The myth is that while we pay far
more than other countries, our health
care
is much
better.
You hear that story from the AMA, Big Pharma, Senate Majority Leader
Dr. Bill Frist and the HMOs and other health care organizations (like the
Frist family's HCA).
It's not true.
Widely-accepted measures of the health of a country's population are infant
mortality and life expectancy. Here's how things really stack up:
| Country | SPENDING
| SPENDING Per Capita | Infant Mortality (deaths/1000 live births) | Life Expectancy |
| United States | 13.0
(highest) | $ 4,631 (highest) | 6.9
(worst) | 70.0
(worst) |
| Australia | 8.3 | $ 2,211 | 5.2 | 73.2 |
| Canada | 9.1 | $ 2,535 | 5.3 | 72.0 |
| Japan | 7.8 | $ 2,012 | 3.2 | 74.5 |
| Norway | 7.8 | $ 2,362 | 3.8 | 71.7 |
| United Kingdom | 7.3 | $1,762 | 5.6 | 71.7 |
| (2000) | (US Dollars 2000) | (2000) | (1997-99) |
We spend more than twice as much as other countries yet in the United States
many more people die sooner than they have to, more don't get a chance at
life at all.
And things aren't getting better: 15.2% of the US population (43
million people)
now have no health insurance, and more and
more companies are reducing
or eliminating health care coverage for employees
and retirees.
Our huge expenditures should do more than make Senator Frist's family
even wealthier. The non-profit Institute of Medicine, an advisor to government
on health care issues, has published a new report with
recommendations that could make that happen.
Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
1 - Mike
But the lack of medical insurance doesn't mean those people have a lack of health care. Lots of hospitals are what's called a "safety net" hospital, where they have to take people of all income levels and all abilities of pay. While clogging up an ER is a bad decision, they can also direct people to community health centers.
While we might pay more, those that do pay are funding those who can't. Look at the goverment numbers and talk to some of the urban hospitals across the country. They're fighting for more of the inpatient surgery market while not being reimbursed as much by Medicare or Insurance Co's and having to pay out for those without insurance. Socalist Medicine is alive and well.
Just my $.02
2 - Hal Pawluk
Mike: While we might pay more, those that do pay are funding those who can't.
No.
The numbers are "per capita" and take the entire populations into account.
We have a very expensive system that creates a lot of profitable companies while providing poor health care.
3 - John Mudd
Mike, I rarely agree with Hal, but in this particular instance, he's right on the money.
Now, I'll admit to being a Republican who doesn't like the idea of big government, but government is big regardless of what party controls it, and you have to ask yourself this question: Since government is big, regardless of who controls it, who is big government going to help? The powerful or the people?
Republicans typically like to help the powerful, except in the case of Teddy Roosevelt, and some other minor instances.
I'm a diabetic and am self-employed as an independent contractor registered with a broker. During months that are slow for sales, I have had in the past, at times, had to choose between food and medicine. In fact, when I was Baker acted for attempting suicide that was one of those times. Mike, if you don't want the government to pay for my health care, then give me $2,000 a month to pay my insirance premiums (they are higher if you have a disease) and pay for all my care, yourself, out of your pocket. Someone has to. If not the government, why not you?
I used to think nationalized healthcare was a bad idea. Big government trying to take my freedom. Well, big government took my freedom under the Bush Administration, so at least with a national health program I get something in return. With a false conservative all I get is the loss of civil liberties and nothing in return.
My view on health care is this: You should not have the right to set health care policy unless you suffer from an ailment needing treatment. Otherwise you will not see the need for health care, unless you treat it, but if you're a senator taking money from big-pharma, you're not going to be partial to fulfilling your medical code of ethics are you? Of course not. It's not about your patients anymore, it's about you and your party winning elections, which is done through getting big money from big-pharma.
My case, as do many senior citizens' cases show you that national health care is a great idea. It's a smart idea. However, it does need to be a solvent and workable idea that a group of professional policy makers need to work out, but they should not have any coflicts of interest.
Hal's documentation of other nations that have nationalized health care shows that it's a great idea. They also show it's a solvent idea. We simply need to structure it so it doesn't hurt anyone who is in business.
If conservatives are going to be pro-life in their churches, they should be pro-life everywhere else, and without good health care policies conservatives are allowing many Americans to die and to suffer, as well.
You know, big-pharma should be given 15 years to create cures to all the ailments known to man. If they fail in doing so, they should be mandated to pay for all of America's health care costs. That would balance the budget and force them to create some really ingenuous solutions. Perhaps even some good, solid health care solutions.
You see, big-pharma can spend their money on Bill Frist, or they can spend it on my health care. If they choose Bill Frist now, they will only have to fight with me later, and I guarantee you, that is not something they're going to want.
In a related note, some seniors tracked my phone number down about a letter to the editor I wrote to the St. Petersburg Times to find out how I ordered my prescriptions from Canada and New Zealand in response to a spokesperson for big-pharma who I called a liar, then proved why exactly how he lied. You think those seniors wouldn't vote for national health care?
The day is coming and it will be soon. Republicans will support a form of nationalized health care and if they want to stop it from coming they'd better kill me, because I'm going to make it happen or die trying. We can have a national health care system that is sort of a compromise between what we have now and between what Hillary Clinton crafted in the 90s. A compromise that supports all the stakeholders and takes care of my main concern: America's seniors and America's sickly or other people who can't afford health care for some reason, whether it's because their ailment makes their premiums too high or they're just too poor. everyone needs health care and our nation should take care of her people.
Now, give me a really good excuse why we shouldn't have nationalized health care, and don't say 'deficits' because it's obvious we conservatives don't believe in balancing the budget anymore, isn't that right President Bush?
Give me a really good reason why everyone in America shouldn't be insured. We are the nation's wealthiest nation but we can't afford to insure our citizens. Doesn't that sound stupid? Yes it does, but it is the truth.
The truth about people who don't think we need national health care is that most of them have it or don't need it and in my opinion, their opinion isn't worth a grain of salt on this issue. I will point out that members of Congress all have national health care so it is a conflict of interest for them to debate against this issue because, since all their health care needs are met, they cannot have a true understanding as to what the needs of the uninsured are.
We will have health care coverage for every American or big-pharma will lower prices of all of its products to $10 per container so everyone can afford it.
Are their other options? Tell me. I want to hear your options on how you will ensure that everyone in America is insured or has the opportunity to take care of their ailments through attaining adequate health care.
Not everyone can get Medicaid. The working poor can't. Independent contractors can't.
That isn't a solution.
Give me a real solution. If you don't have one, then don't tell me what is needed, because the numbers clearly show that health care is needed in America today and that the public clearly wants it and it is clear that less employers are providing it.
So, big pharma lowers it's prices or we get nationalized health care. Which is it? It has to be one or the other.
Cheers.
4 - mike
Right on, brother. You said it. Beautifully expressed.
If we can build hospitals and clinics in Iraq, we can build them here. America comes first.
5 - Melissa
I just discovered this Blog, and I wanted to applaud the posting of this item... I am a born and raised Canadian, the children of American expatriates, and me and my family talk quite a bit about the myths about single-payer or universal coverage that they grew up with in America, myths that serve only to ensure that the businesses that make billions of dollars off of private insurance stay in the black.
Single-payer systems definitely have their challenges and unique faults, but those are magnified and exaggerated in the American media... when they're mentioned at all.
As a side note, one of the main benefits to a universal, single-payer system is that it effectively makes a single lobby group out of the entire citizenry... it becomes one of the few commonalities that all people in a country share. When people cannot be divided over an issue, it ensures that all policy-makers will make it a priority and work to keep it strong... even in a partisan political scheme, it becomes neutral territory, a fact that all parties must upkeep to maintain their voting base.
This is what happens in Canada... if anyone messes with health care, they will promptly find themselves kicked to the curb come election time.
Apologies for ranting, but I was just so pleased to see attention drawn to this. Health care is a right and not a privilege, and I hope some day that there will not be 43 million Americans going without their rights.
Melissa
6 - Eric Olsen
I am not unsympathetic to the concept of universal health care for Americans and it seems uncivilized and arbitrary that we do not have it in some form.
I would, however, point out that the US ALWAYS rates lower than many other 1st world countries in just about any aggregate ranking because our population is vastly more heterogeneous than any other country at a similar stage of development, we have a far larger population than any of them, AND we have much less socialism built into our system than they do, with positive and negative results. In other words, this argument, which may have plenty of merit in other regards, is built upon tautology.
7 - debbie
I personally believe that because we don't have universal health care with caps on spending, we end up subsidizing other countries that do. (Pharma Co's spend BIG $$ on research and development and they have a set number of years to make their money back before the patent expires and generic drugs can be offered) If we also refused to subsidize it would lower our costs but what would it do for medical advancement? We have to find a balance somewhere. I don't want progress to stop because of 'socialism' but I don't want Americans to not have basic health care either. If you force all medicines to be sold for $10 then we will have fewer companies selling meds, fewer new drug developments, less research, etc. There is going to be a negative for each positive.
"You know, big-pharma should be given 15 years to create cures to all the ailments known to man. If they fail in doing so, they should be mandated to pay for all of America's health care costs. That would balance the budget and force them to create some really ingenuous solutions. Perhaps even some good, solid health care solutions." I'm sorry I know that this is a rant but there is no way that this can be a serious consideration. How is that possible? We have new ailments that arrive all the time. Do you really think that the Pharma's are not trying to come up with a cure for cancer, diabeties, etc? They spend a huge amount of money trying to do just that, if you limit their income you will limit their research and that won't help anybody. If you think that you can do it in 15 years then do it.
I wish I knew the answer and I agree that something needs to be done. Should we scale back on aid given to other countries for health care and spend it on our own citizens? That seems pretty cruel on the face of it because some of these countries don't even have basic hygene facilities, let alone health care. We at least can go to clinics and hospitals especially in an emergency. Hospitals and Dr.'s write off a lot of debt from patients that cannot pay. That is one of the reasons that insurance premiums are so high.
Winston, just a personal note - my father is a diabetic and has numerous other ailments. We worked with his Dr. and he was able to receive a number of meds free from the Pharma companies because of the cost. And you might want to check but I thought that all testing devices, supplies and insulin would be provided free of cost if you are insulin dependent. I don't know if that is only for Medicare patients but I would check into it. I am also diabetic (oral medicine) and I know how expensive the testing supplies are. My father was able to get some assistance on his drugs and I just wanted to let you know that.
8 - Hal Pawluk
Eric: ... because our population is vastly more heterogeneous than any other country at a similar stage of development
I'm sure it's a comforting belief, but the facts don't bear it out.
It's not true about Canada (I'm in close contact with someone working on the immigration front lines in Vancouver), the difference is not "vast" with Australia since their immigration policy changes a few decades ago, and possibly not "vast" with Britain from what I've read about their immigration problems (anyone from the UK out there)?
9 - Eric Olsen
Hal, the "minority" (black, Hispanic, Asian, etc) population of the US is around 30%. I would very much like to see the actual figures, but I will be stunned if any of the other countries you mention are anywhere near that percentage.
10 - mike
But what's your point? That the U.S.'s minority population excuses its lack of health insurance? Or is this another example of how our lapses are excusable because we're greater, so it's ok for us to fight wars to spread democracy--even though most of the world is coming to the (correct) conclusion that the U.S. is no longer much of a democracy.
The U.S. should fix its own house before it lectures whole regions of the world on theirs.
11 - Eric Olsen
My point is not whether or not we should have universal health care. I think we should in some form. My point is that Hal's argument that we don't have "better" overall health care than other "advanced" nations" is based upon statistics that are inherently skewed. That's all.
12 - mike
But your argument continues to make no sense. Other countries's health statistics are remarkable precisely because they have large minority populations that are as poor or much poorer than the U.S., and are not well integrated into their societies.
They STILL get better health care, and that's inexcusable since the U.S. is overall much wealthier.
France with its enormous and hostile Muslim population is the most obvious example.
Many minorites in the U.S., such as many Asians, are quite well off. The large rural white population in this country contains staggering amounts of poverty.
13 - Hal Pawluk
Eric: For starters, Canada was built on minorities.
To justify a cross-country railroad in the late 19th century, the Canadian government went to Europe and "imported" people from just about every country. They were given free land along the railroad line in order to produce goods for the railroads to haul. Today you see communities around a RR stop still speaking their original languages: St. Paul/French,Bruderheim/German, Szypenitz/Ukrainian, etc. (Those are towns spaced maybe 30-40 miles apart on the RR.)
Since then, other nationalities have moved in and you get things like one of the largest settlements of Greeks in North America in Montreal.
For the last several decades in particular, huge waves of immigration have come from Asia, Central America and, yes, even Mexico.
Currently 51% of the population is rooted in the British Isles or France, as contrasted to being nearly 100% a little over a hundred years ago.
The bottom line is that Canada has a huge population of minorities, so I don't see a "vast" difference.
I also don't see why you think population heterogeneity would cause health costs to be higher and health quality lower. Can you explain the connection you made in your statement for me?
"I would, however, point out that the US ALWAYS rates lower than many other 1st world countries in just about any aggregate ranking because our population is vastly more heterogeneous than any other country at a similar stage of development"
Thanks.
14 - Melissa
To add to the debate about minorities, Canada I believe at last census had a little more than 1% fewer people of Caucasian heritage than the U.S. as a percentage of overall population. To add to this, we have an extremely suffering First Nations (aboriginal) population. My city has one of the largest populations of Filipinos per capita in North America. Etc, etc, etc.
I agree with above posters... and at any rate, the way to best guarantee a society's collective health is to start by ensuring that even its most struggling citizens have access to health care. You can't expect those struggling in a "heterogenous" society to ever truly rise above their problems when they can't even get decent medical care.
Melissa
15 - John Mudd
Here's a link to a recent U.S. Today article showing why America needs a solid national health care system.
It also shows that President Bush supports a tax cut for people to pay for health insurance, but in my case, since the premium would be around $2,000 a month, it wouldn't do me any good.
If you're going to give me a tax cut, it better be for $24,000+ so I can pay my premiums for the year. Otherwise, there is an infrastructure in place for a national health care system that doesn't require a bureaucratic agency to support it and the President better show some leadership and make it happen.
I am not a pigeon. I am unable to live off of bread crumbs, alone, nor are any other Americans.