Four days ago, I asked our readers to support President Obama in his efforts to provide Americans with public healthcare and so far, 83% of the emails that I received were supportive. The comments from the 17% that disagreed could be boiled down to one fear: "government-run" healthcare will be an expensive nightmare of long waiting lines and poor quality. Many simply do not want to believe that our democratically-elected government is capable of doing anything beneficial even though we are surrounded by numerous examples that prove otherwise.
The emails that surprised me the most came from our non-U.S. readers. They told me that they liked their public health systems and felt sorry for those of us in the U.S. because we did not have the same services available. Not one of them said that they would rather have our form of corporate-monopoly care. You can read many of those emails at the bottom of this page.
For those that still think that all government is bad, consider the following numbers from OECD Health Data 2008:
Life expectancy:
Japan - 82.4 years.
Australia - 81.8 years.
Canada - 80.4 years.
U.K. - 79.1 years.
U.S. - 77.8 years.
Infant mortality rate:
Japan - 2.6 deaths per thousand births.
Australia - 4.7 deaths per thousand births.
U.K. - 5.0 deaths per thousand births.
Canada - 5.4 deaths per thousand births.
U.S. - 6.9 deaths per thousand births.
Number of physicians per thousand capita:
Australia - 2.8.
U.K. - 2.5.
U.S. - 2.4.
Canada - 2.1.
Japan - 2.1.
Health expenditures as share of GDP:
Japan - 8.2%.
U.K. - 8.4%.
Australia - 8.8%.
Average OECD member - 8.9%.
Canada - 10.0%.
U.S. - 15.3% and rising (highest in the world, by far).
Apples and Oranges -
Total government expenditures as share of GDP (from Heritage.org):
Australia - 35%.
Japan - 36%.
U.S. - 37% (without universal healthcare).
Canada - 39%.
U.K. - 45%.
I know that many people want to believe that the U.S. healthcare system is the best and most efficient in the world, but the numbers do not back that up. If the U.S. had universal healthcare like every other OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) member, we would likely have similar healthcare costs. By current OECD rates, universal healthcare would save American families $896 billion a year (6.4% savings x $14 trillion GDP).
In Australia, the government spends 35% of the nation's income and provides universal healthcare. In the U.S., the government spends 37% of the nation's income and foots less than half of the healthcare bill. Which government do you think is providing a better deal for its people?
Where's the Nightmare?
For those of you that believe the insurance companies when they say that public healthcare would be a nightmare, please read some of the emails below from our non-U.S. readers. Thank you to everyone for all the feedback (both positive and negative). And please contact your Congressmen - don't let the health insurance industry continue to push their monopolistic practices on us.
Dear Todd,
I really enjoy receiving Dailyfutures news and just wanted to respond to your email.
I live in Australia, a country that introduced a Universal Health care system over 30 years ago, that provides health care coverage for all people. It is an inherent right for all people to access education, social security payments during difficult times and health care. When it was introduced in Australia it was considered a "Merit Good".. a service that provided public health care and hospital services to all people irrespective of their capacity to pay. It was deemed a Merit Good because a country moves on the health of its people and we must always support those in need. It is abhorrent that the US health service is a "for profit industry" and those that get sick can no longer afford to maintain their premiums.
Universal health care services exist in all other western countries. It appears the US public are scared of socialized medicine... having government regulate and support health care programs. I don't understand the fear given government supports education, defence and infrastructure. Why is health care kept separate?
If the rest of the world had the opportunity to vote.... they would support the US moving to a more equitable, non profit and universal health care system for all citizens of the US irrespective of their capacity to pay.
I wish you well and hope sanity will prevail.
Dear Todd,
many thanks for your message. I can tell you that, as a European, I've always had concerns on how the health service runs in the US. In Europe, access to public health is free and everywhere patients can get the utmost attention. Also, hospitals in larger cities are linked to Universities, providing top medical staff and advanced care.
If you want examples of pristine, free, top-class public health service in Europe, look at France, Denmark, Belgium, just to name a few...
True, there are also a number of private hospitals, but their medical standard is no better than public health services: they only offer better accommodation and more privacy for VIP patients.
I wish you all the best in your endeavour and many good wishes to you and your family.
Dear Todd
I know your letter was addressed to US readers, however I read it with a heavy heart. I am very sorry to hear of your situation - it seems that in the 21st Century a superpower like the US should give at least as much consideration to its sick (tax paying) families as it does to the fair treatment of prisoners, but suffice to say we hear more about the latter on the newcasts.
As you know, we have the National Health Service here in the UK (for 60 years), plus many UK residents have a certain level of private insurance cover.
The co-existence means that the demands on the NHS are to a degree met by those who choose to be treated in the private sector. The NHS even offers some beds and treatment to private patients, thereby increasing NHS funding. The NHS is a great cost to the tax system, however, I note with interest that things cannot. Be that bad, because the NHS chooses to treat patients for self-inflicted conditions (e.g. obesity) and non-threatening conditions (e.g. fertility) with the same apparent ease as those with serious and life threatening conditions. The NHS runs free anti-smoking, anti-drug and other support services to help stop our nation getting sick in the first place. It has a 24/7 NHS Direct phone line that offers free advice and support (they will direct you on the full range from taking pain killers/getting a doctor to call you back for further questions/calling up specialist hospitals for advice/referring to your doctor even to calling an emergency ambulance). Emergencies are free, accident centres are free.
Suffice to say that both my mother and I would likely have not survived serious illness had it not been for the NHS.
That's two election votes.
What better promotional material could a government want than to offer its electorate a two-choice system that ensures that there is a wide range of long-term care for all socio-economic groups, whilst still letting the super-wealthy retain their personal selections?
Todd:
Sorry for your troubles.
Here in Canada outfits like Blue Cross operate drug plans under and separate from our public system and still make huge profits! You now see certain doctors from Canada doing anti public healthcare adds for the Rebublicans. What these clowns don't tell you is that they run or are attempting to create private practices so they can belly up to the trough just like the Pigs that get so fat in your system.
At least in Canada if your situation is so catastrophic that you cannot afford to pay for certain drugs you can go on welfare and the drug costs are paid for. It's not my first choice but I have that option.Yes there are waiting lists for certain non life threatening surgeries but if I need a heart transplant or double lung transplant I will likely get it.
I have an acquaintence who just gave birth to a child weighing 1 lb. Yes, that's right. 1lb! That baby is in intensive care and will be for several months. All paid for by the government/us the taxpayer. Thats what a compassionate society does for its citizens.
Dear Todd
While I am not a US Citizen, I sympathize with your predicament.
In Israel we have affordable, regulated social medical health care programs for the people. Three competing companies whose rates are monitored and in fact set by government to ensure that the problems you describe cannot happen here.
I know of quite a few American families who have recently come to live in Israel specifically for reasons you mention. The cost of Health in the USA has become exorbitant.
Todd, our system in Australia is far from perfect but it has some good points. It is a combination of public (Medicare) and private health insurance. Medicare is mostly funded by a tax levy of 1.0% of gross income (I think it is 1.5% if your income is above a certain threshold). If you don't have a taxable income or it is below a certain threshold you pay nothing. Private insurance is optional and is supported by a government rebate of 30%.
For day to day common medical needs and minor things, private insurance is unnecessary, Medicare pay for most common needs. There is often a "gap" between the cost and what Medicare covers, but it won't break you. Many medical practices "bulk bill"- you give the practice you Medicare details (on a credit card-type card) and that's it. They charge Medicare direct.
The main reason we have private insurance is to cover serious illness and some of the less common things like chiropractors, etc. Private cover allows greater choice of hospitals and doctors but in reality there is often little difference. We live in a city of 40,000 people and have a public and private hospital. Many procedures can only be done in the public hospital, for example the private has no paediatric ward.
Three weeks ago our 8 year old son was diagnosed with diabetes. When his blood test results were returned our doctor told us to take him straight to hospital. Upon admittance, he was seen by a paediatrician and a bed in the paediatric ward was arranged. In the meantime we were asked if we had private health cover. We did, and asked what this means. We were told if we used our private insurance the hospital would benefit financially. There was no difference in cost to us. As we did not have a pre-existing relationship with a paediatrician and the one that had treated (our son) up to that point seemed quite competent, then choosing Medicare would have been quite OK, but as we have been paying insurance premiums for years and we thought "why not use it?" The hospital would benefit and nobody would lose.
The care (our son) received in hospital was no different to a "public" patient- everybody was well looked after by excellent nurses, doctors and specialists. We were visited by a diabetes educator, a dietician and daily visits from specialists.
Upon discharge we had to stock up on insulin and some minor items. This was almost entirely covered by the NDSS (National Diabetic Services Scheme). About $800 worth of stuff cost us about $30.00.
(Our son) has another disability (Autism) which entitled him to another benefit, namely a Health Care Card. This is issued to various categories of welfare recipients and sufferers of lifelong disabilities. (His) diabetes would have entitled him to a Health Care card in any case. This will cover almost all of (his) ongoing medical costs...
I feel very privileged to live in a country with a system such as ours, for all its shortcomings. There is a cost, but societies must decide it's priorities. Good Luck.
Editors's note: I omitted names for privacy and you should know that dad said that his son "is doing extremely well and life is getting back to close to normal."
Best wishes,
Todd Hultman,
Dailyfutures, Inc.
June 14, 2009.
