US life expactancy, health care, standard of living, etc
 

Despite being the wealthiest nation on earth with purportedly the best equipped hospitals and the best trained medical staff. the US lags behind 47 other nations in terms of life expectancy.


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...at_bir_tot_pop

Do you think this has more to do with lack of access to proper medical care for the poorer segments of US society, too much McDonald's, a higher stress way of living, high murder rates or some unaccounted for factor?

Please note, not a slam on the US, so put the gun down!

;)

i vote for number one -- the poor have no access to health care and thus bring our average down.

You gotta love statitistics!

How on the Goddess' Green Earth is comparing Monaco relevant to the U.S.?

The U.S. has immigration and a large mixture of cultures with various lifestyle habits. The only way that this information could be at all meaningful is if it were accompanied by the rates of mortality due to various causes. To assume that it is due to the poor having no access to health care (which is false, btw), takes an enormous leap of faith.

The U.S. doesn't even make it on to the list of the top 100 countries for the share of population living below the poverty line.

I could make a strong argument that the "crimes prosecuted per capita" stat has a strong influence on life expectancy.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_adu_pro_cap

Consider the affect on the crime rate of the failed War On Drugs. Then factor in how the drug trade involves violent gangs - and the mortality rate of gang members and violent felons. I wonder what the U.S. life-expectancy would be if such deaths were adjusted out?

Oakland is a good microcosm for this theory. The murder rate in Oakland is quite high - we receive much negative press about it. Virtually all of the murders, however, are limited to drug related gangs. The general population is not affected.

This would be due to the effects of media-induced bad lifestyle choices - we lead the world in those.

1) The US is part of planet earth isn't it? I agree that some nations have such small populations (IE Andorra) that they are statistically irrelevant but dozens of other nations are comparable in that they have a population of millions, are industrialized, etc.

2) So do Canada, Britain and France - they all score better than the US in terms of life expectancy.

3) I did not assume that, though others may. I asked the question and provided a variety of possible answers.

4) But perhaps that is telling? Why are the other industrialized nations doing better? Most do have a lesser level of poverty I'm guessing due to greater social safety nets that exist in said nations.

5) That's like saying I wonder if Iraqi life expectancy would be higher if there hadn't been a series of wars over the last 20 years, or if Ethiopian life expectancy would be greater without devastating droughts and famine. Every country has issues that will worsen its average life expectancy - be it the sorry state of the natives in Canada, AIDS in Kenya, infanticide of baby girls in India and China, or the high suicide rate of Hungary and Finland. Sorry, you cannot factor out any one aspect of life in a given country.

I'm sorry, but what would someone who enjoys the luxury of running to the doctor everytime they get a splinter in their finger know about the poor being unable to get health care? Have you ever seen how they treat you when you show up at the hospital and admit that you don't have insurance? Have you ever had surgery without anesthesia just because the doctor assumed he wasn't going to make any money off of you? Hell, I have problems that have needed fixing for years that I keep putting off till "someday" when I can afford to have it done right, rather than hold my breath waiting for some MBA at an HMO to approve it.

SM - yes, I have decent health insurance. Considering my husband's chronic illness, this is something I have worked hard to ensure we keep in place.

I do not wish to belittle the challenges and suffering that the uninsured endure. I just don't think that lack of insurance is the main driver for the statistics sighted in the main post.

I think it's a significant factor in those statistics. I don't expect to live any longer than my sharecropping grandfather did. Not that I'm going to miss the Spectacle once I do check out. Maybe I'm the fortunate one after all.

I don't profess to understand the US healthcare system completely. As I do understand it you have a level of medical access if you are, say, on welfare - but only to certain hopsitals and more importantly, you don't have a primary health care provider (stuck with whatever clinics are available to you, never seeing the same doctor twice) and may not have access to the more advanced procedures and medicines, is that correct?

That's about the size of it. Like everything else in America, health care is all about money.

Would you rather have the ability to earn your health care and be free to choose - or to have a shrinking pool of health care resources allocated by a government bureaucrat?

I'd just like to be able to expect that when I pay for insurance from an HMO, I'll actually get treatment instead of a runaround. That's the point of paying for it, isn't it?

2 points/questions:

A) Do you believe your tax dollars should go towards funding a healthcare system for the less well off even if you personally choose to opt for private treatment?

B) I guess I like the Canadian system better in that while the healthcare system as a whole is somewhat underfunded, by and large access to primary and emergency healthcare is equally available to all - from the richest to the poorest. And it may be a factor in our greater overall life expectancy.

Sometimes I think that it would be better to let a liberal government beauracracy manage it rather than a tight-fisted corporate beauracracy because the government wouldn't be tempted to put profit margins ahead of people's health. And yes, I realize that people in countries that have socialized medicine often wait months for treatment; but since I'm used to waiting for years anyway, that would be a step up.

No, I do not. I disagree with the concept of "positive rights". The government has no business being responsible for people's needs. Government involvement just results in highly bureaucratic and poorly managed charity. Private organizations do a much better job - I'd rather donate my money to more effective organizations, which I would be able to affford to do if half my income were not seized in taxes.

The demographics of Canada are quite different than those of the U.S., and the most likely determinant of the life expectancy differences.

Abso-fucking-lutely correct, as Mr. Clay would say. :)

There is no "right" to health care in the consistution and there never should be. Those who understand what America is supposed to be about will agree that expanding the size of the Federal government to be a healthcare or insurance provider is contrary to the very goal of the US.

The government provides a lot of services that aren't based on Constitutional rights. Your argument is correct in theory, but this is the real world.

What I find interesting is the spending rates related to the quality of care.

(I don't have the "facts" in front of me, I am drawing from memory. I will get them and post back)

I remember seeing a spreadsheet showing the amount spent by our gov't on a per capita basis. It is actually higher than most other countries.

Hang on, I remember where I saw it.....

It is from a book, so I can't link the source.

"Per capita spending on health care is greater in the United States than anywhere else in the world today. On a per capita basis, we spend more than twice as much as citizens of Luxembourg, Austria, Australia, Japan and Denmark."

-Roger LeRoy Miller, "Economics Today", 2004

FYI - Luxembourg, according to statistics, has the highest per capita GDP and standard of living in the world.

My answer: We are already spending gobs and gobs of money. Hell, we are spending more on health care than countries that have a socialistic healthcare system.

Spending more money isn't going to work (i.e. moving to "universal healthcare"). At some point, you have to stop throwing money at the problem and find a different way of fixing it.

Interestingly enough, the same argument applies to education funding. There is an inverse relationship between test scores and the money spent on education by our gov't (same source as above). The spending has increased while test scores have decreased. Once again, it leads me to believe there is another problem. My opinion is the bureacracy of the school systems is too large and a major waste of money.

First of all, I'd be all for private health care management if they could figure out a way to provide equitable health care at costs that are merely ridiculous instead of insanely exorbitant. Unfortunately, the health care industry has shown that they're either unable or unwilling to do so.

Second, it's absurd to equate medical care with other consumer services, which is basically what the HMOs are all about. Take the automobile industry, for example. They make Cadillacs for rich folks and Geo Metros for poor folks. Everyone can presumably buy a car within their budget. Unfortunately, human physiology doesn't fall into different "price points". If a poor person has appendicitis, he needs the same operation as a rich person with the same problem. There is no "Geo Metro" equivalent for the "Cadillac" surgery.

As for whether it's the government's business to subsidize medical care, one may very well question why the government keeps making the roads wider to accommodate more single-passenger vehicles. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Read your state driver's manual if you don't believe me. Why does the government subsidize your driving habits then? Because it's for the collective good. As far as we know, no individual can afford to build his own road to work, to the supermarket, etc.

The question becomes: why are people less deserving of decent health care in a country that can well afford it than they are of the privilege of hopping in their cars and taking a joyride whenever they get the urge? Why is a healthy population of less value than the "freedom of the open road" in promoting the general welfare - the stated objective of the U.S. Constitution?

Anyone else find it more than a little ironic that congress members don't mind socialized healthcare for themselves (or the military) with free access to the top-quality physicians at Walter Reed Medical Center, but that kind of socialized universal healthcare isn't good enough for the rest of us? :rolleyes:

It's the way of all elitist, "I got mine, you get yours" types.

To the first point, obviously government IS involved in managing a big ass part of every nation. The government currently is involved in "people's needs" by providing, aside from medical care, education, protection in form of the military and police services, roadways, and so on. Should the government also divest itself of these responsibilities and would private armies and police forces work better?

Yes, there are demographic differences between the US and Canada, as there are between all countries. As was noted earlier, all countries have their internal challenges that may affect life expectancy. What - specifically - do you feel are greater challenges to the NATIONAL life expectancy than a lack of proper medical care?

A relatively recent Los Angeles Times article:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0223-01.htm

Life expectancy at various ages is a good barometer - one can argue that the predeliction for young American blacks in DC to shoot one another is extremely high when those men are in their teens to 30s and consequently lowers life expectancy.

It would be most interesting and revealing to see how life expectancy tables compare between say a 60 year old American and a 60 year old Canadian or Japanese - when death by murder or drug abuse is much less likely and death from disease is more likely, and so obviously the degree of medical care will play a bigger factor.

we have a health care crisis in this country -- if you haven't seen it consider yourself lucky and/or wealthy. my mother is the nursing supervisor at a rural hospital and my ex boyfriend is a doctor in the UCSF system -- both have had to deal with telling patients that their medical bills will most likely ruin their credit for the rest of their lives. the most disturbing incident involved a college kid who had the unfortunate luck of getting bit by a rattle snake while 2 hours from a hospital -- he needed 4 doses of anti-venom and a good week in the hospital and while his college did provide nominal health insurance it only applied when the accident took place within the state he lived in (oregon), since he was in california they would not pay ANY of his $120,000 hospital bill. my mother sat down with his family and tried to figure out a way to spread the costs out of the credit cards of various family members so that he wouldn't have to bare the entire debt on his own. to say that this 18 year old kid deserves to deal with such stress is heartless, to imply that he should not have been given any health care at all (and thus left to die) barbarian.

there are certain thing in life that should be considered inaliable right (life, liberty, etc) and i see no reason why a right to health care without having to forfeit your future should not be one of them.

You, madam, are a real human being. http://bluehole.clarkworx.com/chrome/smileys/clap.gifhttp://bluehole.clarkworx.com/chrome/smileys/clap.gifhttp://bluehole.clarkworx.com/chrome/smileys/clap.gifhttp://bluehole.clarkworx.com/chrome/smileys/clap.gifhttp://bluehole.clarkworx.com/chrome/smileys/clap.gif

i would agree with brianna.
the implications of american health care is in fact that the lives of the children of the wealthy/well-employed are worth more than the lives of the children of the poor/underemployed.

the present system is barbaric.
that there are people who would argue for it out of fear of the possibility of a more equitable health care system is beyond my comprehension.

the statistics above are but one index of the effects of the radical disparities of economic class in the states.
these disparities cannot be wished away by the right, cannot be attributed to individual choices, cannot be made into an index of morality.

these are systemic problems.
the right has nothing to say about them.

I bet if they underwent surgery without local anesthesia one good time, they'd change their minds awful quick. It's easy to pay lip service to the suffering of the poor if one has never had to experience it oneself. The only people who have argued for the status quo thus far have adequate health insurance.

:eek:

120K!?!??! For a week in hospital, transport and some drugs? Mayeb a little dialysis?

That is incomprehensible to me how such a bill can be run up in such a short period of time. I'd probably take my chances with the snake venom if I knew that in advance.

It does sometimes seem people do argue against broader and more accessible healthcare on the grounds of they themselves would begrudge a bit of equality in that area. I know for most that is not the case, but it comes across that way at times.

I never caught where you're from, but if you've never been to America, then you probably don't realize just how self-serving most of us are here. Most Americans never see through it themselves. This country was basically a vast frontier that was developed by rugged individualists who fended for themselves for the most part. Now that the U.S. is more highly developed and populated, that individualism has devolved into a sort of perverse narcissistic hedonism. We still delude ourselves into thinking that each man is an island unto himself, when in fact that sort of "wild west" contempt for civilization has long been outmoded.

anti venom is *Really* expensive. so is staying in the hospital for a week but i think it was the anti-venom that did him in.

Antivenin is extremely expensive. I watched a TV program on snake bites recently (I think it was on the Discovery Channel or something) and they said it can cost like 10-20k per vial and it usually takes 4-5 vials to stop the venom.

Canada - and I spent a lot of time in the US, especially New England.

10-20K a vial seems rather inflated. This article suggests it is more like a thousand. Why it should cost 10-20K - I cannot see the justification for that...

http://www.firefighting.com/articles...asp?namID=3661

Another site gave a figure of $600 for rattlesnake anti-venom.

Well, I'm telling you that's what I heard. I remember it because it shocked me to hear them say antivenin cost so much. Maybe there are different types of antivenin for different snakes. I dunno. :confused:

Perhaps it costs hospitals 500-1000 per vial to acquire, then they charge you 10-20 times as much. That would not surprise me.

Here is the fallacy in your equating health care with the "inalienable rights" - someone else must pay for it.

One of these things is not like the other:

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Health Care

The first three are negative rights - easily summed up in the phrase "the right to be left alone". Health Care is an example of a "positive" right - which is another term for a need to be satisfied by someone else's labor. The inherent problem with demanding the fulfillment of a "positive" right is that it requires an infringement of another individuals's right to be left alone.

i think you're belief that the other rights are free is false. taxes pay for millions of things so that citizens can pursue their rights to life, liberty and happiness, the most egregious example is liberty; we spend billions of dollars a year on a state military that helps to ensure this right. i see no reason why health care needs to be added to the list, frankly providing health care is the only way to ensure the rights to life and happiness which are already promised.

The proper role of government is to protect citizens from those who wish to infringe on their liberty. This is why the military, courts and police are essential - to enforce the rule of law. We all share the expense of this effort - and rightly so. These functions should also be managed so as not to discriminate - all citizens should be equal before the law.

Such equality does not exist in the assertion of "positive" rights. There must always be a segment of the population who pays so that others may consume.

You also confuse the concepts of life and happiness with equality of condition. There is no right to happiness btw - only the pursuit. The true meaning of these concepts is equality before God and under the law. There is no basis for a claim of equal condition of material wealth, health or any other physical circumstance.

most of the industrialized world--excepting the united states--thinks about the relation of basic helath care to all three terms--life, liberty, pursuit of happiness--as obvious, and the function of taxation as a redistrubition of wealth that enables a more civilized for of captialism to take shape in at least some quarters.

the arguments against this link assume that private gain is more important than health for those who are not of privilege.
it think that is barbaric....like i said earlier.

Most of the industrial world is ruled by former monarchies who still place the state in a superior position to the The People. Many of these are now seeing an economic implosion as the dependent classes are overburdening those who are productive.

"Resdistribution of wealth to enable a more civilized form of capitalism to take shape" is the nice sounding euphamism employed by those who wish to determine the method of redistribution while taking an enormous cut for themselves, as compensation for their "public service".

i really do not know where you get your information, wonder, about other industrialized countries....and on what planet your "history" makes any sense at all. but tant pis.....

and i do not understand how you are able to shift the argument
from human consequences of a system of economic organization back to the question of private gain with any kind of ethical consistency.

unless you believe that there is a difference between the lives of the holders of capital and everyone else.

if that is the case, why dont you just say it?

Why do I get the feeling that it's futile to argue about social issues in human terms with someone who insists on viewing them solely in economic terms? http://bluehole.clarkworx.com/chrome...s/icon_huh.gif

probably because you are right.

it is the pollyanna in me that keeps me going here sometimes....

Oh roachboy, thanks for the opening. Yes. There are many ways in which the lives of holders of capital are different from those who do not hold capital. If we are talking about what is real here. Ideally, it may be possible by some presumed "ethical" or "moral" stretch to state there is no difference, but that would be an unrealistic way to assess practical value. You may require a philosophical assessment. I wouldn't go very far down that path myself.

problem: most defenses of the "individual" and his or her property/cash situation are also abstract.
they fall back onto constitutional defininitions of the individual, also abstract.
these definitions come into direct conflict with the realities produced by capitalism--i agree--but these contradictions bely the nice words used by the framers to define individuals as "all created equal"---which clearly, under capitalism, they are not.

how is this *NOT* true for the military or courts or police? there will always be haves and have nots in a capitalist society and the haves will always be paying more into government programs -- the rich are paying a higher percentage of the military, court, police, and education budget. when someone is accused of a crime and can't afford a lawyer the state provides him or her with one and guess who pays for this? I fail to see how health care is any different. enforcing the rule of law is only marginally different than ensuring a right to health care -- a serial killer is no different from a wave of contagious disease except for the protection issue. as a society we have agreed to provide criminal protection to all (Anyone can dial 911 and seek help from the police) but we refuse medical protection. by your logic we should perhaps have a privatized police force that only answers calls placed by those who can afford to pay them.

I am not arguing for equality of condition, i'm arguing for bare bones medical care -- I would not ask the government to cover elective surgeries or to spread out material wealth evenly throughout society. I think it is obvious that there is a great difference between medical care and material possessions. How can one pursue happiness if he/she is not given the tools to do so? I certainly cannot pursue happiness if i am dead (nevermind pursuing life). We have made many attempts to even the scales in this society (public education, public access to courts and representation, public access to highways and transportation, public access to information (via libraries), etc) and I see no way that health care is different -- in fact I think health care is probably a more important pursuit than the others mentioned since it is literally a mater of life and death.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make last night. I find it incredibly two-faced that people can take some services for granted when they themselves benefit from them, but then turn around and argue against services that might benefit someone else more than themselves.

The government has no business propping up the capitalists' beloved economy by providing them the means to convey their products to market, but capitalists assume that they have an inalienable right to such entitlements. And never mind that they "earn" their outrageous incomes by exploiting our planet's finite resources at an appalling pace even as they spit in the faces of the poor faceless slobs who suffer on account of their selfishness. Sorry for ranting, but everytime I think about, a certain saying about a camel and the eye of a needle comes to mind.

My feet are firmly planted on Earth - but thanks for your concern.

You would benefit from a rereading of history - especially in the areas of individual rights and the structures of government.

As to your last comment. Yes, the lives of those who hold capital are different. And your point is? The purpose of government should not be to make everyone's circumstances equal. The reductio ad absurdum of all such experiments in material equality is always slavery to the state.

It's good to be rich. This is why so many people aspire to such a state. The question is, are you going to punish them for succeeding?

Key word: "created", clearly, we are.

Create: To cause to exist; bring into being.

That means we all start off with the same rights, but where we end up is our own responsibility. i.e. by treating everyone "equal" we all have the same "opportunity" to start off with. Our framers never intended that we all stay limited by equality, i.e. I can not do better in life than someone else.

The beauty of capitalism is it allows you to choose your own course. It in no way guarantees the outcome, however.

Nowhere under definitions of capitalism does it say that we remain "equal". People have to make their own paths in life, that is why capitalism and a free-market society work well for us. If you want to do better, you can. If you want to do worse, you can do that to. If you want to just sit back and complain about everything, you can do that to.

I don't see anything in there about "created equal". I see individual rights and private ownership. I have no desire to give up either of these two rights. Basically free will. We are all given the tools, it is just a matter of what we do with the tools

You do not understand the history behind nor the intent of "created equal". The Framers intended this phrase to be under God and before the law - no more. Each person's life is his own to do with as he sees fit.

To address property rights - they also viewed property as being inherent to individuality. One's productivity and the fruits thereof are his to do with as he sees fit - including passing them down to his children. To view otherwise is to insist that one's actions belong to others.

There's a whole lot of selective listening going on here. The real reductio ad absurdum is reducing the lives of real live human beings to an abstraction posited on a two hundred year old piece of parchment.

Yes you are. You are arguing for an equal access to health care paid for by somegody else.

A little understanding of the laws of supply and demand wouldn't hurt. When you insist on a right to someone else's productivity with the state as broker, you disrupt the equation.

Look at what has happened in the U.S. over the past few decades. Since the 60s, the percent of health care spending on the part of the government has doubled. During this time, government price caps have caused insurers and providers to increase the rates for the private sector to cover the losses. Now, the government portion is so large that we are experiencing a contraction of supply because operating at a loss is a going out of business strategy.

And so the downward spiral goes: as healthcare becomes more expensive and scarcer, the government will step in to ration it. A self-fulfilling prophecy for state control which only benefits the bureacracy and those close enough to it to get preferential treatment.

The real solution is to encourage an increase in supply by lessening the financial burdens on suppliers. That is the Capitalist way.

That two hundred year old piece of parchment codified at set of eternal values which have done more to protect real human lives than any other philosophy in the history of humankind.

What you are describing is not capitalism.

Okay, let's pretend our dog-eat-dog society is somehow more dignified than that of wild animals. The "eternal values" of gross materialism have staved off political tyranny, famine, and all the rest only to create more spectacular ways for people to die. Enjoy the picture show. I'm going to go get a bucket of popcorn.

From what I'm hearing about Canada, it sounds like I could actually get paid what my skills and experience are worth there, instead of whatever some tight-fisted, adding-machine-wielding fat ass in a suit is willing to string me along with. Ironically, I would probably be able to afford my own health care on that kind of pay.

Just a note:
roachboy, I am in so sense doctrinaire regarding the value I place on individual "rights" - I see them as quite secondary to the social contract. Nor do I put much stock in rhetorical flourishes such as "all men are created equal." It sounds good - but that's about it.

On a side note, trying to merge patriotism and capitalism into one line of argument is the most laughable farce I've seen yet. People who love their country, have a sense of vested interest in it, and are grateful for the personal gain it has made possible for them simply don't repay their countrymen by sending their jobs overseas, providing non-English-speaking customer support to save a buck, or bilking them out of millions in tax dollars as an incentive for building a superstore in their community. Please try a different tack. That one is aged and moldy already.

All I can say is your definition of capitalism is not the same as mine. Mine does not include fraud, deception, exploitation, corruption or coercion.

Especially when those words are applied to situations which are not fraudulent, deceptive, exploitative, corrupt, or coercive. This comes down to sets of individual beliefs. It doesn't really further anything to debate them.

So are you guys denying that it's not patriotic of companies to undermine the welfare of their countrymen by doing those things I mentioned?

I think we are going off topic, but I will make one final comment to answer your question.

I do not think it is unpatriotic to act in one's own self-interest in perfectly legal ways. Your examples are one-sided leaving out the benefits to the people served by such business decisions: shareholders, employees, customers and local merchants with whom employees do business, the community at large supported by the tax base and on and on.

I find that often only the negatives are cited without an equal discovery effort for the positives.

Yes, it's a little off topic, but it was a challenge to the line of argument you follow in virtually every topic, so this was as good a place to interject it as any I think. ;)

I can see the benefits to shareholders, obviously, but then again I'd lump them in the same category as those making said decisions because they're the ones who profit from them. Claiming that it benefits employees begs the question, because they're no longer employees if they're thrown out of work when their jobs get moved overseas. Moreover, they're being forced to accept lower pay in order to compete with overseas workers for the same jobs. Many have to avail themselves of government aid while seeking new jobs, which negates other aspects of your argument. In effect, what happens is that the gap between the haves and have-nots widens, as can be seen if you look outside your door. As for increasing the tax base, you've argued here and elsewhere that you'd prefer not to see more of the people's money go into the hands of government, so I'm not sure why you've listed that as a benefit in this case.

Anyway, enough with the sidebar. Back on topic. :)

The effects of wealth creation are ultimately available to all. There is no necessary detriment to one's countrymen by the examples given. Of course, for example, when wagon wheels were replaced with wheels powered by internal combustion, there were dislocations in local economies and workers suffered - in the short term. However, the ultimate effects of enlightened wealth creation benefit everyone. That is the historical record and that is the record of capitalism.

It's completely understandable why many citizens incessantly ask for more government programs. It's also completely understandable why those with a desire to be helpful in the ways they believe to be beneficial to the citizenry hold the beliefs they do. None of this is black and white. We're somewhere on a sliding scale between capitalism and socialism

It's pointless to argue pure systems, as they don't exist. We already have more socialist programs in the United States than is commonly noted. They will undoubtedly increase to some degree because they satisfy the political ends of those who promote them. They are ultimately paid for by capitalism. Why bite the hand that feeds you? .

All good points, ART. I'll take the last one.

As we've argued already, no one is suggesting that the same level of health care be extended to those who cannot pay as to those who can. To insist on seeing it as all or nothing is also an attempt to paint the picture as "black and white". I don't see that the monetary detriment to capitalists of funding basic health care negates the benefits to society as a whole. That too would be looking at the negative aspects without attempting to discover the positive. Consumers would be better able to buy more consumer goods if they weren't crushed by exorbitant medical costs. As I've said, it would be preferable for the industry to work on reducing the cost to consumers, but they've shown that they're simply not willing to do so.

Sinister,

As I mentioned earlier, we are already spending more money on healthcare (per person) than any other country, whether they provide universal healthcare or not.

Universal healthcare equates to more money being spent. We have already proven that spending more money won't help, otherwise we would be in a better situation today.

We have to fix the problems that ail our healthcare system. Throwing more money at it will only make it worse. For what we are spending on healthcare (related to U.S. expenditures vs. other countries) everybody should have free healthcare. Problem is that there is still a shortage. The information is right in front of our face, continuing a failing trend and spending more money on it will not make it magically work.

KMA, it makes sense that fixing the shortage would help reduce consumer costs. What do you see as the major cause(s) of that shortage?

you fail to address any of the questions i posed in my post, let me sum up the main one:

Why do you consider it perfectly acceptable for the government to provide equal access to the police, the court system and education but do not think that health care should be treated in the same manner. what makes access to protection, the law and information different than access to BASIC health care?

The police, military and courts are essential services required to support the rule of law. They are there to provide protection against or to address transgressions against an individual's liberty.

Federalized health care is not in the same category. It is a reallocation of one individual's productivity for the sole benefit of a separate individual. In essence, it insitutionalizes the violation of an innocent person's liberty to benefit another. One cannot say the same of the services provided by courts, military and police.

The problem is inherent in your statement. i.e. using the term "Basic".

There would be nothing "basic" about it.

Look at the original model for Medicare and then compare it to how Medicare actually performs.

It goes like this:

If I put a bowl of candy on my desk and label it "Free", my candy will be gone in a short period of time because people well take as much as they can carry (i.e. the "basic" flaw in Medicare)

If I charge a nominal fee for the candy, you will only take as much candy as you can afford.

Making something free does not make it work better because of the laws of demand. As price goes down, demand goes up. If the price goes to zero then demand is at 100%. The only thing to stop the demand cycle is to increase the price, nothing else will do it.

Therefore, there is no way to have free "basic" healthcare, it would naturally be abused.



Sinister,

That is a whole new thread and I can only speculate, I don't have the answers. I can merely interpret the data and tell you if it is flawed or not.

My first opinion is to keep healthcare private. The private sector does a much better job of controlling prices (it is more of a ntaural occurence in the private sector) than the gov't sector. And right now, gov't is funding a great deal of healthcare and creating some of our woes.

so then wonder is fine with the split between the formal and substantive rights.
and it is now clear that the obsession with individual rights does not extend to individuals who are not wealthy.

fine--that is how capitalists and those who carry ideological baggage for them have always defined the inidivudal that matters---those tho work for a wage, who sell their labour power--not to mention the poor, the unemployed---are what marx said they were for capitalists--appendages of the machine--a faceless, anonymous mass whose primary function is to be expoited (the race to the bottom in wage terms is obviously fine---no ethics, no ethical problems, easy--qed even) for example

and if the time comes that they organize or react to the conditions created by a radically unequal distribution of wealth, they become the object of repression by the "necessary" forces of order.

the above position also assumes that there is no--not a shread--of understanding directed at the reality of class stratification, the cultural and economic and social consequences of that stratification.

but conservatives dont like looking that that--they prefer thinking about an abstract fictional world where systematic inequalities do not exist and everything can be reduced to a individual choices.

well, in a situation of unequal conditions, individual choices are not identical. this should be obvious--it pertains to the real world, not the fantasy indulged by right ideology.....

at least the more honest of the conservatives admit that the consequences of their position is relegating those who do not hold capital to a hobbesian state--live nasty brutish and short.


well done---pure early 19th century capitalist barbarism in its undiluted form. the result of a great race backward.

since the people on the right like to talk so much about children--the above position, particularly on questions of basic health care--- really does mean that the lives of the children of the poor, of the part-time worker, of the underemployed, of the unemployed are worth less that those of the children of the wealthy.

that is what it means.

created equal?

bullshit.

final note--more social-democratic version of capitalism came about because the actors--including the elites--thought that stabilizing the system as a whole by trying to reduce inequalities was in the long-term interest of the system as a whole. it was capitalism with a human face--it is interesting to note that this position presupposed at least a glancing acquaintance with the central fact of capitalist reality--that it is a social system, not a series of abstract, empty markets......and that capitalism produced class stratification.

for this viewpoint--hell from any viewpoint that considers capitalism in reality, not some blinkered right substitute--what the american right advocates is totally self-defeating on their own grounds in the longer run.

on this, the situation with health care in the states is symptomatic.
if you really look, you have to see the human costs.
of course, it is better to think about money.
incomprehensible......

there are obvious societal benefits to providing health care to all:

1. contagious disease would be better controlled. -- if more people get treatment for a disease less people will be able to contract it. (obvious example: polio would never have been eradicated if we did not provide children with FREE access to the vaccine, i think we're ALL (even the rich) better off without polio).

2. people would be able to use their resources to pursue avenues other than health care, if someone must devote all of their money and energy to a basic need (such as health) they are not available to the work force or to the consumer marketplace.

3. better access to emergency care for ALL. Right now emergency rooms are overcrowded partially because the uninsured have no other option for care. You cannot get a doctor's appointment without insurance, however you CAN walk into the emergency room. Thus emergency rooms throughout the country are bogged down treating people with non emergency medical needs. Since emergency rooms treat patients on a first come first serve basis (with the exception of obvious need -- if an ambulance arrives with several patients with life threatening injuries they will bumped to the front of the line) the insured person with a broken arm will be forced to wait until the uninsured patient with a slight case of strep throat is done seeing the doctor. If through a state sponsored healthcare program uninsured individuals were given an option for medical care outside of the emergency room everyone would benefit from faster access to care.

4. moral -- i don't think anyone here wants to see people die unnecessarily or even be unluckily saddled with enormous debt. I see no way around this if we continue to deny health care to large portion of the population.


I wonder what those of you arguing against state sponsored health care would suggest as an alternative. it's a fact that a large (and growing) percentage of the US population is without health insurance ("According to figures released in September 2003, almost 44 million people—15.2 percent of the total U.S. population—were uninsured in 2002" -- http://covertheuninsuredweek.org/fac...actSheetID=101) and that without health insurance health care is often economically unreachable. this is an even greater (and i would argue more difficult to defend from a moral stand point) problem in the case of children ("Nearly twenty percent of uninsured Americans – 8.5 million individuals – are children." -- http://covertheuninsuredweek.org/fac...actSheetID=103). so what is your answer to this problem?

the system we have right now makes health care available only to those of us lucky enough to be working for companies that voluntarily (usually, though there are some laws that mandate health benefits) provide health insurance or those wealthy enough to pay for it on their own. should this system be kept in tact? if so, should companies be mandated to provide benefits to all? I find it hard to believe that your answer to the health care crisis in this country is to continue to allow the uninsured to suffer without health care indefinitely.

Healthcare is free in my country (Canada) - I can virtually guarantee that people (other than the odd hypocondriac) only go to the quack when they need to go to the quack.

Your analogy is faulty - candy is fun and good and having an unlimited supply of candy is also fun. Going to the doctor is generally not fun anymore than seeing the dentist is a bowl of laughs either.

don't tell me this thread is dead -- i htought we had some pretty good dialog going.

I killed it! I'm a thread killer...

:(

highthief,

read the analogy entirely, it is not faulty. Also, compare healthcare expenses paid out by the Canadian gov't as compared to healthcare expenses paid out by the U.S. (I am referring to the percent of total budget), there are some interesting things to pull from those facts as well.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there a longer wait to see a doctor in Canada for most procedures?

Obviously there is something wrong when people came to the U.S. for procedures and go to Canada for the prescriptions.

I also read that patients above the age of 55 that need diaysis (sp?) can't get it. I can't remember if that is Canada of the U.K.

I gave a specific example that shows how this has not worked and why it did not work.

Seriously, look at how medicare was created. Look at the model and the plan. Then look at the statistics. You will find that they back up my candy theory 100%--in regards to the U.S. Medicare cost the U.S. many, many times more than was originally anticipated, from the beginning. One of the main causes of this was that way more exams, reports, etc were done than needed to be. Why stop them. The patient gets them for free and the doctor and hospital make more money.

We are only speaking about the U.S. How come we spend a lot more per person on healthcare than Canada does with less coverage? The answer to that question will help you understand my point better.

This is all factual data, nothing is being made up or modified.


Brianna,

Bottom line, while your argument tugs at the heart, it is just not feasible. Throwing more money at the problem will not fix it. You wouldn't do it with your personal finances and you shouldn't expect your gov't to do the same thing. At some point, you have to close the pursestrings and come up with a different method of attack. Especially when the existing method fails miserably.

I want to spend some time with your "facts". That website hasn't really sold me, seems a littled skewed.

I would like to see a percentage that is substantiated by more than one source.

You can really mess with the statistics on something like this by simply changing the requirements. (i.e. In Denver, the percent "homeless" includes people that moved back home with their parents. They are in no way homeless, but the "statistics" count them as such causing the final number to be far from accurate and politically slanted).

I am just not comfortable with your source, yet. Doesn't mean that I won't, it just means I want to see more sources than just one that obviously has a motive to obscure the data.

o.k., the facts stated by the article appear to be accurate. They agree with the Census bureau.

They breakdown is interesting though:

1. The highest percent of uninsured is 18-34 year-olds. It would be safe to say that a good portion of those could have insurance but choose not to.

2. Less than 1% of people over 65 are uninsured.

3. Nativity — In 2002, the proportion
of the foreign-born population
without health insurance (33.4 percent)
was more than double that of
the native population (12.8 percent).
7 Among the foreign born,
noncitizens were much more likely
than naturalized citizens to lack
coverage — 43.3 percent compared
with 17.5 percent.

4. Almost 20% of people making between $25,000 and $49,999 per year do not have insurance. I made less than $25,000 when I was 19 but still was able to afford health insurance. This income level should be able to afford health insurance. I did it for many, many years and that was with a wife, kids, dog, etc, etc.

5. Education was the biggest split. 28% of those not insured did not even have a high school diploma. The percent uninsured dropped 30% for people that just had a high school diploma. (a diploma really isn't a major achievement in this day and age). The number dropped another whopping 65% if they graduated college.

While the percentage sure looks interesting, the info behind the facts tells a whole lot more.

Should I, as a tax paying citizen, pay for the healthcare of a non-taxpaying non-citizen? I don't believe so. And I am pretty certain, if I were to go to their country that I wouldn't receive any handouts. Just remove this portion of the equation and the "percent uninsured" drops significantly.


LINKY

Another interesting fact:

8.2% of the total uninsured (the 15.2% quoted above) make.....

more than $75,000 per year. Plenty of money to afford insurance.

oops, my mistake.

16.6% of the 15.2% uninsured make more than $75,000/year.

Twice what I posted above.

Only if you do not understand what created equal means. You continue to try to mash it into equivalency of condition and situation.

I also dipute your assessment that I only view rights as belonging to the wealthy. You are wrong. As I've said before, the SS and Medicare entitlement systems are the mugging of the working poor / young by the relatively more affluent old. Perhaps the parents of the uninsured children could better afford to support them if their earnings were not seized by the government to support total strangers.

kma--it is late and i am tired, so only this: if you are going to look at canada and the uk, you shold also take a look at france--their system is an interesting in-between version of universal health care. the oecd is a goo dplace for neoliberal-type overviews/analyses....their model is too often left out of discussions of universal health care in the states, and it is the best in the world, according to the un--the americans are 37th.

i'd be a bit more careful here, such things are open to interpretation and you are verging on insulting others just for having a different opinion than you.

i admire your fact checking and your ability to admit that a source that you origonally saw as scewed really did have accurate info. :)


I don't think this is true. health insurance is very expensive and has jumped immensely in the last few years "By 2006 the average family health insurance premium will exceed $14,500; premium costs will have increased by more than $5,000 in just three years." (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml) -- considering how high the cost of living can also be now along with the fact that health insurance rarely covers all expenses any more (for instances i had to pay $100 for my scheduled doctors appointment last month because the insurance company decided that my doctor charges too much, never mind that for the area i live in the fee is completely average) and the cost of health care quickly become prohibitive. it's also, unfortunately, not a cost that 20 year old kids are often able to see as worth the large amount of money -- i suppose once could argue that this is their choice, but considering the consequences should something awful happen i'm not comfortable with allowing such a practice to continue (ie saddling people with sub par health care and/or extreme debt is not ok with me regardless of their sometimes poor decision making skills).


i'm not sure why you're assuming that these people are not paying taxes -- they are most likely not paying as much as you but the're paying something.

i still don't see you providing any suggestion to solve this problem (nor any evidence that it is not a problem). No one wants to pay more taxes, but i don't think any of us want a health care crisis either. I'm not trying to just pull at people's hearth strings with my arguments (see my entire post devoted to how universal health care would help all of society not just those who are uninsured now). i honestly believe that everyone would be better off under a state sponsored program that provides basic health care. under such a program businesses would stand to save money, malpractice suits would decrease, the health care system could become more streamlined and more accessible to all and no one would have to risk their lives and their financial security because they can't afford health care.

I also think that a health care program could be developed that would not be cost prohibitive. in the same way that insurance companies get a break on certain perscriptions and health care needs because the represent a large group of people (ie buying in bulk) the federal government could also save vast sums of money. also, when viewed on a societal scale personal debt contributes to government debt. when individuals are saddled with enormous bills they cannot contribute financially to society.

......whew, he'd of been alot more stressed had he been say...6 hours from the hospital. Tell him to count his blessings. You're family is super nice....spreading out a $120,000 ihospital bill to help some "college kid who doesn't deserve the stress."

The story by itself just isn't believable on many many levels, but even if it was true, resorting to referencing some ridiculously uncommon situation to justifiy some "universal" law, well...fuck that.

not my family *HIS* family.


the story is completely true and it's not an uncommon situation. i hardly think we need to argue about *IF* medical costs can be insanly high -- this is pretty well documented fact.

Brianna,

As I mentioned before, my abilities do not really fall under the "fix" column, I fall more into the "analyst" category. I have the ability to interpret and analyze data. Ideas abound and may take this thread in a totally different direction.

-Most "non-citizens" do not pay much in taxes, if any. It may sound crude, but they are the ones making out in the deal. i.e. I pay a lot in taxes, but I use private insurance and I rarely use the "system" (police, fire, etc). In terms of a "share" I pay for more than I receive and the "non-citizens" receive much, much more than they pay for.

There is no way their taxes, if they pay any, will be increased, so if you want them to have "free" insurance, I (and all of the other taxpayers) will foot the bill. I am not willing to do that because of the reason I have gone over in detail (i.e. per capita spending on healthcare).

REMEMBER: What you are asking is for me to bring home even less of my pay. So, in effect, you are trying to take money from my family.


-I could lose my membership card over this, but.....

I would seriously consider a "universal healthplan" if the per capita cost were more in line with other countries that offer this type of service. If the per capita cost was less, my tax burden would be less and I would be happy.

However, I require:

1. The ability to have and pay for my own healthcare. I am a free-market/private sector individual. I will always believe that the private sector can do certain things (i.e. private goods vs. public goods) better, more efficiently and with better quality.

2. A "rebate" or a deduction to cover the amount I am spending on my own healthcare (very similar to a voucher program).

**Side note: Just so you know where I am coming from. In order to save my daughter's life, I authorized the use of "experimental" procedures on her. These experimental procedures saved her life and were not covered by insurance. There is no need to go into the amount, but it put me into serious, six-figure debt. Because I am not poor and did not qualify for gov't aid (i.e. medacaid) I have to foot the bill myself. I am still paying for this and will be for a long time. My daughter's life was worth it.

That being said....

This may not be the right answer, but I think healthcare needs to be competitive and 100% private. There is a natural effect in the marketplace when there is competition and no gov't interference.

1. Prices stay low and competitive

2. Quality usually goes up, not in every case, but usually.

Right now, healthcare is so heavily subsidized that there is no "natural" price control. Healthcare needs to be treated as a product.

Why? Because then the system has to answer to us (who are not lobbied nor are we in anybody's "pocket"). We don't like the plan, we go elsewhere. This forces the system into competition which brings price controls, etc into the picture.

Granted, this will never happen.

We also tend to forget that "healthcare" and "health insurance" is a relatively new phenomena (same goes with SS and medicare)

Healthcare / health insurance, IMO, is way too early to see. This wasn't even a big issue 10 years ago and suddenly its at the forefront of everything it seems.

I'm in the wait and see then analyze column. Way too early to tell what will happen if we have or don't have it.

Personal responsibilty has to come into play at some point.


From your source:

"Simplified Adminstration, less complex, more efficient, user-friendly, not bureaucracy"--none of these terms are synonymous with "government".

Universal Healthcare that is controlled by the government and funded by taxpayers would be nothing like this "wish".

Name one part of the gov't where these terms can be used. It is a walking paradox. Nothing gets better once the gov't gets involved and takes charge.

Classic example: In 1986 (I am going from memory here) the tax code was re-written. It was supposed to be simplier and there were not supposed to be any more changes (or very little changes) to the tax code. The complete opposite has happened. There have been more changes to the tax code than I can count and it is far from "simplified".

ok... but do you agree that having such a larger portion of the population with a very limited access to health care is a problem? with all due respect it is somewhat difficult to accept an analysis of a situation that concludes "yup, we have a problem, i don't like your idea, and i'm not going to attempt to think of an alternative." I am perfectly willing to admit that health care is a very complicated issue that I am not solely qualified to fix, but i'm, open to new ideas, thus far I don't see any coming from the anti-state sponsor health care side. (ie not just you or others on this bored by politicians and their representatives).

1. why would non-citizens have access to state healthcare? i can't get free health care if i'm visiting canada, this seems like a non issue.

2. most people are not aware of how much of their daily life is affected by things that are paid for with tax money. when you buy produce you are in contact with farm subsides, when you drive to work you are using a state built road, when you or your children go to school or a park that's tax money. and these examples are just things that you come into direct contact with, we all benefit from other tax programs in less direct ways, i'm safer because we have a police and fire system and my way of life would be much different if laws weren't established by a court system and our way of life defended by the military. i don't agree with all tax programs, but as a member of society i am directly affected by many of them everyday.

3. a state healthcare program is not something that will be only available to the poor, it would be available to all and everyone would benefit both directly and indirectly -- this is not a gift that you'd be giving to the poor and middle class it's a program that will benefit our society as a whole (including you.).

i don't see any reason why a USA system wouldn't be modeled upon one of the successful foreign systems. no one is going to take away your access to a private healthcare system, in fact most countries with state sponsored healthcare still have plenty of private options (usually to cover elective treatments or luxuries such as a private room during a hospital stay). giving you your money back is a different issue... i would have no problem with providing those who choose to opt out of thew state system with some sort of tax rebate, but i doubt it could be a large enough amount to completely cover the cost of private insurance since the state program is likely to be much cheaper on a pre-capita basis than a private program.


most parents are willing to go into debt for the sake of their childrens health, thank god for compassion and parental love. people shouldn't have to do this.

It's not possible for health care to be completely private without excluding large portions of the population from the health care system. a government system would also have to "answer to us", after all, this is a democracy.

ok, so let's talk about more feasible solutions.

as are hospitals and medical science. new solutions to new problems.

I would have no real problem with this assessment if we were discussing maybe a few thousand dollars as punishment for not getting health care. but the reality is that we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars and people's lives. such a punishment would surely outweigh the crime of feeling invincible at 20 years old.


this sort of assessment borders on cliche. some things *DO* get better when the state controls them, particularly things in which valuables less tangible than money and goods are at stake (ie lives). corporations are famous for being led by greed often to the detriment of their customers and the world as a whole (enron anyone?). when profit is the most important thing other factors are neglected, this is why we have such a deluge of corporate scandals as of late. The government isn't perfect, corporations are not perfect but they each serve their own purpose incredibly well, if you want to make money go with a corporation every time, if you want things like quality of life and care to be more important than profit then the government is often a better choice.

This situation begs the question as to why a week in a hospital and a few anti-venom shots costs $120,000.

Infant Mortality Rates:
(per 1000 babies born)
Cuba---6.3
USA---7.0

I have had a lot of experience working for and with the gov't.

I cannot honestly think of one instance where the gov't controlling something that could be privately controlled turned out better.

Not one.....

Even if we were to use your examples (i.e. Enron), you are probably looking at less than 1% of private enterprise.

"led by greed" to you means "motivated by profit" to me. Why else would I be in business if I didn't want to make money? You may refer to it as greed but I am motivated to make more and more money, I have no desire to stop or accept status quo.

Gov't has its place and serves its purposes, I am not arging that. But when a system is failing, even after increasing the budget over and over again, you have to conclude that gov't isn't handling it. It's time to look at other options other than throwing money at it again and again.

Here is how the private sector would handle healthcare better than the gov't.

One of the problems right now leading to our problems and our discussion is rising costs. Companies are making millions by overselling to the gov't and making the U.S. gov't cover foreign losses. These increases in costs are sometimes exponential and completely out of control.

People see free money from the gov't and they go and take it.

You can't really pull this stunt in the private sector (there are exceptions, i.e. Microsoft).

I deal with hundreds of vendors and hundreds more that would like to become a vendor for me. There are very few cases where I can't replace a vendor if I want to.

All it takes is a few phone calls and a couple mentions of competitors names and the negotiating begins.

The gov't, in the case of healthcare, doesn't do this.

That is why we have monopoly laws, to help contain prices and keep the market "fair".

Immigration Rates:

U.S.: 3.42/1000 people
Cuba: -1.58/1000 people

1) If this were a relevant comparison, why does Cuba have a negative immigration rate? The answer is simple. People will risk their lives to leave Cuba/People risk their lives to come to the U.S. Obviously our "rate" isn't bad enough to warrant moving to another country.

2) The most current information regarding infant mortality:

U.S.: 6.63/1000 births
Cuba: 6.41/1000 births

A difference of 0.22 is hardly worth pointing out.

You could also compare the U.S. to the eighteen countries that have an infant mortality rate of 10% or higher which would make our rate, of less than 0.663%, look really good.

The sad reality of this issue, is the underlying focus on money. The amount of funding needed for a workable universal healthcare system is simply not there at this point. This country would need a fundamental overhaul of allocation priorities, were it to even consider going this route.
At this point we are engaged in an attempt to colonialize, without the landgrab, and that takes an enormous amount of resources out of the nations coffers, setting domestic issues that require funding on the backburner. While we can attempt to create a system on paper, we will likely wait several decades to see any action taken.
I doubt very much our country can take dramatic changes seriously, as far as domestic reform, until we can stabalize our foreign policy, as the current "Wars" are using most of the availible funding we have.
Just my opinion.