Health Care

[BT]

In a federal state such as the U.S.A. or Canada, mobility rights for citizens are essential.

Why?

Why is it essential?

As we have seen, medicaid and healthy children programs differ state to state.

[Universe Prince]

Currently the United States pays more per patient and as a percentage of GDP than any other nation on Earth. So, does that mean that we are receiving the best care? Do we have the highest life expectancy, the lowest infant mortality rate, the best treatment for the most people?

No. According to the OECD, we do not have any of those. In fact, we run about middle of the pack.

I defer to Radley Balko.

As the article itself notes, the U.S. has set life expectancy records in each of the last five years. And though the article quotes public health officials saying we need to do more to fight cancer and heart disease, deaths from both of those ailments have been in dramatic decline for 15 years. Whatever our ranking in comparison to other countries, the picture here is far from bleak. Deaths from cancer have actually declined overall the last two years, despite increases in population. In fact, overall deaths decreased in 2006, and by the largest margin in sixty years.

   [...]

Nationalized health care? Well in the U.S. the mortality rate for prostate cancer is less than 20 percent. In Canada it's 25 percent. In the UK, it's more than 50 percent. Breast cancer? A 20 percent mortality rate in the U.S., 33 percent in France in Germany, and nearly half in the U.K. I find it difficult to believe that the lack of socialized medicine is what's behind our lagging in life expectancy figures.

And I defer also to Bernadine Healy M.D.

First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

Balko at this link, and Dr. Healy at this one.

Of course the health care system in the U.S. has some serious faults. But as I've said before, I am not convinced that the socialized systems in other countries are really better overall. I'm not saying we should do nothing. As I have also said before, I am very much in favor of the idea of universal health care. I just don't happen to think universal health care should be planned and operated by the government. The U.S. is a wealthy nation. Many people considered middle class in the U.S. would be considered quite wealthy in other parts of the world. There is no reason why people in our country should go without necessary health care. None. But what is the solution? I suggest we take a cue from the doctors who have decided to eschew government payouts and begun charging patients according to what the patients can afford. I suggest we stop trying to fix from the top down what needs a solution at the ground level.

Yes, I know, everyone touting government run health care says the market hasn't worked. But then, has the market really been in charge? As some other post pointed out, no because the consumer is not in charge. Unfortunately that other post proceeds to get it wrong. While the doctor may order the care, the question isn't who is ordering the care, but how is it being paid for? Between government programs and regulations, we have in place a really complex system that attempts to control prices. The problem is, price controls never solve the problems they are intended to solve. They only create new ones. And the worst thing about price controls is that they not only ignore the actual costs involved they end up adding to those costs in the long term. Which is, as best I can determine, is part of the problem with the costs of health care in the U.S.

So the suggestion that we're going to solve this problem with a socialist universal health care program seems, to me, to be the wrong advice.

Seems to me, if presidential candidates, many of whom are already quite wealthy, can raise raise millions of dollars from people around the country, then we ought to be able to find millions of dollars for privately run health care networks that help people get the health care they need, whether those people can afford to pay for it or not. Networks that work from the ground up, not from the top down. We have private drug discount plans. We have privately run charity hospitals. We have doctors willing to forgo assured payment from the government to be able to give people the treatment they need at lower costs overall. We have what we need to begin making the health care system in the U.S. better, more responsive, and cheaper. So why are we ignoring all that to insist on something that cannot solve the problem?

[_JS]

We have private drug discount plans. We have privately run charity hospitals.

And we still have kids and families who require charity to have birth defects repaired. Even then, some of those families spend all of their savings and go into deep debt. Some, simply don't have the defect repaired.

That doesn't happen in Sweden, the UK, or Germany. Why?

Do you know how long cleft palate repair has been treated by the governments in those nations? Yet, not here? Does that seem right?

[BT]

What percentage payroll tax do they deduct from your paycheck, if that is how they fund it?

[_JS]

In a federal state such as the U.S.A. or Canada, mobility rights for citizens are essential.

Why?

Why is it essential?

As we have seen, medicaid and healthy children programs differ state to state.

And, erm...every state is mandated to provide medicaid. Sheesh.

That is the point. It is exactly what Tee and I said.

[BT]

Sheesh.

States offer differing degrees of coverage on the healthy children program. How does that affect the "right" of mobility for citizens?

[_JS]

States could offer different approaches to universal healthcare, so long as it met the requirement of being universal and free at the point of service.

[Amianthus]

In other nations a child born with such a deformity has corrective surgery. Why not here? How do you even begin to justify that?

An ex-girlfriend of mine is a surgeon. She volunteers her time and skills - and her hospital volunteers the operating theatre - for the correction of these deformities. For free. In the US.

[BT]

States could offer different approaches to universal healthcare, so long as it met the requirement of being universal and free at the point of service.

So as long as states offer the minimum requirements you are ok with with them adding their own enhancements? Isn't that what crashed TennCare?

[Amianthus]

It is only more regressive because we cap the maximum amount that allows contributions.

The health insurance portion of FICA - added in 1966 - has no wage cap.

[_JS]

In other nations a child born with such a deformity has corrective surgery. Why not here? How do you even begin to justify that?

An ex-girlfriend of mine is a surgeon. She volunteers her time and skills - and her hospital volunteers the operating theatre - for the correction of these deformities. For free. In the US.

Yes, I referenced that fact. I think that is great.

But why is it necessary? Why should this be left to charity?

[Lanya]

It should not be left to charity, any more than schools or water treatment or road repair should be left to charity.

[Universe Prince]

Do you know how long cleft palate repair has been treated by the governments in those nations? Yet, not here? Does that seem right?

Does it seem right they the government doesn't pay for it? Yes. Does it seem right that some people end up living with that problem because they cannot afford the repairs? No, absolutely not.

[Universe Prince]

But why is it necessary? Why should this be left to charity?

Why shouldn't this be left to charity? If we had a government program, it would still be charity. It would just be government run charity. The thing is, government run charity won't solve the problem of the costs of health care. It will just hide the price from the average person.

[sirs]

Why should this be left to charity?

Why shouldn't this be left to charity? If we had a government program, it would still be charity. It would just be government run charity. The thing is, government run charity won't solve the problem of the costs of health care. It will just hide the price from the average person.

Well summized, Prince