Good Idea; not as practical for US

I personally believe that an assessment from an external organization is really important because it gives a country different perspectives; however, I don't believe that the same method can be applied to the US. The US is very much different from Lebannon in that I still feel that the US isn't as open (in a cultural sense) to be able to allow anyone or any other organization to critique our systems because we do have this power complex as a society that we are one of the most powerful countries in the world...and to hear the critique of say Canada International, it might not bode as well (remember I am generalizing here).

Perhaps we can seek the advice of other organizations, but strike a balance where the third party organization isn't solely critiquing our primary care system. Perhaps we can create dialogue first as a country.

Good for Lebanon, bad for US

I think using an external assessment such as Accreditation Canada would be very beneficial to Lebanon and US. Because Accreditation Canada is a not-for-profit organization, they are willing to provide unbiased guide to the health system reform. Especially for country with limited resources and politically instability, Lebanon should seek guidance from an unbiased party. Last week, we learned that Taiwan adopted ideas from other countries to successfully reform their health care system. Taiwan now has universal health care for all its citizens and introduced a Smart Card to effectively reduce administrative costs. We all learn from others and eventually need help from others. No one can work alone, thus, Lebanon should make use of Accreditation Canada as a guide in their health system reform. However, I don’t think US feel the same way. I doubt US will invite another country to help reform their health care system. Because US favor independence and its high power in the world, I think many would be against the idea of receiving help from another country.

Importance of Primary Care to Lebanon

Primary care goes a long way to increase prevention on diseases and also detection on certain diseases due to the process of having access to a health care facility. To use oragnizations that their health care is comparatively good than the US for example can help shape the system on using successful way and methods in Canada for example to improve their access and care.

Primary care access can go a long way in improving health care standards and cost in the long run in Lebanon. The US can learn from investing in Primary care as we have mentioned many times in class.

Stop the Corruption Cycle

As we learned from the lecture on Taiwan, having an external source work on health reform can be highly successful. A source with no ability to profit from the decisions and reforms made will likely be unbiased and work in the favor of Lebanon. It could aid in stopping the corruption cycle.
This and many other options could work well for the US. However, many US citizens and politicians would be unlikely to listen to foreign advice and "un-American" ideals. This is unfortunate because having an external source thats only purpose is to better our healthcare would be a great thing for the US. Just imagine no politcians fighting over every little word in a health bill. That will be the day...

Providing A Helping Hand

Lebanon’s plan to acquire an external assessment from Accreditation Canada is a great idea since the external organization can provide an unbiased and honest opinion and does not have a hidden agenda. In addition, their international status will allow them to remain relatively immune to the possibility of corruption or political pressure. Accreditation Canada also seems like a good program since they apply a multi-disciplinary approach to the survey and reform process with physicians, nurses and health care executives among the many people working for them; this provides multiple opinions that can be combined to develop the best program for Lebanon. Most importantly, they state their main focus is patient safety and that’s what health care is all about.

This method will never work for the United States since we’re a country that prefers to look within to solve out programs rather than outside. We’re also a proud country and wouldn’t ask for help unless it truly became necessary; this is doubly true for a neighboring country that was have a tendency to look down upon. Would this method help us? Definitely, it never hurts to have multiple opinions on how to do something since our opinion might not always be the best. Will this happen? Probably not.

Depends on execution

I really like the idea. It's very interesting, and definitely has the potential to be successful if both sides (Lebanon Ministry of Health and Accreditation Canada) do their jobs right. The fine line here is basically another country's organization is coming in and telling Lebanon what to do. At first, this might be ok, but over time, it might be resented. That's the only issue I have with this partnership. Any time you have a foreign organization going into another country (even if they've been invited) to solve that country's issues, it becomes hard to differentiate between acts of guidance and acts of charity. As long as Accreditation Canada maintains its role as a guide for the Lebanese Ministry, tension between the two parties can be avoided. The Ministry itself needs to learn how to run a health care system, not have someone else do it for them. But overall, I think this has great potential.

LEBA-WON!

This new Canadian organization used for reform is a very interesting idea. It seems very open-minded and open to learn from another's methods. I like that and it speaks a great deal about the country of Lebanon to try this. Also, we wonder why Canada would be interested in providing all this help. Are they in it for the money? I dont think so. The Canada International is a non-profit organization. This is a great way to "test" this or have a trial period in another country. It appears that just like the other countries we have learned about, Lebanon suffers from problems in the health care department. This idea of a "trial period" has never come up and I think its a great idea. First of all this country can try a new reform method and second of all, if it works there will be some progress in changing their countries own health care issues. If the US was to try this, a few things could happen.The US's system is quite fragmented so where do we begin? What part of the population would have this trial? Our country is not so easy to learn from others or try new methods especially when it could affect the rich and the poor, due to cultural differences. It might not work, but I am open to trying new things so why not?

Canada International a Good Idea

After reading about Canada International, it seems like a perfect idea. The organization kind of reminds me of last week's article about how Taiwan outsourced to an unbiased party during their health care reform period. I find it appealing that Canada International is also non-profit, meaning that they will not take sides with the highest paying fraction. Ideally, they will purely provide expertise that will be in the best interests of Lebanon or another country.

I feel that this measure is good for Lebanon as they are starting to re-build many problems, but not sure about the U.S. I think a large majority of the population or at least legislature of the country must be willing to embrace Canada International. I don't think that their recommendations will be effective if it is not automatically accepted at face value. It seems that Americans tend to complicate and question any type of move whether good or bad. In contrast, Taiwan and Lebanon seem more open-minded and apt to change. I would personally love to see the U.S. use Canada International, they would at least provide a novel way of thinking and maybe even find a health care system that resonates well with Americans.