Healthcare in America - Myths Refuted

CanadianKid

New member
Health Care Excuses

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 9, 2007
The United States spends far more on health care per person than any other nation. Yet we have lower life expectancy than most other rich countries. Furthermore, every other advanced country provides all its citizens with health insurance; only in America is a large fraction of the population uninsured or underinsured.

You might think that these facts would make the case for major reform of America’s health care system — reform that would involve, among other things, learning from other countries’ experience — irrefutable. Instead, however, apologists for the status quo offer a barrage of excuses for our system’s miserable performance.

So I thought it would be useful to offer a catalog of the most commonly heard apologies for American health care, and the reasons they won’t wash.

Excuse No. 1: No insurance, no problem.

“I mean, people have access to health care in America,” said President Bush a few months ago. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.” He was widely mocked for his cluelessness, yet many apologists for the health care system in the United States seem almost equally clueless.

We’re told, for example, that there really aren’t that many uninsured American citizens, because some of the uninsured are illegal immigrants, while some of the rest are actually entitled to Medicaid. This misses the point that the 47 million people in this country without insurance are an ever-changing group, so that the experience of being without insurance extends to a much broader group — in fact, more than one in every three people in America under the age of 65 was uninsured at some point in 2006 or 2007.

Oh, and finding out that you’re covered by Medicaid when you show up at an emergency room isn’t at all the same thing as receiving regular medical care.

Beyond that, a large fraction of the population — about one in four nonelderly Americans, according to a Consumer Reports survey — is underinsured, with “coverage so meager they often postponed medical care because of costs.”

So, yes, lack of insurance is a very big problem, a problem that reaches deep into the middle class.

Excuse No. 2: It’s the cheeseburgers.

Americans don’t have a bad health system, say the apologists, they just have bad habits. Overeating and teenage sex, not the huge overhead of America’s private health insurance companies — the United States spends almost six times as much on health care administration as other advanced countries — are the source of our problems.

There’s a grain of truth to this claim: Bad habits may partially explain America’s low life expectancy. But the big question isn’t why we have lower life expectancy than Britain, Canada or France, it’s why we spend far more on health care without getting better results. And lifestyle isn’t the explanation: the most definitive estimates, such as those of the McKinsey Global Institute, say that diseases that are associated with obesity and other lifestyle-related problems play, at most, a minor role in high U.S. health care costs.

Excuse No. 3: 2007 is better than 1950.

This is an argument that baffles me, but you hear it all the time. When you point out that America spends far more on health care than other countries, but gets worse results, the apologists reply: “Sure, we spend a lot of money on health care, but medical care is a lot better than it was in 1950, so it’s money well spent.” Huh?

It’s as if you went to a store to buy a DVD player, and the salesman told you not to worry about the fact that his prices are twice those of his competitors — after all, the machines on offer at his store are a lot better than they were five years ago. It is, in other words, an argument that makes no sense at all, yet respectable economists make it with a straight face.

Excuse No. 4: Socialized medicine! Socialized medicine!

Rudy Giuliani’s fake numbers on prostate cancer — which, by the way, he still refuses to admit were wrong — were the latest entry in a long, dishonorable tradition of peddling scare stories about the evils of “government run” health care.

The reality is that the best foreign health care systems, especially those of France and Germany, do as well or better than the U.S. system on every dimension, while costing far less money.

But the best way to counter scare talk about socialized medicine, aside from swatting down falsehoods — would journalists please stop saying that Rudy’s claims, which are just wrong, are “in dispute”? — may be to point out that every American 65 and older is covered by a government health insurance program called Medicare. And Americans like that program very much, thank you.

So, now you know how to answer the false claims you’ll hear about health care. And believe me, you’re going to hear them again, and again, and again.


Well Said Mr. Krugman....

America SPENDS the most money in the world and gets the WORST healthcare NOT because people are FAT, or LAWSUITS.....

It is because it is a FOR PROFIT system...Which is why "Administration" costs are 7x the OECD average....

Aka the HMOs, Big Pharmaceutical companies, Doctors...

Are all RIPPING OFF THE GOVERNMENT.....

Congratulations on wasting all your money!

CK
 
Good find CK. I can't understand why anyone would defend the US healthcare system on purely ideological grounds. I can understand the insurance companies protecting their turf, they're making a swag of money. But ordinary folks who are being screwed over time and time again babble on about "socialised medicine" without have a bloody clue what they're talking about. Americans are being conned badly by the vested interests.
 
Good find CK. I can't understand why anyone would defend the US healthcare system on purely ideological grounds. I can understand the insurance companies protecting their turf, they're making a swag of money. But ordinary folks who are being screwed over time and time again babble on about "socialised medicine" without have a bloody clue what they're talking about. Americans are being conned badly by the vested interests.

This is something I have never understood either. I believe there can only be one reason; the people blathering on about "socialized medicine" have very good plans. It's a case of "I got mine, too bad about you".
 
Maybe they think it makes them special if only they get get healthcare? So, you know, they know that they'd have just as good healthcar either way, and that it'd cost less, but they just spit on the poor for the sake of it.
 
France is utopia...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1130186,00.html

There’s a grain of truth to this claim: Bad habits may partially explain America’s low life expectancy. But the big question isn’t why we have lower life expectancy than Britain, Canada or France, it’s why we spend far more on health care without getting better results. And lifestyle isn’t the explanation: the most definitive estimates, such as those of the McKinsey Global Institute, say that diseases that are associated with obesity and other lifestyle-related problems play, at most, a minor role in high U.S. health care costs.

This makes little sense. He says the question is not why we have lower life expectancy, but why we pay more without better results. Uhhhh, the most used basis of what amounts to "better results" IS life expectancy. Obesity and lifestyle play HUGE roles in that. As does our homicide rate.

When you look at something a little more directly related to healthcare, like survival rates on certain illnesses, our results are pretty good.
 
This is something I have never understood either. I believe there can only be one reason; the people blathering on about "socialized medicine" have very good plans. It's a case of "I got mine, too bad about you".

Good point - and perhaps they should think, "what if I lose my job and plan?"
 
Good find CK. I can't understand why anyone would defend the US healthcare system on purely ideological grounds. I can understand the insurance companies protecting their turf, they're making a swag of money. But ordinary folks who are being screwed over time and time again babble on about "socialised medicine" without have a bloody clue what they're talking about. Americans are being conned badly by the vested interests.


Im not so sure it's really this simple. Won't socialized medicine mean a government created cartel of a few big companies who will get all government dollars? That's fascism. Surely they will use subcontracted corporations instead of taking managing the nations healthcare themselves. Maybe blackwater will be in on it.
 
Im not so sure it's really this simple. Won't socialized medicine mean a government created cartel of a few big companies who will get all government dollars? That's fascism. Surely they will use subcontracted corporations instead of taking managing the nations healthcare themselves. Maybe blackwater will be in on it.

No.
 

Socialized medicine will introduce previously unseen levels of monopoly dysfunction. In monopolies, consumers always get less and less as the cartels get lazier and lazier. This is a disservice to people. What we need is free market medicine handled by individuals instead of the fascists that employ them.
 
Socialized medicine will introduce previously unseen levels of monopoly dysfunction. In monopolies, consumers always get less and less as the cartels get lazier and lazier. This is a disservice to people. What we need is free market medicine handled by individuals instead of the fascists that employ them.

It would only be a monopoly if one company or one authority owned the delivery system of healthcare to the exclusion of anyone or anything else. In the UK, with its NHS, there are private businesses which deliver health care. In Australia, with its single payer scheme, there are private businesses which deliver health care, no monopoly here either.

I suppose I have to ask for your definition of "socialised medicine" now.
 
It would only be a monopoly if one company or one authority owned the delivery system of healthcare to the exclusion of anyone or anything else. In the UK, with its NHS, there are private businesses which deliver health care. In Australia, with its single payer scheme, there are private businesses which deliver health care, no monopoly here either.

I suppose I have to ask for your definition of "socialised medicine" now.

It's cartel-like, and will have similar effects. Government control of all vendor contracts is too much an opportunity for corruption and malfeasance. The whole scheme should be abandoned.
 
It's cartel-like, and will have similar effects. Government control of all vendor contracts is too much an opportunity for corruption and malfeasance. The whole scheme should be abandoned.

You're describing undesirable features of something without defining it. I asked you for your definition of "socialised medicine" and you gave me a list of undesirable traits. That's like me asking you what a Friesian (Holstein) is like and then your telling me about how bad ovine brucellosis is.

So, what are the main features - not undesirable characteristics - of socialised medicine?
 
You're describing undesirable features of something without defining it. I asked you for your definition of "socialised medicine" and you gave me a list of undesirable traits. That's like me asking you what a Friesian (Holstein) is like and then your telling me about how bad ovine brucellosis is.

So, what are the main features - not undesirable characteristics - of socialised medicine?

STFU.
 
Back
Top