Frequently, people point out the following facts:
1) Almost 50 million people are uninsured in the U.S.
2) People in the U.S. pay more per capita on health care than any other nation in the world.
3) Despite #2, our society has very poor health “outcomes” when compared to nations that have some kind universal government medicine/insurance programs. These outcomes are usually stated in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality and so on.
This question is intent upon reconciling these three facts. [Note, for people inclined to dispute them, it should serve our purposes here to grant that they are true.] A common assertion is that we have a very poor health care system despite spending a great deal of money on it. However, #3 is calculated with regard to combining the entire population, insured and uninsured. Separating the outcomes with regard to insurance would inform us on whether the overall outcomes are due to poor medical delivery generally or whether the uninsured are driving down the numbers. It may be that for people in a position to pay for it, U.S. health care is world class in terms of outcomes.
Some of you will be inclined to respond to this line of thinking by arguing whether or not reform is needed and on the manner of reform. Such answers would be entirely missing the question. I don’t wish to revisit that tired debate. I am asking this question because I am legitimately interested in the answer. If you are unable to find facts to answer my question, you should discuss the implication on the wider debate. Are people really analyzing the problem at the proper level, or do they just take whatever existing data that they can find and fit it to the conclusion that they prefer?
I think it is being analyzed at the right level.
We have great health care in this country if you can afford it. The best, really. And there are poor outcomes sometime even for the insured. Insurance doesn’t guarantee a cure. There are many factors involved – and many related directly to the patient being treated.
People that can afford to get medical care have better outcomes than people who cannot afford medical care. The people that ignore their health and wait until they are in an emergency situation to get care have a poorer outcome generally because they are sicker when they finally seek treatment.
Actually it is only 8 million that cannot afford HC
In America if you have 50 apples but 10 are rotten you have 50 apples. In Europe if you have 50 apples but 10 are rotten then you have 40 apples. When you don’t count those things that are bad you don’t make them disappear you only hide the fact of their existence from those to stupid to look.
It is a numbers game.
The outcome is that 500,000 INSURED families file bankruptcy every year due to costs not covered.
THe outcome is that rates are rising 8% higher each year and in 7 years will double your monthly costs
The outcome is business are increasingly dropping coverage for their employees due to rising costs
The outcome is Doctors are over-billing the Insurance premium and passing the extra costs on to you.
Which outcome is most like yours?
Well, I am sure that the death rates will be lower in those covered by insurance, but I doubt there are going to be figures to prove it.
What would be interesting would be to compare the death rates of those with insurance in the USA with those in Holland and Switzerland which have systems similar to what Obama wants to bring in.
The reason I mention this is that Wendell Potter, a senior executive at giant US healthcare firm Cigna testified in Congress, becoming one of the few industry executives to admit that what its critics say is true: healthcare insurance firms push up costs, buy politicians and refuse to pay out when many patients actually get sick. In chilling words he told a Senate committee: “I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick: all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.”