Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 150 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I've deleted the following text from the "Americas" section:

????? Mexico has Universal Health care for the children who were born since January 5th, 2007...please do not delete this information, just edit it. read the info here http://www.esmas.com/noticierostelevisa/mexico/593939.html

The tone is non-encyclopedic, and since the source isn't in English, it's impossible for a non-Spanish speaker to verify. If this information is correct (and I have no reason to believe that it is not), we need someone who can verify it and (ideally) find an English-language source, and then we need to rework the text to make it more encyclopedic. Depending on how much information is available, it may be appropriate to create a new subsection for Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EastTN (talk • contribs) 17:04, August 8, 2008 (UTC)

Mexico's Universal Health Care

http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/en/press/?contenido=40872

Accompanied by state governor Leonel Godoy Rangel and Health Secretary José Ángel Córdova Villalobos, President Calderón declared that regardless of the country's accumulated lag in health and the number of years that have elapsed without dealing with the problem, this Administration is determined to deal with it.

Proof of this, he declared, is that in 2009, Federal Government will assign $133 billion pesos to this sector, in other words, 20% more than in 2008. He added that over the past two years, the amount of resources assigned to the Health Secretary have doubled, while the amount allocated for Popular Insurance has risen from $16 to $48 billion pesos.

“I am convinced that Mexico will only be a more equitable, fairer country when every Mexican has guaranteed, quality medical care," he stated.

The President announced that the Hospital he opened in this municipality involved over $50 million pesos in investment from his administration and will benefit the northeast and east region of Michoacán.

He added that this General Hospital, which he suggested should be called the Bicentennial Hospital, will have six specialties: Pediatrics, gyneco-obstetrics, internal medicine, surgery, anesthesiology and dentistry, in addition to traumatology, since it is located in the middle of the Mexico-Guadalajara highway.

“If we go on like this, to celebrate the Bicentennial, by 2011, Mexico will be one of the few countries in the world to have achieved universal health coverage," he explained.

Mexico is going to accomplish public universal health care by 2011

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.104.87 (talk • contribs) 21:56, December 17, 2008 (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)[reply]

I completely agree with you (That we can disagree on the paragraph). Conservatives disagree with universal healthcare not just for cost factors, which will more likely increase than decrease if Romneycare is any sort of measuring stick, but for quality and the fact that the private insurance mandate is not constitutional as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.204.79 (talk • contribs) 03:06, December 26, 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)[reply]

I tend to agree with Mystylplx here. The viewpoint was specifically the reasons why conservatives should support UHC. So just presenting the argument supporting the premise wihout mentioning the premise itself is not doing the reader any favors.--Hauskalainen (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An argument is an argument regardless of who it persuades. To say that one one person's support is more important than another person's support is definitely Ad hominem (if conservatives support it than I should support it). The ability to get conservative support is an argument to pursue Universal Health Care but not one for Universal Health Care itself. As it is written, it implies all conservatives. If it wasn't for the mentioned problem, "many conservatives" and "should be" would have to be used to clarify and make clear that it is speculation.--Jorfer (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing ad hominem about it. There's no personal attacks and it is not saying "if conservatives support it then I should." That's not what it's saying at all. It's giving reasons why conservatives can support it. That's all.

Your point that this is an argument to pursue UHC but not an argument for UHC is, I think, an accurate distinction, but too fine a distinction to make any difference. Mystylplx (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I agre ewith Mystylplx. The "ad hominem" argument makes no sense and must be a misunderstanding of the term. The simple matter is that the article espoused why conservatives should support the bill. The argument is of cource not irrelevant but the issue was a philopsophical one about whether Action A or Action B is better. You can agree or diagree with the argument but you cannot pretend the argument has not been made or rhat it cannot be discussed encylopediacally (if tht word exists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) September 12, 2009 (UTC)

The distinction may seem subtle, but it makes a big difference. Conservatives are part of a systematic (that of the government) argument in determining the fruitfulness of pursuing Universal Health Care since conservatives are a part of the system, but are not an aspect of the Universal Health Care system itself. Thus conservatives are irrelevant in the second case. Also, to say that conservatives can support something is a psychological estimation, which is much more difficult to prove than to state something like "is compatible with conservative principles such as" and thus would require better sourcing. It would be an argument from definition if conservatism was defined strictly enough and thus would not require much sourcing, but it is not.--Jorfer (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "is compatible with conservative principles" is actually better wording, and is also supported (maybe even more supported) by the cited source. I would not be opposed to changing it to that.

Let's put this into perspective--the section is about arguments that have been made, for and against, UHC. It's not our job as writers/editors for an encyclopedia to make judgments about the quality of those arguments (WP:OR), but merely to faithfully summarize those arguments as they have been made. The cited source for that particular argument is all about why conservatives can support UHC, or alternative wording, how UHC is compatible with conservative principles. Both, the arguments in isolation, as well as the point that they are in alignment with conservative principles, (conservatives being most often the chief opponents of UHC) are arguments in favor (of pursuing, or otherwise) of UHC. Does that make sense to you? Mystylplx (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 (UTC)

Only if the challenge can be backed up by reliable sources. And in this case the section is 'arguments for and against' so the challenge would have to be that the arguments have not been made rather than that the arguments are faulty. If the arguments have been put forth by reliable sources then they deserve inclusion in that section, whether we agree with them or not.Mystylplx (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR applies to the actual content. It does not apply to the determination of the inclusion or copyediting as policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV restrict what content comes in and how it is to be presented. It also does not apply to the analysis of the reliability of an article even if it from a reliable source as you can see in Talk:Accelerated Christian Education#Third opinion starting at "Rspeer said that I made no suggestion on how to fix the problem...".--Jorfer (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the content and how it's presented, I'd say the current version does a pretty good job of presenting the content from the citation, though I really do like your suggestion of "compatible with conservative principles" better. As far as the reliability of the article, I'd say it's a reliable enough source to count in the section in question. Again, the section in question is merely a listing of arguments that have been made, both for and against. By it's very nature this is not Wikipedia making these arguments, but simply detailing the arguments that are 'out there.' That doesn't mean we have to include any nutjob who thinks UHC is mandated by the alien overlords, or conversely, will destroy the planet, but any argument in a reliable source deserves mention in that section. Mystylplx (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Shouldn't the USA be green now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.91.83 (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

THE US SHOULD BE GREEN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.165.93 (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until 2014, when the mandate goes into effect. And remember, even by 2016 only 95% will have coverage. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not saying the map shouldn't be changed, but let's at least wait until the mandate reaches its maximum coverage, sometime around 2016. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 12:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Changed US color to "lime" because yellow visualy blend into white space Innab (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some statements from United States block because it was not neutral and did not cite the sources using reference links to original documents (rather general like "Under PPAC it is estimated..." Estimated by whom?). Statements like ones listed below are highly controversial and not neutral:

"it is hard to include the US on a list of countries having universal health care based on the PPAC" "this system encourages use of the emergency facilities for primary care and not just for emergency purposes" "PPAC answered none of these questions" "since the head of the CBO inappropriately visited the White House to be lobbied by the President in July 2009, many Americans have little faith in the CBO estimates"

Also someones personal blog is not a reliable source of information, unless person is an expert in the field. In this case put note this in the text like "According to XXX,..."

Dear editors, please remember, this is not a newspaper article, but an encyclopedia article. Please put back information that you think is needed, but do not violate wiki rules.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Innab (talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Provide us a text, please. Or just go ahead and add it yourself to the article. 131.252.134.228 (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would propose definition: a national health insurance program in many countries that is mostly financed by taxes and administered by the government to provide comprehensive health care that is accessible to all citizens of that nation.184.76.31.145 (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like a definition of single-payer health care and excludes systems with a mandate for private insurance. I don't see why the source of financing should be relevant or who runs the system. The question is simply if all legal residents of a country have access to pre-catastrophic health care. That is true for countries with a single-payer system as well as those with mandates or combinations of both. --EnOreg (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single-payer it is when goverment pays 100% for the coverage with goverment approved providers accesible to all citizens, that why it single to goverment-only as payer. Many countries have system of susidized insurance, where peoples still have to pay a small portion for the care, however goverment pays for most of the coverage making it accessible to all citizens. US reform is moving that way, if you look at the last page of this CBO document [1], you will see that after 2014 the government will pay 95% for health care premiums for peoples up to 150% FPL (i.e 36K/yr for family of 4), 83% for 200% FPL, 72% for 250% and so on. Eventually this makes health care accesible to all citizens. Innab (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have come late to this thread having only just seen it for the first time today. The definition in the article that I read and deleted the other day was completely wrong and was indeed the definition of Single Payer health care. I too had severe problems with the map and its not a personal dispute. It is, to put it simply, both WP:OR and WP:Bias. It views UHC through the lens of the US health care debate and whether the method of achieving it is Single Payer or a plurality of payers. It imples that most of Europe is a plurality of payers and that is comlpetely false. Only tiny Switzerland and relatively small Holland have a market based insurance system. That in many countries the old trade union based health care financing schemes have continued post reform is merely a matter of history. There is no plurality or competition in most countries for health insurance. Though there may be several payers they operate along the same lines and the divisions between them are purely administrative. Rather as if each US state had its own single payer fund. Would you then say the U.S. had a single payer system or a multiple payer system? This is why the misleading map had to be removed. You cannot simplify a complex issue of health care finance into whether it fits a buzz word or not.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the map for several reasons.

• Primarily, it is an example of Original Research.

There is no sourcing at all, and even if there was, it is likely to be multiple giving rise to issues of choice.

It implies that there is some meaningfulness in the distinction between Single payer systems and other means. i.e. one insurer or many. There is not (IMHO)

It implies that most of Western Europe has a plural financing system with a choice of multiple insurers. That is misleading (IMHO). Take France for example. There, one insurer covers something like 86% of the population. The remainder are in smaller insurance schemes permitted by law according to their profession. Your insurance fund is determined largely by your profession and there is little choice of insurer.

Even in Holland where the government insists that people buy their insurance from a private provider, there is an equalization fund operated by government which distributes finance according to risk experience between funds, essentially making a large single fund with only a proportion of risks carried by the individual insurers.

• Secondly, it is totally biased towards a U.S. perspective.

The term "Single payer" is one that has arisen in the U.S. to describe the system in Canada where multiple insurers were replaced with a single government insurer. It simply has no meaning to observers outside of the United States.

Universal Health care is a globally recognized term and should not be described in terms couched in U.S. terminology which has no relevance to the subject matter. That the debate in the U.S. has been focused on reform in finance matters it is wrong to expect the rest of the world to view this subject through a U.S. lens.

Besides, the issue relates soley to finance. Universal health care systems are about the PLANNED PROVISION of health care service as well as issues of how to finance is (ASSURED FINANCING for all).--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]