very clear which countries really have universal health, and some kind of scoring system borrowed from some ngo. If China is there then im pretty sure there are lot of countries that should not be there. And economics section is a joke, that wikipedia is not a dictionary does not mean you are not supposed to search word universal and look what it actually means.
This article is defenitively biased by some megalomaniac company and needs to be under close surveillance. Preceding unsigned comment added by Userwords ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, would like to propose a major revision to this article, towards the following new outline:
The biggest change will be to remove the country-specific descriptions of UHC to a separate page (for example, Universal health coverage by country or Health financing by country, which would mirror the Health systems by country article but focus on short paras for each country that detail the financing arrangements in that country, and then link out to the main health system#financing link for each country. I suggest this because for now the country-specific descriptions take up the bulk of the article, and the broader definitional and generic issues around UHC are not covered well. Please share your thoughts on the above proposal.-- Karl.brown ( talk) 20:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The map rather confusingly lists Iraq and Afghanistan as having their "health care coverage provided by the United States war funding." I know of some commitments by the US military to provide medical attention to civilians injured as a by-product of American military action, but no universal health care. Could someone clarify? -- Indolering ( talk) 19:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Most countries have constitutional guarantees for universal health care. I think we need to add another color to the map indicating these countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.196 ( talk) 00:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I read the article and thought it would be nice to see more information included about the history and different funding models. I have included sources in my proposal.
Could there be a comparison made between the funding models? Possibly the implementation issues? http://www.healthpaconline.net/universal-health-care.htm
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/11/07-049387/en/index.html
Under the funding models section in the Social health insurance sub-section there did not appear to be much information. If Social Health Insurance is too dissimilar to be elaborated on in this article could there be an inclusion of a link to another wiki article and/or website that goes in depth about social health insurance? "Social health insurance:Key factors affecting the transition towards universal coverage" by Guy Carrin and Chris James for the World Health Organization Geneva.
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/98443/E84968.pdf
Also the community-based health insurance sub-section was lacking too in information. There are countries that are implementing this funding model and it would be interesting to see them included in the article.
http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/3/147.full.pdf
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/69023/1/EIP_FER_DP.E_03.1.pdf
Thank you.
-- D wing200 ( talk) 22:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
If yes, File:Universal health care.svg should be updated accordingly. Dodoïste ( talk) 08:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). — Preceding
Wikipedia:Signatures comment added by
98.220.38.52 (
talk)
13:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
According to Health care in Poland Poland has universal health coverage, which is not reflected on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.2.98 ( talk) 20:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
According to the map Russian Federation is not country with UHC. Document provided as a proof does not contain proof itself (inside) and only has short statement (page 15) telling that "Russia did not have healthcare insurance among more than 90% of population", which is ridiculous as long as permanent health insurance is given for all and everywhere any time and the only actual reason for denial can be if you lost your passport. According to The Federal Fund for Mandatory Medical Insurance (Rus), 141,4 million are insured 2.92.144.127 ( talk) 06:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I've tagged the section of the article that contains this map as it doesn't belong in this article. According to the source, "Social health protection is defined by the ILO as a series of public or publicly organized and mandated private measures against social distress and economic loss caused by the reduction of productivity, stoppage or reduction of earnings, or the cost of necessary treatment that can result from ill health." In other words, SHP doesn't necessarily involve health care, which is only a component of SHP. It's also not synonymous with "Compulsory insurance" so having it in that section doesn't make sense. What it does do is paint the U.S. in a flattering light, even though the U.S. doesn't have universal health care. User:Obiwankenobi created the graphic in 2012 and appears steadfast on it remaining in this article. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 09:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I also find it really ironic that this SHP map is being attacked. One of the main reasons I added it was to balance the initial graph, which is partially based on this data, but also sets thresholds for service delivery. As a result, many countries which have very high levels of insurance coverage were *not* considered to have UHC. Thus, I felt, adding the map to demonstrate that there are many countries with high levels of SHP - even if they don't meet service delivery threshholds, would inform the reader. This is a complex subject, and it's not black and white (e.g. X has it, Y doesn't) - each country is at a different point along a multi-dimensional spectrum. One of APatens original critiques about the map was that it highlighted countries with legislation but poor coverage, while not highlighting those with good coverage, perhaps no formal legislation, and not meeting service threshholds. The ILO map was intended to help show a different side of the story. I admit that not creating a SHP section was my fault, so rather than keep arguing, lets just work together on that.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 17:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed the Universal health care map File:Universal_health_care.svg added on July 17, 2012 and the Social health protection map File:Social_health_protection.svg added on August 1, 2012 by Karl.brown/Obiwankenobi ( talk | contribs) because they were inaccurate and misleading and their sources were not reliable.
The Universal health care map File:Universal_health_care.svg was sourced to:
The Social health protection map File:Social_health_protection.svg was sourced to:
Both sources used health insurance coverage percentages from Table A2.2. Formal coverage in social health protection on pages 83–90 of Appendix II in:
Which for OECD countries is based on 2003 statistics in:
But major discrepancies/errors are found in Table A2.2 of the 2008 ILO paper vs. OECD Total public and primary private health insurance coverage statistics for 2003 for Chile (96.0% vs. 66.1%), Israel (9.0% vs. 100%), Mexico (78.6% vs. 46.5%), United States (100% vs. 85.0%), making all ILO-based health insurance coverage data (and world maps based on it) unreliable.
In addition to being based on unreliable ILO health insurance coverage data, the 2010 Stuckler et al. symposium background paper has other problems:
This Wikipedia article's Universal health care map File:Universal_health_care.svg was altered from the 2010 Stuckler et al. paper map to include an additional 17 countries that the paper (dubiously) says have passed health legislation that explicitly states that the entire population is covered by a health plan that grants them access to a core set of services, but have not achieved >90% skilled birth attendance (4 countries) or >90% health insurance coverage (12 countries + the United States which the ILO says has achieved 100% health insurance coverage but has not). This Wikipedia article's Universal health care map File:Universal_health_care.svg highlights these 17 additional countries as: "Nations with legislated mandate for Universal health coverage, but which have not yet reached thresholds above." It is not credible to highlight El Salvador (ILO 59.6%), Bolivia (ILO 66.9%), and the Congo (ILO …%) as being closer to providing universal health care than Poland (OECD 97.5%), Lithuania (ILO …%), and Lebanon (ILO 95.1%).
Apatens (
talk)
17:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the readdition of misleading, inaccurate maps based on an unreliable ILO source by IP-hopping anonymous editor 88.232.225.122/ 88.232.227.246/ 81.213.226.125/ 88.224.21.194, who has reintroduced misleading, inaccurate maps without reliable sources to this article four times without consensus, talk page discussion, or edit summaries. Apatens ( talk)
I re-added the two maps. I have moved the discussion to the talk pages of the maps in question, in order to centralize the discussion.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 20:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The Social_health_protection.svg map created by Karl.brown/Obiwankenobi ( talk | contribs) on August 1, 2012 is inaccurate and misleading and its source is not reliable:
Which uses health insurance coverage percentages from Table A2.2. Formal coverage in social health protection on pages 83–90 of Appendix II in:
Which for OECD countries is based on 2003 statistics in:
But major discrepancies/errors are found in Table A2.2 of the 2008 ILO paper vs. OECD Total public and primary private health insurance coverage statistics for 2003 for Chile (96.0% vs. 66.1%), Israel (9.0% vs. 100%), Mexico (78.6% vs. 46.5%), United States (100% vs. 85.0%), making all ILO-based health insurance coverage data (and world maps based on it) unreliable.
Apatens (
talk)
16:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstood. It is one set of data—misused by the International Labour Office.
The U.S. Census Bureau data on U.S. health insurance coverage in 2003—was used by the OECD for their statistics about U.S. health insurance coverage in 2003—which was published by the OECD in 2006—and was misused by the International Labour Office in Table A2.2 of their 2008 "Social health protection" paper to produce the absurd result that:
This ridiculous claim was then replicated in the ILO's 2010 World Social Security Report, where it was used as the basis for its Figure 3.7 map, which was used as the basis for Obiwankenobi's Social_health_protection.svg map used in this Wikipedia article.
It is not valid to add the population percentage of Medicare beneficiaries and the population percentage eligible for Medicaid (ignoring the duplication of "dual eligibles" who receive Medicare and Medicaid) to the population percentage with private health insurance (ignoring the duplication of including complementary private health insurance—which most Medicare beneficiaries have to cover some of their cost sharing), as is made apparent by the absurd result that:
• 100% of the United States population has health insurance coverage!!!
Table A2.2 of the 2008 ILO "Social health protection" paper contains other errors, e.g.: miscopying OECD health insurance data for Israel (substituting 9.0% for 100%) and an error copying Mexico's 78.6% total insurance coverage to the following line for Moldova, instead of using Moldova's 100% social health insurance coverage.
Per
WP:EXCEPTIONAL: Any exceptional claim requires multiple independent high-quality sources.
The following are exceptional claims made by the Obiwankenobi's Social_health_protection.svg map based on the ILO's 2010 World Social Security Report:
The above are blatant errors from "Table A2.2. Formal coverage in social health protection" on pages 83–90 of Appendix II in:
A map based on misinformation and making exceptional claims SHOULD NOT be re-added to this or any other Wikipedia articles without consensus and multiple independent high-quality sources. Apatens ( talk) 23:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)