"France is healthcare leader, US comes dead last: study"

[volatile]

I dispute both of those, but lets say I didn't. Now explain this "Ideology trumps reality" with the Queen.

It is indisputable that a) you pay more in percentage terms in tax for your "national" healthcare than I do (and get less for it!) and b) the USA has awful health metrics (see the OP). I don't see on what grounds you're disputing these figures. Ideology thus trumps reality in establishing which is the best healthcare system, because you don't seem to care about these two facts, just so long as some poor guy isn't getting healthcare he doesn't 'deserve' or something. As long as the system is more-or-less run on the general principles neo-liberal individualism, then you're happy. It doesn't matter one iota that this system is more expensive, less efficient, morally bankrupt and much less successful in actually delivering good levels of health.

What was that about the Queen?

 

[Magyar]

IWhen was the last time you heard of someone leaving the US to get Healthcare?

ACTUALLY, it's happening more and more it's called health tourism - I have to google the paper but there was a huge article in one of the papers. I saw the interview on
CSPAN Washington Journal.

1000 of people are going overseas to receive both elective and necessary surgeries for FRACTION of the cost in countries all over the world. And even US hospitals are signing up to be part of the deal because they are losing patients.

One of the largest travel agencies facilitating this kind of travel is located in Chicago.

GOOGLE - Health Tourism and you will find plenty of info.

Someone mentioned how the notion of national health care is a priori for conservatives.

I always come back and ask them WHY police and fire doesn't fall in to this category?
They never have a coherent answer. It's all about feeding the health care industry pork barrel.

 

[Policenaut]

If the government takes over healthcare do you think they are going to reduce taxes or hike them even more making us spend double what other countries pay in established systems that have been around for decades? If we get national health care even the band-aids will be red.

 

[BeAChooser]

"France is healthcare leader, US comes dead last: study".

Do you suppose this might have something to do with the problem?

FRANCE:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4537455.stm "11 May, 2005 ... snip ... Mr De Villepin said there were between 200,000 and 400,000 illegal immigrants in France - the first time such figures have been made public."

Population of France - about 64 million.

So illegal immigrants comprise 0.3 - 0.6 percent of the population.

In France, the children of illegal immigrants born in France are still illegal so they are counted in the above estimate.

In France, illegals pay into the system but are denied any access to public health care.

UNITED STATES:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5365863 "April 24, 2006 ... snip ... The current estimated range is between 8 million and 20 million people, though almost all reputable sources believe the 8 million mark was surpassed several years ago. The number most commonly cited is between 11 million and 12 million.

Population of US - about 304 million

So illegal immigrants comprise 2.6 - 6.6 percent of the population.

In the US, the children of illegal immigrants born in the US are citizens (and therefore are not counted in the above figure, but still will burden the medical care system since the parents are unlikely to pay into the system).

In the US, illegal immigrants are given access to health care even though many do not pay into the system.

 

[Architect]

No, I don't. Feel free to post some financial analyses that back up your proposition, rather than simply supposition.

 

[Flo]

Do you suppose this might have something to do with the problem?

FRANCE:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4537455.stm "11 May, 2005 ... snip ... Mr De Villepin said there were between 200,000 and 400,000 illegal immigrants in France - the first time such figures have been made public."

Population of France - about 64 million.

So illegal immigrants comprise 0.3 - 0.6 percent of the population.

In France, the children of illegal immigrants born in France are still illegal so they are counted in the above estimate.

In France, illegals pay into the system but are denied any access to public health care.

Not quite true. There are a number of safety nets that ensure even illegals (especially children) do have access to at least basic public health care, even though most will not pay into the system.
Anyway, everybody outside of rabid xenophobes agree that illegal immigrants play a minuscule part in the costs of healthcare, and none at all in its quality.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Do libertarians support the Vaccines for Children programme?

I'd have thought this type of programme, which provides non-emergency medical treatment freely to those who can't or will not pay at the expense of others, would be totally against libertarian principles.

 

[fls]

Oddly enough, I have the same impression of the US Healthcare system, having lived in the US all of my life. Which is the whole problem with making decisions based on anecdotes and personal experience.

I think that is why this whole thread has been about looking at the numbers instead of allowing sweeping generalizations to go unchallenged.

I think the US Healthcare system works for the majority of Americans. Does that mean we shouldn't try to improve it for the substantial section of the population that it doesn't work for? Of course not.

But why not? I agree with you, but some here are unconvinced that we should try to improve it just because it doesn't work for some. Is there not a limit to what we owe to others?

I'm just a little leery of wholesale changes (e.g. government run single payer).

I don't think you have to worry about that - I don't see how that could possibly happen in the US in the current socio-political climate. There is a tendency to want to rationalize the dismissal of universal systems. I jump in to challenge claims that aren't supported by the available information, not because I think it is feasible to implement these systems.

There's plenty of room for incremental improvements: expanding Medicaid, expanding Medicare, coverage mandates, etc.

I think you can expand coverage and improve health using incremental changes. I don't think you can see any cost-savings without wholesale changes, though.

Linda

 

[BeAChooser]

Anyway, everybody outside of rabid xenophobes agree that illegal immigrants play a minuscule part in the costs of healthcare, and none at all in its quality.

http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html

It's estimated there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S." FAIR estimates "there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. ... snip ... In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year. ... snip ... In a recent year in Colorado, the state's emergency Medicaid program paid an estimated $30 million in hospital and physician delivery costs for about 6,000 illegal immigrant mothers - average of $5,000 per baby. Those 6,000 births to illegal aliens represent 40% of the births paid for by Medicaid in Colorado. Those 6,000 babies immediately became U.S. citizens and qualified for full Medicaid services, with a cost yet to be tabulated. ... snip ... Denver Health is now proposing that taxpayers approve a bond issue to pay for a bigger obstetrics unit. The present unit was built for 1,600 births a year, yet last year alone it handled 3,500. ... snip ... Medical service for Americans in affected communities is being severely damaged as hospitals absorb more than $200 million in unreimbursed costs. Some emergency rooms have shut down because they cannot afford to stay open. Local tax-paying Americans are either denied medical care or have to wait in long lines for service as the illegals flood the facilities. In California, the losses are calculated to be about $79 million, with $74 million in Texas, $31 million in Arizona, and $6 million in New Mexico. These costs are staggering. The Cochise County, Arizona Health Department spends as much as 30 percent of its annual $9 million budget on illegal aliens. The Copper Queen Hospital in Bisbee, Arizona, has spent $200,000 in uncompensated services out of a net operating budget of $300,000. The University Medical Center in Tucson may lose as much as $10 million and the Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center, also in Tucson, has lost $1 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2002. ... snip ... A new Center for Immigration Studies report was released in August, 2004 that shows ... snip ... federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275

Illegal aliens threaten U.S. medical system ... snip ... the increasing number of illegal aliens coming into the United States is forcing the closure of hospitals, spreading previously vanquished diseases and threatening to destroy America's prized health-care system, says a report in the spring issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. "The influx of illegal aliens has serious hidden medical consequences," writes Madeleine Pelner Cosman, author of the report. "We judge reality primarily by what we see. But what we do not see can be more dangerous, more expensive, and more deadly than what is seen." According to her study, 84 California hospitals are closing their doors as a direct result of the rising number of illegal aliens and their non-reimbursed tax on the system." ... snip ... While politicians often mention there are 43 million without health insurance in this country, the report estimates that at least 25 percent of those are illegal immigrants. The figure could be as high as 50 percent. Not being insured does not mean they don't get medical care. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985, hospitals are obligated to treat the uninsured without reimbursement. ... snip ... According to the report, between 1993 and 2003, 60 California hospitals closed because half their services became unpaid. Another 24 California hospitals verge on closure, the author writes.

And when those hospitals close, the illegals just move on to the next still viable hospital and wreck it. So don't sit there and try to tell those of us who are living this that illegal immigrants "play a minuscule part in the costs of our healthcare, and none at all in its quality." Because, frankly, that's an outright lie.

And by the way, I'm not a "rabid xenophobe". You'd be amazed how many foreign born friends I have, as well as friends that are quite different from me. I even have some democrat friends.

 

[Beerina]

Nonsense. The profit motive is important too, but new technologies are regularly pulled into existence largely by sheer momentum of knowledge. Look at mathematics. Specifically, number theory. Number theory was a useless pile of glorified recreational math for centuries, but people still did it, and now it's the foundation of cryptography and fundamental for so many important technologies.

Emphasis on the for centuries, note.

We do not want to wait for centuries as hobbiests get around to it. We want it now. We want billions of dollars in potential profits driving it along.

"The Internet" petered along for 20+ years before other computer technology and the potential for massive profit became apparent, then trillions (with a t) were dumped into every manner of computer, network, software, and web technology, making a mockery of any "government effort" in building a childlike network and saying, "See what we did, mommy!"


With medicine, everyone wants it. Everyone will pay their last dime to get it to live a little longer. That drives new inventions.

Take that away, and some of that invention disappears, and the net effect is you kill a lot more than you save giving it out for "free".

Or for that matter, so much of open software software.

Do you want someone crying to the government that they need "single-payer, socialized software development"? Such that police point guns at Microsoft, Apple, and so on, and say "You shall not charge more than $20 for your operating systems!"

Will that prompt them to continue making improvements, or prompt them to stop?


Be very careful how you answer. Literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of lives do, not just may, depend on it.

 

[Architect]

You're not actually suggesting that the NHS acts in some way to discourage investment and research, are you?!?

 

[Senex]

No one has mentioned the health and longevity benefits of being the first to surrender.

 

[Architect]

To what? Drink? Lethargy?

 

[BeAChooser]

no One Has Mentioned The Health And Longevity Benefits Of Being The First To Surrender.

Rotflol!

 

[Eskarina]

Emphasis on the for centuries, note.

We do not want to wait for centuries as hobbiests get around to it. We want it now. We want billions of dollars in potential profits driving it along.

And all your wanting hasn't resulted in a cure for AIDS or cancer so far, profits or not.

"The Internet" petered along for 20+ years before other computer technology and the potential for massive profit became apparent, then trillions (with a t) were dumped into every manner of computer, network, software, and web technology, making a mockery of any "government effort" in building a childlike network and saying, "See what we did, mommy!"

Them thar Intartubes aren't really comparable to health care, are they?

With medicine, everyone wants it. Everyone will pay their last dime to get it to live a little longer. That drives new inventions.

Err, no. I'm not going to pay my last dime to live two or sixth months longer. Or even a year.

Take that away, and some of that invention disappears, and the net effect is you kill a lot more than you save giving it out for "free".

Take away what?

Do you want someone crying to the government that they need "single-payer, socialized software development"? Such that police point guns at Microsoft, Apple, and so on, and say "You shall not charge more than $20 for your operating systems!"

There's always Linux, available for free. And it works!

Will that prompt them to continue making improvements, or prompt them to stop?

You mean Microsoft and Apple are actually trying to make improvements instead of using the average l(user) customer as a beta-tester?

Be very careful how you answer. Literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of lives do, not just may, depend on it.

Hundreds of millions of lives depend on an answer on a messageboard?

 

[jimbob]

I think the point is that the US could be getting far more value for the money it spends, or spend less money and redistribute good-quality care to everyone (while ensuring that people are still free to buy excess care if they want). The only thing holding them back seems to be ideology, and that ideology seems to be based on misunderstanding and misinformation.

Linda

Yup: some further evidence from an earlier thread:

The US state alone spends more of its GDP on healthcare than the UK: for as system that is far form universal.

Here is where I got the 6.6% figure (for 2004)

Medicaid costs a larger percentage of GDP than the NHS does the British taxpayer.
(44.7% of 14.7%=6.6%) was public, as opposed to the UK's (83.4% of 7.7%=6.3%) of GDP Source:

OECD Health Data 2007 - Frequently Requested Data

The death rate is higher in the US too, and not all can be explained by higher gun ownership:

I have found one estimation, in what seems like an appropriate journal.

Thank for for your research.

"The United States thus suffers from a life expectancy gap of 1.7 years."

Now add 1.7 years to your previous stats and tell me were we are.



Keep in mind that this is only one factor to be considered.

"These deaths account for 26.86 percent of the U.S. males' excess mortality when compared to peer nations, and 8.7 percent of the racial gap between black and white males in the United States."

So, yes Jerome, it is significant, but only explains about a quarter of the difference between the US and the other thirty-four other richest countries.


In fact I am surprised at the magnitude of the effect, but it still leaves 74% unexplained by gun-deaths.

In answer to the assertion that the rest of the world is freeloading on the US medical research, which is lowering death rates, a lot of the mortality and morbidity is preventable with better primary healthcare.

 

[Shadowdweller]

For those trying to make the claim that immigration is unduly influencing the USA's ranking in the OP, please note that many of those 19 countries actually have higher percentages of immigrants by population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population

(Based on UN statistics as listed in the article)

 

[Radrook]

The more you depend on the government to lend you a helping hand in the land of opportunity the more you are considered a freeloader. Better yet, since even in the land of opportuinity you need help, then you deserve your difficulties. That's the general underlying cultural mindset causing the lagging behind certain other countriers in healthcare despite being the richest. To fix the problem you'ld have to change the cultural premise which if you tried would make you seem unamerican via encouraging what is considered an unamerican sloth mentality.

 

[Flo]

And when those hospitals close, the illegals just move on to the next still viable hospital and wreck it. So don't sit there and try to tell those of us who are living this that illegal immigrants "play a minuscule part in the costs of our healthcare, and none at all in its quality." Because, frankly, that's an outright lie.

I was writing about France, not the US. At no point was I trying to tell "you" how you should run your business.

And by the way, I'm not a "rabid xenophobe".

Never said you were ...

You'd be amazed how many foreign born friends I have, as well as friends that are quite different from me. I even have some democrat friends.

The only amazing thing is that this kind of "argument" is still in use in this day and age ...

 

[Beerina]

And all your wanting hasn't resulted in a cure for AIDS or cancer so far, profits or not.

Correct.

If you could have a cure for Aids tomorrow, but the people who cured it wanted $100,000 per treatment, would you take it?

A question like that outlines, in exaggerated form, the core of the issue.

The fraud of socialized health care is in presuming you can have the cures at the same rate as with more profit-driven medicine. It isn't an issue of "helping the poor", which can be done without a government nationalization of the industry. It's an issue of restricting the profit motive.

It is, and always has been, about that. Not about helping the poor. Follow the money. Follow the power. Do not listen when those in power tell you that you hate Jews in Israel and that we should push Israel into the sea, and that the best way to do this is to authorize me to point guns at doctors and medical tech companies and tell them they can't charge you as much.


By the way, this brings up another issue. Many of you say cures will come along just as fast because people are good and want to solve these problems.

While it's true people are good and want to solve these problems, that is not as powerful as the whole ball of wax. It's also rather evil, if you ask me, to say to doctors, "Well, we don't want to pay you very much, so we're not gonna let you earn all that much, and we plan on taking advantage of your good nature."

Err, no. I'm not going to pay my last dime to live two or sixth months longer. Or even a year.

Fair enough. Please do not pull out guns, though, and demand people help you anyway. Especially since that will slow future development, leading to billions dying two or six months earlier because technology hasn't been invented.

Hundreds of millions of lives depend on an answer on a messageboard?

Slowing tech development by 10% will put you into the club with Hitler and Stalin as far as magnitude of unnecessary deaths, after about a century.