Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Are socialized countries getting a better deal on health care?
[Richard Schwartz, "Higher cost, not better care," New York Daily News, The Lawrence Journal-World, 4 May 2005.]
The myth that government agencies can perform better because they don't have to make a profit seems to pervade the discussion of health care in certain circles:
America doesn't have the world's best health care system, just the most expensive. For those of you who worry about your health and wealth (i.e., everyone), that's mind-bogglingly bad news.
The numbers are grotesque. The United States spends 15.5 percent of its gross domestic product on health care, about $1.7 trillion a year. No other country comes close. Yet for all that money -- equal to the entire economic output of France -- 45 million Americans go without health insurance.
By the way, in France, which on a per-capita basis spends about half what we do on health care, everyone is insured. In fact, under France's universal health system, patients can visit doctors, even specialists, virtually any time they wish
National health would save us nearly $250 billion a year on administration alone.
In nations with just one payer -- the government -- the focus is on service and efficiency. Not only is that cheaper, but it's more equitable, since everyone gets covered. In a modern, industrialized nation, that's how things should be.
Can such claims be backed up? Not really. Arnold Kling explains in this Tech Central Station column:
Most of the increase in the share of health care spending in GDP in the United States from 1980 to 2003 was for real goods and services, as opposed to price increases. To see this, start by noting that in this data the share of health care spending in GDP in the U.S. was 7.7 percent in 1980 (our domestic measure differs somewhat from the OECD measure). Suppose that we extrapolated U.S. health care spending in 2003 based on 1980's level, plus population growth and health care inflation. In that case, spending would have been 8.1 percent of GDP in 2003. Instead, our accounts show a figure of 13.1 percent. The difference between 13.1 and 8.1 is the amount of the rise in the health care spending share that represents a real per capita increase in utilization. (In other words, from 1980 to 1993 GDP grew enough to absorb the increase in population and most of the increase in the relative prices of health care services. It was the doubling in the utilization of services that caused the surge in health care's share of GDP.)
All I can say at this point is if the United States were to undergo regime change and adopt socialized medicine based solely on the evidence as it exists today, that would represent a massive intelligence failure.
[See Charles W. Van Way, III, M.D., "The Strength of a Really Bad Idea," The Flint Hills Center.]
[Richard Schwartz, "Higher cost, not better care," New York Daily News, The Lawrence Journal-World, 4 May 2005.]
The myth that government agencies can perform better because they don't have to make a profit seems to pervade the discussion of health care in certain circles:
America doesn't have the world's best health care system, just the most expensive. For those of you who worry about your health and wealth (i.e., everyone), that's mind-bogglingly bad news.
The numbers are grotesque. The United States spends 15.5 percent of its gross domestic product on health care, about $1.7 trillion a year. No other country comes close. Yet for all that money -- equal to the entire economic output of France -- 45 million Americans go without health insurance.
By the way, in France, which on a per-capita basis spends about half what we do on health care, everyone is insured. In fact, under France's universal health system, patients can visit doctors, even specialists, virtually any time they wish
National health would save us nearly $250 billion a year on administration alone.
In nations with just one payer -- the government -- the focus is on service and efficiency. Not only is that cheaper, but it's more equitable, since everyone gets covered. In a modern, industrialized nation, that's how things should be.
Can such claims be backed up? Not really. Arnold Kling explains in this Tech Central Station column:
Most of the increase in the share of health care spending in GDP in the United States from 1980 to 2003 was for real goods and services, as opposed to price increases. To see this, start by noting that in this data the share of health care spending in GDP in the U.S. was 7.7 percent in 1980 (our domestic measure differs somewhat from the OECD measure). Suppose that we extrapolated U.S. health care spending in 2003 based on 1980's level, plus population growth and health care inflation. In that case, spending would have been 8.1 percent of GDP in 2003. Instead, our accounts show a figure of 13.1 percent. The difference between 13.1 and 8.1 is the amount of the rise in the health care spending share that represents a real per capita increase in utilization. (In other words, from 1980 to 1993 GDP grew enough to absorb the increase in population and most of the increase in the relative prices of health care services. It was the doubling in the utilization of services that caused the surge in health care's share of GDP.)
All I can say at this point is if the United States were to undergo regime change and adopt socialized medicine based solely on the evidence as it exists today, that would represent a massive intelligence failure.
[See Charles W. Van Way, III, M.D., "The Strength of a Really Bad Idea," The Flint Hills Center.]
Comments:
Post a Comment
