There are lots of variables involved that you don't mention. Many millions of dollars are spent annually to study the very things that you conclude in a single sentence. Maybe you should be a government consultant!
Actually, I was a consultant in the Defense sector, so I'm familiar with the notion of complex issues and have done my share of extensive studies.
The first time I looked at health care statistics was as a result of a post that said "Canada is going bankrupt with socialized medicine"; zero supporting detail provided. So I did a very simple fact check and found that Canada spends far less than the US as a %GDP. Does that support "Canada is going bankrupt with socialized medicine"? I don't think so.
What I observe from the conservative segment, is that global conclusions are readily accepted with absolutely no supporting data and when the data begins to show the apparent conflict they shift to ... it's a very complex issue with lots of factors, so you can't make that conclusion. Still clutching to their conclusion.
I have friends and acquaintances with PhD's who spend their careers studying and reporting on these things, and their conclusions to date are largely inconclusive or negative (re further government expenditure and socialized medicine), but always "requiring further research" (via grants and contracts).<g>
Two comments.
(1) They really should get a real job for at least a while, i.e., producing something other than paper. It really does alter ones perspective on research for the better, IMO.
(2) I never did a study that wasn't immediately followed by a short paper on proposed "further study" <s>.
(3) I have a friend in health care and a niece [volunteer] in Social Services, both are frustrated that people in the lower income brackets don't take advantage of various programs intended to help that group. Especially the programs [and there were several] targetted at pregnant women. I've asked both of them what I thought was a simple and obvious question. How would the women know that such programs exist? With a thoughfull pause, both said there really is no way for them [largely] to know about the programs. One advantage of universal health care is everyone knows that they have health care.
So I have a preliminary conclusion that having additional programs targetting one group or one problem would be largely ineffective and a waste of money. But that's preliminary and would require further study.
-----
I think there is a fundamental question that can be argued, but is not arguable. Should all persons within a country have practical access to reasonable health care? It's a societal decision. A number of countries have decided that the answer to that question is: yes, and have chosen universal health care as the means to achieve it. The US has has decided the answer is: no. And we have the system that we have.
All the countries that have chosen universal health care, appear to have pretty good national statistics compared to the US. Yet for some reason, I keep on hearing from Americans that the US has the best health care system in the world. I don't understand the basis for that claim. [Citing that a Saudi prince comes to the US for health care, just isn't enough proof for me; I can return that Dan Burton's wife goes to Germany for cancer treatment; tell me about a Canadian woman crosses the border to deliver a child and I'll tell you about the busloads of elderly that cross the border into Mexico to get prescriptions filled, etc.]
I think I can fairly characterize the public debate in the US as a simple exchange of rhetoric. "Socialized medicine is evil" vs. "What about the dying infants or elderly that can't get prescriptions?" Is that the proper way to address a complex issue that affects the entire country?
jttmab |
