Per Capita Public* Health Care Spending...
...in OECD countries, as of 2004 (the latest stats I can find for free), according to the Congressional Research Service:
Luxembourg: $4600
Norway: $3312
Iceland: $2778
United States: $2728
France: $2477
Sweden: $2398
Denmark: $2388
Switzerland: $2381
Germany: $2340
Canada: $2209
Belgium: $2164
United Kingdom: $2164
Australia: $2106
Ireland: $2064
Netherlands: $1895
Italy: $1853
Japan: $1833
Finland: $1712
New Zealand: $1612
Spain: $1485
Portugal: $1335
Czech Republic: $1214
Greece: $1142
Hungary: $917
Korea: $591
Poland: $552
Slovak Republic: $686
Mexico: $307
Turkey: $418
Got that? The good old U.S. of A. is already the worlds fourth biggest public-spender on health-care - trailing only a handful of European countries with a combined population well under that of greater Chicago.
Of course, our measly $2728 per capita per year covers less than half of our population. While, from what I hear, France's munificent $2477 per capita per year covers pretty much everybody.
* * * * *
So what's up with our existing public health-care system? Why hasn't it, through its delightful combination of public-spiritedness and administrative savings, long ago consigned all private competition to the dustbin of history?
And just exactly how much more (?!) money does it need, to provide Americans with European-style coverage at European-style prices?
Just wondering...
* * * * *
*This is PUBLIC health care spending only. For some strange reason that...ummm...entirely escapes me...ummm...
...where was I?
...the Congressional Research Service does not report these figures directly. You have to work them out for yourself. But it's easy enough: just go to Table 1 and multiply "Health care spending per capita" by "Percentage of health care publicly financed."
--
God help the while, a bad world I say.
--
God help the while, a bad world I say.
--
God help the while, a bad world I say.
Help support the Forvm by buying items through our links. All proceeds go to defraying our hosting costs.
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
War and Piece
Politics
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
This Modern WorldTruman Project
Winds of Change.net
War
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech
Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb
Legal
Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Sports
Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist
Film and Music
They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide
News and Aggregators
Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
Dead Tree Media
The New York Times
The Washington Post
Los Angeles Times
References
Lets look at the average health care spend in the private sector.
WHO statistics are more recent. Actually, in 2006, the public sector spend in the USA is higher than France US $3074, France $2833.
OTOH, total (private + public) expenditure on health for the population - USA $6714, France $3554, i.e. in France the private health care costs (20% of total) parallel the public health care costs. Whereas in the USA, private healthcare costs (54% of total) are considerably more expensive than public healthcare (daV makes a similar point below).
The important point is that just higher spending in either public or private healthcare will not necessarily improve healthcare metrics - i.e. if the healthcare spend moved to 80% private or 80% public care, the metrics would remain approximately the same.
- reply
- quote
)really need a some type of Walmart type of entity that can drive costs down(The US Government) .... At the moment we have little fiefdoms of power who own the insurance market, bought the private practices to hold the market and run the hospitals. Teaching hosptitals did the same thing in some cases by buying practices or sign exclusivity with some of the large medical groups etc. KC for instance has one large Orthopedic surgery group that does most of the surgery in the city. Their are two Cardiology groups that have 70% of the market etc...
This is going to be hard and not fully develped for years.. We are likley to get a system that is imperfect waiting to be perfected....
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
| parent )....labor costs. Without imposing more of the former and controlling the latter, no degree of preventive care is going to bring down or even stabilize costs, regardless of whether the payer is formally public or private.
If you want one reason I actually buy to do this, it's that the government is (post the defanging of the HMOs) the only entity I can think of that can do anything that will be that wildly unpopular. And the fact that it would be a Democrat doing it is gravy. :^) Either that or the plan will fail to control costs at all and the GOP will be handed a stick to beat the Dems with. Win-win either way.
---“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
- quote
| parent )Actual care, not so much.
--"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire
- reply
- quote
| parent )need to do fifty things that provide no benifit to end user care...
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
| parent ).
--"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire
- reply
- quote
| parent )I don't have the numbers, but I thought that elective surgeons may still be making huge bucks but GPs and people working in systems like Kaiser were actually seeing decreases in income adjusted for inflation. And I saw the billings and reimbursements from the HMO when I had an eye operation recently - the eye surgeon got his bill discounted by at least 50% by the carrier before it was paid. And he was one of the top guys in town.
I certainly don't know any very wealthy doctors. Maybe the ones I know weren't smart enough to specialize in diseases of the rich when they went to med school.
--Sincerity is the first casualty of capitalism. John Burdett
- reply
- quote
| parent )as well.
--"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire
- reply
- quote
| parent )we have a system where the young and healthy, if they get coverage at all, pay private insurers who make a profit and extract that money from the system. The old, poor, sick, etc. are shifted to a public system when they are no longer profitable. Therefore we have the worst of both worlds, and my guess is that our costs will continue to increase faster and the gap between the US and the other industrialized systems will continue to grow.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
)-
- reply
- quote
| parent )public health. Every dollar that is spent in the US *not* providing care is a dollar that contributes to the alarmingly bad medical outcomes.
Look at medical care ratios in US care providers for one eye-opening way to examine the figures.
A more interesting ratio would be that between medical expenses on one hand, and medical outcomes on the other. For no particularly good reason, Americans spend more money getting less effective care than most of the other industrialized nations. The difference goes into the pockets of groups like Cigna, BC/BS, Glaxo, Novartis, AstraZeneca, etc.
--"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire
- reply
- quote
| parent )I think you're missing the big picture here. Sure, your straightforward point is undeniable. But the same thing is true of so many other situations - from food procurement to space travel - you are probably paying much more than other equivalent economies.
The point is that the greater profits from Glaxo, Novartis etc is a component of why you guys get to stay on the top, since it is the corporate and military big guns that help you get there and stay there.
My point, which I was making to Hank below, is that big spending and the perception of unfairness to the uninsured etc is part of the whole deal. That sort of societal mix and jumble is what is real about the US, and you mess with that mix (in an attempt to be fairer and more even-handed) at your peril.
- reply
- quote
| parent )America's greatness out of their own pockets and by sacrificing the health & well-being of their families? Honestly, they may well do that, knowingly or not, but I can't see anyone actually making that argument to the public with a straight face.
Oh, ok then.
--"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire
- reply
- quote
| parent )in every age, so I'm not sure why you think this will change.
- reply
- quote
| parent )hereditary monarchs, so....
--"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire
- reply
- quote
| parent )until the last couple of hundred years they couldn't vote on it.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )The oligarchy of the rich and powerful of the top 5-10% of a successful nation tends to win, whatever the political system.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing. And modern oligarchies often have some component of "regular" folk.
- reply
- quote
| parent )the American and French revolutions in your studies. Not to mention de-colonisation, which is really unforgivable of the Indian educational system.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )and plumbers?
--"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
- quote
| parent )while the US may have a slightly higher gini coefficient that most other developed countries, the trend is definitely not higher gini = more powerful and influential country. You seem to think that Americans will accept a lower and continually declining standard of living as long as their corporations are profitable and their nation is regarded as powerful - I assure you this is not the case.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )(from the outside, naturally).
.
But really, have standards of living declined (I'm not talking about decrease in house prices, income disparity etc) - in real terms? Any data to back this up?
- reply
- quote
| parent )LINK
I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy? - S. Tendencies
- reply
- quote
| parent )link here shows the change over time - pay attention to the 50% line.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )The product purchased in the 1970s was far inferior - to take just motor cars and healthcare as examples. You are not buying the same product, although the name of the product might be the same. The motor car you are buying today has levels of comfort, safety and engine quality available only in the top range models of the past (or even non-existent in those days). Similarly with healthcare. The fact of the matter is that the average quality of products today is so much higher (in part, no doubt, to the increased productivity) that direct comparisons of the sort you are making are not appropriate.
- reply
- quote
| parent )I'll take it that you agree that real wages have declined as productivity has increased. As for automobiles - yes, they're better, but they should be since the average real price of a new car has risen ~30% since 1970.
Face it, Manish, outside of the top 5 - 10% of the population the last several decades have not been good ones.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/01/the-middle-class-on-the.html
That's pretty good I think. There's a one hour lecture on youtube by the writer that covers the same ground.
The data can be summarized in a financial snapshot of two families, a typical one-earner family from the early 1970s compared with a typical two-earner family from the early 2000s. With an income of $42,450, the average family from the early 1970s covered their basic mortgage expenses of $5,820, health-insurance costs of $1,130 and car payments, maintenance, gas, and repairs of $5,640. Taxes claimed about 24 percent of their income, leaving them with $19,560 in discretionary funds. That means they had about $1,500 a month to cover food, clothing, utilities, and anything else they might need—just about half of their income.
By 2004, the family budget looks very different. As noted earlier, although a man is making nearly $800 less than his counterpart a generation ago, his wife’s paycheck brings the family to a combined income that is $73,770—a 75 percent increase. But higher expenses have more than eroded that apparent financial advantage. Their annual mortgage payments are more than $10,500. If they have a child in elementary school who goes to daycare after school and in the summers, the family will spend $5,660. If their second child is a pre-schooler, the cost is even higher—$6,920 a year. With both people in the workforce, the family spends more than $8,000 a year on its two vehicles. Health insurance costs the family $1,970, and taxes now take 30 percent of its money. The bottom line: today’s median-earning, median-spending middle-class family sends two people into the workforce, but at the end of the day they have about $1,500 less for discretionary spending than their one-income counterparts of a generation ago.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- reply
- quote
| parent )but when you make profits off one part of the life cycle and push the costs off on the public when it starts getting expensive, I don't think there's a problem in wondering exactly why their corporate charter was granted.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )if you take a look at some of the European healthcare systems, profit, per se, isn't a dirty word.
--““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H
- reply
- quote
| parent )What is unique about healthcare? Its not a moral duty for a society to provide healthcare for all its constituents, just as it is not a moral duty to provide education, or jobs.
The reason is pragmatic, entirely, - an educated, healthy workforce will presumably have less social conflict, or be able to innovate better or whatever. This, though, has not been proven. The access to, or lack of healthcare or educational provision for the American people in the past 60 years has not perceptibly altered the capacity of Americans to hold on to a very high GDP, or military ability to intervene in any country's internal affairs as it suits Americans, or any other general metric.
Some threads ago, you mentioned social pathology, high divorce rates etc. In other places you poked fun at some people for being Young Earth Creationists, or believing in exorcism. Well, what of it? Does it affect the overall situation of cultural, technological, economic, military dominance? Does it even matter, how many people believe nonsense, if they are efficient and effective at doing their jobs in society?
- reply
- quote
| parent )not every industry or business makes profits by pushing off its externalities onto the public. Many large ones do (or try to) when they get big enough to spend enough lobbying dollars to get the laws changed in ways that favor them, but there are plenty of businesses that don't.
I'm not even talking about moral duty, I'm not talking about education, I'm talking about the way this one industry operates.
As to the society as a whole, yes I do see things like the way health care is financed and the way that Wall Street is manipulated are corroding the society from within. When most people start believing that the game is rigged and there's no way around it you'll see behaviors and beliefs that start damaging the strength of what could otherwise be a happy, healthy well-educated society.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
- quote
| parent )IMHO it is a moral duty to provide healthcare and Education... Jobs are much tougher... If you keep people healthy and give them an education then jobs will come.... But what is and is not a moral duty might be a whole other thread mmghosh.....
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
| parent )In most cases not real well at that....Of course the question is can our infrastructure handle covering the other fifty million at the same cost? Will that coverage produce lower costs with future generations? How do we fund it? Do we put greater taxes on bad food etc.... Do we mandate spending on healthcare?
It seems we need to rethink everything from budgeting to tax structure etc... We need to make all parts of government more transparent and efficient... In order to lower this cost over time.. In part we need to be able to look at hard data sets that are standard from place to place..... Doing nothing is really not an option as is doing it stupidly... Still we are going to get an imperfect bill that should only be seen as phase one...IMHO...
The one thing we will need to do in the future is mandate a health advisory panel with real power to budgeting.... We should take this out of the Congress and presidents hands at least to a degree.... Maybe they can mandate increases.. but they need to at least be indexed to inflation and region.... If not we will get years without increases to medical professionals etc...
One question I do have is how to drive innovation without waste etc... A real fear that I have and many conservatives view.... In a capitalist system how do you not stand still without the ability to recoup or profit... Now maybe it is only the degree we are talking about etc... Maybe we will have to change the laws on generic drugs etc to keep the pipeline open... Still if you have four drugs that work well for most people and two are way less how do you determine what is waste and what is necessary?
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
)IMHO... Below is the total from your link.... Lets look at what doing nothing costs...
http://www.billlucey.com/2009/07/how-the-uss-health-care-compares-with-other-countries.html
"The Robert Jones Wood Foundation projects the cost of health care for businesses could double, while the number of uninsured balloon to 65.7 million over the next 10 years if legislation isn’t passed soon, with the middle-class being the hardest hit.
In 2008, according to RJWF, the U.S. spent more than two trillion on health care—nearly 17 percent of our economy-yet nearly 50 million Americans and nine million children are without health insurance, a problem that is growing more alarming the longer health care reform remains dormant.
What’s worse, the U.S. is lagging behind other industrialized countries in the cost and quality of health care it provides to his citizens. According to statistics from the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, (OECD), total health spending accounted for 16.0 percent of GDP in the United States in 2007, more than most other OECD countries, including France (11 percent); Switzerland (10.8 percent); and Germany (10.4 percent).
Oddly enough, despite its massive health expenditures, the United States ranks 20th in life expectancy and 27th in infant mortality compared with other industrialized countries, while having fewer physicians per capita. In 2007, for example, the United States had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 population. The average for OECD countries is 3.1.
Not even the insured in the United States, it seems, may be getting the proper medical attention they require. Studies from the Commonwealth Fund report more than 54 percent of U.S. patients do not seek recommended care, fill prescriptions, or visit a doctor because of high costs compared with seven to 36 percent in other countries.
It’s simply unfathomable the United States is the only developed country without a comprehensive national health care plan for its society.
How, then, are other countries able to finance their health care systems while providing basic medical necessities without increasing costs?
For comparison sake, what follows is a brief outline of health care systems in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands; based on a December, 2008 report from the Commonwealth Fund."
Bill Lucey (Direct link above to Bills break Down) I found his Breakdown on how France Germany UK and the Neitherlands pays for their system and how they work interesting...
Lets put a bit of humanity to the health debate...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/24/757552/-A-different-perspective-on-the-health-care-debate
Health Care Spending per Capita, 2004(Public and Private)
--Turkey $580
Mexico $662
Slovak Republic $778
Poland $805
Korea $1,149
Hungary $1,281
Czech Republic $1,362
Portugal $1,823
New Zealand $2,083
Spain $2,094
Greece $2,162
Finland $2,235
Japan $2,249
Italy $2,467
United Kingdom $2,508
AVERAGE $2,552
Ireland $2,596
Denmark $2,656
Sweden $2,825
Belgium $3,023
Netherlands $3,038
Germany $3,043
Australia $3,121
Austria $3,123
France $3,158
Canada $3,165
Iceland $3,331
Norway $3,966
Switzerland $4,077
Luxembourg $5,090
United States $6,102
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
)They moved from a US type system to insurance base mandated system
They rate highest by the Healthpowerhouse system.. A pretty tough test....
http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/files/2008-EHCI/EHCI-2008-report.pdf
How it is payed for....
" Beginning in 2006, residents of the Netherlands paying income taxes were required to pay for health insurance as mandated under the Health Insurance Act (Zorgverzekeringswet; ZVW), but coverage is provided by private health insurers and regulated under private law.
By law, insurers are required to provide medical care, including care by general practitioners (GPs), hospitalization; dental care; all citizens are additionally covered by the statutory Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ) scheme for a variety of chronic and mental health care services, including home care and care in nursing homes.
The insured pay a flat-rate premium (set by insurers) to their private health insurer. Those insured in 2006 were eligible for a refund of €255 ($367) if they made it through the year without requiring any medical attention. If they incurred costs of less than €255, residents were eligible for the difference at the end of the year
The insured are required to pay the first €150 ($216) of any health care costs in a given year (with some services excluded from this general rule).
In addition, the government provides health care allowances for low income citizens if the average flat-rate premium exceeds five percent of their household income.
So as the United States continues to struggle, mightily, in reforming a health care system that in the president’s own words is broken, other industrialized countries, although not perfect by any means, seem to be able to offer its citizens, especially the unemployed and disadvantaged, basic health services unconscionably lacking in one of the richest countries in the world."
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
| parent )I assume you know that the public insurance options available in the
US have specific elegibility requirements that exclude most people...
- reply
- quote
)strange etc.... Hospitals are payed flat rates and eat a lot of costs on liability issues alone....
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
- quote
| parent )