Healthcare Spending and Life Span

[Toro]

What's wrong with this picture?

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/modules/teach_1.html
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost_longlife75.gif

If America's health care system is the best on the planet, why does the US have one of the lowest life expectancies in the industrialized world?

You'll notice that almost all of the countries that have higher life spans have some form of universal government health care program.

Of course, there are all sorts of factors that effect life spans, but surely, if America's health care system was truly better than government health programs, then America would at least be in the upper half of that graph.

 

[Steerpike]

If you look at the graph you'll see you're only talking 3 or 4 years between the U.S. and Japan, which is at the top of the list. Considering that the Americans tend to have among the most unhealthly lifestyles, I expect that explains most of it. I wouldn't chalk any of it up to healthcare systems without specific proof that that's the case.

Japanese tend to live a much healthier lifestyle than Americans, and even given that you've got a 3-4 year difference? I don't find that to be substantial.

If nothing else, your own graphs shows that health care spending doesn't correlate much (if any) to lifespan, so it tend to disprove your own thesis. I mean, look at the other countries on the graph apart from the U.S. Spending on health care doesn't correlate to lifespan at any point.

 

[ReillyT]

If you look at the graph you'll see you're only talking 3 or 4 years between the U.S. and Japan, which is at the top of the list. Considering that the Americans tend to have among the most unhealthly lifestyles, I expect that explains most of it. I wouldn't chalk any of it up to healthcare systems without specific proof that that's the case.

Japanese tend to live a much healthier lifestyle than Americans, and even given that you've got a 3-4 year difference? I don't find that to be substantial.

If nothing else, your own graphs shows that health care spending doesn't correlate much (if any) to lifespan, so it tend to disprove your own thesis. I mean, look at the other countries on the graph apart from the U.S. Spending on health care doesn't correlate to lifespan at any point.

He makes a good point.

 

[Toro]

If you look at the graph you'll see you're only talking 3 or 4 years between the U.S. and Japan, which is at the top of the list. Considering that the Americans tend to have among the most unhealthly lifestyles, I expect that explains most of it. I wouldn't chalk any of it up to healthcare systems without specific proof that that's the case.

Japanese tend to live a much healthier lifestyle than Americans, and even given that you've got a 3-4 year difference? I don't find that to be substantial.

If nothing else, your own graphs shows that health care spending doesn't correlate much (if any) to lifespan, so it tend to disprove your own thesis. I mean, look at the other countries on the graph apart from the U.S. Spending on health care doesn't correlate to lifespan at any point.

"Only" four years. That is a large amount in terms of life span. It is over 5%. Why look only at Japan? Canadians don't live much healthier than Americans. The Brits don't live much healthier than Americans. The French have a diet high in fat. And have you ever seen what they eat for breakfast in Germany?

I think the fact that spending doesn't correlate to life span exactly proves my point. Posters have been writing here the horrors of socialized medicine and all the restrictions that go with it. However, government medical insurance doesn't seem to detract where it matters most.

 

[Bern80]

"Only" four years. That is a large amount in terms of life span. It is over 5%. Why look only at Japan? Canadians don't live much healthier than Americans. The Brits don't live much healthier than Americans. The French have a diet high in fat. And have you ever seen what they eat for breakfast in Germany?

I think the fact that spending doesn't correlate to life span exactly proves my point. Posters have been writing here the horrors of socialized medicine and all the restrictions that go with it. However, government medical insurance doesn't seem to detract where it matters most.

That graph has nothing to do with socialized medicine. It has nothing to do with quality of care either. It is meant to be a visual representation of life expectancy and health care expenditure. Whoever made said graph is trying to get people to make a correlation where there isn't one. Frankly I can't figure out what they want us to see. I can't even begin to figure out how those two things are linked given all the factors going into how long one will live. Pretty much anyone should be able to see that of all said factors. how much you spend in healthcare isn't gonna be anywhere near the top. yet someone tried to link them anyway.

Did you even think about this for 2 seconds before you posted it? Did you stop to ask yourself any basic questions? Like, 'what does what we pay in healthcare costs really go toward?' That would be a good start. Hint: most of it doesn't go to paying for actual care. Or how about why do the other countries listed pay so much less? Hint again: It has nothing to do with quality of care. It has to do with how the citizens pay for healthcare.

You wanna debate the merits and pit falls of UHC, fine. You just chose a really bad starting point.

 

[Toro]

Did you even think about this for 2 seconds before you posted it? Did you stop to ask yourself any basic questions? Like, 'what does what we pay in healthcare costs really go toward?' That would be a good start. Hint: most of it doesn't go to paying for actual care. Or how about why do the other countries listed pay so much less? Hint again: It has nothing to do with quality of care. It has to do with how the citizens pay for healthcare.

You wanna debate the merits and pit falls of UHC, fine. You just chose a really bad starting point.

Dude, I'm not sure if you are aware, but you've just given one of the strongest arguments for universal health care.

 

[Bern80]

Dude, I'm not sure if you are aware, but you've just given one of the strongest arguments for universal health care.

From a leftists perspective, yes I did. The lefts solution to most things that don't work the way they want it to is to let government do it.

Interesting you didn't comment on the first paragraph. How very convenient.

 

[Toro]

From a leftists perspective, yes I did. The lefts solution to most things that don't work the way they want it to is to let government do it.

Interesting you didn't comment on the first paragraph. How very convenient.

Are you seriously saying that you cannot understand how expenditure, life expectancy and a medical system are not linked?

Socialized medicine is evil. Socialized medicine brings shortages. Socialized medicine lets people die in lines. Blah, blah, blah.

Yet, socialized medicine is far more ubiquitous in virtually every other industrialized nation on earth, and there is no correlation between the American medical system - supposedly the best one on the planet - and those results.

Right.

 

[Bern80]

Are you seriously saying that you cannot understand how expenditure, life expectancy and a medical system are not linked?

If you wish to maintain the position that how much money you spend on your health is a predominant factor in how long you will live, so be it. It's simply ridiculous. There inumerable factors that money has no control over where your health and by extension your life expectancy is concerned.

Socialized medicine is evil. Socialized medicine brings shortages. Socialized medicine lets people die in lines. Blah, blah, blah.

No. socialized medicine is mediocre medicine. As I've said before it's a very basic supply and demand concept. IF you make something less expensive, more of it will be demanded. No healthcare is not a different animal from other commodities in that regard.

Yet, socialized medicine is far more ubiquitous in virtually every other industrialized nation on earth, and there is no correlation between the American medical system - supposedly the best one on the planet - and those results.

Again you choose to define 'best' the same as Larkinn. You want the amount of people satisfactorily served to be part of quality of care. Unfortunately that isn't a factor of quality. At the end of the day our system has best technology and the greatest ability to treat most any illness. THAT is what constitutes the best healthcare. If your willing to sacrafice the excellent quality care for 90% of the population for the 10% (whom under the law must be treated if they need treatment) then perhaps you really should ask yourself which system is more evil.

 

[Toro]

If you wish to maintain the position that how much money you spend on your health is a predominant factor in how long you will live, so be it. It's simply ridiculous. There inumerable factors that money has no control over where your health and by extension your life expectancy is concerned.

It is not ridiculous.

In business, if your profit margin - your output relative to your input - is well below your competitors, then your business is generally considered poorly run. The input to the American health care system is the amount of dollars consumed by it. The output is - at least in part - how long one lives. Of course there are many factors effecting life spans, but to say that a nation's health system has little effect is a very strange notion considering there is no other tangible metric of health than how long one lives. "They all died before 40, but they were healthy."

No. socialized medicine is mediocre medicine. As I've said before it's a very basic supply and demand concept. IF you make something less expensive, more of it will be demanded. No healthcare is not a different animal from other commodities in that regard.

By your definition then, I guess we shouldn't sell cars for less than $100,000, because doing so is a sign of "mediocrity," and pricing cars any lower would just increase demand, and higher demand is terrible.

I look forward to your arguments on why would should raise taxes to make everything more expensive and lower demand.

Again you choose to define 'best' the same as Larkinn. You want the amount of people satisfactorily served to be part of quality of care.

Yes. Absolutely.

Note the terms "satisfactorily served."

Unfortunately that isn't a factor of quality. At the end of the day our system has best technology and the greatest ability to treat most any illness. THAT is what constitutes the best healthcare. If your willing to sacrafice the excellent quality care for 90% of the population for the 10% (whom under the law must be treated if they need treatment) then perhaps you really should ask yourself which system is more evil.

Of course, the term "bankruptcy" doesn't enter your lexicon when describing the 10% who must be treated if they need it.

I prefer not to think in terms of "evil." However, many on the political right are more than happy to demonize "socialized medicine," which was sort of the point of this thread. And what's amusing is that almost all of them have absolutely zero experience dealing with another country's medical system.

Live in another country and you will hear the same demonization, only of the US medical system. America is held up as the example of how inhumanely a for-profit, corporate-driven medical system treats its poorest citizens. The mythology in other countries about the US system, and all the inaccuracies and biases are as amusing and maddening as many of the American myths about "socialzied medicine."

Frankly, I find the debate stale and boring on both sides of the political spectrum, propagated by people with little experience or understanding about the opposing systems other than pre-conceived notions reinforced by self-selecting anecdotes and politically-driven commentary.

 

[Bern80]

It is not ridiculous.

In business, if your profit margin - your output relative to your input - is well below your competitors, then your business is generally considered poorly run. The input to the American health care system is the amount of dollars consumed by it. The output is - at least in part - how long one lives. Of course there are many factors effecting life spans, but to say that a nation's health system has little effect is a very strange notion considering there is no other tangible metric of health than how long one lives. "They all died before 40, but they were healthy."

So by your logic if someone is hit by a car that did lead a healthy life. If they are geneticially predisposed to heart problems they did not lead a healthy life right? Factors like these are the ones money can not combat. Your graph of the various life expactancy is only that. How did they arrive at those numbers. Did they take the average death of the entire population regardless of why they died? Did they only take those of 'healthy' people? Did they leave out people genetically predisposed to certain conditions?

And to so construe what I actually said and what you turned it into above. I'd almost say was deliberate. I never said the quality of the health care system is not a factor of how long one lives. I said how much spend on your healthcare is not a predominant factor in how long you will live. More money does not equal a better healthcare system, or a better anything for that matter (see education).

By your definition then, I guess we shouldn't sell cars for less than $100,000, because doing so is a sign of "mediocrity," and pricing cars any lower would just increase demand, and higher demand is terrible.

Oh for stupid. My argument isn't increased demand on a good is a bad thing. My argument is it will be bad for healthcare in the U.S. I'm pretty sure you know that, but you chose an easy, albeit asanine, interpretation instead.

Of course, the term "bankruptcy" doesn't enter your lexicon when describing the 10% who must be treated if they need it.

Yes it does. It is franly meaningless. There will always be people that can't pay for healthcare. If it isn't private it will come out of our taxes and there will always be some who can't pay that either.

I prefer not to think in terms of "evil." However, many on the political right are more than happy to demonize "socialized medicine," which was sort of the point of this thread. And what's amusing is that almost all of them have absolutely zero experience dealing with another country's medical system.

Live in another country and you will hear the same demonization, only of the US medical system. America is held up as the example of how inhumanely a for-profit, corporate-driven medical system treats its poorest citizens. The mythology in other countries about the US system, and all the inaccuracies and biases are as amusing and maddening as many of the American myths about "socialzied medicine."

Frankly, I find the debate stale and boring on both sides of the political spectrum, propagated by people with little experience or understanding about the opposing systems other than pre-conceived notions reinforced by
self-selecting anecdotes and politically-driven commentary.

The reason you the right doesn't like UHC because the results are so blatenlty obvious. The care you receive under UHC will be inferior to the care the vast majority of Americans receive.

And what you think others countries perceptions are is also dead wrong. Miss the thread about Japan's system did we? Or the headlines about the problems the UK is haveing. They have their own healthcare issues to worry about before they go point the finger at us.

 

[Toro]

So by your logic if someone is hit by a car that did lead a healthy life. If they are geneticially predisposed to heart problems they did not lead a healthy life right? Factors like these are the ones money can not combat. Your graph of the various life expactancy is only that. How did they arrive at those numbers. Did they take the average death of the entire population regardless of why they died? Did they only take those of 'healthy' people? Did they leave out people genetically predisposed to certain conditions?

We're talking about 300 million people.

300 million.

Not a couple hundred. Hundreds of millions.

Of course a number of factors that effect life spans. But out of a population of hundreds of millions, many factors will even themselves out, so you look for constants between different cross-sections of populations. And one of them is the health care system.

Oh for stupid. My argument isn't increased demand on a good is a bad thing. My argument is it will be bad for healthcare in the U.S. I'm pretty sure you know that, but you chose an easy, albeit asanine, interpretation instead.

So your argument is that increased demand for a good isn't a bad thing yet increased demand for healthcare (also a good) is a bad thing.

Which is it?

You wanna help me with my "easy, asinine interpretation" because you are making it not so easy and asinine when you say higher demand is not a bad thing but is a bad thing in the same sentence.

Yes it does. It is franly meaningless. There will always be people that can't pay for healthcare. If it isn't private it will come out of our taxes and there will always be some who can't pay that either.

Oh yeah, bankruptcy is such a joy. Its so much fun, people are just clamoring to do it all the time. Its great to get your savings wiped out.

The reason you the right doesn't like UHC because the results are so blatenlty obvious. The care you receive under UHC will be inferior to the care the vast majority of Americans receive.

And what you think others countries perceptions are is also dead wrong. Miss the thread about Japan's system did we? Or the headlines about the problems the UK is haveing. They have their own healthcare issues to worry about before they go point the finger at us.

Interesting. I have lived in three countries, two with a universal health care system and one without. I've experienced both the good and bad with all three, which is one of the reasons why I post things refuting many of the knee-jerk criticisms and myths from people who have not (and that includes those who criticize the US system). What is your experience with or knowledge of other systems so that you know you will get bad service? If it is based on politically-charged anecdotes, I'm pretty sure I can find a whole host of articles written by foreigners about the problems in the American health care system. Its interesting that many nations are satisfied enough with their health care systems that just mentioning moving to an American system is political death for any politician who suggests it.

And I posted this thread because of the thread about Japan. And since you seem fairly indignant about foreigners "pointing their fingers at us," no doubt you are indignant about Americans pointing fingers at others, which is what the article about Japan is doing.

 

[Bern80]

We're talking about 300 million people.

300 million.

Not a couple hundred. Hundreds of millions.

Of course a number of factors that effect life spans. But out of a population of hundreds of millions, many factors will even themselves out, so you look for constants between different cross-sections of populations. And one of them is the health care system.

Again that was not your argument. Your argument was there is a direct link between how much an individual spends on their health and how long they will live. This is patently false. Even your graph reflects that.

So your argument is that increased demand for a good isn't a bad thing yet increased demand for healthcare (also a good) is a bad thing.

Which is it?

You wanna help me with my "easy, asinine interpretation" because you are making it not so easy and asinine when you say higher demand is not a bad thing but is a bad thing in the same sentence.

If you obtusely refuse to understand I can't help that. We'll try once more. You took (for convenience sake) what I said about demand for healthcare and assumed I meant that same for all goods and services. I didn't. In economics when demand exceeds supply you have a shortage. For some goods that isn't too much of an issue in terms of detriment to the consumer. Obviously for healthcare it's a big issue.

First we would have to know how close we are to a shortage. Then figure out if the price we are going to reduce healthcare to will put us into one. The thread about Japan illustrates just that. In that sense it isn't too much different here. While not optimal care, under the law, if a US citizen needs healthcare they will receive it. The same is essentially true for countries like Japan and the UK they have been put into a situation where they are treating based on level of pain. Which is counter to exactley what the left says we need to focus on, preventative care. You can't very well prevent things if your system is clogged up treating only the most severe cases.

Oh yeah, bankruptcy is such a joy. Its so much fun, people are just clamoring to do it all the time. Its great to get your savings wiped out.

Well somehow my parents avoided it when I was sick. It isn't asking too much to ask people to be responsible for their healthcare and that of their children.

Interesting. I have lived in three countries, two with a universal health care system and one without. I've experienced both the good and bad with all three, which is one of the reasons why I post things refuting many of the knee-jerk criticisms and myths from people who have not (and that includes those who criticize the US system). What is your experience with or knowledge of other systems so that you know you will get bad service? If it is based on politically-charged anecdotes, I'm pretty sure I can find a whole host of articles written by foreigners about the problems in the American health care system. Its interesting that many nations are satisfied enough with their health care systems that just mentioning moving to an American system is political death for any politician who suggests it.

And I posted this thread because of the thread about Japan. And since you seem fairly indignant about foreigners "pointing their fingers at us," no doubt you are indignant about Americans pointing fingers at others, which is what the article about Japan is doing.

To cut to the chase this is more about what people should be responsible for than the quality of care in individual countries. If money were a none issue with regards to paying for US healthcare, we wouldn't be haveing this conversation. Some countries beleive their governments should be responsible for more aspects of a person's life than others. Personally I don't think you do a society any favors by eliminating all risks from it.

 

[ronpaul2008]

Your graph does not show the nations to the right, but all those nations to the right that have low life spans have sizable populations in the United States. Possibly it has to do with genetics, because all those countries on the left are known for haiving life spans like that even without modern health care. The average may have been lower in the past due to death in childbirth or very young, but if you lived to an adult you usually lived to be at least 80. Universal health care is doing nothing, as soon as you raise infant mortality rates to modern levels those nations were there. Or as you mention it could do with industrialization, where people living in industrial lands live longer. That also would put US stats lower since so many people here come from 3rd world countries.

US had unquestionably the best health care in the world when the government did not spend anything. Now 2/3's of health care spending is from the government and quality is going down the drain and many hospitals are in complete crisis. The government IS the problem! The solution to fixing the mess the government has made is not to give the government 100 control! Once all nations are under government health care, the governments of the world will surely start embedding computer chips in its citizens.

 

[Gunny]

Are you seriously saying that you cannot understand how expenditure, life expectancy and a medical system are not linked?

Socialized medicine is evil. Socialized medicine brings shortages. Socialized medicine lets people die in lines. Blah, blah, blah.

Yet, socialized medicine is far more ubiquitous in virtually every other industrialized nation on earth, and there is no correlation between the American medical system - supposedly the best one on the planet - and those results.

Right.

You want socialized medicine? Ask any vet on this board, or any other what military medical facilities are like because they ARE the harbingers of things to come.


There ARE long lines. Treatment is reactive rather than preemptive.

So your "blah, blah, blah" has just been served.

And no, there is no correlation between expenditure and life expectancy. You can spend every dime you make on health care and it isn't going to grant you one more second on Earth.

 

[Psychoblues]

Gunny is a tried and true liar and the graph indicates a truism most Americans recognise and are attempting to repair. The VA is an excellent place to obtain health care. This Vet can vouch for it anytime and anywhere. Does it have faults? Yes. True Americans seek to improve and not obsess over past failures. I don't think we will ever be perfect, Jesus said that, but I think it is an unforgiveable sin not to strive for betterment, don't you?

 

[Psychoblues]

The VA, only an example of socialized medicine, retains the reputation as the best that the US has to offer.