If only the people shouting and screaming at town hall meetings would bother to look at the current OECD data (3-page .pdf), they'd maybe understand that there's a problem with health care that won't go away if we just ignore it.
Total health spending accounted for 16.0% of GDP in the United States in 2007, by far the highest share in the OECD. Following the United States were France, Switzerland and Germany, which allocated respectively 11.0%, 10.8% and 10.4% of their GDP to health. The OECD average was 8.9% in 2007.The United States also ranks far ahead of other OECD countries in terms of total health spending per capita, with spending of 7,290 USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity), almost two-and-a-half times greater than the OECD average of 2,964 USD in 2007. Norway follows, with spending of 4,763 USD per capita, then Switzerland with spending of 4,417 USD per capita.
Also see Digby, who's got a nice chart explaining the data in terms of infant mortality and life expectancy.
The Republicans or their staffs have probably seen these numbers but are willfully ignoring them.
The status quo is broken.
Posted by Linkmeister at August 16, 2009 11:06 AM | TrackBackThere is a question I would like to see answered definitively, and it is this: sure, the U.S. spends a ton more on health care than their OECD counterparts. But is it not also the case that health care spending in the OECD is increasing faster than population growth*inflation? I believe -- but don't have hard data for this -- that the answer is "yes", and if so, the assertion that government control is necessarily a means to keep costs down necessarily takes a hit.
Posted by: Rob McMillin at August 16, 2009 01:48 PMI don't think that's relevant. What we know is that American health care costs are rising and that more and more people are priced out of the insurance market. A public option would at least give people who can't get private insurance now due to insurance companies' strictures on "pre-existing conditions" a chance to get health care.
Also, the employer-based system we have is making us terribly uncompetitive as a country. Remember the "every GM car has $2,000 worth of health care priced into it" fact?
Posted by: Linkmeister at August 16, 2009 04:52 PMOf course it's relevant. The general charge is that what we currently have is much more expensive for overall worse care than our OECD counterparts. That may be true, but it does not also follow that government-run systems are going to be able to steer clear of the kinds of problems we currently have; the second derivative (acceleration in expenses) is only smaller.
Posted by: Rob McMillin at August 18, 2009 12:01 PMAny great misfortune or cause of misery; -- generally applied to events or disasters which produce extensive evil, either to communities or individuals. Note: The word calamity was first derived from calamus when the corn could not get out of the stalk. --Bacon. Strokes of calamity that scathe and scorch the soul. --W. Irving. 2. A state or time of distress or misfortune; misery. The deliberations of calamity are rarely wise. --Burke. Where'er I came I brought calamity. --Tennyson. Syn: Disaster; distress; affliction; adversity; misfortune; unhappiness; infelicity; mishap; mischance; misery; evil; extremity; exigency; downfall. Usage: Calamity, Disaster, Misfortune, Mishap, Mischance. Of these words, calamity is the strongest. It supposes a somewhat continuous state, produced not usually by the direct agency of man, but by natural causes, such as fire, flood, tempest, disease, etc.
By
Miller Roberts
Project Manager
Recovery Software
http://www.recoverybull.com
Mr. Roberts, at this stage of the country's existence, I'd say the Republican Party fits the definition. They're a disease on the body politic.
Posted by: Linkmeister at August 18, 2009 09:59 PM