American Health Care: A Private or a Social Concern?
July 7, 2009 at 1:46 pm
by: Joseph Marohl
 |
The 2009 CIA World Factbook1 estimates that the USA ranks 180 (out of 224 nations) in infant mortality rates. The number 1 country for infant deaths is Angola. Like most of the nations with higher rates, Angola is an impoverished “developing” country. The USA, however, has a greater number of deaths in infancy than Cuba, the European Union, Taiwan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, Israel, Hong Kong, Japan, or Singapore (which has the lowest infant mortality rate).
The “World Factbook” further estimates that, in 2008, the USA had 8.27 deaths per 1,000 people. Its death rate in general, then, is lower than the rates in Japan or the European Union, but still higher than those in Canada, Cuba, China, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia, Brazil, India, South Korea, Chile, Iran, Israel, Iraq, Mexico, Singapore, or the United Arab Emirates (which has the lowest overall mortality rate). Last year, the USA had 3.03 more deaths per 1,000 than Iraq (5.14)!
US citizens have an average life expectancy of 77.85 years, lower than the United Kingdom (78.54), Germany (78.8), France (79.73), Italy (79.81), and Canada (80.22),
According to the New York Times2, in 2006 Canadians spent $3,678 per capita on health care. US residents spent $6,714 per capita. (About 38% of that difference can be explained by the difference in the two countries’ economies. But even with numbers adjusted to accommodate that difference, US Americans paid $1,141 more per person for health care than Canadians.)
The “National Coalition on Health Care” states:
“Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.”
In 2007, health care spending represented 17% of the gross domestic product of the USA. In 2008, the increase (5%) in employer health insurance premiums was double the rate of inflation. Health care spending in the USA is over four times the amount spent on national defense.
The AFL-CIO reports, “Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, while consumers paid more for less coverage.”
Ron Williams, CEO of Aetna, earned $24,300,112 in 2008, making him the highest paid health insurance company executive. (In 1910 all the corporations in America paid less in taxes [$24,043,500] than Williams earned 98 years later.)
President Obama has introduced and supported the idea of a public option in health insurance coverage, a compromise between the current model of private insurers (as supported by the American Medical Association and fiscal conservatives) and the social-services model of public health (as practiced in Canada, the UK, France, Cuba, and China).
A public health insurance option means that the government would provide health insurance in competition with private health insurers, with the intention of driving down health care costs in America and insuring the millions of Americans now without health coverage of any kind. Only one health insurance provider or a closely tied group of providers covers 94% of metropolitan areas in the USA, with the effect of limiting competition in those communities and driving up healthcare costs. A public option could benefit from having lower administrative costs (Medicare, for instance, provides coverage with a lower overhead than the average private insurer can). If the public option proves popular and competitive, private insurers would likely lower rates to compete.
Centrist Democrats appear to be in a bind because, on one level, there is great popular support for the public option—65-85% of Americans support it, according to a variety of polls—while, on another level, health industry PACs contribute generously to Democratic and Republican campaigns—and (this is awfully cynical, I know) actually doing something about health care in America would rob them of the campaign issue that “somebody ought to do something about health care in America.”
According to Nate Silver, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia has received $69,000 in contributions from health industry political action committees, even though he has served less than six months in the Senate. Like the 20 other senators currently “uncommitted” to a public health insurance option, Warner is a Democrat. (Except for Olympia Snowe, all the Republican senators oppose the public option.)
Opponents assert that a public option would be both inferior to private-sector insurance and destructive to private insurers. Their reasoning is that, although public health care would be (in their opinion) inferior, more people would gravitate to it because of its relatively low cost.
Some people object to a public option on principle, believing that the government should not interfere with lawful free enterprise (especially given the precarious position of the US economy now), and on practical concerns, believing that the government would be a less efficient provider of healthcare benefits than the current private insurers.
Many of these opponents attribute the USA’s lagging health statistics to factors other than the free market and/or monopolies, while others continue to tout the USA’s relatively good health statistics in comparison to nations in sub-Saharan Africa.
I unapologetically support so-called “socialized medicine”—on par with “socialized” highways, postal service, military defense, and public education. I don’t claim that such an approach to health care is perfect and without problems, but it does appear to me that, after decades of comparison, we can see greater benefits in, say, the British National Health Service than we Americans currently enjoy, and greater risks—large numbers of uninsured Americans and increasing bankruptcy due to high healthcare costs—in our current system.
Obama has chosen a compromise that I would not consider desirable—except for political expediency. However, the idea of a “public option” seems better than the status quo, at least—especially given my firsthand experience with increasing insurance premiums and deductibles and the rather shockingly streamlined “drive-thru” (though hardly “fast”) approach of the private medicine I have recently experienced.
Source(s): 1C.I.A. 2009 World Factbook • 2The New York Times “Why Does U.S. Healthcare Cost so Much? (Part 1)” by Uwe E. Reinhardt/ published November 14, 2008 • 3National Coalition on Health Care “Health Insurance Costs” • 4AFL-CIO NOW Blog “Health Insurance Profits Soar as Industry Mergers Create Near-Monopoly” May 27th, 2009 •
July 7th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
‘Tis a classic example of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” to infer that our life expectancy rate, infant mortality rate, etcetera hinges on government health care or lack thereof.
There is a litany of variables which result in the end calculations, i.e. obesity rates, drug use, education, stress just to name a few.
Moreover, President Obama’s “private” option can in no way be considered “competition” for the private industry since Obama-care will be subsidized and thus has no motivation to strive for efficient delivery or to employ the wise use of funds.
Additionally, no matter how rosy those in favor of socialist medicine attempt to paint the picture, theft is theft.
Taking money earned by our family to be redistributed to someone the government deems more “deserving” is theft. In the end it leaves less money for our family to use in case of a medical emergency, pay bills, put food on the table.
It matters not if we break into our neighbors home rob them of their money, but then decide to spend the ill-gotten funds to feed the homeless, theft is theft.
However, even more important let us look at the absolute failure of government to provide quality government run health care to the veterans.
Veterans make up approximately 3% of the population and routinely wait for access and are the recipients of wholly sub-standard medical care at the hands of government doctors.
Before you the government can convince me that it is competent enough to handle offering medical insurance for 300million, it needs to fix a very very broken system for the 3 million it has already committed to covering.
Perhaps the greatest point against a government run health care system is the government’s own track record on other unConstitutional functions it has forced its nose into…
The government has proven its utter incompetence, yet still people desire to be governed by a nanny state.
[Reply]
July 7th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
You might have had a point, Allison, if I had actually said that private medicine is the cause of sickness and death–in total or just in great part. My error would not have been a “post hoc” though, since obviously sickness and death precede the existence of America–and even the idea of private property–, so the fallacy would have been flagrantly grotesque.
But I did not in fact make such a claim, as you know.
(And the failures of public education, AmTrak, and Social Security cannot be pinned on just inept government, as, in addition to political hamfistedness, a shitload of outside factors have been malignant–in some cases, deliberately so, but, in most cases, I hope, unintentionally. Also, the government has not always been the failure your examples portray–some good has arguably come of its taking on itself the struggle against fascism, the liberation of slaves, the protection of natural resources, and the fight for civil rights–which is not to imply that these efforts were perfect or that every private citizen, working independently, has simply stood idly by, looking after only his or her own interests (or immediate family’s interests).
Instead, I suggest that the health of our nation is (or should be) a concern for all its people, not just the private business of those struck with the bad luck of becoming ill–who are then much more vulnerable to financial exploitation due to their present desperate neediness.
The variables you mention have existed in nations with better health and longevity statistics than ours–and in large part, their social programs have more adequately addressed these variables, too.
Also, far from endorsing Obama’s option, I complained that it is inadequate … too little too late, for a nation that routinely praises itself for the high value it places on life, health, and equality. And it doesn’t appear that he will hold the line even on these half-measures.
I’m not surprised that my support of public health and socialized medicine is against the grain–unpopular with you and in US opinion polls for the past 50 years. I think these ideas have been successfully campaigned against by financially interested parties of great wealth and influence, and I don’t feel that they have yet had the objective consideration and reasoned debate that they deserve.
To equate caring for those in need with breaking and entering with intent to steal is a far-fetched analogy. But to take the analogy as is, I can see extenuating circumstances at work when the needy steal … especially from those who have hoarded more than they can possibly ever use. That doesn’t mean that I approve of stealing; it means that my values are not absolutist or puritan.
My recent experiences with private medicine have not shown signs of “efficient delivery” and “wise use of funds.” And though I cannot claim to be an expert in the business of health care, there is evidence that government-administered health care elsewhere has demonstrated high levels of efficiency and has effectively lowered healthcare costs.
But, no, neither my nor your schemes for the nation’s government are perfect and foolproof. The AMA’s “rosy” assessment of the state of the nation’s healthcare systems is no less far-fetched than some socialists’ fantasies of what radical change would consist of … which is why logic and evidence (not just idealism and pathos) are so important to any serious discussion of this issue. My concern is that browbeating has effectively stopped such discussions in the past and now perhaps altogether.
[Reply]
July 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
On balance, I concur with Joseph’s assessment of the health care crisis. Every other western nation provides various ranges of health care for all of its citizens, and has been doing so for decades. Our health care system is in a stranglehold of the health insurance industry. The death grip from this ruthless industry has hampered our nation’s businesses from competing effectively in the continuing globalization of economic realities. Their constant rate increases grow unabated unlike any other sector of our economy, while a concurrent lack of coverage to paying policy holders declines. That’s an outrage that must change and only, “We the People,” can change it.
The argument that significantly changing the way our country receives health care is akin to stealing is a specious argument. Our tax revenues go to a myriad of applications that include wars most citizens disagree with, to agricultural subsidies that border on the ridiculous, to funding weapons systems that are unneccesary. Giving citizens a health insurance option seems to be a workable and acceptable alternative to maintaining a system that enriches an industry that conspicuously over charges and under serves. Three out of four people polled recently said they wanted the option from the government for health care insurance.
The great Mark Twain divined how our system is supposed to work. “In a republic, the government is a servant: Its function is to obey orders…”
[Reply]
Allison Bricker Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Forgive me Joseph as my “propter hoc” reference stems not from a claim or lack thereof to private medicine “causing death”, but from the inference made that somehow socialized medicine is the causation salvation to infant mortality rates, life expectancy etcetera.
However, after rereading the post, it is still difficult for me to see any other modus operendi in listing such statistical facts than one of proxy support by inference.
Additionally, comparing government’s role in slavery on one hand and health care on the other is an utter strawman. The protection of an individual’s inherent liberty is the reason governments are instituted as necessary. However, health care falls far beyond the role of protecting life, property, and the right to pursue happiness and instead intrudes upon our family’s health freedom by coercive taxation.
We purposely choose not to have a full blown insurance coverage as the premiums are exorbitant wastes of money. Instead we freely choose to purchase a highly affordable “catastrophic” policy which covers emergencies/hospitalizations with the remainder of our health care budget put aside into a personal health savings account.
Somehow we manage with a family of four whilst residing in a lower income bracket.
Silly us, guess we should just let the nanny state decide for us in matters related to health.
This is wholly incorrect. Our tax dollars do not fund wars, pay out agricultural subsidies, build highways, fund public education, or go towards any other “good intentions” from government.
Every last cent collected from taxes goes transfer payments and to pay the interest on the national debt at a split of 80/20 respectively.
Thus our government borrows more money from the private bank to fund the bloated multitude of programs offered by the central authority.
Moreover, you are free to call my argument spurious in that forcibly taking from one to give to another is theft, however tis the definition of the word.
Just because the government mafia is the one sticking its hands in taxpayers pocket to assist in easing the concious of the other who desires the socialist benefit of government health care, does not somehow magically change the dictionary definition of theft.
Theft by proxy might be a more adequate descriptor, but theft it remains nonetheless.
Then again, perhaps the government dictionary of doublespeak is where former Vice-President Cheney was able to discern that water-boarding is not torture.
Finally, not one proponent of such a flawed system has yet been able to offer reconciliation of the numbers.
The government cannot provide quality health care for 3% of the population (3 million active/retired veterans) yet somehow the HOPE train is going to cover 300 million plus.
Give me a break.
Oh yes, but have no fear, the war will pay for itself, there is no housing bubble, unemployment will top out at 8.5% in 2009, the surge will work, no more torture under Obama and all the rest of the litany of lies and false hope offered by the benevolent hand of government.
[Reply]
July 11th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Wow! I guess the phrase, “On the Same page,” has new meaning based on your response, Allison. The quote from my post you refer to is grossly misinterpreted, and I stand by it in spite of your argumentative “stretch” to the contrary. Furthermore, nowhere in my post do I use the word “spurious.” I said your argument was “specious” or deceptive, by definition. “Spurious”, according to my copy of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary means “false.” At no point in my post do I justify the objections you raise to what elected government officials have said or represented. The proposal I advocated to change the inequities of our current health care system calls for the “option” for another means of health insurance. You would still be perfectly free to choose a private insurance choice in spite of anything I might have to say about any private insurer.
The primary emphasis of my position is that if the “people” want to change the system of health care delivery, they can, through their elected representatives, just like the framers intended and was underscored by President Lincoln at Gettysburg in 1863, “Of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
It’s obvious you don’t side with our current government’s elected representatives. I don’t side with them on lots of things, either. I respect your dissent from my view, but in your dissent, please make it based on the words I use, and not words you “thought” I used or meanings you “thought” I meant.
[Reply]