Kyros, RE: "We spend 15% of GDP on health care. Almost all the other industrialized countries spend less than 10%."
Canadian heart patients need to come to the USA for certain advanced heart procedures, and this is because Canadian hospitals are not equipped with certain advanced tools. I know doctors in both countries (as well as other countries) and know this to be a fact.
The lab equipment for one particular advanced test procedure we do in the USA that is really helpful, costs more than $1M for just this. Even though it's a one-time purchase, Canada decides they cannot afford this, even though the results are extremely useful, saves significantly more lives. So, they go for average treatment, not advanced treatment. If you need certain advanced treatment you have to come to the USA, according to doctors here and there. If you need average treatment quicker than the 6 month+ waiting line like some heart patients found in the UK according to the Inquirer publication report, you have to come to the USA. Canada is more comfortable with watching a heart patient die while they wait for treatment - some there call it the patient's "fate." Some countries have waiting lines in overseas countries a year long. In India, sometimes your family has to aggressively push your case with respect to hospital care (even worse than here folks) - and there are so many people in India.
RE: "At the same time our life expectancy is on the average at least a year less than the other industrialized countries, and our infant mortality 50% more."
Advanced care is poor in Canada, while baseline care is better in Canada. Since there is only one single provider, patients don't bounce around when they change jobs. Meaning, the Canadian health care system makes darn sure you're baby has had all vaccines, etc. etc. for newborns. Also, Canada is better at preventive medicine than the USA. Does Stanford even require preventive care courses in its medical school yet? Last I looked (which was last year), they didn't. In Beijung, 20% of training is preventive, while 80% is Western training.
RE: " Finally, in study after study, I read that our health care bureaucracy (primarily private health insurance bureaucracy) wastes at least twice as much as other countries."
One advantage we have, when you compare our system to the UK, is in the UK a doctor can get away with murdering more than a dozen patients, because there is no administrative oversight. He is on his own, in his own clinic, and can do what he wants, without the oversight you find in the USA. Whereas in the USA, that administrative bureaucracy has better checks and balances in place and administrative reporting, to catch the major issues. Having said that, yes, multiple provider system is more expensive. On the other hand, a multiple provider system leads to better performance thru competition.
I'll take the USA system any day over foreign health systems.
I do agree there are definite cracks in our medicare/medicaid programs, which appear to be subpar on what they cover (compared to employer health insurance).
So, what do the folks do that aren't using the govt program, since individuals aren't big business for health insurance companies (health insur companies prefer large corporations and large revenues, not individuals.) In a research our startp did, 50% of all Silicon Valley startups have reported claim issues with their health insurance companies. Large companies are treated wildly better, because they have the leverage to threaten the health insurance company and the ability to negotiate a contract for better care - startups don't have this leverage, and individuals have even less leverage. Meanwhile, the govt is trying to convince startups to join these junky group health plans that some small businesses belong to -- no way - most are pretty bad.
I wish the govt would create a venue for patients to buy their own insurance in old age. Currently, insurance companies can thumb their noses at older patients, and then the govt has to pick up the tab (and tax payers) even if the patient prefers to pay for their own insurance. Isn't that strange? Here's another really strange thing. 50% of all long-term care is paid by the govt. This cost is extremely huge. Meanwhile, there are many people who would like to pay for their own LTC insurance, but routinely get denied - so guess who picks up that tab in most cases? Taxpayers. So, Congress allows our insurance companies to turn their noses at people who are able and willing to pay for their insurance - and this ends up costing our govt much more money, more deficit. It's truly irrational, but unfortunately not surprising. Congress just isn't good at budgeting.
Regards,
Amy J |
