The Government In Charge of Our Entire Health-Care System?

To be fair, one certainly should add how much money was spent in other countries by foreigners.

Otherwise it would be a distorted image, isn't it?

0 Replies

Good point, but I suspect that very few people travel to some countries for health care, as a comparison to the U.S. I happen to recall a few news stories about wealthy people from other places coming here, such as the Shah of Iran when he was alive, and some other royalties from other countries. I am sure the ones we hear about are only an extremely small number of those that do it. And they would likely go to the best and perhaps most expensive hospitals and clinics here. Plus I understand a large number of regular citizens from Canada, for example, come here, and I assume all of these types of expenditures are in the graphs cited.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Good point, but I suspect that very few people travel to some countries for health care, as a comparison to the U.S.

Your suspection is wrong, and proves again .... well, that you don't know a lot about healthcare systems.

0 Replies

<grins>

Let's try to take an objective look at the numbers, okay?

okie, you're saying that the higher per capita figures might be caused by foreigners spending money on health care in the US. I don't know if that's accounted for in those numbers, but let's put this into perspective.

The population of the United States is roughly 300 million people. So, to bring up the per capita figures for the US population by only $1, somebody would have to spend $300,000,000 in the US.

In order to explain away the difference between the United States and the country with the second highest per capita health expenses, Luxembourg, some foreigners would have to spend $314,700,000,000 in the United States.

To account for the difference between health care costs in the US and average OECD figures, some foreigners would have to spend $1,092,600,000,000 out of their pockets in the United States.

So, let's say that I'm a bit sceptical about that theory. If you can find any solid numbers, okie, I might be persuaded. But until then I'll go with the OECD figures.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Plus I understand a large number of regular citizens from Canada, for example, come here, and I assume all of these types of expenditures are in the graphs cited.

That's actually a good point. In some cases, I think it's likely that small countries just can't provide some very specialized health care. Miller has posted an example where New Zealand sent a family to the United States, because that kind of very special treatment was simply not available there.

Understandable, because New Zealand has a population of only about 4 million people.

But the government of New Zealand paid for the costs of the treatment, and you would think that in those cases (in contrast to people paying for the costs out of their own pockets) those figures would be reflected in the per capita health care costs of the respective country.

(In that one case, I seem to remember that New Zealand was paying 1.5 million dollars for the treatment. Giving the small population of New Zealand, this case alone would have skewed the number for that country. If that would happen frequently, it would let the health care costs skyrocket for smaller countries, while being barely noticeable for the United States.)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:
Good point, but I suspect that very few people travel to some countries for health care, as a comparison to the U.S.

Your suspection is wrong, and proves again .... well, that you don't know a lot about healthcare systems.

True, but look at the expenditures, not the number of people. Somebody might go to India to have a surgery for 10 grand that might cost ten times that in the U.S.

0 Replies

I've read that such is even offert as 'tour packages' by specialised US-travel agencies.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

True, but look at the expenditures, not the number of people. Somebody might go to India to have a surgery for 10 grand that might cost ten times that in the U.S.

.... which would, in theory, bring down the per capita health care costs in the US. Right?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

<grins>

Let's try to take an objective look at the numbers, okay?

Your point is well taken. It would take a tremendous amount to affect the numbers in a drastic way to bring them down below other countries, however, I suspect the amount might be more than suspected, so I think the magnitude of difference would decline. If illegal aliens comprise approaching 5 to 10% of this countries population, that could comprise a tremendous amount of money, particularly they are families with children and having children, although on the flip side, fewer are elderly.

I would just like to see some numbers, thats all. There are two factors at work here, illegals that require government expenditures plus maybe a lesser amount private, and legal visitors that would spend mostly private money.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
True, but look at the expenditures, not the number of people. Somebody might go to India to have a surgery for 10 grand that might cost ten times that in the U.S.

.... which would, in theory, bring down the per capita health care costs in the US. Right?

I am simply pointing out that the number of U. S. citizens going abroad for health care would have to be much greater than the number that come here to equal the same amount of money expended there vs here.

0 Replies

But we have to pay for it (= cash and get it back from our [private, additional] insurance).

0 Replies

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
True, but look at the expenditures, not the number of people. Somebody might go to India to have a surgery for 10 grand that might cost ten times that in the U.S.

.... which would, in theory, bring down the per capita health care costs in the US. Right?

I am simply pointing out that the number of U. S. citizens going abroad for health care would have to be much greater than the number that come here to equal the same amount of money expended there vs here.

Hm, sure, but I was talking about the money US citizens would save on treatments in the US. If an American would end up saving a huge amount of money by having his hip replacement done in India, that would bring down the per capita health care costs in the US.

0 Replies

Btw: my compulsory health insurance pays everything in all EU-countries (and their overseas territories) as well as in all ex-Jugoslavia countries and most countres on the Mediterranean Sea.

So do all the 242 other German compulsory health insurances as well as those from other EU-countries.

(In the UK, everyone gets free heath care, no matter from where she/he is.)

0 Replies

I admit I don't know the results of my question, I simply want to see a little more data behind the numbers, thats all. I would like to know how much of the expenditures on health care in the U.S. were as a result of illegal immigrants and legal non-citizens. I am making no grand prediction, I simply have a suspicion it could affect the graph somewhat, by how much I don't know.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I admit I don't know the results of my question, I simply want to see a little more data behind the numbers, thats all.

Well, okie, go for it.

It is, frankly, a mystery to me why the health care costs are that high in the United States. I would like to see an explanation for that as well.

(The current projections for per capita health care costs are $7,092 in 2006 and $7,498 in 2007, by the way. That's a lot of money.)

0 Replies

I will take an initial stab at it, oe. Reason #1, the U.S. is an extremely wealthy country, and so the country and people can afford to spend on health care, and both as a consequence and a driving force of that, alot of research and technical advancement is taking place in that field, which drives more expenditures. I am sure there are more reasons, but that is a good first overall reason.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

all EU-countries (and their overseas territories)

Are we feeling a wee bit colonial today, Walter?

<smiles>

Walter Hinteler wrote:

In the UK, everyone gets free heath care, no matter from where she/he is.

Yeah. Quite amazing. And from first-hand experience, I'd say the service is really good.

(Oh, and I know I've posted this graphic before, but this was a study done by the Commonwealth Fund, comparing Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States....)

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_img/MirrorMirror_FigureES1.gif

0 Replies

Apples and oranges. Also, explain the rankings and where they came from, otherwise it means nothing.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Apples and oranges. Also, explain the rankings and where they came from, otherwise it means nothing.

I posted the link to it....

But okay, let's keep looking at the expenditure figures...

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I will take an initial stab at it, oe. Reason #1, the U.S. is an extremely wealthy country, and so the country and people can afford to spend on health care, and both as a consequence and a driving force of that, alot of research and technical advancement is taking place in that field, which drives more expenditures. I am sure there are more reasons, but that is a good first overall reason.

Well, yes. The US is a wealthy country, but that doesn't make sense. In the country with the second highest per capita health care costs, Luxembourg, people make $71,400 (GDP per capita), but the per capita costs on health care were only $5,352 in 2005.

In comparison, Americans earned $44,000, but spent $6,401 on health care.

But the United States are not only spending more than any other nation in per capita $ figures, Americans also spend more on health care than any other OECD country when seen as a share of the GDP:

0 Replies

The Government In Charge of Our Entire Health-Care System?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know