Firedoglake has posted an interesting chart comparing the cost of health care in the United States as a percentage of GDP to equivalent metrics from Canada and the U.K. over the past 40ish years.
The U.S. is far and away the “winner” in health care spending.
I don’t agree with the assertion made at Firdeoglake, however, as to the interpretation of the graph:
You’ll see that at one point Canada actually spent more per capita than the US, then over less than a decade our costs dived to about 2/3rds of yours and then started paralleling your costs again.
What happened in that time period is that we went to single payor universal health care. Since then our metrics have been as good, or better than the US, with the exception of waiting times for optional surgery.
I question whether the answer is just “universal health care”.
In the U.S., we have some exciting advancements in the technology associated with health care. Miracles are increasingly available…for a price. Americans, on the whole, feel entitled to such miracles and are willing to pay…or are willing to believe that others are paying for them. Doctors, fearing suits from Americans denied their miracles, generally push for miraculous treatments, even when simple ones may suffice.
Personally, I don’t have any complaints with this. My wife’s car accident left her with issues that some doctors are willing to deny exist (there are doctors who equate fibromyalgia with hypochondria), and until very recently doctors were telling us that they could make her more comfortable until medical advances progressed to the point that effective treatment would be possible.
A few months ago, we were introduced to a researcher working on such an advance, and after a two-week test demonstrated incredible results…well, my wife is now walking around with some pretty expensive hardware in her. Thankfully, this hardware was donated by a manufacturer that stands to make a lot of money when this moves into the mainstream. And, I’m hoping to see a miracle unfold.
I tell this story to make it absolutely clear that I am thankful that, despite the periodic headaches, I am extremely thankful for the miracles in American medicine, and I am very thankful that as a society we have tolerated the incredible price tag associated with those miracles.
I wonder if such miracles would be accessible under a government-run universal health care program. If a goal of universal health care is to reduce costs, it stands to reason that access to certain expensive technologies might be more problematic, and perhaps there would be less motivation for capitalistic minded individuals or companies to develop such new technologies, or for investors to fund their research.
Perhaps in the interest of reducing costs, a government-run universal health care program would require changes in the allocation of resources to promote efficiency. That would be analogous to what I’ve seen happen with my wife after a fall, where a doctor wants a CT scan on her stat…and then we get to wait 12-13 hours in an emergency room, because of the urgency, and because the local radiology group is so fully booked that we can’t get in soon enough.
(I’m ranting again, aren’t I. Sorry about that.)
Perhaps I shouldn’t be worried in that regard. After all, government agencies are not known for being able to pull off efficiency. Just look to your local DMV or the disability claim-handling of Social Security for examples of this.
I agree that there are ways that a universal health care system could reduce costs, but I also don’t think it’s necessarily a slam dunk that such cost reductions would occur. And if they were to occur…what would be the trade-off? If Brits are so happy with the NHS that they seek private entities for speedier care (if they can afford it), and if some Canadians prefer to come to the U.S. when their Provincial health care payer requires a significant delay for an “optional” treatment…what would Americans do if an analogous system were formed here?
These are the questions that need to be aired in the public discussion about the problem of health care costs in the U.S., and the possibility of a single-payer system here. What are the trade-offs if a single-payer seeks to reign in costs? Are those trade-offs going to be acceptable to Americans? If not, will the single-payer be nimble enough to at least make matters no more costly than they are now…or will politics cause health care costs to balloon due to bureaucracy and special interests?
I think universal health care is a noble idea, and one that could work. I’m just a bit cynical when it comes to the idea of such programs being designed and run by the current crop of clowns bureaucrats and politicians who run the country now.