READER COMMENTS

Brian Schwartz, Ph. D. wrote:

"Prescribing “single payer” is like feeding Twinkies to a patient with a heart condition. Let free-markets work by eliminating poisonous laws."

If I was hungry, I'd rather have the twinkies than nothing at all.

Your letter is wrong for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is your following erroneous statement:

"patients in Canada, England, and Sweden die or become incurable while waiting months for treatment — despite having “coverage.”"

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

For me, the question is not how good the health care systems are in other countries, but rather how good would they be if they spent as much on health care as we do in the United States?

It goes back to that old adage about trying to compare oranges and apples. To compare socialized medicine in, say, England, with the medical system in the United States, we need to take into consideration that England spends a lot less and has a lot fewer doctors than the United States, and then we need to imagine what England's system would be like if it matched the United States in these regards, and what our system would be like if it matched England in these regards.

I think the figures below show that these other nations that use socialized medicine get a bigger benefit per dollar spent that we do in the United States. Why? Socialized medicine.

For example, according to the statistics below, the United States has over three times as many doctors per 100,000 people as England. How much faster would the service be in England if it tripled the number of doctors?

The United States spends over 2.5 times as much on medical care per capita as Canada. How much better would health care be in Canada if it increased its expenditures 2.5 times?

I wonder how it would affect the quality of health care in the United States if we reduced our spending on health care by half? Or if we reduced the number of doctors by half?

Here are some statistics from the Human Development Index:

Column A: Private funds as a % of GDP
Column B: Public funds as a % of GDP
Column C: Average amount spent per capita
Column D: Number of doctors per 100,000

....................A.......B....... ........C.......... D
USA............6.6... 8.0 .............5,274 ....549
Canada ......6.7... 2.9 .............2,931 .....209
Norway ......6.6 ...1.6 .............3,409 .....356
Australia ....6.5 ....3.0 ............2,699..... 249
Sweden .....7.8.....1.4........... 2,512 ......305
Japan ........6.5.....1.4 ...........2,133...... 201
Finland ......5.5.... 1.8........... 1,943...... 311
Denmark ...7.3.... 1.5........... 2,583..... .366
England ....6.4.... 1.3........... 2,160...... 166
France ......7.4.....2.3........... 2,736........329
Germany ...8.6.....2.3........... 2,817 .......362
Spain ........5.4.....2.2 ...........1,640....... 320

We have a bad case of socializephobia in the United States. Much like the communistphobia of the Joe McCarthy period. There are still posters here who are living in the nineteenth century and think the government should not even have a concern about such things as child labor, industrial safety, food and drug safety, etc. If anything is clear, it is that we have socialized capitalism in the United States and have had for many years. That is, the predatory capitalism of the late nineteen and early twentieth century has been socialized, made fit to benefit rather than exploit the people. Capitalism can be likened to a wild horse. With predatory capitalism, there are no reins on the horse and it does great damage. With socialized capitalism, there are reins on the horse and it does great good. The greed that motivates the capitalist model cannot be left to its own devices.

The great and unique beauty of the socialized capitalism we have today is that harnesses that human vice to the advantage of the people. It does not take the wind out of its sails, but rather makes sure that those sails are moving in the right direction, toward the people, not away from them.

Does it work perfectly? Are you kidding? What does? It needs constant vigilance; wild horses don't tame easily.

Actually he does.

Just curious where those figures come from?

Pretty hard to make any comparisons, as I suspect our U.S. expenditure numbers get greatly skewed by the (expensive) use of emergency rooms by uninsured people for routine health care concerns, not all in this country legally.

No doubt our system of health care is not perfect and needs to be addressed. What I have an issue with is the idea that the only alternative is to go to government run, nationalized healthcare. People need to be free to have a choice in purchasing private insurance.

R U Serious, as I state in my posts, those figures come from the Human Development Index. You can access that through Google. I agree that there are various differences we can "suspect", but there is a proliferation of posts in the various health care threads in which a clearly inappropriate comparison is made in which there is no recognition of the factors I have identified. They seem to satisfy posters who oppose universal health care despite their gross deficiency. I have gone to some trouble to try to reduce the deficiency. I know of no opponents of universal health care who have even tried. It's understandable why since that might reduce the power of their specious arguments, but probably most of all because few posters are willing to go to any trouble to support their biases.

chas b please go to one of the list countrys and see if it happens to you, please.
very nice cut and paset job truth you get a c for the day. we would give you a higher grade but some would feel left out so you can be just average with your garbage

What's the matter Truth? Have you run out of material for your cut and paste project?

Thanks, Truth.

Health Care is my single issue when voting. It is not right that I must risk everything I have saved in my 40 years of working, because I am under 65 and uninsured, to get the same treatment as those on Mediciad and Medicare.

I want reasonably-priced catastrophic coverage.

Why are we in italics?

Well then, Winston.. I can only assume that since this is your pet issue that you have worked and saved and paid for your coverage from a private insurer. If so, I commend you as I have no interest in paying for it.

RU Serious said:

"What I have an issue with is the idea that the only alternative is to go to government run, nationalized healthcare. People need to be free to have a choice in purchasing private insurance."

France has Universal Health Care and an option to buy private insurance if you can afford it.

So are you on board now that your worries have been addressed?

charles b
go ahead, go to canada or london, but, if not a legal resident of london you get NOTHING,(thats right, illegals are cut off) not the case in the U.S. Illegal means freebe. And canada, if you have the money there is no waiting list.Maybe you are rich? But if you are the working taxpaying class, you will have a wait.

KW, lol !

“I want reasonably-priced catastrophic coverage.” –why not get it for free, just tear up your clothing a little, roll around in the dirt and change your name to Juan Montera Rosalita Rodrigues.

“Why are we in italics?” –it’s a Eurotrash thing…

Mae issued the following uniformed non-sequitur:

"Go ahead, go to canada or london, but, if not a legal resident of london you get NOTHING,(thats right, illegals are cut off) not the case in the U.S. Illegal means freebe. And canada, if you have the money there is no waiting list.Maybe you are rich? But if you are the working taxpaying class, you will have a wait."

I was talking about France. What are you talking about?

Truth: You have posted that same endless tome of manipulated statistics several times! wasting a lot of space and saying nothing., Per capita statistics by themselves are meaningless! If you do not know that, you should not use anystatistics in a debate!! We get the point, you believe this drival. Where does it say you should get your Twinkie free?

Great to hear from a fan, 08:47AM, especially if he is also a Twinkie fan. Sorry, I am also out of T-shirts but I can send you a used Twinkie if you like. Contrary to what you claim, I always pay full price for my Twinkies. Have you tried dipping them in hot Ovaltine? Delicious.

CharlesB writes:

"Your letter is wrong for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is your following erroneous statement:

'patients in Canada, England, and Sweden die or become incurable while waiting months for treatment — despite having “coverage.'

You simply don't know what you're talking about."

Charles, please correct me where I have gone astray. I was basing my statements on the following references:

"Patients face consequences from diagnostic waiting lists," CBC News, Nov. 26 2002
www.tinyurl.com/37ved6

"The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study," Canadian Medical Association Journal, Nov. 2002
(www.tinyurl.com/2jca3s)

and

"'Health Care', More or Less" by David Hogberg
(tinyurl.com/2n4abo)

Charles, please tell me if I have somehow misinterpreted the references or studies above. I would greatly appreciate it.

Charles B, You have convinced me. Give me Govt Healthcare.......errr I guess I have a few more questions before I commit.

1. Will govt have responsibilities(management and fiduciary) over Patient Care area? Doctors, nurses, staff, facilities?
2. Will govt have responsibilities for all claims and administration of those claims?
3. What about perscription drugs? Will govt set prices or will they assume all responsibilities for the drug companies also?

Just trying to get the framework of what will remain privatized, if any, and what will be responsibilities of the govt.

These questions are not just for Charles but for all those wanting Govt run healthcare. Again trying to be forward and get the true picture on here of what is being asked for.

Dr. Schwartz said ”Let free-markets work by eliminating poisonous laws.”

Sounds great, let’s do that. All “poisonous” laws should be repealed.
Splendid.
So what laws shall we put into place that force drug companies and medical institutions to provide care for illnesses that aren’t profitable, and into research that has benefit to the nation but for which there isn’t a clear pot of gold at the end of the rainbow – like HIV, rTB, and the like?
How will we get them to act in ways that reduces sickness rather than just “finding” new markets and “illnesses”?

I wonder if “social anxiety disorder” is really quite as important as a preventative program for dental care? - After all, we know now that the same organisms that flourish due to poor dental care lead to cardiovascular damage that results in expensive coronary problems, whereas a “disorder” like shyness is not all that deadly however lucrative it might be.

So how about it doctor, how will we prevent a “free market healthcare system” from just producing rafts of erectile drugs, breast enlargement procedures, and teeth whitening gimmicks to rake in profits whilst ignoring TB, HIV, and all those nasty things that affect the less wealthy amongst us?

Charles B:

"France has Universal Health Care and an option to buy private insurance if you can afford it.

You forgot to mention that you still have to pay for social healthcare whether you elect to go with a private insurer or not.

Mandatory Universal Health Coverage is a sham and you know it CB. If it could stand on its own merits you wouldn't need to omit specific information when you plug it.

Bango in establishing a Govt managed Healthcare system, please help me understand what will be managed by Govt agencies and what will remain under the private sector. Looking to see a Very High level road map of this picture.

Thanks

BWR, I am just a guest here so I don’t get to say what healthcare system you have.

I am happy to suggest a few things that I have seen elsewhere, and having seen, used, and contributed to your healthcare system.

I would see Government providing several major portions of a nationwide plan.
Primarily, they would set the goals – which diseases need to be addressed, what research needed to be done, and where healthcare delivery needed to be deployed, etc.
They could do this both by legislation and by funding.

In many countries the tender system has been effective in getting competition and free-enterprise to deliver. For example, if a large pharma company wished to participate in the very profitable delivery of statins, they also had to provide TB drugs at a set price.
There are many examples where this is a very effective way to get companies to compete and the result is good for all stakeholders.

I also see Government providing distribution networks in places where it isn’t feasible for private companies, such as providing primary care at government buildings.

This all gets done to a small degree in the US and isn’t anything new.
All that needs to happen is that Government takes over the wheel rather than letting the medical companies set the rules.

To do that, you have to break the hold they have over your politicians, and that means campaign reform.
As long as it is cheaper to buy or influence politicians to create profit-protecting laws, you can have no healthcare reform or improvement on the current situation.

The US doesn’t have a medical or a technological problem in healthcare, it has a political problem, and it can’t solve that if the population is focused on tit for tat politics.
If somebody says what a lousy job Bush is doing, the chorus goes up about the lousy job Clinton did and vice versa. This is your problem, and this will lead to a steadily declining healthcare system that increasingly focuses on profitable treatments for ailments and concerns of the wealthy, even if those ailments are a complete fiction.
It becomes more profitable to convince 100,000,000 Americans that they suffer from an imaginary disorder that can be treated with a re-badged drug, than to do R&D for a TB drug.

As long as you buggers continue to wrap your fists around each others throats and shout about Bush vs Clinton, Conservative vs Liberal, Republican vs Democrat, the longer this roundabout runs in a downward spiral.
You treat medical issues solely as wedge issues and bludgeons to hit the “other guy” instead of solving the bloody problems that affect all of you.
Your healthcare system has become a perverse mix of space-age islands surrounded by a sea of third-world care. Keep going the way you are and those islands will slowly blink out and affordable healthcare will increasingly be something only the wealthy can have.

The generation that is now in K-12 will be the first in the US history to have a lower life expectancy than its parents. Think about that.

Bummer eh?

POST A COMMENT

• Fireworks
• Manzanares hounded by prosecutor, press
• Late judge’s hypocrisy
• A TABOR victim
• Media piled on
• Party, Congress don’t appear to be listening
• Victimhood a tough road for Palestinians
• Help Flats workers? You must be kidding