One of the right’s primary arguments against a single-payer national health system is it will be more expensive than private insurance. They argue against another federal program. What they have not recognized is all other countries that have public health plans are actually cheaper than the US as expressed in expenditures per GDP and per capita. In addition, public health systems in some cases provide better overall health service as measured through an increased life expectancy.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks member state’s health systems. They issue an annual study on the cost of health care and the overall effectiveness of the various systems. In their latest report on the US, they note of member countries, only the US, Mexico and Korea rely primarily on private health insurance to provide medical care. The median amount of GDP spent on health care of 29 countries has fluctuated between 7.9 and 8.4 for 2000-2003. For 2000-2003, US health expense as a percentage of GDP was 13.1%, 13.8%, 14.6% and 15% respectively – by far the highest total of all countries. Germany was the next most expensive country and their totals for the same years (2000-2003) were 10.6%, 10.8%, 10.9%, 11.1%, respectively. So, as a percentage of GDP basis, the US spends between 34% and 75% more as a percentage of GDP than countries that rely primarily on public funds to provide health service.
The OECD also breaks health expenses down into amount spent per capita. For the last four years (2000-2003), the median per capital expense for 29 OECD countries ranged from $2010 to 2248. Over the same years, the US once again spent more than any other OECD country, with figures for 2000-2003 of $4539, $4888, $5287 and $5635. Over the same time, Switzerland ranked second in per capita expenditures and Germany third. It’s important to notice that the US’s private health care system routinely spends at least twice as much per person than other countries with public health systems.
So, the US spends the most on health care. Our system must provide some incredible benefits! Actually, the US benefits are below median for all OECD countries. In 1990, the median life expectancy of males and females for all OECD countries 75.5 years, while the US’ number was 75.3. In 2000, the OECD median life expectancy was 78 and the US’s was 76.8. In 2003, the OECD’s number was 78.5 and the US’ was n77.2. For the years 2000-2003, the OECD’s infant mortality rate as expressed as number of deaths per 1000 decreased from 5.1 in 2000 to 4.3 in 2003. In contrast, the US’ numbers increased from 6.9 in 2000 to 7 in 2003. So, in OECD countries, people are living longer and fewer kids are dying.
Countries with public health insurance spend less per GDP and per capita on health expenses, they live longer, and fewer infants die. That sounds damn good to me, but then again I like facts instead of faith.
I’m not convinced that your conclusions follow from your premises through this line of argument. While the US definitely pays more for less benefit, one would think that Mexico and (S?) Korea would be next up in per-capita-GDP. Either their health care benefits are horrifically below median or the problem is the US‘ private health care model, rather than a private health care model in general.
Though looking at the actual data, Korea and Mexico appear to have absolutely abysmal benefits, if I’m reading it right. But you really should mention this in your article.
Regarding Mexico, they are attempting to make the transition to first work status, but aren’t there yet. They have a ton of problems still. In this analysis, I consider them an anomyly rather than a serious system to consider.
South Korea is different, largely because they are most surely part of the industrialized world. One reason could simply be they have a much smaller population. In addition, Asian countries are much more savings oriented, so it’s possible the average S. Korean consumer simply has more money set-aside if there is a problem.
However, I think your observation is a good one. The US’ system is, well, pretty bad.
However, I still think the conclusion that public health has superior benefits is solid for the simple reason people are more prone to use a system that won’t send them into bankruptcy court. There is a great deal of evidence that people who don’t have insurance — and even people who do — avoid using it because of the cost involved.
Also note that Korea’s (eg) infant mortality rates are still pretty horrible in many of the years listed. And often, there simply isn’t any data. So of the three included countries with private health care systems, all either have absurd costs, horrible benefits, or both.
At the very least, it shows that single-payer public health care is not significantly worse in any respect than private health care, and is very possibly significantly better.
I have a concern that your average statistics for the US may hide the fact that for the majority of people, the situation is far worse. The fortunate wealthy few (for whom cost is not an issue) get excellent health care while the great majority of us get whatever health care is served up by our employers (“Be grateful for what you’ve got”) or have no health care at all beyond public assistance, which is fast becoming a memory.
Our public health situation thus incresingly bears a greater resemblance to a third-world nation than it does to Europe, Canada, or other advanced nations.
Readers / commenters of this diary may be interested in the following:
In some countries, the longer life and fewer dead kids will be seen as a benefit to society.
In the US, medical treatment as a market-driven commercial product is seen as a benefit to a high profit industry.
Apples and oranges.
The cons act like public health care is blasphemy against their free market religion. The system that’s in place now serves their god well. But not the people.
because of that word alone is a major reason why the American government stays away from a public health
program. That We would copy anything from the communist hand book would defy America’s stance on capitalism.
It is like the label liberal- it represents deviant behavior to those on the right. They won’t even look or consider all the good stuff of being free and liberal.
I am not trying to minimize this debate but the power of WORDS to many keep many from looking at the reality of the benefits of some aspects of socialism and liberalism.
IMHO