Re:healthcare
All of europe, canada...you know those evil western nations.
You're comparing apples and oranges, joobz.
First, this is about whether the US government can do things cheaper, not some foreign government. Assuming that "all of europe, canada" actually do provide health care cheaper (and I'm not agreeing with that), how do you know that's not because their government and societal structure are different than ours?
For example, do they have the same number of lawyers per capita that we do? No, they have far fewer lawyers. There is about 1 per 265 Americans. But France only has 1 per 1400. Germany only 1 per 600. The UK only 1 per 400. And most of the difference in the numbers is in the categories of lawyers who sue doctors and hospitals when someone dies and they didn't order all those tests and procedures they order in America but don't order in other countries. And do you know how many lawyers there are in all of Japan ... of all kinds? There is only 1 for every 5800 people. So maybe the solution is to cap the per capita number of lawyers that is allowed in this country to the ratios in one of those UHC countries that you sooooo admire. You'd be amazed at how many fewer tests doctors would then order. But you democrats aren't prepared to do that, are you? Because those lawyers mostly vote democrat.
And there more structural differences between the US and other countries. Does the EU and canada have to deal with the same number of illegal aliens? No, they have far fewer illegals. Are they as generous with those illegals as we are ours? No, in some cases they provide them with no care whatsoever that isn't paid for up-front by the illegals themselves.
Do the doctors in these other countries make the same amount as doctors in the US? No, on average they make considerably less. If you artificially lower the income of doctors and not those of other professions, the more capable people are going to choose to enter those other occupations rather than medicine. And the quality of doctors will naturally go down. It's simple logic and human nature. So if you don't want the quality of our physicians to drop at the same time you force their salaries lower, you are going to have to cap the salaries of everyone else in the US?
If these things are what it takes to reduce the costs in healthcare in the US, then I just don't see the path to those lower costs without massive change in American pay scales, torte reform and preventing illegal immigration. But democrats aren't proposing any of those structural changes, are they? If fact, they seem dead set against them.
Second, do those european/canadian governments you admire provide the same healthcare that Americans as a rule enjoy? No. And you can't really say something is cheaper if you aren't comparing the price of apples to the price of apples. I'm sure you'll say the details don't matter because those other countries have longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality. But as has been pointed out repeatedly in thread after thread, those measures are heavily influenced by differences in reporting and factors that have nothing to do with health care quality. Remove those factors and their life expectancy and infant mortality rates are not as good as in the US. Look at the 5 year survival rates for cancer. They are considerably lower in many of those european UHC systems. A study by the Eurocare-4 working group, which appeared in Lancet Oncology, found (
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/give_me_liberty_or_give_me_hea.html ) "that the United States outperformed European countries in 5-year relative survival rates for all malignancies in men (66.3 versus 47.3) and women (62.9 versus 55.8)." So is it fair to directly compare costs between us and them when we apparently provide better care?
Third, the health care system in these foreign countries are not doing all that well in many cases. The French health care system is in crisis and ironically it's looking to the US for solutions (
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html ). France has recently imposed co-pays and has been cutting services (for example), all to try and control costs. The UK system is riddled with problems and they've been throwing money at them hand over fist. Which is why their annual percentage change in per capita health care costs is a full 1% greater than ours (
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/09/where_are_healt.html
). In fact, Ireland, Poland, Norway, Greece, Spain, the Czech Republic, The Netherlands (another UHC system touted as a model for us), and Belgium ... all countries with universal health care systems ... have health care cost growth rates of 9.0%, 7.8%, 7.6%, 7.1%, 6.8%, 6.5%, 6.0%, and 5.9%, respectively. All higher than the US rate.
Fourth, maybe the full cost of that "free" healthcare in europe and canada expresses itself in other ways. In reduced growth rates for their entire economy, for instance (i.e., less per capita GDP growth). In 2007, France's per capita GDP (PPP) was $31,200. Germany's was $31,900. But the US' was about $43,800. Obviously, we could easily afford the delta in health care costs between us and them, and it might very well be that the delta in GDPs is reflective of a difference in economic philosophy between those countries willing to adopt universal (socialized) health care (like France and Germany) and those who've maintained a more private (i.e., free market) health care system. In short, had we adopted the same socialist economic philosophy that the French and Germans have had for some time, our GDP might very well now be similar to theirs, in which case we wouldn't now be enjoying the EXTRA $9000 we get to spend every year in the US even after paying for our higher health care costs.
Fifth, per capita GDP (PPP) growth in the US during the period 1999 to 2008 was slightly higher in the US than in France and Germany. In that timeframe, it averaged 1.6% in the US versus 1.5% in France and Germany. And, whatever growth rate there is acts on a larger base in the US than in France or Germany. Thus, if that 1.6% percentage was the case in 2007, the US per capita GDP would grow by $700 in 2008. The per capita GDP of France, however, would grow by only $468 and the per capita GDP of Germany would grow by $479. Subtracting the rise in cost of health care from those figure, in 2008 an American would have an extra $277 in excess GDP to spend on other things, a Frenchman would have an extra $270 in excess GDP, and a German would have an extra $325. Which means that for all intents and purposes, the disparity in the GDP between us and those two countries is remaining essentially constant. Perhaps because we didn't adopt the same socialist economic philosophy as the French and Germans. And the comparison between US GDP and GDP growth rates is even worse (for you) if one looks (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(real)_growth_rate
) at the UK, Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Italy, Denmark, Ireland and Canada. Those countries might be paying a stiff price for their more socialist attitudes that make UHC acceptable.
Like I said, joobz, apple and oranges. And I didn't even list all of the differences you simply ignore in your comparison.
So why don't you try to find something that the US government has proven itself able to do cheaper than the private sector in the US. tick tick tick.
