The raw facts on health care, US vs Canda

[Vast LWC]

It has been pointed out that the United State has better survival rates than Canada in cancer victims. This is true, by about 3-4%, it would seem.

Much ado has been made in the Right-Wing media and on these boards about this fact, and it has been held up as an example of their opinion that US Health Care is better than Canadian health care.

Well, Cancer is just one disease. It is a leading cause of death, but not THE leading cause of death. So let's look at comparisons in other diseases, shall we?

Circulatory disease deaths per 100,000:
Canada: 219
United States: 265

Original Source: OECD Health Data 2003 and Health Data 2002. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia's Health 2002

Digestive disease deaths per 100,000:Canada: 17.4
United States: 20.5

Original Source: World Health Organization

Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live birthsCanada: 5.08
United States: 6.3

Original Source: CIA World Factbooks

Intestinal diseases death rate
Canada: 0.3%
United States: 7.3%

Original Source: World Health Organization

Respiratory disease child death rate per 100,000Canada: 0.62
United States: 40.43

Original Source: World Health Organization

Heart disease deaths per 100,000:Canada: 94.9
United States: 106.5

Original Source: World Health Organization

HIV deaths per million people:Canada: 47.423
United States: 48.141

Original Source: CIA World Factbooks

And here's an interesting fact:

Proability of not reaching age 60:Canada: 9.5%
United States: 12.8%

Original Source: CIA World Factbooks

 

[Vast LWC]

The average life span in Canada is 2-3 years longer than the average life span in the United States.

Source: World Health Organization

 

[Vast LWC]

Looks like Canada, with their supposedly "inferior" socialized medicine, seems to have an advantage over us in all-around care.

Interesting.

 

[Karateka]

So, what are you waiting for? Move!

 

[Vast LWC]

Another common argument against public health care seems to be that the government is "inefficient" and less cost effecitive.

Well let's look at the actual figures:

Per Capita, national health expenditures in the United States are as follows, as of 2007:

Private: $3,991.00
Public: $3,429.00

As can be seen here

Source: Dpt of Health and Human Services

Which seems to indicate that government run health care is about 14-15% more cost effective than private health care.

Again, interesting.

Thoughts?

 

[Vast LWC]

So, what are you waiting for? Move!

Or, you could move.

Personally, I spent years in the military protecting this country. I think I've earned the right to have my say without someone telling me to "move".

So, unless you have something constructive to add to the conversation, why don't you just not say anything, k?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

thank you for being sane on this subject.

 

[eagleseven]

Another common argument against public health care seems to be that the government is "inefficient" and less cost effecitive.

Well let's look at the actual figures:

Per Capita, national health expenditures in the United States are as follows, as of 2007:

Private: $3,991.00
Public: $3,429.00

As can be seen here

Source: Dpt of Health and Human Services

Which seems to indicate that government run health care is about 14-15% more cost effective than private health care.

Again, interesting.

Thoughts?

Logical fallacy.

Private customers subsidize the public customers. How? Profit margins are so small with public customers that, to stay in business, doctors and hospitals are forced to increase prices for private customers. Eliminate the government price controls on healthcare for Medicare/Medicaid recipients, and the "efficiency" of the public sector will vanish.

This "efficiency" is not applicable to a 100% public system, because there are no private customers to subsidize the public system. Rather, we will all pay higher taxes.

In short, you ignored the critical effects of government price controls. Any economist, left or right, will tell you price controls create massive inefficiencies.

 

[eagleseven]

Additionally, you are falsely associating the minor differences in mortality and disease rates with other countries to healthcare.

Why is this a problem? You are ignoring demographics.

Canada and Australia simply do not have the same demographics of the United States. Neither Canada nor Australia has a massive African-descent underclass populating the inner cities, nor do they have over 20 million largely uneducated immigrants from Mexico.

If we took all of the poor, non-English-speaking Mexican immigrants living in the Southwest and moved them to Canada, your numbers would dramatically shift in favor of the US. The fact that your numbers are so close in a country as culturally diverse as the United States is remarkable.

In short, you are wrongly comparing Apples to Apples+Oranges+Pears+Papaya.

 

[Karateka]

My dad served in the military, too, and he had enough sense, before he passed away (three years ago - he served in WWII) to know that the CLinton Healthcare plan was a bad idea, too. I know whereof I speak. Also, since you served in the military, you should be sitting fairly pretty, considering the VA benefits you're collecting, no?

Kindly tell me how you believe the U.S., which is constantly and consistently underfunded in all its pet projects - Medicare, Medicaid, financial assistance to wounded veterans and their families, not to mention, the not-so-slowly sinking ship of Social Security, the underfunded parks systems ... I could go on and on ... is going to amply fund, and continue to fund healthcare sufficiently - at least without taxing everyone into oblivion? Particularly when more and more businesses are closing, and more and more Americans are losing their jobs, which means, of course, that the Federal tax base is eroding at record speed?

Also, I notice you failed to mention the percentage of income taxes the average Canadian pays vs. the average American, and what percentage of those taxes are put towards healthcare; nor did you express the choices Canadians have when it comes to their physicians or hospitals, or the wait times to see specialists in cases dealing with potentially fatal diseases and in transplant situations. I'd be curious to hear about those. Care to share?

 

[Vast LWC]

Profit margins are so small with public customers that, to stay in business, doctors and hospitals are forced to increase prices for private customers.

I'll be happy to believe what you say here, as soon as you provide some sort of data to back up your claim. And opinion pieces don't count.

Eliminate the government price controls on healthcare for Medicare/Medicaid recipients, and the "efficiency" of the public sector will vanish.

Isn't controlling price the entire point of a public option? To keep the skyrocketing costs down?

The health industry has by no means suffered any type of loss over the past few decades, in fact health-related corporations outperform all other stocks on the market.

Meanwhile the price of health care steadily increases every year, at a rate well above inflation.

Additionally, you are falsely associating the minor differences in mortality and disease rates with other countries to healthcare.

That's interesting.

How exactly would you compare one country's health care to another, if not by death rates for disease and relative life spans?

I'd REALLY like to know.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My dad served in the military, too, and he had enough sense, before he passed away (three years ago - he served in WWII) to know that the CLinton Healthcare plan was a bad idea, too. I know whereof I speak. Also, since you served in the military, you should be sitting fairly pretty, considering the VA benefits you're collecting, no?

Kindly tell me how you believe the U.S., which is constantly and consistently underfunded in all its pet projects - Medicare, Medicaid, financial assistance to wounded veterans and their families, not to mention, the not-so-slowly sinking ship of Social Security, the underfunded parks systems ... I could go on and on ... is going to amply fund, and continue to fund healthcare sufficiently - at least without taxing everyone into oblivion? Particularly when more and more businesses are closing, and more and more Americans are losing their jobs, which means, of course, that the Federal tax base is eroding at record speed?

Also, I notice you failed to mention the percentage of income taxes the average Canadian pays vs. the average American, and what percentage of those taxes are put towards healthcare; nor did you express the choices Canadians have when it comes to their physicians or hospitals, or the wait times to see specialists in cases dealing with potentially fatal diseases and in transplant situations. I'd be curious to hear about those. Care to share?

\


before you spout shit:

5 Capitalist Democracies and Health Care: FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS

 

[Karateka]

How is asking questions "spouting shit?" Are you always this rude, or is it only when you don't have answers to relatively simple questions at hand?

 

[Vast LWC]

Kindly tell me how you believe the U.S., which is constantly and consistently underfunded in all its pet projects - Medicare, Medicaid, financial assistance to wounded veterans and their families, not to mention, the not-so-slowly sinking ship of Social Security, the underfunded parks systems

Social Security is failing for several reasons:

1. People have been having less children in the past few decades.

2. People are living longer lives

and

3. Certain administrations, with a vested interest in seeing Social Security done away with, used the Social Security fund to pay for other things.

Whether the projects are underfunded or not does not mean that the projects are failures, it simply means that they were underfunded.

The fact remains that Medicare and Medicaid are in fact more efficient and cost-effective than private health care. Until someone posts some data to refute that fact, it remains true.

is going to amply fund, and continue to fund healthcare sufficiently - at least without taxing everyone into oblivion?

Tax rates have been steadily decreasing for the past 3 decades now. By your own admission, our economy is in bad shape after this period of declining tax revenue, and the government's debt is out-of-control.

It seems to me that Reaganomics, in the end, has failed. And yes, unfortunately, taxes need to be raised, especially on Capital Gains tax and Upper income tax brackets.

and what percentage of those taxes are put towards healthcare; nor did you express the choices Canadians have when it comes to their physicians or hospitals, or the wait times to see specialists in cases dealing with potentially fatal diseases and in transplant situations.

Not living in Canada, I would be unfamiliar with all of these things. Perhaps you would like to provide some data for us?

In addition, since the data suggests more people SURVIVE in Canada, "wait time to see specialists" is a useless concept to add to the conversation.

Would you rather not wait an hour or two to see someone, or would you rather SURVIVE?

Personally, I'd be willing to wait an hour or two if it meant I wasn't DEAD.

 

[Vast LWC]

How is asking questions "spouting shit?" Are you always this rude

You suggested that since I wanted to change the way certain things are done in America, that I should leave the country.

That is the ultimate in rudeness.

 

[Vast LWC]

Neither Canada nor Australia has a massive African-descent underclass populating the inner cities, nor do they have over 20 million largely uneducated immigrants from Mexico.

Oh, I see: When all else fails, blame blacks and hispanics. Wow.

Why would any of that make a difference if they had health insurance?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How is asking questions "spouting shit?" Are you always this rude, or is it only when you don't have answers to relatively simple questions at hand?

mentioning what other nations pay for health care whether it be as a part of their GNP or taxes or whatever is spouting shit because it is usually taken out of all context and oput out as a red herring.

Comparing what others get and what they pay in comparison to what we have and pay here would be rational and serious.

Canada's model would not ever be our experience even if we shared a similar model. We are a nation filled with ingenious and motivated people who given a chance to tackle a not for profit health insurance plan would most likely come up with incredible ways to fill the gaps and voids of any such system. Most of the plans I heard of will have a co-insurance/supplemental part of the overall system

 

[eagleseven]

Profit margins are so small with public customers that, to stay in business, doctors and hospitals are forced to increase prices for private customers.

I'll be happy to believe what you say here, as soon as you provide some sort of data to back up your claim. And opinion pieces don't count.

Certainly.

http://www.ahip.org/content/default.aspx?docid=25216

The average privately insured household pays $1800 per year to subsidize Medicare and Medicaid losses.

Eliminate the government price controls on healthcare for Medicare/Medicaid recipients, and the "efficiency" of the public sector will vanish.

Isn't controlling price the entire point of a public option? To keep the skyrocketing costs down?

Price control by fiat (government power) is one of the most economically destructive things a government can do.

Richard Nixon enacted fiat price controls on oil in the 1970s, directly causing the gasoline shortages and effective shutdown of America in 1973.

There are economically beneficial methods to cut costs, but government fiat is not one of them.

The health industry has by no means suffered any type of loss over the past few decades, in fact health-related corporations outperform all other stocks on the market.

Meanwhile the price of health care steadily increases every year, at a rate well above inflation.

The price of healthcare is increasing dramatically because the types of treatments are improving dramatically. Modern medical technology is incredibly complex and expensive to produce.

If we eliminated all treatments developed since 1970, we would DRAMATICALLY reduce our healthcare costs. Cancer survival rates would also drop precipitously.

Take CT (computed tomography) scans, developed in the mid to late 1970s. They are the golden standard in detecting a wide range of skull and chest cavity problems, but cost upwards of $2000 a scan!

By comparison, older X-Ray scans cost rarely more than $500!

And yes, the healthcare industry is going strong, primarily because they have continued to develop ever more amazing, and expensive, medical technology.

The Healthcare Industry is strong for the same reasons the Computer Industry is strong: they make important products that everyone wants.

Additionally, you are falsely associating the minor differences in mortality and disease rates with other countries to healthcare.

That's interesting.

How exactly would you compare one country's health care to another, if not by death rates for disease and relative life spans?

I'd REALLY like to know.

There are statistical methods for eliminating differences in demographics from your comparisons between countries. Methods that you have ignored, thus invalidating your comparison.

I won't go into the mathematics, but in short, they include eliminating outliers and proportionally adjusting the national averages based upon the severity of the differences between demographic groups.

You would then compare the adjusted averages for the US with the adjusted averages for other countries, and present your data and calculations to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

Since you have failed to take these steps, casual comparisons like the one you made above are worthless, little more than propaganda to ensnare the uneducated.

 

[eagleseven]

Neither Canada nor Australia has a massive African-descent underclass populating the inner cities, nor do they have over 20 million largely uneducated immigrants from Mexico.

Oh, I see: When all else fails, blame blacks and hispanics. Wow.

Why would any of that make a difference if they had health insurance?

Because health insurance cannot stop the urban youth from drinking. Or joining gangs. Or doing drugs. Or ignoring health problems until they are in the ER. Or getting pregnant at 15. The list goes on and on.

Fact of the matter is, the "urban" culture in America is self-destructive. And while members of all races are dragged down by it, the majority in the "urban" culture are blacks in the East, and latinos in the West. I would know.

 

[Karateka]

and what percentage of those taxes are put towards healthcare; nor did you express the choices Canadians have when it comes to their physicians or hospitals, or the wait times to see specialists in cases dealing with potentially fatal diseases and in transplant situations.

Not living in Canada, I would be unfamiliar with all of these things. Perhaps you would like to provide some data for us?

Health care is one of the most expensive items of both nations’ budgets. In the United States, the various levels of government spend more per capita on health care than levels of government do in Canada. In 2004, Canada government-spending was $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government-spending $2,724.[11]

However, U.S. government-spending covers less than half of all health care costs. Private spending for health care is also far greater in the U.S. than in Canada. In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this sum is $3,372.[11] In 2006, health care consumed 15.3% of U.S. annual GDP. In Canada, only 10% of GDP was spent on health care.[5] This difference is a relatively recent development. In 1971 the nations were much closer, with Canada spending 7.1% of GDP on health while the U.S. spent 7.6%.

Some who advocate against greater government involvement in health care have asserted that the difference in health care costs between the two nations is partially explained by the differences in their demographics.[60] Police-reported drug abuse and violence are more common in the United States than in Canada;[61] both place a burden on the health care system. Illegal immigrants, more prevalent in the U.S. than in Canada[citation needed], also add a burden to the health care system, as many of them do not carry health insurance and rely on emergency rooms — which are legally required to treat them — as a principal source of care.[62] In Colorado, for example, an estimated 80% of illegal immigrants do not have health insurance.[62]

In addition, since the data suggests more people SURVIVE in Canada, "wait time to see specialists" is a useless concept to add to the conversation.

Canadians are, overall, statistically healthier than Americans and show lower rates of many diseases such as various forms of cancer. On the other hand, evidence suggests that with respect to some illnesses (such as breast cancer), those who do get sick have a higher rate of cure in the U.S. than in Canada.[93]

In terms of population health, life expectancy in 2006 was about two and a half years longer in Canada, with Canadians living to an average of 79.9 years and Americans 77.5 years.[94] Infant and child mortality rates are also higher in the U.S.[94]. Some comparisons suggest that the American system underperforms Canada's system as well as those of other industrialized nations with universal coverage.[95] For example, a ranking by the World Health Organization of health care system performance among 191 member nations, published in 2000, ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th, and the overall health of Canada 35th to the American 72nd.[8] The WHO did not merely consider health care outcomes, but also placed heavy emphasis on the health disparities between rich and poor, funding for the health care needs of the poor, and the extent to which a country was reaching the potential health care outcomes they believed were possible for that nation. In an international comparison of 21 more specific quality indicators conducted by the Commonwealth Fund International Working Group on Quality Indicators, the results were more divided. One of the indicators was a tie, and in 3 others, data was unavailable from one country or the other. Canada performed better on 11 indicators; such as survival rates for colorectal cancer, childhood leukemia, and kidney and liver transplants. The U.S. performed better on 6 indicators, including survival rates for breast and cervical cancer, and avoidance of childhood diseases such as pertussis and measles. It should be noted that the 21 indicators were distilled from a starting list of 1000. The authors state that, "It is an opportunistic list, rather than a comprehensive list."[93]

Some of the difference in outcomes may also be related to lifestyle choices. The OECD found that Americans have slightly higher rates of smoking and alcohol consumption than do Canadians[94] as well as significantly higher rates of obesity.[96] A joint US-Canadian study found slightly higher smoking rates among Canadians.[97] Another study found that Americans have higher rates not only of obesity, but also of other health risk factors and chronic conditions, including physical inactivity, diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.[16]

A Canadian systematic review concluded that differences in the health care systems of Canada and the United States could not alone explain differences in health care outcomes.[1]

Would you rather not wait an hour or two to see someone, or would you rather SURVIVE?
Personally, I'd be willing to wait an hour or two if it meant I wasn't DEAD.

A 2003 survey of hospital administrators conducted in Canada, the U.S., and three other countries found dissatisfaction with both the U.S. and Canadian systems. For example, 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery. However, U.S. administrators were the most negative about their country's health care system. Hospital executives in all five countries expressed concerns about staffing shortages and emergency department waiting times and quality.[55][56]