John Stossel has written a powerful critique of the recent Commonwealth Fund report on US health care, which gives the US a bad report relative to other countries. He shows how the criteria used by the Commonwealth Fund are badly biased, and chosen to make socialized systems look superior to the current (mixed) American system. Read the whole thing.
It's also quite ironic that the Commonwealth Fund ranks Hawaii and Maine as the two best US states for universal health care delivery in the US. But as we've noted previously, Hawaiian patients have a very difficult time getting actual care (as opposed to theoretical government "coverage"). Similarly, the New York Times has written a lengthy article on the problems of Maine's system.
One could argue that the Commonwealth Fund rankings could benefit from more reality and less ideology.
The blog of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM)
