US Health Care vs World

[MysterOnyx]

Interesting graphic about how much the US spends on health care as compared to the rest of the world:

http://www.businesspundit.com/us-hea...-of-the-world/

[Ziggurat]

They seem to have contradicted themselves. If you show charts of health care spending, and the US is on those charts, then it's obviously not "off the charts", is it?

[MysterOnyx]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

They seem to have contradicted themselves. If you show charts of health care spending, and the US is on those charts, then it's obviously not "off the charts", is it?

I assumed that by "chart" he meant the trend line.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by spaaron22

I assumed that by "chart" he meant the trend line.

A trendline is not a chart.

In fairness, I'm being a smartass. They obviously meant "off the chart" just to mean "bigger than everything else". But it's still funny to see "off the chart"... on a chart.

[Francesca R]

Apparently the gap is because the US is being fleeced by leeching foreign countries freeloading on their innovation without paying full whack. Or because the US is voluntarily being extra nice and subsidising foreign countries' health spending. Can't remember which. .

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Apparently the gap is because the US is being fleeced by leeching foreign countries freeloading on their innovation without paying full whack. Or because the US is voluntarily being extra nice and subsidising foreign countries' health spending. Can't remember which. .

I'm sure he'll remind you if he sees the thread.

[Magyar]

Originally Posted by spaaron22

Interesting graphic about how much the US spends on health care as compared to the rest of the world:

http://www.businesspundit.com/us-hea...-of-the-world/

there you go spreading filthy socialist/communists truths again.


HOW dare you interfere with the free market and the try to take away my rights by forcing me to have less cost and more choice!



(Just thought I'd postthe condenced version of the 30 page thread coming from the right about the evils of universal health care)

[Skeptic Ginger]

The trend is mostly that some people ignore the data while clinging to their pet economic premises.

[keale]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The trend is mostly that some people ignore the data while clinging to their pet economic premises.

This is a puzzling phenomenon I dont understand

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Apparently the gap is because the US is being fleeced by leeching foreign countries freeloading on their innovation without paying full whack. Or because the US is voluntarily being extra nice and subsidising foreign countries' health spending. Can't remember which. .

Or, that their GDP suffers because of their socialist heatlhcare policies, which fails to eliminate the economic deadwood*.


*see sig.

[Zep]

Does it include the spending on insurance?

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

They seem to have contradicted themselves. If you show charts of health care spending, and the US is on those charts, then it's obviously not "off the charts", is it?

I think it was meant in a colloquially, not literally.


What do you think about the content of the article?

[willhaven]

This one is my favorite.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Tatyana

I think it was meant in a colloquially, not literally.

I know.

Quote:

What do you think about the content of the article?

Our costs are high. If you didn't know that, this article might be informative, if you did, there's probably not much new here. The reasons for those high costs, and what we can and should do about it, are what we're struggling with, and the article tells us nothing about that.

Measurements of health care "quality" can be fairly subjective and, more importantly, are very subject to influences from factors other than the health care system. With no indication of what those metrics really mean (all we have is a name on the chart) and how they're measured, that part of the article is of essentially no use.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

...
Measurements of health care "quality" can be fairly subjective and, more importantly, are very subject to influences from factors other than the health care system. .....

So are you claiming that life expectancy, maternal and infant morbidity and mortality statistics and the affordability and access to health care are subjective measurements?

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the record, here are the variables used as the basis for the graph. Looks extremely objective to me.

[DC]

Originally Posted by willhaven

This one is my favorite.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1921/72344588.jpg

boah Glenn Beck was right, the more you pay the better the healthcare, we spend second most and are second in life expectancy.

[Ausmerican]

Originally Posted by DC

boah Glenn Beck was right, the more you pay the better the healthcare, we spend second most and are second in life expectancy.

You're getting robbed. Australia is 3rd in life expectancy on that chart and paying barely above the average.

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I know.



Our costs are high. If you didn't know that, this article might be informative, if you did, there's probably not much new here. The reasons for those high costs, and what we can and should do about it, are what we're struggling with, and the article tells us nothing about that.

Measurements of health care "quality" can be fairly subjective and, more importantly, are very subject to influences from factors other than the health care system. With no indication of what those metrics really mean (all we have is a name on the chart) and how they're measured, that part of the article is of essentially no use.

I know.

It was first thing in the morning when I posted, I read the following comments after I posted and couldn't be bothered to change my post.

[BeAChooser]

Sigh? Why do we have to keep going over the same material folks? Because you leftists are incapable of learning?

The dishonesty in using life expectancy to measure differences in the efficacy of health care systems has been discussed over and over and over.

Haven't any of you learned anything from those discussions?

There are simply too many parameters affecting that statistic to make it meaningful in charts like that Willhaven posted.

I'll just repost some of the same articles on that which I did before ... the articles that apparently none of you even bothered to read.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/heal...924/2healy.htm

Quote:

it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity and size" whereas other countries report these as stillbirths. … snip ... And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country. Infant mortality in developed countries is not about healthy babies dying of treatable conditions as in the past. Most of the infants we lose today are born critically ill, and 40 percent die within the first day of life. The major causes are low birth weight and prematurity, and congenital malformations. As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth.

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall07/w13429.html

Quote:

if Canada had the same proportion of low birthweight babies as the U.S., the authors project that it would have a slightly higher infant mortality rate.

Here is more on that study:

http://boards.ign.com/current_events.../183861033/p1/

Quote:

A 2007 study done by Baruch College economists June and David O"Neill sheds some light on why U.S. infant mortality rates are higher—more low weight births. In their study, U.S. infant mortality was 6.8 per 1,000 live births, and Canada's was 5.3. Low birth weight significantly increases an infant's chance of dying. Teen mothers are much more likely to bear low birth weight babies and teen motherhood is almost three times higher in the U.S. than it is in Canada. The authors calculate that if Canada had the same the distribution of low-weight births as the U.S., its infant mortality rate would rise above the U.S. rate of 6.8 per 1,000 live births to 7.06. On the other hand, if the U.S. had Canada's distribution of low-weight births, its infant mortality rate would fall to 5.4. In other words, the American health care system is much better than Canada's at saving low birth weight babies —we just have more babies who are likely to die before their first birthdays.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547...iveHealth.html

Quote:

July 2006

... snip ...

infant mortality tells us a lot less about a health care system than one might think. The main problem is inconsistent measurement across nations.

… snip …

In summary, infant mortality is measured far too inconsistently to make cross-national comparisons useful. Thus, just like life expectancy, infant mortality is not a reliable measure of the relative merits of health care systems.


http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall07/w13429.html

Quote:

The gap in life expectancy among young adults is mostly explained by the higher rate of mortality in the U.S. from accidents and homicides. At older ages much of the gap is due to a higher rate of heart disease-related mortality in the U.S. While this could be related to better treatment of heart disease in Canada, factors such as the U.S.'s higher obesity rate (33 percent of U.S. women are obese, vs. 19 percent in Canada) surely play a role.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...rtality&page=2

Quote:

More important, there are different standards as to what is reported as a case of infant mortality between countries. The US reports many cases that other countries never even consider a viable person. In other words, they don't count that death in their mortality rates because they don't consider that child as ever having been alive. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report said "The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."

Indeed,
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...were_number_1/ concluded that once those effects of accidents, violence, obesity, and other non-health care system related factors are discounted, the US life expectancy is the highest amongst OECD countries.

Just differences in obesity might obscure any real comparison of the health care systems. Here ...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0319224823.htm

Quote:

ScienceDaily (Mar. 20, 2009) — A new analysis of almost one million people from around the world has shown that obesity can trim years off life expectancy.

The Oxford University research found that moderate obesity, which is now common, reduces life expectancy by about 3 years, and that severe obesity, which is still uncommon, can shorten a person’s life by 10 years.

Since the US is one of the most obese nations (a recent survey reported that 31 percent of Americans are obese, compared to only 23 percent of the British, 14 percent of Canadians, 13 percent of Germans, 9 percent of the French, and 3 percent of Japanese). But obesity has little to do with the health care system itself. So the conclusion should be obvious, folks. Why do you refuse to learn?

And I leave you with this:

http://papers.nber.org/papers/w15213#fromrss

Quote:

Low Life Expectancy in the United States: Is the Health Care System at Fault?

Samuel H. Preston, Jessica Y. Ho
NBER Working Paper No. 15213
Issued in August 2009

... snip ...

Life expectancy in the United States fares poorly in international comparisons, primarily because of high mortality rates above age 50. Its low ranking is often blamed on a poor performance by the health care system rather than on behavioral or social factors. This paper presents evidence on the relative performance of the US health care system using death avoidance as the sole criterion. We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system.

But why do I suspect you'll still refuse to learn from the above?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

They seem to have contradicted themselves. If you show charts of health care spending, and the US is on those charts, then it's obviously not "off the charts", is it?

That phrase is an idiom^WP so should not be understood in terms of the literal meaning of the individual words.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Sigh? Why do we have to keep going over the same material folks?

See my sig for why I disagree with your position.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by joobz

See my sig for why I disagree with your position.

You mean the sig where you misrepresented what I said and meant?

Why don't you want to discuss the parameters that influence life expectancy, joobz?

[MysterOnyx]

The question, BAC, is this: if you adjust the US mortality rate to realistically compare with other countries, would it affect the graph much? Even if you raised the US mortality rate up to where Japan is (or heck, to the notch above Japan), the spending would still be out of proportion.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by spaaron22

The question, BAC, is this: if you adjust the US morality rate to realistically compare with other countries, would it affect the graph much? Even if you raised the US morality rate up to where Japan is (or heck, to the notch above Japan), the spending would still be out of proportion.

i think you wished to say 'mortality'.
but it gives the post a really interesting twist.

[MysterOnyx]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

i think you wished to say 'mortality'.
but it gives the post a really interesting twist.

It's really creepy that I got it wrong twice... Freudian slip?

[Captain_Snort]

What is scary is the very companies that charge you so much (private enterprise works in the health care sector, honest) have been lobbying our current, evil government in the UK. IF they tender for NHS workm, they can charge 14% more for the same thing withough being excluded, in order to promote the free market.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

You mean the sig where you misrepresented what I said and meant?

You still refuse to show how I misrepresented you. We know it is because you can't. What I'm shocked by is how ashamed you seem to be about the logical ramification of your position.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Why don't you want to discuss the parameters that influence life expectancy, joobz?

Because you always run when I do.
Here's the past time we talked health care and you ran.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...th+care&page=8

But, a simple check of your very first link
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/heal...924/2healy.htm

It attempts to hand wave away the infant deaths by claiming other nations don't play fair. They report methodology used by germany belgium, austria, switzerland. but they don't mention the methods used by Japan or Finland, the one with the lowest infant mortality rates. This is classic bait and switch and misses the point.

Fact is we pay twice as much for health care than any other nation, and the best we can say is that it may be (as good as) other nations. That's not a very convincing argument for privatized health care systems.

And I'll go one step further, Even if you are right and a UHC results in a lower GDP, I believe it is an acceptable cost. After all, I don't believe the sick should be classified as economic deadwood.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by spaaron22

The question, BAC, is this: if you adjust the US mortality rate to realistically compare with other countries, would it affect the graph much? Even if you raised the US mortality rate up to where Japan is (or heck, to the notch above Japan), the spending would still be out of proportion.

Yes, the US spends more. But so what? We have more to spend. Isn't that worthy of discussion too? Why do we have more? Perhaps because we aren't as socialist as the other countries. In fact, the OP source has a graph which indicates the US per capita GDP is almost $5000 dollars higher than even the highest of the other countries shown in the chart. So if we choose to spend about half of that extra $5000 on our health care, we are still ahead. We still have more money, per capita, to devote to other things than they do. The real story here may be that in a misguided effort to minimize health care costs, they've adopted a socialist way of thinking that has cost them more than what was saved in the end.

Now you specifically mention Japan. There a few things to note about that comparison … things which you've apparently decided to simply overlook.

First, there are many differences between US and Japanese society that give them an advantage where health care is concerned. Japan is not an ethnically diverse nation (which makes health care decidely less expensive). They have FAR fewer lawyers than the US (which makes health care demonstrably less expensive). They have a tiny illegal immigration problem in comparison to the US (ours is 3-6% of our population which cost us a lot of health care money). And Japanese doctors make far less money than their US counterparts (should we pay our doctors comparably and, if so, how do you propose we go about doing that without altering the quality of our doctors? And their medical system is rife with problems in treatment that in the US would make national headlines and attract lawyers like sharks to blood.

Plus, the Japanese people have different genetics and diet. We are about the most obese nation with about 32 percent of our adult population being considered obese by the OECD. The Japanese are decidedly lean (only 3 percent of their population is considered obese by the OECD). And as the article I posted earlier indicates that difference could translate into YEARS of difference in life expectancy. Perhaps 10 years … which could completely alter the interpretation of the chart Willhaven posted.

Genetics and diet factors are also the primary reason the Japanese have lower rates of cancer than the average American. My point is we can't get to Japan's figures without changing American life in ways that extend way beyond the insurance companies, doctor's offices and hospitals. Are you prepared to enforce those changes? And we can't get to their costs without also altering many other aspects of our society … which may not be possible. Democrats certainly don't seem to want us to treat illegals the way Japan does, for example. Or view lawyers the way the Japanese apparently do.

Plus Japan has paid a steep price for it's turn to socialism. It's economy has been in the doldrums for several decades. Here's how Japan's per capita GDP has compared to that of the US since 1945.

http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblo...per_capita.jpg

As you can see, Japan was closing the gap until about 1965, then stopped closing the gap. Now the gap is widening again. Why? What happened? Well in 1961 Japan established UHC.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/...er%20Japan.pdf

Quote:

The Japanese government adopted the current national health insurance scheme in the early 1960s. The economy was growing rapidly, but so was the electoral threat posed by the socialist and communist left. In their bid for power, these leftist parties had championed European welfare-state policies. Strategically to trim their appeal, the conservative government adopted a national health insurance scheme of its own.

And the result?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...e-a-Difference

Quote:

Japan, which once threatened the U.S. position in first place by rising to 90 percent of U.S. per capita GDP in 1991, has fallen faster than any other country. By 2001, Japan was at only 78 percent of the U.S. per capita GDP level. While Japan's tax burden has stayed the same, deficit spending has soared. Since 1990, Japanese government spending has increased from about 30 percent to 38 percent of the economy--a rate of government spending growth unmatched by any other OECD country.

Although Obama seems intent of leading us to the same place.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

That phrase is an idiom^WP so should not be understood in terms of the literal meaning of the individual words.

You're late to the party, Darat.

[DC]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

....


But why do I suspect you'll still refuse to learn from the above?

because you know its cherry picked nonsense and right out lies.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by DC

because you know its cherry picked nonsense and right out lies.

So you claim.

[Newtons Bit]

I'm amused by the fact that US government (federal and local) expenditures account for just over 50% of all healthcare spending in the US. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the US spends one and a half times more to cover just Medicare and Medicaid patients than what would be required to cover every single person in the United States with a healthcare system comparable to the UK.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

I'm amused by the fact that US government (federal and local) expenditures account for just over 50% of all healthcare spending in the US. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the US spends one and a half times more to cover just Medicare and Medicaid patients than what would be required to cover every single person in the United States with a healthcare system comparable to the UK.

hey, they might seem stupid, but at least they don' got no commie healthcare!

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Yes, the US spends more. But so what? We have more to spend. Isn't that worthy of discussion too? Why do we have more? Perhaps because we aren't as socialist as the other countries. In fact, the OP source has a graph which indicates the US per capita GDP is almost $5000 dollars higher than even the highest of the other countries shown in the chart. So if we choose to spend about half of that extra $5000 on our health care, we are still ahead. We still have more money, per capita, to devote to other things than they do. The real story here may be that in a misguided effort to minimize health care costs, they've adopted a socialist way of thinking that has cost them more than what was saved in the end.

Now you specifically mention Japan. There a few things to note about that comparison … things which you've apparently decided to simply overlook.

First, there are many differences between US and Japanese society that give them an advantage where health care is concerned. Japan is not an ethnically diverse nation (which makes health care decidely less expensive). They have FAR fewer lawyers than the US (which makes health care demonstrably less expensive). They have a tiny illegal immigration problem in comparison to the US (ours is 3-6% of our population which cost us a lot of health care money). And Japanese doctors make far less money than their US counterparts (should we pay our doctors comparably and, if so, how do you propose we go about doing that without altering the quality of our doctors? And their medical system is rife with problems in treatment that in the US would make national headlines and attract lawyers like sharks to blood.

Plus, the Japanese people have different genetics and diet. We are about the most obese nation with about 32 percent of our adult population being considered obese by the OECD. The Japanese are decidedly lean (only 3 percent of their population is considered obese by the OECD). And as the article I posted earlier indicates that difference could translate into YEARS of difference in life expectancy. Perhaps 10 years … which could completely alter the interpretation of the chart Willhaven posted.

Genetics and diet factors are also the primary reason the Japanese have lower rates of cancer than the average American. My point is we can't get to Japan's figures without changing American life in ways that extend way beyond the insurance companies, doctor's offices and hospitals. Are you prepared to enforce those changes? And we can't get to their costs without also altering many other aspects of our society … which may not be possible. Democrats certainly don't seem to want us to treat illegals the way Japan does, for example. Or view lawyers the way the Japanese apparently do.

Plus Japan has paid a steep price for it's turn to socialism. It's economy has been in the doldrums for several decades. Here's how Japan's per capita GDP has compared to that of the US since 1945.

http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblo...per_capita.jpg

As you can see, Japan was closing the gap until about 1965, then stopped closing the gap. Now the gap is widening again. Why? What happened? Well in 1961 Japan established UHC.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/...er%20Japan.pdf



And the result?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...e-a-Difference



Although Obama seems intent of leading us to the same place.

Minor correction: You're referring to the per capital GDP PPP, not the per capita GDP. The US is not the highest if you use the later figure.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

I'm amused by the fact that US government (federal and local) expenditures account for just over 50% of all healthcare spending in the US. That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the US spends one and a half times more to cover just Medicare and Medicaid patients than what would be required to cover every single person in the United States with a healthcare system comparable to the UK.

What's even more amusing is thinking that giving the government control over the other 50% will make the system more efficient and effective.

By the way, I hear the health care system of the UK is in some difficulty.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

Minor correction: You're referring to the per capital GDP PPP, not the per capita GDP. The US is not the highest if you use the later figure.

I simply used the figure in the OP.

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

What's even more amusing is thinking that giving the government control over the other 50% will make the system more efficient and effective.

I certainly didn't state that it would be either more efficient or more effective. Who are you referring to here?

Quote:

By the way, I hear the health care system of the UK is in some difficulty.

If only they could afford to spend about 2.5 times more than they already do...

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

I certainly didn't state that it would be either more efficient or more effective. Who are you referring to here?



If only they could afford to spend about 2.5 times more than they already do...

But what would be the point of receiving health care that poor? Surely you could just spend the same amount and drop your standards to match the USA's performance at a lesser price????

[DC]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

So you claim.

i see, you have your blinders on. But im sure others have already debunked your nonsense, as it is everytime.