Universal Health Care & Personal Health Concerns
| July 8th, 2007On a pandagon thread about socialized medicine, a commenter called Catty writes, “I know 2 die-hard libertarians that are now universal health care supporters. Funny how problems like multiple sclerosis and cancer can change people’s minds.”
I have always supported universal health care, but jesus fuck she’s right.
A couple weeks ago, I started having some strange symptoms. Last week, I went to the ER to speak to a physician, and she said the things I didn’t want to hear — namely, that my symptoms were consonant with two bad diagnoses: diabetic neuropathy and multiple sclerosis.
I have since been to my regular physician who is not nearly so concerned. I am still being checked for diabetes, but she’s holding off on the MRI to diagnose for multiple sclerosis for now. We’re first looking into other possible causes which are much more benign, such as hypothyroidism, advanced anemia, migraine, and anxiety.
I am an incredibly privileged woman. I’ve never been without health care. My health insurance is incredibly good. I pay $5 for doctor visits, and $5 for medications. I’ve always known that my health insurance was great, but I don’t think it’s ever really hit home for me how much uninsured people have to pay for their health care — not just going into debt, but going bankrupt, becoming homeless, and sometimes having to make the difficult decision to let themselves or their loved ones die from treatable illnesses.
Another commenter called Jodie relates the following story, “My 27 year old brother in law developed an intense headache on a Thursday, dx’d as brain tumor after an MRI, had surgery, went to intensive care, had chemo, and died prior to the next Thursday. Cost after insurance: $280,000 (at last count, I don’t think all the bills are in yet)… That bill was amassed in less than a week.”
Note: After insurance.
Other commenters discuss surgery for marrow transplants coming in at $250,000, refills for cancer drugs being in the thousands of dollars, a course of treatment for a major illness costing hundreds of thousands. Canadian commenters relate how relieved they are to live in Canada, after considering the ramifications of the major illnesses in their lives should they happen to have been American and uninsured. When a parent, a sibling, and another close relative are sick, often the whole family can’t find enough money to fund health care for all of them, even when they go into debt. They must choose bankruptcy or death.
Treatment for uninsured people is abominable. Uninsured people often have no choice but to obtain their health care through emergency room visits, which are phenomenally expensive. Pandagon commenters report paying $300-1,200 for emergency room visits, for things as routine as obtaining antibiotics for a bladder infection. One commenter notes that his $320 physical meant that he had to put off paying his bills for a month.
Facing debt, uninsured people often put off going to the doctor until their dieases have progressed beyond treatment. Worse, if they do go, they may be ignored. Pandagon recently reported incidents of uninsured people being left to die in hospital emergency rooms.
In the emergency room at Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital, Edith Isabel Rodriguez was seen as a complainer.
“Thanks a lot, officers,” an emergency room nurse told Los Angeles County police who brought in Rodriguez early May 9 after finding her in front of the Willowbrook hospital yelling for help. “This is her third time here.”
The 43-year-old mother of three had been released from the emergency room hours earlier, her third visit in three days for abdominal pain. She’d been given prescription medication and a doctor’s appointment.
Turning to Rodriguez, the nurse said, “You have already been seen, and there is nothing we can do,” according to a report by the county office of public safety, which provides security at the hospital.
Parked in the emergency room lobby in a wheelchair after police left, she fell to the floor. She lay on the linoleum, writhing in pain, for 45 minutes, as staffers worked at their desks and numerous patients looked on.
Aside from one patient who briefly checked on her condition, no one helped her. A janitor cleaned the floor around her as if she were a piece of furniture. A closed-circuit camera captured everyone’s apparent indifference.
Arriving to find Rodriguez on the floor, her boyfriend unsuccessfully tried to enlist help from the medical staff and county police — even a 911 dispatcher, who balked at sending rescuers to a hospital.
Alerted to the “disturbance” in the lobby, police stepped in — by running Rodriguez’s record. They found an outstanding warrant and prepared to take her to jail. She died before she could be put into a squad car.
At the same hospital, in 2003, “20-year-old Oluchi Oliver waited hours to be admitted to the hospital with crippling stomach pains, according to his family. After 10 hours, he collapsed dead on the floor. No one noticed, his father, Akilah Oliver, said.”
I had a brief hiccup with my insurance coverage the day I decided to go into the ER, and it looked like I might not be covered at all. (Now, I’m covered by two health care plans.) I almost didn’t go in. My mother told me I had to go in, that they’d find a way to fund it if I were sick. We are extremely well-off for the United States, but I doubt that even we could find a way to pay $250,000 if I didn’t have insurance and needed a marrow transplant.
I’m watching my reactions as I read this Pandagon thread. I am so scared. I probably don’t have MS. I’m repeating this to myself as a mantra. My other mantra involves facts about MS. If I do have MS, I have all the indicators of a good prognosis. I am young, white, and female. If I do have MS, it’s extremely likely that I have the type that remits, instead of the type that progresses until you die. Hell, 15% of people who have MS never suffer a second attack.
And there are drugs! One of my fiance’s professors told him about two people she knows with MS, who were diagnosed in their thirties, and who now, in their fifties, have been kept symptom-free with drugs. I called one of my friends who is in medical school, and he told me to remember that both MS and diabetic neuropathy require lifestyle changes, but may not affect life quality.
Even in the worst case scenario, I’ll be okay. That’s not enough to keep me from worrying or being depressed, but it’s good news. Nevertheless, I’m a basket case as I wait for my blood test results.
I can’t imagine how much worse it would be if I didn’t know how I was going to pay for the medical expenses of my doctor visits, my blood tests, my MRIs, my visits with the neurologist and/or dietician. Without insurance, would I be able to afford those drugs that could keep the multiple sclerosis in check, preventing me from losing the use of my limbs, my speech, and my brain?
I don’t understand how anyone can oppose universal health care. A libertarian in that thread is spouting off strange talking points. Some are demonstrably false. Countries with socialized health care do not have more bureacracy than we do; they have less, because hospitals don’t have to deal with insurance claims. They don’t have longer wait times than we do. They don’t force patients into predetermined courses of treatment. The cost in taxes is more, but studies have shown that while taxes are higher in many countries with socialized medicine, the American middle class ends up screwed with their lower tax rate — because we have pay not only our taxes, but we also have to pay through the nose to privately fund things that countries like Sweden provide for free. We end up paying a huge amount more, just so we can claim that we have lower taxes.
One of his talking points is that he doesn’t feel he should be forced to help people who are less fortunate. Does he understand that he’s talking about people who will die without his help? Help that he will benefit from, because he as a middle class American would pay less if taxes were higher but provided more services? Someday, he may have a medical emergency, and god forbid he should be denied his insurance. He may bankrupt himself and his whole family. If he chooses to finish treatment, he might lose his home. We might force him, as we force others, to choose between the basic necessity of shelter, and death.
Meanwhile, he can’t even imagine those scenarios. Over and over again, he talks about the undue burden that would be placed on him if he had to help other people. He can’t imagine himself in their shoes. If he can imagine their pain, he doesn’t care. What a strange, frightening lack of empathy. What a limited view of the world.
My empathy is heightened right now, because of course this medical issue has me sensitized to issues of my own mortality. It’s odd to move from the life in which I thought of myself as healthy, to the life a few days later when I realize that I could have a progressive and debilitating illness.
I don’t want to be going through this. I want to feel safe and well again. Hopefully, my diagnosis will be benign, and soon I will be feeling safe and well again. Even if I have MS, I am sure that eventually my sense of weakness, fear and vulnerability would dull, and my illness would become just another part of my life. That’s another thing I’ve been repeating to myself for the past couple weeks. Studies show that paraplegics are just as happy one year after their injury as they were before it occured. People are amazingly adaptive; anything can become ordinary. If they are equally happy after that, then I will surely be equally happy even if my diagnosis is MS.
I am so amazingly lucky to be worrying only about my health. If I were worried that I was about to bankrupt my loved ones, and that I wouldn’t be able to afford life-saving care, this painful experience would become a constant waking nightmare. Any person who would wish that on other people is both monstrous and lacking in empathy.
July 8th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
My wife has begun writing about her experience with health care after breaking both of her elbows here. She has yet to get to our visit to L. A. County Hospital when we were desperately trying to get her physical therapy for her broken elbows. I suspect she’ll put off writing about that until after our book tour, because remembering that part is especially traumatic.
I pray you have nothing to be concerned about. But when you say, “I am young, white, and female,” the only thing there that will help you is your youth. In the US health care system, class trumps race and gender. Either you have the money, or you do not.
Oh, something that will help a USan: the state you live in. Emma’s accident was in Minneapolis; her immediate care was excellent, and when they learned we had no money, the matter was written off. True hell began for us when she returned to Los Angeles with both arms broken and we began hunting the resources for what to do next.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 8th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
The Lord and Lady watch over you and bless you.
MS has many variations. I have two aunts, two cousins, a friend and a co-worker who had and have MS. Each one has a different type. Only one aunt had an exteremly aggressive one. The other 5 travel, work, have families and do live good lives with some modifications and care.
I’ll keep you in my prayers.
This comment was written by Silver Owl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 8th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Owl and Will,
Thank you both.
Will — when I say young, white and female, I mean specifically that those are good markers in regard to MS. Young people tend to have milder cases than older people, females than males, and white people than black people (who tend to contract MS at older ages than white people).
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 8th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
(Will,
By the way, I’m in California. I’ve talked with you a little bit — I’m a SFWAn, and I’m on LJ. I sent you an email the other day which may have been quite confusing. It’s good to see you ’round these parts. Just waving hello.
Hello!
~Mandolin)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 8th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
(Mandolin, howdy! I’ve decided I’m an old fogie in one aspect, at least: all the different internet handles and icons are too much to remember, so on the internet, I assume everyone is a dog I haven’t met.
Will)
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 8th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
I hope everything turns out ok for you.
Occam’s razor is a blunt tool when dealing with people, but I think the answer it provides to libertarianism is the one that makes the most sense. It’s just hatred. Pure misanthropy. There are other explanations. One of my favorites is the kid who has hir first jobs and gets hir first paycheck and discovers it’s for less than zie expected. “Who the hell is FICA?” zie says. Thus a libretarian is formed. Or they might beleive, as is popular with the dominant religion in the US, that people who have problems are being punished by God. Or, many folks are just full of hate. It’s possible to reach out to all of these people. FICA helps you. Job and Jesus both suffered. And the person who hates is deeply unhappy. Often they can be argued from their own self-interest (having a bunch of sick, hungry people around threatens public health and leads to plagues) or somebody can reach out to them. there’s also a very strong possibility of trolls. Alas, corporations are willing to pay people to go out and troll blog comments.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
July 8th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Does he understand that he’s talking about people who will die without his help?
Yes. He doesn’t care. I won’t say that Libertarians are selfish and evil, but selfish, evil people are attracted to Libertarianism because they perceive it as a philosophy that insures they are allowed to do whatever they please without being ‘forced’ to participate in the social community (except as takers, not givers).
A simple test for such persons is “If a single-payer health care system run by the government did not have the [parade of horribles], would you still oppose it?” And the answer will be yes. The practical issues are an excuse; the real driving force is their belief that they have no moral obligation to anybody.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 8th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I think libertarian opposition to universal healthcare can be broken down:
1. Denial: It can never happen to me, so I don’t want to have to think about it.
This comment was written by emjaybee.2. Over-optimism: My insurance/savings are good enough.
3. Martyrism: If I didn’t save up for my cancer, then I deserve to die (as does anyone else). This one tends to crack at the time of diagnosis.
4. Fear of obligation: If I start caring about the needs of others, then they will demand so much there will be nothing left for me. Balancing other people’s needs against my own is hard, messy and unclear, and makes me uncomfortable. I like nice, pure, black and white systems where every obligation has to be spelled out beforehand, on paper, signed by lawyers; that way, I can avoid as many obligations as possible.
5. Misanthropy: I think most people are stupider than me, and that I would thrive in a libertarian society even if they bought it.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 8th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
rationing occurs in all health care systems, whether ‘universal’ or otherwise. either some ethnicities/cultures/classes just don’t get access, or certain procedures are capped at x many per y time period, or certain kinds of treatments just don’t get paid for unless they are privately funded.
all of the countries compared to the US have significantly smaller populations and much stricter requirements for citizenship (which often though not always translates into access to that much-vaunted ‘universal’ health care). additionally, every last one of these same countries is more ethnically and culturally homogeneous than the USA.
the guest workers and undocumented immigrants of most of the countries compared to the US do not tend to have access to the extensive government healthcare programs available.
even in america, states that are more ethnically and culturally homogeneous overwhemingly have better government-funded health care for their populations than more ethnically and culturally mixed states.
universal healthcare is a myth. this does not mean the libertarian view that it should all be ‘privately run’ is a good idea– it is a foolish and short-sighted one.
it does mean that like should be getting compared to like a sight more often than actually happens in these discussions about healthcare and how it should be changed for the better in the US. i mean, i don’t even honestly know how one would go about comparing 300 million people (US) to 30 million (Canada) and say ‘yep, that canadian system will scale just fine!’ and canada is right next door. but its population is far younger and far smaller– how can one reasonably extrapolate its healthcare system and policies as readily and suitably transferrable to america’s?
wikipedia’s overview of canadian healthcare is pretty interesting, and telling:
This comment was written by mari.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
Report this comment to the moderators
July 8th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
[BB, I've asked you not to post on my threads. --Mandolin]
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
July 8th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Mari, talk to some Canadians—and not just rich ones. My parents and my sister became Canadians; the situation in Sicko is accurate.
Why capitalists think economies of scale will suddenly fail with universal health care but apply to everything else, I don’t know. If you like big business, you should like universal health care.
At least, if it’s done like the French or Japanese do. If you’re cutting out a piece of the pie for the insurance companies, the expensive inefficiency in the system is what you call “profit.”
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 8th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I hope you get better soon.
About five years back, I picked up my daughter on my regular visitation period. She complained that she wasn’t feeling well. Sure enough she had a fever. So I went by my family doctor. I have good health insurance and was a regular patient. They hemmed and hawed about it for a while, then decided they would if I would pay the full cost to set up a new patient - $120. I agreed and went out to get my check book. However, when I came back in, they told me that the would not treat her period. Not for insurance. Not for cash. I felt pretty helpless that day. They suggested I go to the emergency room. Sometimes it sucks to be a man.
At least neither of us has been sick in a long time. It was a good thing that I had excellent medical insurance when she was born. She tried to join us four months early. Thanks to the miracles of modern medicine and about $35,000 in medical insurance expenses they were able to keep her in til she was only three weeks early - when they stopped the treatment because her lungs were mature enough.
I went to work for my current company about ten years ago. I was already divorced when I hired on. They provided health insurance for me and my daughter without any issues for nine years. Then they changed the HR people. The new staff decreed that I could only cover my daughter on the medical insurance every other year since I could only claim her as a tax dependent every other year. In the years that she was not covered, I could cover her under a COBRA plan. However, the price they wanted under the COBRA plan was not the incremental cost they paid every year as an additional dependent. They wanted me to pay to cover her as if she was a terminated employee.
I could cover her every year if I went back to court and got a QMCSO (Qualified Medical Child Support Order). This is essentially a document allowing a third party to obtain coverage under your plan. The ‘qualified’ word means that the plan must be written to your companies requirements. I asked them for the necessary documents and they refused to provide them. Now I went through a ‘grumpy’ divorce and would rather chew my arm off than go back to court. But eventually the deadline arrived. So I prepared a QMCSO using a standard plan from states family law book. My ex agreed to sign it with no quibbles. The judge agreed to sign it with no quibbles. I sent it in to the company and they pitched a hissy fit.
They requested a meeting with me without saying why. I invited my plant manager to the meeting so that I would have a witness. They complained about six different parts of the QMCSO that I had prepared. I was very upset. Fortunately the plant manager managed to task them to put their complaints in writing. Most of the complaints were bogus - they were things that they were required to do under state law. I eventually got them to agree to the document after reviewing my options with an attorney for $400. He confirmed that I would have to sue the company in federal court, and that while I would win, I would likely only get the medical insurance provided and I would be out the legal fees. He wouldn’t give me a firm number on the legal fees, but he didn’t disagree that they would be about $10,000. In the end, the company agreed to write a letter stating their reservations to the document - most of which were specious. The company was happily covering the step-children of the remarried women with insurance. It is very humiliating to not be considered enough of a parent that you have to get both the ex’s and a judges approval to obtain health insurance. Sometimes it really, really sucks to be a man.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
July 8th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Oh, Mandolin, let me give you a big hug!
My medically famous arse is about to need another lil surgery, and I’m still uninsured
(I got this fancy paper from Social Security a while back, but, so far nothing else has come of it).
My stepmom has MS and my mom has neuropathy; at least they’re interesting illnesses!
* * *
Hmm. Some bright side, huh?
(And thus, a medical communist is born. I want to move back to Europe where they just look at you and say, “You look ill. Here’s some medical care.”
;D
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Mandolin: I hope your symptoms turn out to be something very benign and treatable, but if they don’t and MS is still a possibility, may I make one suggestion: Make sure your insurance is absolutely bomb-proof before you get diagnosed. Get insurance for things like long-term care and rehab, durable medical equipment, etc. You may never need it, but once you have a diagnosis of MS, you will never be able to get coverage for your “pre-existing condition” again. That having been said, don’t panic. MS is treatable and becoming moreso all the time and you are good prognosis. The above advice was just to make sure you never find yourself in the situation of wondering how you’re going to pay for some necessary treatment or piece of equipment. (I can give numerous anecdotes of people getting stuck in the hospital for weeks or months because they don’t have insurance for durable medical goods so they can’t afford to have, for example, a brace to support a spine destroyed by multiple myeloma or CPAP for sleep apnea, etc. Or stuck in an acute care hospital when what they need is rehab, etc. This is, of course, much more expensive for everyone as well as obnoxious and inconvenient for the patient, but it happens under the current system.)
Yes, you are absolutely right about universal health insurance.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Universal health care countries tend to have a higher (often much higher) average level of health care.
In reality, though, that comes at a cost (surprise!) The cost is, generally speaking, that universal-coverage countries make huge savings by essentially chopping off the superexpensive “right tail” of the cost distribution. Most UHC countries are not all that hot at providing highest-level care; part of the reason our system is so ungodly expensive is that we have a whole buttload of available technology and specialists which other places tend not to have.
Take your friend who needed an MRI. in Canada, for example, (2005 stats) there are only 176 MRIs at all:
http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_08feb2006_e
There are probably more MRIS in the Boston and New York areas (combined) then in all of Canada. Hell, my own small semirural hospital has one. I’d eat my hat if there aren’t another 20 MRIs within 50 miles of me.
We have all those MRIs because we demand two things:
1) We don’t like dying of things that “could have” been caught by an MRI; and
2) we don’t like dying while we wait for an MRI.
Universality requires tradeoffs, though the average is much better.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 4:28 am
The cost is, generally speaking, that universal-coverage countries make huge savings by essentially chopping off the superexpensive “right tail” of the cost distribution. Most UHC countries are not all that hot at providing highest-level care;
Evidence? Or, rather, further evidence, since you so far have cited one example of a particular problem with one universal health care system. This hardly seems adequate evidence to condemn all such.
The link about Canada’s MRI situation is interesting, but hardly definitive. A couple of notes about it:
1. The use of MRIs and CTs is up in Canada. This suggests that they have detected an underuse problem and are attempting to correct it.
2. MRIs and CTs are used more intensively per machine in Canada. This suggests that the scanners that are available are being used in an efficient manner and operated by experts. Many MRIs in the US are run and read by people who have little experience or expertise in their use and the results they give can be worse than useless. (Anecdotal example, for what little anecdote is worth: During fellowship, I cared for a patient with hepatoma (liver cancer). He was getting chemoembolization as a treatment with reasonably good results, but required regular MRIs to keep track of the disease. Unfortunately, the underfunded public hospital at which he was a patient had an MRI waiting time of about 3 months. This was usually solved by my calling the radiology resident and pleading for an overbook. One time this did not work, for some reason (I’ve forgotten why*.) Anyway, he decided to get an MRI at an outside clinic. This MRI was of very poor quality and the outside reading was even worse. The official reading claimed that he no longer had liver cancer. This was, unfortunately, not true. It was not pleasant explaining to him that he did, in fact, still have hepatoma. A bad MRI is worse than no MRI.)
*Though the probability is, I’m afraid, that I or the resident fell down on the job, probably through inadequate persistence at the game of pager tag. It shouldn’t happen, but it does, particularly with very tired people.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 4:50 am
“Mandolin: I hope your symptoms turn out to be something very benign and treatable, but if they don’t and MS is still a possibility, may I make one suggestion: Make sure your insurance is absolutely bomb-proof before you get diagnosed. Get insurance for things like long-term care and rehab, durable medical equipment, etc. You may never need it, but once you have a diagnosis of MS, you will never be able to get coverage for your “pre-existing condition” again. ”
Thanks for the advice, Dianne. I am quite concerned about that aspect of it, especially since I’m insured through my parents and my school.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 5:27 am
I am quite concerned about that aspect of it, especially since I’m insured through my parents and my school.
How much cursing do you allow on your threads? Because my verbal response probably went over the limit…I’m sorry that this issue has come up for you. I hear Vancouver is very nice. So is Montreal, if you don’t mind the cold. Have you considered moving? No, I’m not joking. I realize that the proposed solution is unlikely to be practical, but it might be worth considering.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 5:29 am
I have considered moving, yes. Does being ill make it impossible?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 5:52 am
Dianne,
I’m not condemning UHC. As I said, they can raise a country’s average standard of care. (I lean somewhat towards UHC in the U.S., though I see some problems with it.)
But I do dislike the voodoo economics claims of some UCH proponents. It seems fairly obvious that providing health care costs money. Providing health care to more people costs… more money. There are some obvious savings, of course, notably in the areas of preventative and emergent care. I don’t dispute that those savings could certainly pay for the increased basic and low level care of much of the population.
But providing high level care is hideously, hideously, expensive. Most countries that provide UCH don’t have the same access to high level care as do the really well-insured people in the U.S.
Should we stick with Canada for a moment? I like Canada; it’s a great country. And I don’t intend to make this an anti-Canada spiel. Let’s see. Wait times for cancer treatment in canada tend to be fairly long, for example. they’ve been having a devil of a time fixing it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061121.wwaittimes21/BNStory/cancer/home
On to the U.K. That may well be the most similar country in terms of health care. Their system seems to be on the verge of failing in many ways; I’ve read many writings that suggests it’s already essentially broken. They don’t offer their patients the latest cancer drugs, for example, and have low cancer survival rates.
http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2527714.ece
(note that the U.S. has one of the highest rates of using the new cancer drugs) They also have UCH applied to dentistry, but because of the pay scale they have many in their population who are untreated by dentists. You might want to read NHS Blog Doctor if you want some UK health care details.
A better example might be this (more general:)
This comment was written by Sailorman.In the U.S. we demand an unusually high standard of care. We don’t hesitate to sue doctors who we think violate this standard. We want medical professionals to check behind every door, to look under every rock. From an economic and efficiency standpoint, this is madness. You simply can’t spend loads of money on procedures or tests that have only a small chance of turning up useful data. UCH systems can’t afford to do this.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 5:52 am
Not as far as I know. It might depend on how badly they need people with your particular skills. You’re obviously fluent in at least one of the official languages, which helps too.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 6:01 am
Well, I’m highly educated in fluffy fields, but the fiance has some hard science skills.
Why yes, I’ve been thinking about this for a while, even before health care issues came up. :-P
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Sailorman, do you really think the US health care system doesn’t involve long waiting periods? Maybe rich people can get appointments quickly, but for most of us long wait times are common.
As for the MRIs, Japan — which has universal health care — has many more MRIs per capita than the US. Switzerland and Finland don’t have as many MRIs per capita as the US, but they have a high number of MRIs by world standards. So I’m not sure your example here holds any water.
Insofar as the advantage you describe exists at all, it only really exists for wealthy people in the US. And in most countries with universal health care, wealthy individuals are still able to buy above-average care by paying premium prices. So it seems to me that the “rich people can get really high-end care” advantage is not unique to the US.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 6:28 am
Nick, sounds to me like you need a new doctor.
There are some obvious savings, of course, notably in the areas of preventative and emergent care.
And in the elimination of the insurance industry as a vampiric, for-profit enterprise sucking money out of the health-care system.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Sailorman:
Canada has, for a wealthy country, an extremely mediocre health care system; it only looks good to Americans because ours is even worse. France (which, admittedly, has a low number of MRIs per capita, but also many more doctor visits per capita than us) is a much better example of how good UHC systems can be. So by using Canada as your prime example, you’re unintentionally being unfair to UHC.
Preventive and emergent care savings are important, but as Mythago points out, even more important are the savings on bureaucracy and insurance. From an article by Ezra Klein:
Another advantage is being able to use a UHC’s bulk-buying power to negotiate lower prices of pharmaceuticals, which is why Americans pay 60% more than Canadians for the exact same drugs. When all these savings combine, the result is that the US pays much more for health care that varies from being slightly worse than the UK’s and Canada’s, to much worse than France’s.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 7:03 am
On to the U.K. That may well be the most similar country in terms of health care. Their system seems to be on the verge of failing in many ways; I’ve read many writings that suggests it’s already essentially broken. They don’t offer their patients the latest cancer drugs, for example, and have low cancer survival rates.
news.independent.co.uk/health/article2527714.e…
(note that the U.S. has one of the highest rates of using the new cancer drugs)
Sailorman! You’re wonderful! The original paper that the Independent is reporting on here is exactly the reference I need to finish the manuscript I’m procrastinating on. Thank you.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Amp, I don’t disagree that the U.S. system is on average bad. But I hope you realize that your comments about “better” and “worse” are average statements.
I am a bit confused, because I am clearly not talking about averages (if you don’t mind, I’m going to stop repeating the comments regarding averages in every post.) I am talking about the maximum involved.
There are many, many, folks in the U.S. who will be better off under UHC. There are also some folks–far fewer–who will be worse off. Why is that so hard to admit?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Sailorman, I should’ve mentioned that I also have friends in France. Sicko is accurate there, too.
Mandolin, I don’t know if it would do you any good to add extra health insurance now. “Pre-existing” does not mean you have not been diagnosed. Sicko mentions that if a “reasonable person” (I forget the exact phrase) would suspect they have a condition that they do turn out to have, the condition is retroactively counted as “pre-existing.” Our system continues to be based on the idea that health care should be affordable for the healthy and the rich.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 7:38 am
“There are many, many, folks in the U.S. who will be better off under UHC. There are also some folks–far fewer–who will be worse off. Why is that so hard to admit?”
On the internet, sometimes small degrees of disagreement are magnified enormously (see almost any discussion about class and race). In this case, we don’t know what you mean by “worse”. Will they die? No. Will they be in worse health? No. Will they pay more than others? No. “Worse” here means Canadians (but not most other nationalities under universal health care systems) might, under some circumstances, wait slightly longer than if they were in the States. Doe the French wait longer or get less health care for anything than a person in the US?
I’ll also note something that US opponents of UHC fail to mention about Canada’s rare queues: if your health deteriorates, you get bumped in the queue. Here, if your money runs out, you get dumped on Skid Row.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 7:58 am
My insurance is actually amazing & rock solid. I’m primarily worried about the possibility being forced out of it.
As far as the idea that people with incredibly awesome health care may suffer by being brought down to the level of the proles… I think Sailor is actually right. Sort of. I have a hard time believing that private insurance would be eradicated in the US, even if we got UHC. So, I would suspect that the people who can afford teh awesome health care will continue to get it, by manuevering in a different system.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 9:01 am
[shrug] I don’t know exactly what I mean by ‘worse” either. Any discussion of the U.S. under a UHC system is based on a whole lot of speculation, since we are very unlike any other country (in terms of size, ethics, government, etc etc.) Neither pro- or anti-UHC people have much other than guesses. Our system wouldn’t be like France’s system, exactly; whether it would be a good compromise or a bad one is part of the debate.
I don’t think it’s exactly fair, though, to keep ignoring the fact that our next door neighbor doesn’t have great success with UHC, and neither does Britain. You wanted examples and I gave you two. I am sure that both Britain and Canada wish their systems were like France. And they’ve been unable to get there so far. So rather than the rosy “We’ll be like France, but without speaking French!” view, I tend to wonder how we can avoid ending up like the UK.
As for the “the rich can afford it in any scenario” argument: Unless UHC is provided without raising taxes at all (which seems unlikely) then there will be some class of people who get hurt. They are the folks who (now) can afford private insurance that exceeds the UHC standard, but (post-taxes) cannot afford supplemental insurance for the same. This is because the taxes will of necessity reflect charges for other people’s insurance, while they are currently paying only for their own. Those folks are probably in the (upper) middle class.
That’s a pretty stark statement of fact. Are you saying that NOBODY–not a single person–will die as the result of a failure in a UHC system, who would not have died otherwise?
In Britain, for example, the lack of access to cancer drugs almost certainly means a difference in survival rates. The increased health and cure benefits are what make the new drugs desirable; the lack of them has a direct effect on the cure.
In Canada, the “line jumping” isn’t really a solution either. As I’m sure you know, the goal is to detect things before they have discernable symptoms. The goal of cancer treatment almost always involves early intervention. Waiting a long time is a cost–whether or not it is apparent at the time–and waiting, only to be jumped if your symptoms worsen–is ALSO a cost. If there was less of a line, perhaps the symptoms wouldn’t worsen in the first place. And so on.
As for the “dumped on the street” issue: yeah, yeah, how many times do I have to say this? (apparently every post…) I KNOW that a huge advantage of UHC is that you don’t get dumped on the street. Really, I know that. That’s the basis of the whole “average is higher” issue.
I don’t know. Do you have any data?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 9:12 am
I think that this is basically true, but more to the point, let’s turn it around.
Right now, with our current health care system, we are ensuring lavish health care for the very few by letting the many suffer horribly.
Of course those who are prospering under this system would not prosper as much or in the same way under UHC. The Tsar didn’t prosper as much after the revolution, the Communist party bigwigs didn’t prosper as much after the fall of communism, and the slaveowners didn’t prosper as much after emancipation.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Oh yeah:
Yes. And I actually like UHC, at least in theory. But I think it’s crucially important to discuss, and acknowledge, the problems with UHC (real and potential) as well as the benefits.
People are not idiots. My own standard of care, for example, would probably fall under a UHC program (or get more expensive for me to maintain.) As I know a lot of fairly rich folks, I also know a lot of other people for who this is also true. That doesn’t bother me; I think the social benefits of UHC are much more important, which is why I would support it. But it does sort of get me tweaked when other folks insist that there’s no chance, no how, that I or anyone else would see ANY degradation at all. It’s just not true.
I think a lot of people are willing to accept minor changes in their health care in order to support a huge countrywide benefit. But I don’t think sugarcoating the truth is the way to get there.
And since you mentioned class and race: Yup. I get in similar arguments with folks who, say, claim affirmative action doesn’t discriminate against whites. Which it does (that’s the whole point) and which is completely OK with me (it’s justified for a variety of reasons)… but there’s a big moral and political difference between “justified” and “doesn’t exist”, and I don’t accept the inaccurate presentation.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Many Canadians have private health insurance in addition to the universal system. Most get it through their workplaces as part of a benefits package, although some buy it individually. All of the upper middle class people I know (my own family included) have private health insurance to cover mental health care, prescription drugs, dental and orthodontic services, optometrists, physiotherapy, in- home nursing, and out of country coverage. I have no idea how much private health insurance in Canada is compared to the US, but I can’t imagine we pay significantly more for it.
Mandolin,
This comment was written by debbie.I have no idea if you’re actually interested in immigrating to Canada. Being ill doesn’t make it impossible, but it might make it more difficult. There are a number of ways to immigrate to Canada, but you’re not a refugee, and I’m guessing you don’t have family to sponsor you. That means you would have to qualify as a skilled worker or an investor/entrepreneur under the points system (here’s the government website that explains how the points break down). It used to be very difficult for people with chronic conditions or diseases to immigrate because the government didn’t want people to come to Canada who couldn’t work and thus pay into the system. If I recall correctly, it was primarily being used against people with HIV/AIDs. I’m pretty sure this changed in 2002 when all the policies were overhauled. However, the regulations favor people who are younger, able-bodied, don’t have dependants, and have already completed their training/education.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Mandolin, “separate but equal” health care scares me as much as “separate but equal” education.
Sailorman, two points about Canada: Their system works better than the critics say. Its flaws come from Canada’s version of the neocons who constantly work to undermine it. (The UK is in a similar situation, but I don’t know as much about that.) I think one of Moore’s sidepoints in Sicko is right: the French get excellent healthcare because the people take to the streets to demand fair treatment.
As for UHC, every country with UHC has a longer life expectancy and a lower infant mortality than we do—even poor Cuba (whose critics seem to forget what it was like under Batista). So it’s possible an individual might suffer under UHC who wouldn’t under the US system, but as we know all too well, far more people will suffer if we continue our system.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 11:10 am
It’s not hard to admit. It’s obvious that any time you make changes to a large-scale, complicated system, even if the changes being made are enormous overall improvements, some people somewhere would have been better off before the change. I agree with that.
However, that general point isn’t the only claim you’ve made; you’ve made a lot of related claims, many of which are wrong.
You’re factually wrong when you say that UHC has to mean fewer MRIs (and theoretically on dubious ground in assuming that more MRIs means better treatment); you’re factually wrong when you cite “preventative and emergent care” as the only notable savings under UHC systems, you’re factually wrong when you claim that “Providing health care to more people costs… more money” to suggest that the US would have to spend more on health care than we currently do to have UHC.
You are wrong when you talk about Canada’s waiting problems as if they are caused by UHC. Long waiting periods are not a result of UHC; Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, and Japan all have no significant waiting periods, for example.
(According to this OECD paper [pdf link], summed up in this post by Angry Bear, long waiting periods are statistically associated with a combination of lack of hospital beds per capita, older average age of population, and salaried specialists (who aren’t motivated to try and handle more cases). There is no statistical association between UHC and long waiting periods.)
Yes, many things are wrong with both Canada’s and the UK’s health care systems (although they’re still overall better than the US’s, as we all agree), and both of those health care systems are UHC systems. But it doesn’t follow that everything wrong in the Canadian and UK health systems are caused by UHC. Yet that’s what your arguments seem to assume.
Eh. Although Brits do complain a lot about their health care (and rightly so), I’m not sure that most Brits want to pay a lot more for health care; the chief virtue of Britain’s system is that it is genuinely cheap compared to many other wealthy countries’ systems. And for all the problems with Canada’s system, I’m not sure that there’s popular desire for large-scale change comparable to what we have in the US.
To avoid becoming the UK, we can choose not to design a system with significantly below-average spending on health care per capita. Britain’s system puts economic pressure on doctors to avoid treating patients unless they absolutely, absolutely have to. That makes the UK system relatively cheap, but also hurts their outcomes. (They still do better than us, though, on average.)
The way we make it more likely that our eventual outcome will be more like Germany, or France, or the VA system in the USA, is by talking about and advocating designs based on those systems, rather than limiting our view of how UHC works to examples to Canada and the UK. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t discuss what’s wrong in Canada and the UK; but we should be looking at them for examples of mistakes to avoid making when we switch to UHC, rather than falsely claiming that Canadian and British problems are outcomes of UHC.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 11:18 am
“Mandolin, “separate but equal” health care scares me as much as “separate but equal” education.”
Who said anything about equal?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I’ll be thinking of you, Mandolin. I hope whatever you have is minor and curable.
MA, where I live, seems to have pretty good health care by US standards, or at least we did — having always had the luxury of employer-provided insurance, I don’t know the ins and outs of the insurance requirements Romney put in place (although I will admit that anything championed by Romney has two strikes against it as far as I’m concerned). I do know that hospitals can’t refuse to treat anyone who can’t pay, at least if they’re in labor or otherwise in immediate need.
I agree that we need UHC, though. I think a lot of the resistance is just fear of the unknown, and some is xenophobia of the same flavor that’s made us the only First-World country (maybe the only country?) not on the metric system — and some, of course, is the howls of the privileged. It irritates the crap out of me (but doesn’t surprise me) that all the health-care proposals I’ve seen so far basically tinker around the edges — not one of them has the guts to go for full-blown single-payer UHC.
I have to say I’m amazed at the story of $280,000 after insurance in one week. That is just insane. For treatment of a malignant brain tumor my son went through two major surgeries and a number of minor ones, almost a month in an acute hospital and almost five months in rehab, radiation and chemo, and numerous tests of various kinds, and, thank goodness, pretty much all of it was covered. Even if it hadn’t been we would have been eligible for state insurance that covers disabled children, albeit at a hefty premium. I never fully appreciated before how truly lucky we were and are, and yes, I know that’s the very definition of privilege.
The Tsar didn’t prosper as much after the revolution
This comment was written by Lu.(dark, muted chuckle) This has to be the first time I’ve seen execution by firing squad, or by any other method for that matter, referred to as not prospering as much.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Myca says, right now, with our current health care system, we are ensuring lavish health care for the very few by letting the many suffer horribly.
Actually, I think that’s backwards.
The many have health insurance (what is it–85%?) At least half of them (unionized workers–including government workers, over-65’s, and the wealthy) have more coverage than the single-payer systems offer.
It’s a relative few who suffer under our present system.
This comment was written by SamChevre.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
No, because it’s not a binary “insured or not” we’re looking at, we also need to worry about levels of insurance, gaps in insurance, and what on earth to do if we lose our jobs, and thus our health coverage.
This is akin to saying that as long as there are crumbs and gruel to eat, 95% of the nation is ‘fed’.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Also, I would like to see some evidence for your claim that that roughly 42-43% of our population has more coverage right now than they would under UHC.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Myca,
It’s a guess.
It seems to be commonly accepted (and could be wrong, but I’m assuming not) that the US has higher levels of care for cancer, discomforts of aging (more knee/hip replacements, for example) and end-of-life care. I’m assuming that at least half the population has either government-job insurance or Medicare, both of which are “good” insurance.
This comment was written by SamChevre.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Note that I’m NOT disagreeing on the “staying insured” issue, which is a real problem. I’m just arguing that most people do have insurance, and many of them have pretty good insurance. Given that only about 10% of my friends and family are in the insurance-having category, I’m thoroughly agreed that lack of access to health care is a problem.
This comment was written by SamChevre.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
[Edited to desnark. Sorry about that.]
Regarding the US’s higher level of care for cancer, it’s not commonly accepted — at least, not among scholars — that our level of care is higher.
(except among right-wingers, whose opinions are not based on reality) that the US does better.Quoting Ezra:And by nearly all accounts, countries like France and Germany provide better outcomes than Canada does.
One of the cancers that UHC critics often bring up is prostate cancer, because the US does well compared to Europe on prostate cancer outcomes. But it’s unclear if that’s because our care is better overall, or because our care system is adept at picking the low-hanging fruit — that is, easily curable patients who probably didn’t require treatment. From an article in The New Republic:
Are insured people in the US better off than people in Germany or France? I don’t think so. In America, even if you have good insurance coverage, you almost always have to worry that your insurance company will do everything it can to dump you if you ever get really, really sick. Plus, our insurance leaves a lot uncovered; even insured folks can easily wind up owing six or seven figures and being forced into bankruptcy. I think I’d be better off with the security of not having that possibility hanging over my head.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Mandolin, re “Who said anything about equal?”
Okay, “good enough for poor people” health care scares me *even* more. If we want universal health care to be meaningful, we shouldn’t settle for a two-tier system.
Oh, for folks talking about Canada, another thing to remember: Yes, drugs aren’t covered by the basic health care program. But they are cheaper up there.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Will,
So, are you suggesting as a practical political step that we outlaw private insurance?
Sam,
Are you arguing that your friends and family represent a statistically random polling population? That’s quite an acheivement.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Mandolin, I don’t like forbidding things. I want universal health care that’s so good that only madmen and right-libertarians would buy additional health insurance.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Thanks. We got one. Being discriminated against sucks.
and the replacement of them with the vampiric politicians.
For example: The government runs the school systems. There are spots of excellence; outrageous costs; and lots of failed systems. In Orleans parish, my daughter goes the to the best public school in the state {rating: 200+ gee, there is a benefit to being divorced}, but aside from two other schools, the Orleans parish school system is a nightmarish failure. Most of the schools other schools in the parish are were rated as ‘complete failures’ {ratings 20-30.} and this was pre-Katrina. The state passed a law that if they didn’t improve they would take them over. The state takeover was done post Katrina.
For example: Louisiana runs a charity hospital system. They provide the best care in the city {or did before the storm} for gun shot trauma victims {practice makes perfect - the cities high murder rate}. Unfortunately the hospital was run down and its equipment was decrepit. It needed to be torn down and replaced. The hospital had to beg the state for money and rarely got it. The hospital took heavy flood damage from Katrina. So now the state is trying to sucker the Feds into paying to replace it.
The current system sucks wind, but UHC comes with a lot of baggage. There has to be a better way.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
It’s a guess.
In other words, you made it up because having a percentage made your position sound good.
and the replacement of them with the vampiric politicians.
Government isn’t driven by the profit motive. Sometimes this is bad, sometimes good.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Mythago, when you say, “Government isn’t driven by the profit motive. Sometimes this is bad, sometimes good,” you’re falling for the lie that profit is somehow related to efficiency. Capitalism is only efficient when efficiency is profitable. Case in point: when treatment is more profitable than prevention, you get a health care system that looks remarkably like ours.
This comment was written by will shetterly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
In Louisiana, it is rarely good.
Government isn’t driven by a profit motive? Um, all of our politicians are. It is only a questions of how much they can steal.
For example: Rep. ‘cold hard cash’ Jefferson, or is that ‘African art’ Jefferson. He even got re-elected after he got caught with the 100,000 in bribe money in his fridge.
We had another one on video taking money from fast Eddy (the governor), he was stuffing the $20,000 in his pants.
fast Eddy is still doing time in the federal pen for just a small part of his graft.
He pardoned our former Sheriff who did time for shaking down the local businesses. The former Sherriff then became our three time Parish President til the feds caught him again. He did four years for that one.
The current governor got elected in part by promising pay raises for teachers. Instead the first bills pushed were a 50% increase in salary for the governor an 14% raises for the judges {fortunately both bills failed}. Meanwhile the teachers continued to be promised raises every year but never given one.
In the United States, government has for the most part been good. A lot of graft, but relatively good. In other countries, when the government gains too much power lots of people die.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I oppose universal health care partly on principle: I believe that in the overwhelming majority of cases government intrusion into personal affairs makes matters worse, not better; I also believe that whatever problems there are in the current American system, they are not as bad as the problems in places like Canada or Britain.
That may not be true. Insurance claims are only one part of the equation. Take for instance how Canada controls drug costs. Each of Canada’s ten provinces has a review committee that must a new drug for a province’s formulary, which determines which drugs will be paid by the health program. A drug may be approved by one province but not another. What is the cost of having a centralized government that pays for healthcare ( and makes it illegal for citizens to have private insurance that covers procedures theoretically available under the national scheme) and then has a review board for each province?
Under a national health care scheme there are layers of approval for every facet of the system: how will money be spread among the provinces; which drugs will be approved for patient usage and which wont; which hospitals will be shut down and where will new ones open etc.,
In America if you don’t like your health care plan then you can leave it and get a new one. The ability of people to opt out of the system and either go without coverage or find another plan discourages the building up of any excess bureacracy because it unnecessarily raises costs.
That’s not true. I found the following information in “Explaining Waiting Times Variations for Elective Surgery across OECD Countries”. On page 9:
Carroll et al. (1995) focused on waiting times for cardiovascular procedures in four countries. It found that the percentage of the respondents in need of elective coronary bypass who had been waiting for more than three months was 88.9% in the United Kingdom, 46.7% in Canada, 18.2% in Sweden and 0% in the U.S. For elective coronary angiography the percentage was 22.8% in the United Kingdom, 16.1% in Canada, 15.4% in Sweden and 0% in the U.S. Similarly, Coyte et al. (1994) found that surveyed patients in need of knee replacement had a median waiting time of eight weeks in Canada (Ontario) and three weeks in the U.S. In Germany, self-reported mean waiting times for cataract surgery was equal to 35 days in 2000 (Wenzel, Reuscher and Aral, 2001; the survey was based on 450 institutions and 926 operating ophthalmologists).
If you start on page 8 and go through page 10 there are several graphs that show the excessive wait times many people are enduring in other OECD countries compared to the US.
That’s definitely not true. In other countries virtually everything about a patients treatment is determined by their GP ( who is responsible for referment to a specialist), a specialist ( who determines your course of treatment), and the government which governs everything from waiting lists to access to which drugs are available ( see reference above regarding Canada).
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
will shetterly said:
This has little to do with any failings of the US healthcare system. because in the developed world there is very little correlation between health care spending and life expectancy. The number of years a person will live is primarily a result of genetic and social factors, including lifestyle, environment and education. The same factors heavily influence infant mortality and the US
For example, Japan’s average life expectancy (78.6 years) is one of the highest in the world, about three years higher than that in the U.S. If the three-year difference were the result of lower-quality health care in the United States, you would expect Japanese-Americans living in this country to experience shortened life spans. They don’t. According to the National Asian Pacific Center on Aging, in 1980…… white Americans had an average life expectancy of 76.4 years, while Japanese-Americans had an average life expectancy of 79.7 years - just about the same three-year spread that exists between the populations of the two countries. Similarly, the California Department of Health reports that people of Asian or Pacific Island ethnic origin living in the state and using its health care system have a life expectancy 5.3 years longer (81.2 versus 75.9 years) than white Californians.
Of the industrialized countries with better life expectancies than the U.S., nearly all have overwhelmingly white populations of European descent. None have large black populations. Unfortunately, black Americans have more health problems and shorter life expectancy (70 years in 1991) than whites. The American population is a mixture of several ethnic groups - some with longer and some with shorter life spans than whites. LINK
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Ampersand:
But the real question is this: Once everyone is bulk buying and forcing the drug companies to lower prices, the pharmaceutical industry will eventually reach a point where it is no longer economical to develop new drugs. Research and development ( and yes, marketing too) costs billions of dollars. Will the government take over the cost of paying R&D when the drug companies decide that it is no longer profitable for them to continue doing it?
Right now the US produces far more new medicines than other countries because of the widespread lack of price controls and other countries are benefiting from the drugs that are developed here.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Good to know you’re on the side of suffering and forcing ill people to be homeless, Jamila. I’ll bear it in mind should I ever encounter you in person.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
If we judge the effectiveness of healthcare primarily on how well it maintains the health of a country’s inhabitants (and I’m not sure what else we should judge on), then your belief is flat-out untrue.
And obviously so.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Mandolin Writes:
Yes, I’m a heartless libertarian bitch! And damn proud of it too. j/k
But seriously. I’m all for health care, just not government mandated universal health care. And I’m sure that if you met me in person you would find it hard not to like me. I’m very likable. :)
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
July 10th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Jamila Akil, what poor countries without universal health care have lower rates of infant mortality and longer average life spans than Cuba, the poorest country with UHC?
And your mistake is here: “According to the National Asian Pacific Center on Aging, in 1980…… white Americans had an average life expectancy of 76.4 years, while Japanese-Americans had an average life expectancy of 79.7 years” You’re failing to factor culture into the equation. Asian Americans get more exercise and eat healthier mea