Talk:Health care/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Comments

Hmm, Health Care? If you have good health why do you need care? They are medical doctors not health doctors. A hospital is a medical care facility not a health care facility. Students go to medical school not health school. You are responsible for your own good health through exercise and diet. If that fails you go see a medical doctor. There is a lot of basic information on wikipedia that is just wrong. Will it ever get fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.205.169 (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, this is article needs to be re-written. So The language is very much in violation of the Wikipedia rules for writing without bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does "Health Service Journal" redirect to this page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.242.66 (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC) This does not seem to be the case any more.Guptan99 (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is far to United-States centric. They mentions, of say the NHS (After all the 4th largest employer on earth) are only passing. Surely you Americans out there can find the heart to allow comment on the NHS more than you do!

Why was the link to HealingReform.org removed? It is the place where I get news about Health Care on the internet (besides Wikipedia). It gives a broad perspective from both sides of the debate.

^^^^^ "The Debate" concerns a measly 4% of the world population , and is by far not the purpose of this Wikipedia entry. Pleople have "Debates" about their health care systems in all their countries , so unless you look all of that up , and put it all next to each other , that one thing has no relevance , no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.35.69 (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The article assumes nationalized healthcare is good. This is in dispute so it's wrong for a wikipedia entry to have such bias.

Reorganisation of sections

I removed the section on healthcare by country as there is now category:healthcare by nationality. So, rather than adding a long list of nations here, I have added a link to the new category. I have rearranged the paragraphs slightly to make the preview shorter and grouped the information on the healthcare industry into one place. --Vincej 13:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

<a href="http://ketiva.com/Politics_and_Government/bizarre_debates_over_us_health_care_reform1.html">http://ketiva.com/Politics_and_Government/bizarre_debates_over_us_health_care_reform1.html</a>

Definition

Regarding: "I agree with your rewording of the first sentence, except I have readded the link to allied health as not everyone will know what this is. I think that 'social' should be added to the definition (I have not done so, as yet) which is then consistent then with WHO definition of health. [1] What do you think?" I am not a fan of the WHO definition of health for reason described in Health, however, I'm not against the idea of including "social" in the definition: "Health care or healthcare is the prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental, physical, and social well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions." To what specifically would "social well-being" refer, though? Edwardian 19:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Social well-being is being in a comfortable social condition, enough resources, somewhere to live, occupied etc. Most models of health state that social conditions are an essential component of health. However, it could be contested that although social conditions are a contributor to health they are not part of health care, per se. After all, the phrase is often split into health and social care indicating that they are separate entities. Nevertheless, the brief section on the social model of healthcare, that I contributed, hopefully gives credence to seeing health from a social perspective.(If interested, this debate is further articulated here [2])I am happy to either canvas opinon on the topic prior to adding 'social' or to go ahead and allow other Wikipedians to edit as they see fit. --Vincej 10:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I accept your definition of "social well-being", however, I am not certain that social-well being services (i.e. "providing for enough resources, somewhere to live" etc.) are those which medical and allied health professionals offer. Social well-being certainly affects or is affected by health or healthcare (and perhaps that is enough to include "social" in the definition), but I'm concerned that writing the definition that way might necessitate that social workers and homeless shelter volunteers are included as "allied health professionals". Edwardian 16:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's leave it as it is for now with social well-being as one of the determinants of health rather than a product of healthcare and see what others think. --Vincej 09:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Holistic Neologism

Certainly, I can accept that health care is a neologism butI find the term "holistic neologism" objectionable. Not only is it POV but its meaning is extremely murky - is a holist neologism one that arises in a holistic, organic fashion? What is meant is something like "new age neologism" but idea that the term "health care" originated this way needs a bit of support.

The funny is that only references to the phrase "holistic neologism" on google point back to mirrors of this article but were more than six hundred when I checked.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 19:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

History Of

This page is badly in need of a "History Of" section... -Elindstr 00:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge content from Health care delivery

I propose that the entire content of the Health care delivery be put in this section. It seems to be more of a section than a page in itself --Vince 08:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would support that merge. -AED 09:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Merging is fine, but rename it as medical care. The system really has little or no promotion 4 thie thingies these ppl they have of health. A health care article would discuss diet, exercise, abstinence from harmful chemicals, practical safety, and other such items. We go to the medical system to treat disease and injuries, not to improve health. Dwayne Stevenson, 5 October 2004
Although on one level I can sympathise with your comment, health care encompasses a number of different professions, not all of whom are alligned to medicine. I would encourage you to add some content to the article about health promotion as I think part of delivery of healthcare is health promotion, remembering to keep it NPOV of course --Vince 10:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Healthcare policy

I'mm requesting that Healthcare policy be merged into this article because neither one is particularly long at this point and I honestly don't see how they're all that different in the first place. --Jemiller226 07:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Healthcare Policy should have as its focus, government policy. The scope of an article on Health Care should not go past mentioning that there is such a thing as "Health Policy"; as government policy that addresses it. ____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel.package (talk • contribs) 04:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Health( )care

Why is the title of the article (and other healthcare-related articles) written as two distinct words, and yet all references within the article as a single word "healthcare"? I see that the first paragraph states both can be used, but is there not a wiki-standard? Or at least agreement between page name and the article itself. Personally I am more familiar with the single word, but I would not object to the double if it became the standard. MickO'Bants 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines it as two words, "health care." ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/health%20care) The Associated Press Style Guide that informs most media writing style says two words, not one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uams communications (talk • contribs) 15:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

jaundice

what are the ristriction —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Merging Health plan into Health care

I suggest Health plan be merged with this article. If you read both articles, you can see that "Health plan" is but just another name for "Health care," and both entries hold virtually the same information. --I Are Scientists 21:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Against - these are two quite distinct things: health care concerns the provision of various services designed to improve the health of a population, whereas health plan is an insurance based method of paying for individual treatment. As you will see, if you look at Health insurance, there is quite a lot to say about this subject which is not suitable for the article Health care. If you wanted to propose that Health plan be merged with Health insurance, I would agree instantly. Abtract 09:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for merge.--Jorfer 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging Universal health care into Health care

I posted on the Universal health care page that these two topics should be merged. Universal health care is a better, more extensive page and this is a more appropriate name for it. Wikidea 09:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge These are two different topics...both vast. Decoratrix 16:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a question of whether the topics are vast, but whether the articles are covering the same ground. I'm suggesting that the material in the Universal health care is largely stuff that belongs here. Don't you think a lot could be added to this page? Please do have another look. Wikidea 17:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge soon I'm going to merge these pages in 1 day's time, unless there are any relevant objections. I should add that on the Universal health care page there's a big section on the US situation, discussing why American citizens DON'T have universal health care. That shows it's more apt that health care be discussed as a whole. Universal health care and health care cannot be discussed separately either as concepts or in practical terms because there is a range of systems that deserve individual treatment under a unified topic. Wikidea 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree merge - looks like more or less the same subject, but it should be meged here at Health care not at Universal health care because the former is more generic ... good luck doing it! Abtract 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, I've done the merge. Here's a summary of the major differences. Things that are missing include the debate on universal health care, which is now found under the politics section of Health care in the United States because it's a very US specific debate. Also, there was some unreferenced discussion of "hybrid" health systems, which finished by saying something like "and this doesn't exist, except in Germany where they might be trying it". I deleted that because it sounded too fantastic (in the literal sense). I also deleted a large section, again unreferenced, about how disasters can cause problems under the US system of private health. I did that because it was too specialised for this page, however interesting. Otherwise, there are small changes to section headings, and a deletion for the part about preventative medicine and society's role in healthy lifestyles, which is now found at the end of health care systems. Where headings talked about "universal health care" I've just cut out the "universal" and it seems to work alright, because as I was arguing above, the pages covered the same ground.
That's the summary. I also noticed there's a page called Publicly funded health care which sounds to me like what the universal concept was trying to get at. So if anyone wants to talk about it still, then that's the appropriate page. Although I'd recommend that as the debate continues in the States about whether to give the other 40% access to doctors and hospitals, on Wikipedia the debate be conducted on the US page! I've also found a whole heap of pages on all manner of countries' systems, which I'm about to paste into the countries section. I hope this is an improvement. Wikidea 09:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Good work, keep it up.Abtract 10:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There we are. I'm out of steam for now. It's hard to find all the articles that there are on different countries, but I think most of them are linked to now in that page. Wikidea 12:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I propose changing the redirect for Universal health care from Health care to Publicly funded health care. I would guess that most of the people looking for information on "Universal" health care are looking for more of the unique aspects of the system and would be more informed by getting redirected to the publicly funded health care page than just general health care. I know I was confused when I was redirected to the basic health care page, when I wanted a specific type of health care system. If the specific type of system exists as a page, Universal health care should redirect there. Diafygi 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Universal health care is a far more specific topic than health care. It appears that most of the references from that article were not merged into this article. [3] I suggest that the redirecting be undone pending further discussion. UHC is not the same as publicly funded health care; it has a specific meaning as a term of article and only applies to certain systems. Savidan 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this is absurd. They are both long articles, well documented, and with very specific meanings. I'd go for wholesale restoration of the universal health care article.--Gregalton 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I also agree - All a general article like this should be is a WP:Summary of other more specific articles and not really an article in of itself which Universal Health Care is. Universal Health Care should be a seperate article as it allows it to be distinguished as a health care system and not just as health care in general. It may need need a rewrite, but it should not be merged with such a general article.--Jorfer 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merging Universal health care into Health care additional comment

I oppose merger. I don't understand your reason for merging. Health care, and universal health care, are both enormously complicated topics. If universal health care were merged into health care, it would have to be condensed to a paragraph, and it would be impossible for people pro and con to present their views in enough detail to satisfy them. Furthermore, universal health care is an important policy debate.

It seems to me that merging would violate NPOV, because it would diminish the importance of universal health care. People who don't care about universal health care want to get rid of the article.

There is definitely no consensus for merging. Many of us oppose it. You should wait for a consensus. Nbauman 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Health Care Quality paragraph

I deleted the paragraph which referred to the CMA and the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons in reference to quality assessment of health care delivery. Firstly, it clearly appeared to be trying to make a point about the CMA/College, and at the very least is very/too specific to a Canadian context. Secondly, it had several errors, which I outlined in the Edit page -- namely, that the Ontario College does not regulate all Canadian doctors, but those in Ontario only, of course. And CMA, while as association of members who are mainly physicians, etc..., is not technically a (labour) union. Lastly, it references an article in the Toronto Star, but the link does not jump to any such article. 128.86.154.16 14:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Medicare-brand.png

Image:Medicare-brand.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reorganise the sections

The last section on healthcare providers should come much earlier in the article.Avman M2 (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OECD data

Gregalton - I don't understand what the problem is here. The moral hazard problem for insurance companies stands as written, including the exacerbation when out of pocket costs are less than the true cost. It is a very clear statement by OECD that the fraction covered by insurance in the US is largest, and that out of pocket costs are the lowest. The OECD is certainly a reliable source, and the data are not ambiguous. You see the point I am trying to make, please help me to make it. PAR (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several points here: first, you need a source for the claim that the moral hazard problem is why the costs are higher - even if it seems straightforward to you, it is not apparent to me. You are claiming is that the issue is % of costs paid by private insurance, while I see no reason to distinguish between public/private insurance as far as moral hazard goes.
Out of pocket costs are not in fact the lowest - even in the limited table in the article, France and Germany are lower, and UK/Canada are close - but the per capita expenditure is much lower in each of these cases. In other words, it is not clear to me that there is a relationship at all, nor that the relationship is simple or direct. (Rhetorical: if I were to plot out-of-pocket costs vs per capita costs - straight, log, or PPP corrected/log - would there be a relationship?).
Second, the data are quite ambiguous: there are a number of other factors that could affect costs (including, for example, asymmetrical information problems). In statistical terms, even if there is a relationship (which is not demonstrated), you have not demonstrated that the moral hazard problem is the primary driver.
I could quite easily make the same argument that the issue is private insurance (which might be expected to be a driver of information assymetry problems), and this would seem to fit the (limited) data much better. Even if I were to make that argument, though, I would need to provide a source, or it would be original research. (There is an exception made for statements that are completely obvious, but of course, if someone challenges it, it is probably not completely obvious).
Finally, the literature on moral hazard in health insurance that I have seen generally says this is a minor factor and controllable using the usual insurance tools like co-payments. The main point most have made on this is - to over-simplify considerably - the pain, suffering, inconvenience and not inconsiderable risks of medical procedures is sufficient deterrent for most insurance beneficiaries to dissuade them from excessive over-use of health benefits (sometimes stated as "no-one has bypass surgery for fun"). The counter-argument is sometimes made that e.g. visits to doctors are over-consumed, but a) in many medical systems it is the high-cost procedures that dominate the cost equation, and b) many people under-consume preventative medicine if up-front costs are high, which can raise costs in the long-term.
All of this to say that what you have attributed as a straightforward cause-effect relationship is not established as a relationship, and not established as the cause of high U.S. costs.--Gregalton (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that the moral hazard problem does not depend on whether the insurance is public or private, and the statement on moral hazard should not imply otherwise. The point I am trying to make is that out of pocket costs in the US are *among* the smallest, even though the fraction paid by the government is low. The low government contribution might give the false impression that the remainder was out of pocket from the insured. As to your rhetorical question, the relationship might not jump out, unless it was regressed with other factors as well, which is to say, I don't know if there would be a relationship in a simple plot, and if there wasn't, it certainly wouldn't prove a lack of correlation. Also, I don't mean to imply that moral hazard is THE reason why costs are higher, or that it is the "primary driver", only that it is a contributing factor, as is adverse selection, and a number of other effects, which should be listed here. If you have references that say it is a minor factor, by all means lets include those references. I have some that say otherwise, lets include those too. I think it would be good if this section could quickly but succinctly summarize the various points of contention on the economics of health care.
if you have a source that claims that, then use that source; that is what I said in the first place. I'm saying the OECD data isn't sufficient for the causal claim you are making.Gregalton (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because I'm a geek, I plotted the data for North American and Western Europe. Short form: no clear relationship. If all of the countries marked as Europe (i.e. former Soviet Union/Eastern Europe), you might find one - essentially that countries with very low expenditures on health care have highest proportion of out-of-pocket expenses; unclear relationship after PPP expenditures on health care exceed about $1000 or so. I could very plausibly make the argument that causality runs the opposite way, that in poor/poorly governed countries there are few govt support programs and/or private insurance products (for example, under-development of financial sector may be one factor affecting these figures). Of course, this is original research, so I'm still just asking for a source.--Gregalton (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Im not sure what source you are asking for. The source I have (Healthy Competition - Cato) claims that moral hazard is a contributing factor and that lower out of pocket expenses exacerbate the problem. But it makes no further claims, so I agree with you, the article should make no further claims either. I reread what I wrote originally, and I see why you objected, it seemed that I was claiming that the high private insurance was a contributing factor. I should have made clear that the high private insurance explained the low out-of-pocket number, which was the actual contributing cause. I was concerned that the low government contribution for the US would be interpreted as a high out-of-pocket expense. Regarding your plot, Im not sure what you plotted, was it out-of-pocket per person versus expenditure per person? PAR (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I meant a source that does more than (like Cato tends to do) claim that it is a factor, rather than attempting to determine whether this is an actual cause.
I plotted the out of pocket as % of expenditure vs expenditure per person. U.S. was unremarkable except in expense, i.e. no clear relationship.--Gregalton (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well actually, Cato claims it is a large factor, and ignores adverse selection entirely. They are biased towards the free market, but on the plus side, they lay out the free market argument very well. I've never found a source that wasn't biased in some way. As for the plot, just because no clear correlation shows up, doesn't mean there isn't one. It may be obscured by other factors. About the best you can say is that if a correlation does show up, you have something. If it doesn't, then you may or may not have something. Also, as the old saying goes, correlation does not imply causality. PAR (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
For Cato to claim moral hazard is a large factor without further analysis and to ignore adverse selection is absurdly disingenuous - I'd say mendaciously so. Adverse selection in health insurance markets is a Big Deal.
For the plot, I agree entirely (and believe I said that earlier...), it does not show no causality. It does, however, show that there is considerable ambiguity about whether there is a relationship at all, i.e. the claim is not self-evident and would need sources for anything beyond the theoretical argument.--Gregalton (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a good reference concerning the workings of adverse selection? As I understand it, it results from information assymetry - the insured knows more about their health than the insurer. But the same might be said of credit markets, and they seem to function ok. A person seeking credit knows more about their ability to pay than the credit provider, but the credit provider has access to credit history and all other sorts of information. It seems to me that if a similar situation held for medical information, adverse selection would not be as severe. PAR (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to find the sources I have on adverse selection (will take a while - limited time right now) - which yes, is a type of information asymmetry problem. It is somewhat akin to the Used Car (Lemon) problem, where (due to risks) only lemons are likely to be for sale. The issue is not entirely due to individuals knowing their health history, but that insurers will tend to set insurance prices to price out "risky" clients, which encourages more low-risk clients, which makes insurers set prices higher, etc. Several issues are (arguably) quite different from credit markets: the clients may have very incorrect information (perceptions) of their own risk (and consequences of same), and information about health risks may be much better hidden/expensive to acquire (making the primary task of insurance company to spend money on selection, raising transaction costs and one could argue means - perversely - that only those who are least likely to need insurance will be able to afford it). There is also a free rider problem that will tend to make things even worse where adverse selection exists - in this case, not that the insured/uninsureds behaviour changes (as in typical moral hazard) but where there is some reasonable likelihood that catastrophic risks (read: emergency health care) will be picked up by someone else (the govt, for example); if insurance is expensive (due to adverse selection), there is greater incentive to "free ride" due to risks - and for those with constrained income, no alternative.
I'm thinking about your analogy to credit markets...this definitely comes up when risk and rates are high; I think the answer there is two-fold, that lenders' information is actually pretty good (in comparison), and that their risk is limited to the amount they lend. For insurers, the amount at risk in each transaction is ex ante unknowable (hence the contrast that banks never know the exact value of their assets, but know their liabilities; insurers know their assets, but never know the value of their liabilities - this is a simplification but illustrative).--Gregalton (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Three sectors of health care

I have not found any information about three sectors of health care: popular, folk and professional (Kleinman, A. Patietns and Healers in the Context of Culture, Berkeley: California University Press, 1980). This article is only concerned with professional sector. Since this division is not the only point of view, it is not necessary to comletely reorganize the article, but I think it should be at least mentioned. Jaroslav Pavliš (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention has been made now of traditional medicine, an important component of health care in many countries.Guptan99 (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Health and healthcare

Caption of surgery image

The statement that "Surgery is one of the most difficult procedures in medicine." is entirely subjective. It does not meet the Wikipedia standard for being objective or being unbiased. Give the importance of the Medicine Project and the breadth inferred by the title of the article, this shoould have been addressed already.

Any procedure that involves cutting is considered a surgical procedure. Lancing an abcess (presumably, draining, cleaning and dressing too -- the "easy parts") is surgical. Most parents either will do this, or have done it.

The difficulty of any endeavor is a function of the ability, training, and skills (the first two plus good 'ole practice) one recieves and the meaning of a statistical distribution of all possible outcomes.

Statements like this are really, really bad for Wikipedia. Kernel.package (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Scope

The United States is entering a phase where adoption of certain mandates are being determined. The likelihood of this article being queried for this reason will probably result in an increase iin popularity -- or will, anyway, if it is well-written. This fact should be addressed in the structure of the article so that the article addresses this reality without affecting what the article contains.

Should it contain U.S. centric information or should it contian international information as suggested by many of the entries in Talk:Health Care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel.package (talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


Shaky Claims

"A single-payer universal health care system will save money through reduced bureaucratic administration costs."

If that's the case, then why is the cost of health care per citizen in the US higher than that in many European countries? Could someone please look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.177.207 (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The above statement is simply opinion and theory. It is not factual at all, and is unsupportable. It should either be stated to be theoretical without basis or real world example, or simply removed.
Howaboutyouthinkaboutit (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Health care as an "Industry"?

I recognize of course that there are companies that are in the health care sector, but I think that it is wrong to say that Health care itself is an industry. And most are not global concerns. In Europe where I live, most hospitals are publicly owned or non for profit and most people get their health care from doctors who are generally attached to a local clinic which may be run as public service or run by the physician as a personal service provider paid for by social insurance. Most nurses are attached to one of these. Most nursing homes are run by the local community although some are privatelý operated and paid for, but again are not part of some global business. It is totally local.

The section which describe this seems to be totally written from a U.S. perspective where insurance is a big chunk of every health care dollar(but actually delivers zero health care), and where hospitals are mostly for profit enterprises. This is not a global article. Furthermire, just because the stock market allocates some companies as being in the health care sector and may even use the term industry, that does mean that we have to accept an industrial view of medicine. From a global perspective, most medicine is not practised as a commerical enterprise and is not on global scale enterprise. Its firmly in the services secttor and very often in the public sector. The big exception to this is, indeed the pharmaceutical industry which does produce a product and in which there are companies operating on a global scale, though I would add there are many smaller companies that do not. Just because they have litttle international visibility does not mean that they do not exist.Mrdthree (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see that User:Mrdthree is not in agreement with this because he has changed my edits to correct this view. I would be interested to know what other editors think.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

By adding this information I hope to inform people that perhaps contrary to widespread belief, health care is an industry. Many countries have private hospitals, as well as pharmaceutical sectors. I used Global industry standards to define the industry. In general, I think Wikipedia lacks information about how industry and market systems work. I think this sort of bias is problematic. Adding this information will help inform people who are looking to understand their investments or understand why certain regulations are the way they are, or are simply doing economic research, to start their own business, etc. In other words, it can only benefit wikipedia's users. Mrdthree (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I did some investigation and I think there are some complexities here. There are Market Classification of Industries (Dow Jones, FTSE Group, Standard and Poors, and there are Government Classifications of Industry (mainly based off of the United Nations scheme, International Standard Industrial Classification). Market Classifications group companies for purposes of investing in correlated markets, e.g. if you knew 'the next big thing' was healthcare but didnt know any companies, you would invest in an Exchange-traded fund or index fund that represented that sector (or sampled stocks from various companies in that sector). Government classifications are more by logical type than by related markets; for instance they group under the manufacturing category, all forms of manufacturing, regardless of market (i.e. steel, clothes, pharmaceuticals). So maybe thats worth looking at. Mrdthree (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? "next best thing" and " Exchange traded funds". You are clouding your thinking by convincing yourself that the only entitities operating in the health care sector are companies listed by the stock markets. That may be true in the United States but not everywhere outside- In the UK there are perhaps tens of private hospitals but there are many hundreds of publicly owned hospitals. They are not an industry. In Finland where I live there are virtually no private hospitals. They are all community owned and run. In Canada I believe that most hospitals are run by the provincial governments or are free standing charity or non profits. These are not industrial concerns. It's the same in Ireland. Using Industry to describe them is wrong. Of course the Dow and the FTSE will allocate companies to sectors and no doubt health care is a classification they use. But that does not mean that because, for their own reasons, these institutions classify private hospital groups and insurers as in the health industry does not mean that everyone else does so. They most cretainly do not. I can tell you for sure that people in England or Finland or Ireland would think you a little crazy if said that their hospital, doctor, nurse or a medical social worker worked in the health care industry. Health care services would be the right term. And public services generally are not regarded as industrial enterprises. The language is inappropriate. If this was the article Health care in the United States I would be more forgiving, but this is a global article and should be written from a more global perspective. I am still eager to hear what others think.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hospitals in Finland may be publicly owned but I'd bet the companies providing medical equiptment like syringes, I.V. drips, EKGs, etc. are private. Both government and market classification systems include these as part of the health care industry. There are many Japanese and European health care, medical and pharma associations and they all recognize themselves as part of an industry. Stock Exchanges are not uniquely american. Its just that FTSE and NYSE are currently the world's largest. Mrdthree (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
An irrelevant point. When I pay tax which meets the cost of my health care, most of it is spent in the delivery of a service by people providing a service in a place that is not run for profit. Very little of my healthcare service is of interest to the NASDAQ or whatever. Most US general physicians work as small businesses (just as they do in England) and are not featured in any stock market classification. In Europe, the press, the government and the people at large regard health care as a service. It is not a business.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Its not possible for a scarce service to not be an economic object. Services are an industry (see service industry. Anything that is scarce and traded is part of economics and there are very few things that are not scarce (air for now) or traded (oxygen).Mrdthree (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

US revenues and R&D spending in biotechnology

The article currently says

However, the United States dominates the biopharmaceutical field, accounting for the three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and 80% of world R&D spending in biotechnology. [7][8].

This may or may not be be true but I can find no reference to substantiate the claims in either of the two references given. Maybe I am not looking in the right place. Perhaps User:Mrdthree can enlighten me as to where exactly in the source material this is stated. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

They are both from the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations 2007 report and their website. From their website [4], Fact #5 states:"The United States still dominates the biopharmaceutical field, accounting for the three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and R&D spending." From their 2007 report, page 22 states global biopharmaceutical R&D was 22,119 million euros and US. biopharm R&D was 18,205 million euros in 2006(82.3%). Mrdthree (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Does our corrupt congress want a real health care in this country?

I do not think so. As long as our health care professionals are out there to only make money and not give a damn for their patients, insurance companies own our representatives in both houses and our good nation is afraid of demanding or just not educated to know better, that is exactly what we are going to get out of our tax money. And our taxes are buying more corruption in our health industry. Certainly the members of congress are not concerned about that since they have the best health care provided to them free by the taxpayers. Our insurance companies continue increasing premiums and they do not have to answer to anyone. Finally our Doctors and hospitals are money making machines that do not give a fig for the welfare of their patients. I recently had a follow up CT Scan and MRI done after loosing one kidney to cancer. The cost of this 20 minute X-ray test was over $20,0000. When I got the written test result from this radiologist it was very simple " everything was found to be normal" he even did not notice the one missing kidney and the second kidney that was covered with a large cist that could become cancerous as did the first kidney. When it was brought up to the attention of the Imaging administrator, he thought it was no big deal. they could write a new report indicating a missing kidney and the cist on the other kidney. This health care system is not but a fraud and a ponzi scam thousands of times bigger than Berni Madoff's. Unfortunately, our good congress persons are deeply in it too and we can not see a way out. I have lost a good friend and an employee to this obvious (scheme) ponzi scam by health organizations like Kaiser Permanente, etc. We need to educate our doctors about their main job they committed to when they took the oath to become a doctor. We need to keep our government responssible and legally liable for their actions. We need to stop electing lawyers as senators and congressmen/congresswomen. And we need to speak re: our concerns as one nation against criminals dressing as doctors, senators and congresspersons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray bahar (talk • contribs) 03:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to go to health care in the United States to argue about using Wikipedia as a blog for discussing healthcare. Mrdthree (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Inaccurate Statement Regarding Term "Health Care"

"Before the term health care became popular, English-speakers referred to medicine or to the health sector and spoke of the treatment and prevention of illness and disease."

This is an incorrect statement which appears to be nothing more than opinion and conjecture. The fact is, english speaking people still refer to "medicine", "the health-sector", and of "the treatment and prevention of illness and disease". None of these terms have been replaced by the term health-care, nor is the term health-care synonymous with any of these terms.NAWF EAST TEXAS

As it is quite inaccurate, I would suggest it be removed from the article entirely.

Alternatively, a more accurate statement regarding the terms origination and use, along with references, could be substituted.
Howaboutyouthinkaboutit (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole article has no perspective .

There is very little mention about how health care currently works in most countries in the world , i was expecting a country per country classification , trends on how things are being done worldwide , naming of trends , and how all those countries see their health care develop in the future , this article has some kind of political aftertaste when I read it. please make this article about health care on our planet earth and not about health care on planet America.

I completely agree this article has very little currenecy. This article is one sided. Lets not just make this about America but the world.(Maryjane14 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

Sincerely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.12.165 (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Disgrace

I vote this article be taken down from B level status and put on C

It has become nothing more than a petty battleground , and is far from objective. It does not describe health care in a way that would be relevant globally.

Petty internal bickering from 5% of the world's population does not constitute general relevance.


--83.101.12.129 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Article makes no sense

Here's an example from the beginning:

"Health care, or healthcare, refers to the treatment and management of illness, and the preservation of health through services offered by the medical, pharmaceutical, dental, clinical laboratory sciences (in vitro diagnostics), nursing, and allied health professions. Health care embraces all the goods and services designed to promote health, including “preventive, curative and palliative interventions, whether directed to individuals or to populations”.[1]

Before the term health care became popular, English-speakers referred to medicine or to the health sector and spoke of the treatment and prevention of illness and disease."

Ok; fairly normal so far...

"When considering the history of Universal Health Care and the giants of Canadian politics, T.C. Douglas surely stands at the forefront. Tommy Douglas was a remarkable Canadian whose contributions have helped to shape the great nation. Although he is most famous as the founding father of Medicare, the most advanced health-care system in the world, Douglas’ contributions to Saskatchewan and Canada were tremendous."

Ok, wtf. Why are we talking about Saskatchewan and Canada? Does this have anything to do with anything? You might as well have just started babbling about health care in southern Sri-Lanka; it'd make as much sense.

I haven't bothered to read the rest of the article; with the first few paragraphs like that, who would?

I don't mean to be rude, it's just nowhere near coherent at all. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.249.169 (talk • contribs) 7 March 2009

healthcare

i havnt read thru the article yet, but id say the biggest disgrace is we're still writing 'health care' instead of healthcare!!! lets save som space people, afterall the cyberspace hardrive is only so big, & lets make reading thru the article faster for people... n this case the british english is superior!!! FreyasCrystalizedAngels (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


Comment

Definition edited to be more general, based on internationally recognized scope of health care systems (according to World Health Organization) and including functions of health care systems to better link the sub-sections of this article. Text on health care politics in the US moved to appropriate sub-section below on page. Guptan99 (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have moved some of the (outdated/POV) materials from the old "politics" section, to either the country-specific section elsewhere within the article, or if appropriate the "health policy" page (with updating/editing for neutrality as needed). I still find there is very little coherence or even original text within this article. I would suggest, minimally, a section on types of care, i.e primary/secondary/tertiary, the latter of which are currently tagged as "stubs" and would probably be better merged into this article. Guptan99 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization of sections

As previously mentioned by Vincej, there are already articles with descriptions of health care systems by country elsewhere -- see health care system and universal health care, plus many country-specific pages. They have already been moved at least once before. The discussion page is full of complaints of too US-politics-focused content. Please do not repeat US health care reform materials here. Guptan99 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest we remove the 'systems by country' section and redirect to the health care systems by country page. Otherwise just having 4 countries listed is a bit silly. --Karl.brown (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Any content in that section which would fit in Health care systems by country should also be moved there IMO. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
FYI this was done during some minor re-org I did on the page. No more country-specific stuff, just linked out to Health systems by country.--Karl.brown (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of spurious hatnote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Disambiguation page linked instead

Hi, an editor recently re-added a hatnote, that had previously been removed by Rangoon11, referencing an episode of a TV show that happens to be called 'Health care'. I think per the Hatnote policy WP:HAT, and this in particular: "Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for", this hatnote does not belong. The idea that a user came to the health care article but was actually looking for an episode of "the office" is rather silly. if we started adding hatnotes for every episode of every TV show that happened to use a common noun, it would be a mess. Using wikipedia's own search engine, typing 'health care the office' brings you to the right article - but I have a hard time believing someone would just type 'health care' and expect anything other than the article on 'health care'. As such I've removed the hatnote, and would like other editors to weigh in and defend the hatnote if you think it is worthy. --Karl.brown (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the hatnote. I agree with you that it seems unlikely that someone would come to this page and be looking for an episode of "the office". But based on WP:SIMILAR, these 2 articles have the exact same name and at that point it's not about how silly it may seem. If it wasn't the exact same name I would not be in favor of it, however in this situation, it is. When I type health care into the search box, it takes me here, and there is no way for me to get to "the office" page unless I type "the office". Maybe there are some people who are unfamiliar with the whole search process or disambiguations and think that once they get here and this was all they saw, that's it. It doesn't really seem like it's too much of a problem for 1 hatnote to site at the top of the article that you can either choose to use or skip over. I think this makes Wikipedia more versatile. If there were other articles with the exact same name as "health care", then we could create a new disambiguation page, so there would likely never be more than 1 hatnote, which completely limits clutter. RoadView (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I went to look for other office episodes, and they all have rather generic names. It's not just about similarity - it is about whether readers may have been looking for a different article - and you admit yourself that it is unlikely someone would come here looking for the office. There are hundreds of TV shows, thousands of episodes, and almost all of them have very generic titles. If we started adding hatnotes to all relevant wikipedia articles then it would cause an immense amount of clutter. Thus, until there is justification for adding a disambiguation page here for health care (and on such a page, i think it would be ok to have the office espisode, but a single office episode is not enough to merit a disambiguation page), I think we should remove it. --Karl.brown (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
We are in agreement about how often we think it would be used, but I still think, and I'm not usually one to cite policy, based on WP:SIMILAR it should be added regardless of if we think it will be frequently used. I don't think 1 hatnote automatically makes it cluttered. Even if other articles had 1 hatnote for other identically titled pages, I still think it makes it more versatile for those who actually did come there looking for it. If there are 2 or more articles that could be used as hatnotes, then they would be combined into 1 disambiguation page, therefore substantially limiting clutter in my opinion. So even if we did add all the hatnotes for all tv episode articles and such, it would only ever likely result with either a hatnote to the other article or a hatnote to the disambiguation page. I think the hatnote concept is useful in general and this specific hatnote may very well be useful to some, irrespective of if it will widely be used or if we personally don't have a lot of use for it. I would be completely taking your side if the title was not exactly the same. Then I would put most of the weight on how likely it is to be used. This is an interesting topic and I hope others will weigh in on it. 15:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoadView (talk • contribs)
Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I think you're (quite understandably) misusing WP:SIMILAR here, RoadView; SIMILAR is for topics that only have the two similarly-named topics and no disambiguation page. Health care (disambiguation) is a bluelink, with quite a few articles on it; if a hatnote is to be made, WP:HAT says that it should point to the dab page, not the Office episode. I'd say we should insert a hatnote pointing to the dab page (which has the Office episode page listed on it). Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You know, I somehow didn't even know Health care (disambiguation) existed. I'm certainly favor adding that hatnote over just the office episode because there are plenty of other disambig links. That leads me to believe that for the other pages, Conflict resolution and Sexual harassment, it would be acceptable for the hatnotes for just the office to be readded, since I don't believe there is currently a disambiguation page for those. If there is no further discussion I will add the hatnotes back in the near future. RoadView (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with linking to the Health care disambig page. As for the other two hatnotes, I would suggest we bring that conversation to the talk page for those two pages. I know other eds on those pages have complained about those hatnotes as well, and I myself still disagree but let's have that discussion over there. --Karl.brown (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with more discussion on the others, but there seems like a substantial shortage of input with these talk page discussions. Perhaps it can be taken elsewhere to generate a more thorough consensus. I'm sure this issue goes way beyond just the 2 office episode hatnotes. RoadView (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
If you want a broader discussion, I'd suggest starting here: Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote, that's where general policy discussions re: the use of hatnotes could be had. You could bring up the examples of 'Office' espisodes, and whether linking them at serious articles like 'Sexual harassment' that don't yet have disambig pages should have a direct link to a TV show as the first thing people read. My own opinion is no, but I'd say you should bring the question to the talk page and see what other editors think in general.--Karl (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This Article Could Benefit From a Jewish Perspective.

I am currently putting together a most relevant new section and will add when finished. RofeSchmertz (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Photo

Instead of the name-calling - how about we discuss the matter here. You do realize that you've used the wrong infobox template for the photo. Also, an infobox is supposed to provide additional information about the subject of the article - not to decorate the photo. Simply adding 'healthcare' title to the photo is pointless. Another problem is that the current photo is a little redundant, we can do much better than just a photo of a row of buildings. Perhaps something like this [5] would be better. -SFK2 (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Your picture would go very very well under the primary care section. The current picture is a superb way to introduce the topic as a whole and it could definitely use an infobox, maybe you can suggest a different template? I think the template I proposed is simply a good place to start, not to decorate. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Image added as such. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see how an aerial photo of a row of buildings is a 'superb way' to introduce an article on health care. Especially when it's not immediately clear from the photo which building is the hospital. I think the point is that the article doesn't need an infobox - "it looks good" isn't really a valid reason.-SFK2 (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Your picture really belongs in the primary care section, SFK2. It looks strange at the top, because emergency room care is only one type of health care. The caption of the original picture can be modified to meet your concern mentioned above, there was no reason for you to remove it without consensus for replacement with yours. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I've replaced it with the original image at the top, which had already been there for a while, and changed the caption to meet your concern. The ER image goes in the primary care section, where it belongs. Before you get into an edit war, which you normally do with others, I would first like to see what others think. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Which is a better presentation of 'healthcare' from a non-US centric point of view: an emergency room or a photo of specific hospital in New York amidst a row of other buildings? I'd like to hear an actual justification for the use of that photo - particularly how "it's a superb way to introduce the topic". And to clarify for people reading this - I should point out that by "been there for a while" what you mean is that you just added it a month or two ago without seeking any discussion. -SFK2 (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Response to third opinion request:
In my opinion this photo isn't contributing much; but it would be difficult to substitute any one image to encapsulate such an abstract umbrella concept as "healthcare". If you look at an article on one object or location such as Brooklyn Bridge you expect to see, and do see, a photo of the Brooklyn Bridge. But here, for a box at the top, it may be more useful to have a display of articles on the main aspects of healthcare, arranged systematically under "Primary care", "Secondary care" and so on. See Human Rights for an example. I've no problem with the photos further down, when we get to the various forms of healthcare - one or two more pix might be good : Noyster (talk), 12:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that there is a single picture that can aptly represent the entire topic. But that shouldn't be used a rationale to keep an ambiguous photo of a hospital. Surely we can find something that is far more universally recognizable i.e. doctor, patient, emergency room or even the Caduceus. I do agree with the last point that a topical box would be a good addition. -SFK2 (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Noyster, there's no ideal image to capture health care as a whole. But the image of this medical center comes close, and it is valuable for that. One of the world's busiest, it provides emergency, inpatient, and outpatient care, and primary, secondary, and tertiary care, so is broadly applicable to the topic and laudable for that. Unlike a picture of an empty ER (or even a full one). 24.190.174.194 (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comes close to what? Showing the skyline of New York? "One of the busiest" is a WP:WEASEL term that doesn't really translate to any meaningful concept. Nor is there any reason why we should use "busy" as a criteria for including a particular hospital. Maybe I wasn't clear before but I should point out that I'm disputing whether the photo (that is, the image itself) is a good representation of article, not the relevance/quality of New York Presbytarian Hospital. So you can describe all the features of the hospital but it won't change anything because the photo is still ambiguous and as Noyster said "Isn't contributing much".-SFK2 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Guess you have a hard time reading (or interpreting), SFK2. Let me say it again, I think this medical centre image is a superb representation of the article, there are others who think it's at least reasonable, and certainly it's better than anything else so far. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
All I'm hearing is a bunch of lofty descriptions "valuable", "laudable", "superb", "one of the busiest". How exactly is it a good representation when it's still ambiguous even with the caption (there is more than one "white building" pictured). Also you haven't replied to concerns over WP:WEASEL. And who are these others that think it's reasonable? -SFK2 (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to prolong this useless discussion. But since you ask, 24.190.174.194 (above), possibly Noyster (above, not strongly), 24.92.252.166 (5 May), 24.228.129.64 (29 April), Katieh5584 (21 March), and others who have changed the caption but kept the picture. So far at least, everyone except you. So many people can't be wrong. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Basically there's one other IP who strangely enough has a similar pattern of edits, overlapping contributions and is in close proximity geographically to you. I wonder what's happening here. Noyster's comments are clearly not an endorsement. User:Katieh5584's edit is routine maintenance (probably part of WP:RCP) and is not an endorsement either. -SFK2 (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Humourous. I think the point is that people clearly find it reasonable, maybe some more than others. There's nothing more to say. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
So the point is that there are people that clearly find it 'reasonable', we just don't know who.-SFK2 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Relevant category

Due to the estimated 340 million new cases of curable sexually-transmitted diseases recorded worldwide yearly I found this category to be especially relevant regarding public health.

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Article and category names

A proposal to rename categories from "health care" to "healthcare" was made at CFD 2015 Nov 27, but participation was low as no categories were tagged. The consensus was to follow the name of this article. Some editors suggested renaming it from health care to healthcare. – Fayenatic London 10:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: please see WP:Requested moves if you want to progress this, by starting a discussion to move the article (rather than the categories). – Fayenatic London 17:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr.

said Presentation at the Second National Convention of the Medical Committee for Human Rights, Chicago, 25 March 1966 Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.

Imo an interesting statement & worth to be mentioned in the article. --Neun-x (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Health_care/Archive_1&oldid=1089888604"