They always say the US has the best health care in the world

Studies have actually been done on this topic - unhealthy lifestyles, health risks and costs to a health care system. It's certainly a topic of interest in countries that do have a universal health care system.

The interesting thing is that, if you're only looking at lifetime medical costs incurred to the health care system, the most expensive patients are nonsmoking, nonobese people.

Here is a link to one recent study.

That study found that although annual health-care costs are highest for obese people earlier in life, and are highest for smokers at older ages, the lifetime costs are highest for the healthy people. Life expectancy from age 20 is reduced by 5 years for obese people and 7 for smokers. The consequence is that healthy people live to incur greater medical expenditure, more than compensating for the earlier excess expenditure related to obesity or smoking.

---

All of this is obviously quite apart from the moral question (along the lines of "Do we want people who cannot afford quality health insurance to quietly succumb to their illness?").

The hospital in which the unfortunate woman died was run by the State and it provided free care to the indigent (of which the victim was one) under a government operated and funded program.

Clearly the solution to this problem is the creation of ever more ubiquitous and intrusive government operation of health care facilities and programs !

universal health care government run health care


But you know that of course, george!

I suggest you look into how the Germans and Australians do it. The Australian system would be the easiest for the US to adopt, but the German system is actually better for most.

I assume you have work for a company that will pay your health insurance until you die.

georgeob was a career navy man.

That explains it, he has lifetime government health care paid for by the American tax payer. Thanks CI.

No you are both ill-informed and in the grip of inaccurate prejudgements. Retired military personnel do not normally get access to Military health care facilities. Instead we are covered by a government paid insurance program that has high annual and individual deductables and which purports to pay for only a specified portion of covered expenses. If the individual is also covered by another private or government program such as company-paid benefits or Medicare, then they take precedence and there is virtually no additional benefit to the retiree.

I do have some additional coverage from the VA, based on a combat related injury (high speed ejection), which provides some annual screening and specific treatment of any residual effects of the injury. However the VA hospital is far away and not generally a practical alternative.

However, I am still employed and am covered by a fairly typical company Blue Cross policy for which I pay about 20% of the premiums.

By the way, every American over the age of 65 - even those who didn't spend seven years at sea and 2+ in combat assignments - has lifetime medical care paid for by the U.S. taxpayers through Medicare.

Actually George, if you were covered 100% for health care by my tax money I would be fine with it. I would rather my tax money go to the health of Americans than new roads in Iraq. I hope you will always be comfortably covered, but for myself, the next generation of US children and American businesses - I will vote and fight for a national plan.

I am quite certain OB1 is glad he does not rely on the VA for his health care...

I do know that. However, whether the Universal system is wholly or partly government operated such as those in Canada and the UK or based on government-mandated insurance schemes, the government sets the limits for coverage - particularly for the poor and the indigant - through its budget decisions. That is why these are generally hotly debated political issues in most countries with such systems.

More to the point, however, government-mandated universal health care is not a remedy for the callous indifference and inhumanity illustrated by the incident Gus reported that launched this thread.

But you know that, of course, old europe!

I have always thought that health and lifestyle issues that cost the medical system $$, like smoking cessation products, birth control, condoms, detoxes and rehabs for alcohol and drug-related addictions, diet products, etc., should be provided free if the governments of any country were truly serious about the health and preventative health of their citizens.

Would it not save $$ in the long run?

Sounds nice, but I doubt that it works well. Most of the folks I have encountered who were suffering in the grip of such "lifestyle" issues (drug/alcohol/tobacco addiction) weren't continuing their harmful habits only because no help was available. "Help" isn't usually very successful in the absence of an act of the will of the victim, and, with such a committment , success usually occurs even in the absence of "help". Most state methodone programs for heroin addicts simply involve perpetual substitution of one drug (freely supplied) for another.

I believe the chief benefits of such programs are the palliative to the sensibilities of observers, and employment for those who administer them.

I totally agree Mame. However, Americans love to be "penny wise and pound foolish". The typical insurance coverage for alcohol and drug rehab is less than two weeks. We preach abstinence in our teen sex and STD courses instead of birth control/condoms, and then the conservatives want to reverse the laws on legal abortions and close down family planning centers. We are the descendants of Puritans - Suffering is good, but not as good as the suffering of others.

The only entirely successful government program for the elimination of a widespread addiction that I am aware of occurred in China in the early 1050s.

How did we scoot from health care to addiction, I got lost...

Reader's Digest Version:

Stray Cat, three pages ago - "Should universal health care cover smokers?"

Liberal people - "yes"

Conservative people - "no"

Mame - "Governments should help people get over these addictions"

Liberal people - 'yes"

Conservative people - "no"

Re: Abortions and their associated costs in Canada (and this is old - 2001):

Since no level of government has released cost figures for abortion, we can only estimate what the direct costs of abortion are. (These estimates exclude any indirect costs, that is, costs for follow-up procedures for immediate complications and side effects, and longer-term treatments for associated post-abortion problems. See book, Women's Health After Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence . Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles. The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research, 2002.)

We use the figure of $80 million a year, based on an average cost of $800 per abortion for 100,000 abortions. In 2001, the Canadian Institute for Health Information reported 106,418 abortions. They admit that is at least 10% below the actual number of abortions performed because of reporting problems from some provinces and private clinics. So, the $80 million figure is already low for the 2001 year and if past trends continue, the number of abortions has undoubtedly increased in the past two years.

We arrived at the average cost of $800 based on the following numbers published by abortion advocates and in the media. Since hospital abortions constitute roughly two-thirds of all abortions performed in Canada, we used an average of the $500 cost (at the low end) of a clinic abortion and $1000 (again, at the low end) estimate for hospital abortions. We are quite comfortable that the $800 cost per abortion is in fact a very low, conservative estimate of the cost and that the $80 million a year figure is probably an underestimate of how much taxpayers spend on medically unnecessary abortions.

Here are the published estimates of the cost of abortion.

. "The average cost for an early surgical abortion at a private abortion clinic is about $500, while the cost for the same abortion at a hospital can exceed $1000," said Joyce Arthur of Pro-CAN. "Hospitals have bigger bureaucracies and more overhead. Most use general anesthesia for abortions, while clinics use less expensive local anesthesia and conscious sedation. Abortion clinics deliver more 'bang for the buck' than hospitals."

www.prochoiceactionnetwork -canada.org/release-Nov-29-02.html

. Abortions are significantly more expensive in hospitals. An early surgical abortion at a clinic costs between $450 and $550, while the same abortion at a hospital can be estimated at about $900 to $1200.

www.prochoiceactionnetwork -canada.org/release-Nov-29-02.html

. About 500 abortions are performed at Morgentaler's clinic in Fredericton each year. Patients pay between $475 and $725.

. There are about 105,000 abortions in Canada annually, and it is widely believed that more ready access to emergency contraception could cut that number substantially. At $25 (plus another $20 or so for the pharmacist's counselling fee), Plan B is, in crudely economic terms, much more cost-effective than an abortion, which costs upward of $600 (without mentioning the emotional and moral issues related to abortion).

from: http://www.lifecanada.org/html/defunded%20abortion/cost.html

and from 2004:

We use the figure of $80 million a year, based on an average cost of $800 per abortion for 100,000 abortions. In 2004, the Canadian Institute for Health Information reported 100,039 abortions performed in Canada on Canadian women. They admit that is at least 10% below the actual number of abortions performed because of reporting problems from some provinces and private clinics. Also, in 2004 the number of abortions performed in Manitoba clinics went unreported. So, the $80 million figure is already low for the 2004 year.

Since hospital abortions constitute more than half of all abortions performed in Canada, we used an average of the $500 cost (at the low end) of a clinic abortion and $1000 (again, at the low end) estimate for hospital abortions. The $800 cost per abortion is in fact a very conservative estimate and the $80 million a year figure is probably an underestimate of how much taxpayers spend on medically unnecessary abortions.
Some published estimates on the cost of abortion

* "Abortions at clinics are significantly more cost-effective than abortions at hospitals (mostly because hospitals use general anaesthesia (sic) rather than a local anaesthesia (sic)). The average cost for an early surgical abortion at a clinic is about $500, while the cost for the same abortion at a hospital can exceed $1000."

from: http://www.abortionincanada.ca/funding/index.html



I don't know how much birth control pills cost but I suspect it's a lot less than $80M per year!

And not all pregnant single women have abortions, meaning the cost to the 'system' can be a lot more than having an abortion.

GW, thanks for the cliff notes.

Ima drop an opinion and move to the gallery.

If the government says its legal and taxes the hell out of it, the plan ought to cover the victims.

The following stats represents California, but I'm pretty sure it generally speaks for all the states as far as ratio of cost between students and prisoners.


COST PER INMATE IN A CALIFORNIA PRISON

We calculated the annual incarceration costs per inmate for each of the 32 state-run prisons operating during fiscal year 1996-97, as well as a statewide cost per inmate. Our calculation includes all operating and capital costs. We found that annual incarceration costs per inmate vary significantly from one prison to another, depending on each prison's security levels, facility types, and age. Annual costs per inmate for the 32 prisons ranged from $18,562 to $38,554 per year.



EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT IN CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS K - 12

Expenditures per K-12 Pupil in Fall Enrollment for California
Over the Last 10 Years
.........California......Rank.....U.S Average
2005-06 $8,486......29........$9,100
2004-05 $7,935......30........$8,717
2003-04 $7,745......27........$8,340
2002-03 $7,580......26........$8,065



What we're seeing is what taxpayers pay per student vs. per prisoner in California.

It would make more sense to spend $18,562 per student and $8,486 per prisoner.
If we had the foresight to spend on students to succeed at an early age, the incidence of crime should drop automatically.

It's the same with health care; take care of societies health needs first, and the cost should automatically reduce based on prevention and early diagnosis of health problems.

The longer one waits to get health care, the worse the patient's health becomes at much higher cost. Most delays also makes it harder to cure.