U.S. Healthcare vs. the World: Quality, Cost, and Coverage
This paper examines how the United States healthcare system compares with those of other nations in terms of quality, cost, and coverage. Drawing on data from the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund, the paper challenges claims by U.S. political leaders that America has the world's best healthcare system. It presents per-capita spending figures, life expectancy statistics, and physician satisfaction surveys to demonstrate that the U.S. lags behind many peer nations. The paper also discusses the advantages and disadvantages of universal healthcare coverage, and explores why major health insurance companies supported Mitt Romney's presidential campaign over the Affordable Care Act.
- Introduction: How the U.S. Stacks Up Globally: Framing U.S. healthcare quality debate globally
- International Rankings and WHO Data: WHO and Commonwealth Fund rank U.S. poorly
- Cost of Healthcare and Key Statistics: U.S. spends most but lags in outcomes
- Advantages and Disadvantages of Universal Healthcare: Pros and cons of universal coverage
- Why Big Health Insurers Backed Romney: Insurer motivations behind Romney campaign support
- Conclusion: ACA as step toward universal coverage
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses concrete international data — WHO rankings, per-capita spending figures, and physician satisfaction surveys — to ground political claims in verifiable evidence.
- Balances multiple perspectives by presenting both the advantages and disadvantages of universal healthcare rather than advocating one-sidedly.
- Connects policy debate (Romney vs. Obama, insurer motivations) to measurable outcomes (life expectancy, hospital beds, nurse ratios), making abstract political arguments tangible.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses fact-checking as a structural device: it opens with bold political claims by Boehner and McConnell, then systematically dismantles them with WHO and Commonwealth Fund data. This move — state the claim, then test it against evidence — is a classic analytical pattern that demonstrates critical thinking and gives the argument clear direction.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by framing two central questions (U.S. global healthcare standing and insurer support for Romney), then works through international rankings, statistical comparisons, and a pros/cons analysis of universal care before closing with a brief normative conclusion. Each section builds logically on the previous one, moving from descriptive evidence to policy implications.
Introduction: How the U.S. Stacks Up Globally
How do United States healthcare programs compare with the healthcare provided to residents in other countries? That question is the focus of this paper, along with an examination of the background to major health insurance companies' decision to support Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
According to a statement by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, the U.S. has "the best health care delivery system in the world" (Politifact.com). Boehner, a guest on the CBS Sunday program Face the Nation, was commenting on Romney's candidacy. On the July 1, 2012 program, Boehner said he supported Romney for president because Romney "understands that Obamacare will bankrupt our country and will ruin" that healthcare system the speaker believes is best in the world (Politifact.com).
Meanwhile, on Fox News Sunday — also on July 1, 2012 — U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the United States has "the best healthcare delivery system in the world" (Politifact.com). When asked to cite specific studies backing up Boehner's contention, the speaker's staff noted that a recent study showed the U.S. rated well against other "advanced industrialized nations" in "preventive care categories," and that U.S. medical facilities are rated highly for "strong survival rates for patients with cancer" (Politifact.com).
International Rankings and WHO Data
When fact-checking the assertions made by Boehner and McConnell, writers at Politifact.com found that according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. ranks 37th out of 191 countries. WHO is a component of the United Nations, and its report was based on five factors: (a) "Health Level" (life expectancy), given a 25% weight; (b) "Responsiveness" (availability and speed of healthcare services, choice of doctors, and quality of amenities), weighted at 12.4%; (c) "Financial Fairness" (how progressive or regressive a country's healthcare financing is), weighted at 25%; (d) "Health Distribution" (how resources are allocated throughout the nation), weighted at 25%; and (e) "Responsiveness Distribution" (how well healthcare resources respond to needs), weighted at 12.5% (Politifact.com).
Another study by the Commonwealth Fund determined that the U.S. healthcare system's performance was "mediocre." Compared with Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the UK, and the Netherlands, the U.S. healthcare system "ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system" (Politifact.com). Those five dimensions include quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives (Politifact.com).
In the Commonwealth Fund report's Executive Summary (Davis, et al., 2010), the U.S. ranked last in 2004, 2006, and 2007. The U.S. is "last on dimensions of access, patient safety, coordination, efficiency and equity" (Davis, p. v). Most notable in terms of how the U.S. ranks differently from the other seven countries studied is "the absence of universal health insurance coverage," Davis explains. That said, the health reform legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama "should begin to improve the affordability of insurance and access" when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) becomes fully implemented in 2014 (Davis, p. v). The U.S. is "lagging" badly in the promotion of "primary care, quality improvement, and information technology," Davis continues (p. vi). The Commonwealth Fund — a non-partisan research organization — has been researching healthcare programs since 1998.
An article in The Hill reports that doctors in America are "more likely to report problems" with healthcare system components than their medical peers elsewhere in the world. Just 15% of primary-care doctors in the U.S. said that the healthcare system is working smoothly and needs only minor adjustments (Viebeck, 2012, p. 1). The survey Viebeck references — published in Health Affairs — shows that physicians in nine other countries reported higher satisfaction with their healthcare systems. Those countries included Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and the UK.
Specifically, 61% of doctors in Norway reported higher satisfaction with their healthcare systems; 54% of doctors in the Netherlands also reported higher levels of satisfaction; and in France, 37% of doctors said their system is working well (Viebeck, p. 1). Additionally, 59% of U.S. doctors surveyed report that their patients "have difficulty paying for care they need," and 52% of U.S. doctors indicated that "staff time spent navigating coverage restrictions is a major problem" (Viebeck, p. 1).
Cost of Healthcare and Key Statistics
The cost of healthcare services in the United States is shockingly high relative to the quality of care delivered. Considering how far down the international list the U.S. ranks in terms of healthcare quality, the cost of healthcare services in America is exorbitant. In per-capita spending data provided by the WHO, the U.S. spends $6,719 per person — far more than comparable nations. By contrast, the UK spends $2,815 per capita; the Russian Federation spends $698; Japan spends $2,581; Italy spends $2,631; Germany and France each spend $3,465; China spends $216; and Canada spends $3,673.
When it comes to nurses and midwives per 10,000 population, the UK leads with 128, followed by Canada at 101, Japan at 95, and the U.S. at 94 (WHO). The only country with fewer hospital beds per 10,000 people than the U.S. is China, with 22 beds per 10,000 citizens. The U.S. has 31 beds per 10,000 people, while the UK has 128, Canada has 101, Germany and France have 83 and 73 respectively, and the Russian Federation has 97 (WHO).
For many statisticians and scholars, life expectancy serves as the bottom-line measure of a country's health. Life expectancy in the U.S. is 78 years — the same as in Cuba. In the UK it is 80 years; in Japan people live an average of 83 years; in Italy it is 82; in Germany it is 80; and in France it is 81 years (WHO). Only two nations listed by the WHO have a lower life expectancy than America: Russia, at 66 years, and China, at 74 years (WHO).
Conclusion
It is embarrassing and even offensive to see how far down the list of nations around the world the U.S. is to be found when it comes to the quality of healthcare Americans are stuck with. The right-wing rhetoric about healthcare becoming some kind of "socialism" has apparently been effective up to this point, but when the ACA becomes fully implemented it will go a long way toward achieving universal health care coverage.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.