Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (2839)	11/13/2007 6:30:14 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Be that as it may, you still have the cost factor; 2X. Yes. Whether US longevity is less than European, as touted, or pretty much the same, it's still more expensive. Which makes it unnecessarily deceptive to exaggerate the difference.

To: Road Walker who wrote (2839)	11/13/2007 5:26:34 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

Apparently suicides are much higher in Europe. They are lower in Italy, Spain, and the UK. Very slightly lower in Norway Somewhat higher in Germany, Canada, Iceland, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark (and Canada and Australia but they of course aren't in Europe) Much higher in France, Austria, Finland, and the former communist countries of Eastern Europe. (Also in Japan) en.wikipedia.org Overall it looks like the rate is higher in Europe, but generally not enough higher to make up for our higher homicide and accident rates. In fact on the FAMD thread I did a calculation and even Japan's higher suicide rate apparently isn't enough to make up the difference. Still the fact that the US has a slightly below average suicide rate would, if compensated for in the calculations, be enough to make the US look a bit worse. It would move us off of the spot of having the best adjusted life expectancy, to something less than the best (but probably still above average), and also the chart isn't adjusted for obesity rates (and the in the US we tend to be heavier than the average for people living in the rich nations) Still I can't say this is a strong argument against nationalized health care. It is rather a weak argument because there are many complex factors that are hard to properly adjust for, and because generally life expectancy is a rather weak proxy for the quality of a health insurance system. Be that as it may, you still have the cost factor; 2X. Doctors get paid a lot more in the US. Nurses and other health care professionals at least a bit more. You have more defensive medicine, higher malpractice insurance, and more expensive prescription drugs. You also, at least at the margin, have more extensive intervention for very low birth weight babies, and for people at the end of life (were we often spend a fortune for minimal life extension). How is "universal health care" going to change any of those factors? Well some might argue it would reduce the number of very low birth weight babies. That's debatable, but at least plausible. Other than that I don't see how it can address any of those issues, esp. without imposing what many would see as lower quality of care.