This subject area (and story) are littered with anecdotal data. Makes for great reading, but I'm not so sure it makes for good material for public debate.
Most interesting were the life expectancy numbers, which if I remember correctly, are skewed in the U.S. due to violent death. Taking out the chance that you're going to get shot in a liquor store holdup, the life expectancy numbers are very close, perhaps even showing an edge for the U.S. (I don't have a link closeby, sorry)
In fact, looking at life expectancy worldwide and spending, it looks like people are living to about the same age in the industrial world regardless of the type of health care program they have. This, of course, doesn't address quality-of-life issues.
If people live about the same amount everywhere, then why does the U.S. spend twice as much? And that money spent across the board. In other words, it's not that public health care has any cost effectiveness to it, Americans everywhere are spending twice as much.
If I had to guess, I'd say it comes at the end of life -- a huge amount of medical expenses go into that last six months. If you cut those expenses off and made them more managed (rationed?) I bet you'd end up with very similar figures.
At the end of the day, if you make health care into something that you go to a politician to fix, you do a lot of interesting things to a democracy. Now might be a good time to think those through, instead of just pointing out how broken things are (they are broken) I favor an immediate, simple solution without government control that tries a few simple changes instead of a complex, intricate solution that few understand and fewer could fix if it didn't work. Do simple things repeatedly and fail often. Don't engineer a paperwork version of a nuclear submarine and then expect to be sailing it around the world next week.
Yes, from a healthcare point of view it makes sense to have the two figures (violent death / others) separated out. But every country combines those numbers, I don't see why the US should get a free pass on that.
And the two do mix, when you get shot in the liquor store but you don't die suddenly healthcare is very much in play, it might even remove that potential violent death from the statistics.
Nobody's looking for a free pass, just an honest view of how long people are going to live. When the numbers are skewed, the resulting debate is skewed.
Along those lines, another well-quoted stat is infant mortality rate, which also drives down life expectancy. But in the U.S., premature babies are routinely saved much earlier than elsewhere in the world. This means that lots of premature babies are more often lost too -- thereby making the infant mortality rates look like something from a third-world country.
You can't manage something unless you measure it, but you can't measure it unless you define it. I'm perfectly happy with a very high infant death-rate and a slightly lower life expectancy rate now that I understand the definitions. But a common understanding is a key component of discussion.
So now every time somebody trots out those same old tired stats we have to have the same conversation over and over again. It's like the old myth that paying money for prevention saves money in the long run -- lots of stats sound reasonable and seem to make a simple point but don't mean what people think they mean.
I think it is mainly a problem of uniform data gathering. Every country has their own methodology, international organzations have theirs but don't do the whole world, just some subset.
None of the numbers are comparable because of all this, it is a big mess. The error bars would have to be drawn so wide as to make any comparison essentially meaningless.
Most interesting were the life expectancy numbers, which if I remember correctly, are skewed in the U.S. due to violent death. Taking out the chance that you're going to get shot in a liquor store holdup, the life expectancy numbers are very close, perhaps even showing an edge for the U.S. (I don't have a link closeby, sorry)
In fact, looking at life expectancy worldwide and spending, it looks like people are living to about the same age in the industrial world regardless of the type of health care program they have. This, of course, doesn't address quality-of-life issues.
If people live about the same amount everywhere, then why does the U.S. spend twice as much? And that money spent across the board. In other words, it's not that public health care has any cost effectiveness to it, Americans everywhere are spending twice as much.
If I had to guess, I'd say it comes at the end of life -- a huge amount of medical expenses go into that last six months. If you cut those expenses off and made them more managed (rationed?) I bet you'd end up with very similar figures.
At the end of the day, if you make health care into something that you go to a politician to fix, you do a lot of interesting things to a democracy. Now might be a good time to think those through, instead of just pointing out how broken things are (they are broken) I favor an immediate, simple solution without government control that tries a few simple changes instead of a complex, intricate solution that few understand and fewer could fix if it didn't work. Do simple things repeatedly and fail often. Don't engineer a paperwork version of a nuclear submarine and then expect to be sailing it around the world next week.