< PREVIOUS ] [ 2004 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
The TV commercial sounded frightening. If Democratic
Sen. John Kerry were elected president, Washington
bureaucrats
would be in control [of] a
government-run health-care plan [with a] $1.5 trillion
price tag.
The sentence fragments continue: Big
government in charge. Not you. Not your doctor.
In other words, Team Bush will protect us from the awful menace of socialized medicine.
But is it really such a menace? The 2002 edition of one of my favorite reference books, The Statistical Abstract of the United States, has a chapter of international statistics, and the health statistics do not make one proud to be an American.
One chart lists 29 nations, and the percentage of Gross Domestic Product that each spends on health care. The United States is a leader there. We spend 12.9 percent of our GDP on health care -- that's the highest percentage in the world, at least for an industrial democracy.
What do we get for the money? The two major measures of public health are life expectancy (77.3 years in the U.S.) and infant mortality rate, 6.8 deaths per 1,000 live births in the first year of American life.
Some nations spend considerably less, and it shows. Turkey spends only 4.8 percent. Life expectancy is a decent 71.2, but infant mortality is an appalling 47.3. Mexico, with health spending at 5.3 percent, is simlar: 71.8 life expectancy, and 25.4 infant mortality.
However, they're exceptions. Great Britain spends only 6.9 percent of its GDP on health care, considerably less than our 12.9 percent. Yet British citizens enjoy a longer slightly longer lifespan, 77.8 as compared to our 77.3, and a lower infant mortality rate, 5.5 rather than our 6.8.
In other words, they spend less and get more. That's also true of many other countries. Icelanders spend 8.7 percent of their GDP on health; they live 2.6 years longer, and only half as many of their babies die before their first birthday.
The Japanese enjoy the world's longest life expectancy, 80.8 years, and their infant mortality rate is only 60 percent of ours. They spend only 7.5 percent of their GDP on health care. Canada spends 9.2 percent of its GDP on health, and Canadians live two years longer we do spending 12.9 percent of our GDP.
Greece is a relatively poor country; its per-capita GDP is only $10,733 as compared to our $35,619. But it has a longer life expectancy and a lower infant mortality rate than we do, and it spends only 8.4 percent of its GDP on health care.
This list could continue for long enough to glaze your eyes, but optometrists cost money, so I'll spare you. The point should be clear: We spend more on health care, and get less for our money, than most industrial democracies, from Australia to Switzerland. And the ones who deliver the best value have socialized medicine.
Now, I don't like big government
any more than
the next guy. But if it's a choice between paying $200 a
month more in taxes to big government
for national
health care or $400 a month for big insurance from big
business,
then the answer seems fairly simple.
Since big government
can deliver better health
care at a lower cost in other countries, perhaps we should
try improving our health care while saving money.
Suppose we could do as well as Spain, which spends only 7 percent of its GDP on health while getting better results. In that case, Americans would enjoy an extra $4.5 trillion each year that now gets sucked up by health care. That's about $1,500 apiece -- talk about a way to keep more of our hard-earned money in our own pockets.
Further, how many people do you know who stay in jobs they hate because they need the health benefits? Wouldn't they be more productive if they could move to jobs they like without worrying about keeping their coverage? Wouldn't we enjoy more economic growth if people were more productive on the job?
And finally, if government health care
is so
terrible, why do those who often denounce it, like our
president and many senators and representatives, use their
government health-care plans? They seem to think big
government
does a fine job of providing health care to
them and their families. But for some reason, they must
toil day and night to save us from that dreadful fate.
Of course, they do get campaign contributions from the people who prosper with the current system of profiting from the sick.
Anyway, a national health care program could easily cost $1.5 trillion. But if we use the international averages, then the same amount of private health care delivered the current American way would cost $2.4 trillion. Isn't it time we got serious about saving money?
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2004 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >