Talk:Health system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

International comparisons[edit]

I was brought to the international comparisons section as it's written due to someone trying to graft it onto the single payer article. The graph is a mess of original research and synthesis, and really doesn't tell us anything about health systems, rather it's just an indiscriminate list of results with varying relevance to health care period. Truly, it should be removed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. Life expectancy[1][2] and Infant mortality rate are commonly used metrics when comparing healthcare systems. The material regarding the number of physicians/nurses gives readers insight into staffing figures. Per capita expenditure is also a commonly used metric. The % of health costs paid by government lets readers see how these different countries fund their systems (government revenue vs. out-of-pocket).[3] The only part of the table I'd be okay with removing would be the "Preventable deaths" section. ((P.S. I removed the poorly designed graphs that were at the bottom.)) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
See my comments and check my restore. Tertius51 (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for missing this earlier. The point is that the graph is a mess of original research (because this sort of compilation doesn't exist), synthesis (as we're synthesizing various data to make a claim) and doesn't tell us anything about systems (as they're not criticisms of systems, but simply a cherry-picked, indiscriminate list of outcomes that may or may not be health related.) With this in mind, I'll remove it until a reasonable way to present and justify it is available. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The chart you deleted has withstood the test of time for years. On top of that, your comment is not consistent with your edit. Discuss all this first before any more deletions, please. Tertius51 (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Then a chart that doesn't comply with our policies or guidelines has snuck through for years. Longevity isn't an argument for keeping it, so what's your protest? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
To what policy or guideline do you refer? Please provide the link. Tertius51 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It's original research and synthesis, and also basically not relevant as they're not about systems. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The OECD data chart is a valuable compilation of well-documented facts, enabling all sorts of pairwise comparisons. Enabling original research or synthesis is not the same as being either of those. Here's an example, comparing Germany and the US, with original research or synthesis in italics: One sees Germany spends 17.6% of gov't revenue on health, while we spend 18.5%, perhaps on Big Science not actual health care. Also, Germany pays 76.4% of health care costs, while our gov't pays just 45.1%. Germany where everyone's covered has higher life expectancy (79.8-78.1), lower infant mortality (3.48-5.9), fewer preventable deaths/100k (76-96), more MDs/k (3.5/2.4), same # nurses/k (10.5-10.6), lower / capita health costs ($: 3,724-7,437 and as %GDP: 10.4-16.0). Some editors may want to disable such comparisons and possible subsequent speculations, but you don't kill data just because someone may stretch it. So long as the data, itself, is reliable, it should be reported. Tertius51 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The data, again, has nothing to do with health systems. It's simply a list of results that, when compiled in this way, violates our policies. If you can't justify them, we need to remove them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm starting to understand your complaint a little better, I think. You would contend (correct me if I'm wrong) that a health system is something quite apart from any particular government's implementation of it (or them, if mixing systems). I think it is a basis for the structure of this article (and Health systems by country) that each government's implementation is a system itself that can be measured as to how well it performs and what it costs and how those costs are allocated, in part describing that country's system. In this case, the weight of the history of editors' contributions to this article out-vote you, very many to one. If this is not the case, then International Comparisons of National Health Care Systems' Costs and Outcomes could be a separate article. Tertius51 (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
"Editors contributions" are not really the case here. It's up to those who want to include information to justify it within the policies of the project. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Tertius51, do you have continued objections? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, since I see no policy violations here and this section, in particular, as being a useful and encyclopedic comparison of national health systems. Tertius51 (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
So what is the policy justification that trumps the very clear OR/synthesis concerns? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
So far, you've failed to convince me or anyone else that this section is "OR/synthesis". Tertius51 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
And yet you've failed to explain how it isn't. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like this is heating up again. The OR/synthesis issues were never addressed by @Tertius51:, can we resolve them now that more eyes are on the article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've alerted WP:Med to the current comparison dispute involving an IP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  • agree with health systems...It's simply a list of results that, when compiled in this way, violates our policies. If you can't justify them, we need to remove them...seems Wikipedia:No_original_research..... IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)