Does nationalized care increase life expectancy?

Does the small difference in life expectancy statistics warrant overhauling the health care system?

The truth is that Americans live, on average, longer than people in many countries with socialized care but not as long as people in some countries. If one were to compare the EU average life expectancy to that of the average American the difference is really a matter of weeks.
But that small difference is used to champion socialized care. Somehow turning health care over to the people who run the post office is supposed to add a few weeks to our life expectancy and this is supposed to be a vast improvement.

Comments

Anonymous
“Somehow turning health care over to the people who run the post office is supposed to add a few weeks to our life expectancy and this is supposed to be a vast improvement.”
That is a caricature of a strawman. I think the argument is more along the lines of, “We spend almost twice as much on health care as these European socialist systems, but what do we have to show for it? Not only does a large fraction of our citizens lack access to basic preventative care, we don’t even live longer than these socialist European nations.”
If the difference is only a few weeks and we pay twice the cost, then what exactly is so great about our system? Where exactly does the proof for the inherent supremacy of the ultra free-market ideology come from? The post office may be slow, but its cheaper than FedEx, and if it ends up that they both actually produce the same results, I’d rather save my money.
Anonymous
A good analogy. The package gets there either way. Measure the performace that way, and they are the same.
Fed Ex will get it there much faster. Fed Ex comes to my office building when called to get packages. Fed Ex walks in and drops packages onto my desk instead of the mailroom.
Measured one way, why pay extra, measured another, I am getting value for the extra money.
Take hip operations. In socialized systems, they tend to be done after long delays or not at all, saving a lot of money. Does it matter? Not if you are only measuring life expectancy as the outcome. It matters a great deal to the people who spend those years with mobility and able to enjoy life without pain.
Much of the value of private medicine in the US is not measured in those metrics. The freedom to choose your doctor or hospital has value. The freedom to choose an HMO, PPO, indemnity, or even to live on the edge without insurance has value. Being able to avoid the fear and worry of long delays before biopsies has value. The unorganized collection of systems with the freedom it provides instead of one “sensible” system for all itself yields value in competetion, contrasts, diversity, and choice.
Even the much maligned malpractice system (part of what we are paying for) has value–the access to a jury, to a possibility of substantial compensation.

Does nationalized care increase life expectancy?

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels