Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Well if Wikipedia is the only source available for information on this subject, I think we're in big trouble.

Here's a relatively short study piece that provides some interesting information on the subject:

Comparing Government Healthcare Costs in Ten OECD Countries
"The expansion of government benefit levels -- defined as average inflation-adjusted government healthcare expenditures on people at a given age -- explains three quarters of the growth in public healthcare expenditures since 1970."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In recent decades, government healthcare spending in industrialized countries has grown much faster than GDP. Although researchers have investigated a number of contributing factors, including improvements in medical technology, population aging, medical inefficiency, waste, and unhealthy behavior, relatively little is known about how much each factor contributes to overall cost growth. In Who's Going Broke? Comparing Healthcare Costs in Ten OECD Countries (NBER Working Paper No. 11833), coauthors Laurence Kotlikoff and Christian Hagist conclude that the expansion of government benefit levels -- defined as average inflation-adjusted government healthcare expenditures on people at a given age -- explains three quarters of the growth in public healthcare expenditures since 1970.

On average, inflation-adjusted government expenditures on healthcare in the ten countries that are the focus of this paper have grown by nearly 5 percent per year since 1970. Absent any growth in government benefit levels, demographic change would have caused government healthcare spending to grow by 1.23 percent per year. The United States had the highest annual government healthcare spending growth rate over the period, 6.23 percent per year, or twice its average GDP growth rate of 3.1 percent. Had U.S. government benefit levels not grown, U.S. government healthcare spending would have grown at half the rate of U.S. GDP.

The data on benefit growth suggest that healthcare is a "luxury good." As income rises, governments, acting on behalf of the public, spend proportionately more on healthcare. The authors estimate the percentage change in government healthcare spending for a given percentage change in per capita GDP growth: they find that rates range from 1.1 in Canada to 2.3 in the United States, with a ten-country average of 1.7.

Profiles of government health spending by age show significant variability across countries. Per capita government healthcare expenditures on those over age 74 are twice as high as on people 50-to-64-years old in Austria, Germany, Spain, and Sweden. In the United States, government expenditures on the elderly are 8 to 12 times higher than on those aged 50 to 64. In Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, the relative spending factors range from 4 to 8.

Assuming that benefits will continue to grow at historic rates for the next 20, 40, or 60 years, Kotlikoff and Hagist "age" the population to determine the present value of projected government health spending as a fraction of the present value of projected GDP. Assuming that benefit levels grow at historic rates for the next 40 years and then grow at the same rate as per capita GDP and assuming a 7 percent discount rate, the United States, Norway, and Germany are slated to spend around 12 percent of their future output on government health spending. At a 3 percent discount rate, the U.S. government will spend around 19 percent of future GDP on health, followed by Norway at 17 percent, and Japan at 13 percent.

Because "American's elderly are politically very well organized, and each cohort of retirees has, since the 1950s, used its political power to extract ever greater transfers from contemporaneous workers," the authors conclude that the fiscal fallout of expanding healthcare benefits is likely to be "particularly severe" for the United States, imposing "a huge additional fiscal burden on the American public. Norway is in similar shape in terms of its healthcare costs, but Norway does not have to bear the burden of paying for a large military. In addition, it has significant oil wealth to help cover its costs.

-- Linda Gorman
http://www.nber.org/digest/jul06/w11833.html

It seems definite that there will be a train crash when the congress runs into the administration. Cheney says he has no intention of cooperating with the Dem-controlled congress. Congress will then have no alternative but to turn on the heat.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061201.html

Certainly not: the related agencies of those countries give a lot of infos as well:


Norwegian Board of Health: http://www.helsetilsynet.no/templates/sectionpage____5499.aspx


Ministère de la Santé du Grand Duché Luxembourg: http://www.ms.etat.lu/

[Sorry, but for whatever reasons I can't post the URL's as links]

A statement obvious enough to be thought a tad stoopid in the saying of it, fox.

But in response to some of McG's questions, wikipedia can offer up some helpful general information. As in...

(under "universal health care")

blatham, Costa Rica also has universal health care system. Over and above that, Costa Rica is free of discrimination and no military. Smart governments are few in this world.

Question...

If a totally govt run health program is so good,and if it is what the majority of people in countries like Canada and the UK want,why do so many people from those countries come to the US for surgeries?

And why do so many Americans go to India for surgery?

Cost.
Its less expensive in India.

But that doesnt explain why people that get all their medical treatments for free,at a state run hospital,choose to come here and pay for their surgery themselves.

mm, You have any first hand proof about what you're claiming? I've met several Canuks who tell me they're happy with their health plan.

In other words, what has universal health care have to do with people going to other countries for medical treatment? The idea behind universal health care is to provide health care to all citizens irregardless of ability to pay. DUH!

Plastic surgery.

Hey, if you trust the CIA World Factbook, you could always look up this table here:

Rank Order - Life expectancy at birth

The US are ranking 48th, so that's not so bad at all...

Published on Sunday, February 13, 2000 in the Boston Gobe
http://www.globe.com/dailyglobe2/044/oped/The_efficiency_of_universal_health_careP.shtml
The Efficiency of Universal Health Care
by Robert Kuttner

Both political parties are finally paying attention to the complaints of doctors and patients alike that managed care is keeping sick people from getting necessary medical care. But patients' rights legislation, though overdue, does not address the system's more fundamental flaws.


Because the United States lacks a universal system, Americans fail to spend enough money on prevention. So, despite our spending nearly 14 percent of our national income on health care, we have average life expectancies about five years lower than Europeans or Japanese, even though those countries spend less than 10 percent of GDP on health.


Moreover, as our population ages, it becomes more and more expensive to treat. This is a dilemma everywhere, whether health insurance is private or social. And as science keeps inventing new ways to prolong life and health, it becomes economically impossible for the society to give every patient every possible treatment.


It is hard to admit, but some form of rationing necessarily operates in every society. Here are some aspects of rationing, American style: Failing to insure some 43 million Americans is a form of rationing. Devising payment systems that financially reward HMO doctors for restricting access to specialists and tests and hospital admissions is rationing. Limiting prescription drugs covered by insurance is also rationing. Not having enough nurses leads to rationing of care on hospital wards. And the fact that well-off people can pay out of pocket for medical services not covered by insurance is the most fundamental form of rationing.


Of course, countries with universal health systems also have rationing. The issue is more politicized in such countries because government is explicitly responsible. Here, it's hard to know exactly whom to blame if your HMO bribes your doctor to keep you from seeing a specialist.


In Canada, some elective surgery is not covered or provided only after long waits (try telling someone who needs a hip replacement that this is elective.) In Britain, many standard cancer therapies are not covered by the National Health Service. But the rationing that operates in the British system is not the result of socialized medicine. It is, rather, the result of successive Tory governments thinking they could provide decent medical care by spending as little as 6 percent of GDP, a percentage that's only now being slowly increased under the first Labor government in two decades.


Whether a system is private or social, 6 percent of GDP doesn't buy adequate care. Twelve percent does just fine. But interestingly enough, because their universal systems are so much more efficient, countries that spend far less than we do actually buy better health care. That's because the most effective route to good general health is via basic public health measures. Such measures include universal sanitation, universal vaccination for preventable diseases, prenatal and baby care, screening for conditions that can benefit from early treatment, and universal annual checkups, as well as public education on factors that affect health, such as diet, exercise, and lifestyle. Even poorer nations, which spend far less than we do, have better longevity statistics because a universal system naturally invests relatively more in public health.


Britain, despite its threadbare system of medical treatment, covers everyone. So it actually has an average life expectancy (at birth) of about 78 years, compared with 75 years in the United States. Other countries with universal systems that spend 9 or 10 percent of GDP have life expectancies over 80 years.

How many Canadians go to the US for surgeries? How do you know this? How many Americans go to Europe for treatments? How do you know that and what would it mean? How many Dutch pick up secondary infections from some source in the hospital where they are treated? How many Americans? How many American children die in the first year of life and how does that figure compare to Britain or France, for example?

The majority of Americans (as I understand it) wish to move to a fuller and more comprehensive medical system such as is meant by terms like "universal healthcare". The majority of citizens in countries who have universal healthcare don't want to change.

But, ideology ought to trump any of that.

Bush now at 27.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/08/america/NA_GEN_US_Iraq_AP_Poll.php

Well, as our friend foxfyre says < "the majority should always rule"

I was listening to a commentary last night of the different things the Democrats have suggested be investigated now that they will have a majority in Congress (and on all committees) and can do whatever they please about that. If they follow through on all of them, it's going to be a long two years.

State of war II

RAMADI, Iraq -- "If everything went as planned, they wouldn't call it 'war.'" That was the tongue-in-cheek assessment of a U.S. Marine Major as to why our helicopter flight from Baghdad to Ramadi had been delayed for half a day. By the time we arrived on the LZ at this outpost of freedom it was the middle of an unusually cold, damp night. A proffered hot cup of coffee was gratefully accepted as the Major helped us load our backpacks, camera gear and satellite broadcast equipment aboard a dust-encrusted Humvee. Just hours later, this widely respected and much admired Marine officer and two brave U.S. Army soldiers were dead, killed by an IED -- an improvised explosive device -- the insidious weapon of choice for terrorists in Iraq.

The tragic loss of three more Americans in bloody Al Anbar province -- like the four who were killed in a CH-46 crash the day we arrived for this, our eighth "tour of duty" in Iraq -- will be cited by critics of this war as proof that it cannot be won. That's the essence of an exchange earlier this week between Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), soon-to-be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Robert Gates at his confirmation hearing to become the next Secretary of Defense:

Sen. Levin: "Do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?"

Gates: "No sir."

Gates hastily added that, "we're not losing either," but also said he sees "the very real risk and possible reality of a regional conflagration." In short, his testimony was seized upon in Washington as yet another depressing appraisal of the war in Iraq.

To the so-called mainstream media and our political elites it hardly matters that President Bush disagrees with such dismal assessments. White House spokesman Tony Snow noted that the president still believes the United States is winning in Iraq. "What I think is demoralizing is a constant effort to try to portray this as a losing mission," Snow added.

The soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines with whom we're embedded here in Ramadi concur with their commander in chief. Not one of the many with whom we have spoken since arriving here believes that they are failing in their mission. They see the growing ability of the Iraqi army and police as proof of their effectiveness -- and evidence that this war is heading toward a favorable outcome for the country that they volunteered to serve -- and the people of Mesopotamia.

Unfortunately, the judgment of those with "boots on the ground" doesn't seem to much matter to the masters of the media and many of the power brokers on the Potomac. Just a day after Gates delivered his negative prognosis, President Bush tersely announced that he had received the much-leaked final report of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group (ISG). Flanked by committee co-chairmen, former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, Bush described the report as a "tough assessment" that he will take seriously in seeking a strategy for the way forward in the Middle East and Iraq.

Eyewitness participants here are understandably reluctant to comment on a report that they have not read in its entirety, but privately many express grave concerns that it appears to be at odds with what those who are fighting this war are seeing. After a single four-day visit to Baghdad the ISG finds the situation here to be "grave and deteriorating" and accused the Pentagon of "under-reporting" the violence in Iraq.

The report calls for a "new" emphasis on training Iraqis to assume greater responsibility for their own security. Yet, it pays scant attention to dramatic improvements in the capabilities of Iraqi police and Army units being wrought by Military Transition Teams (MTTs). One MTT officer who has lived with his Iraqi counterparts for months dryly observed, "I wonder what the hell they think I've been doing out here?"

As forecast in a stream of pre-release "leaks" the ISG recommended that, "Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively." And in a strange conclusion ignoring the long-term, global jihad being waged against the West, the committee found a link between a successful outcome in this war to a "right of return" for Palestinians who left Israel since the founding of the Jewish state.

Negative news is nothing new in war -- neither Gates nor the Iraq Study Group is unique in that. In 1944, after the Japanese began making Kamikaze suicide attacks during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, there were those who suggested that winning the war was becoming too costly. They were wrong then -- and they are wrong today. Winning that war was crucial. Winning this one is too, if the sacrifices being made today are to be worth anything.

We note how fox's cartoonist has painted the surface of the water in dark opagues. Prudent.