POST SCRIPTS

"France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday."

Of course, in the US we have far more than 100,000 preventable deaths, however those that die lack medical coverage. So, rather than 100,000 dying at the hands of the health service, 100,000 die because of lack of access. Given that, let's go ahead and give everyone access and relieve ourselves of the massively corrupt health insurance companies.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/08/6251/

People in America are not "denied" medical care...that is evidenced by the numbers sitting in emergency rooms across the nation and the common policy that emergency care cannot be denied.

Most people in America without insurance could buy it for themselves, if they deemed it important, but they don’t and choose not to buy it...many would rather buy ipods, flat screens and coffee at Star Bucks, not to mention eating out most meals every week. Some just think they are young enough that the risk isn't worth the money. Others have come to believe that it’s someone else’s responsibility…wonder where they got that idea?

There is definitely something wrong when nearly half of the population of America has come to think it’s OK to force someone else to pay for their healthcare. It is sad that they think it’s OK for a dictatorial, strong-arm government policy to make the rich, corporations, or their next door neighbor to pay instead. What’s next, their mortgage or rent? How about car payments? Maybe they should just invoice government for their grocery bills as well.

Many healthcare problems stem from government programs that don't pay…how much goes to bureaucracy instead of care? People on medical are sometimes denied service from private docs but can receive care at places like Davis where they receive very good care.

The cost of care is out of site in part because people have failed to be responsible about their own care. If they did have to pay they might be more into “preventive” measures. As it is why bother…someone else will handle the costs involved. Americans need choice and they need to pay from their own pockets. This will induce market principles, eliminate waste, fraud and bureaucracy, and bring down the cost of care.

I suggest you read a few alternate articles and papers. I recommend The Heritage Foundation:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/index.cfm

If we are going to address problems we would be wise to get information from people who have demonstrated they know how to make things work. Government has failed…socialism has failed. The free market works…when government gets out of the way.

I’ve read something about the statistics you cited but couldn’t find it. If I do I’ll post another comment.

The following information is from "The National Center for Public Policy Research...a conservative, free-market think-tank established in 1982 and located on Capitol Hill."

http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRCommonwealthFund1006.html

The report was released in October of 2006 after allegations were made by the same group that funded the story out today placing America last in a specific "category"..."preventable death-treatable conditions". This report followed a similar finding that the US ranked poorly in infant mortality rates. Judge for yourself:

A new "National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance" released by the influential Commonwealth Fund uses misleading statistics to falsely make the U.S. health care system look as if it is performing more poorly than it genuinely is, charged Dr. David Hogberg, senior policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington.

The Commonwealth Fund is a nonprofit research foundation established in 1918 focusing on government-oriented solutions to health care problems. It advocates in favor of universal coverage and greater spending on Medicaid while being highly critical of market-oriented solutions like health savings accounts.

The Commonwealth Fund is a formidable presence in the health care debate, testifying often before Congress. It has 25 senior staff members and over $28 million in revenue in fiscal year 2005.

"The Commonwealth Fund's Scorecard claims the U.S. health care system performs poorly compared to other nations," said Hogberg, "but it is the Scorecard itself that is performing poorly. The measures it uses to condemn the American system -- infant mortality, life expectancy at age 60, and mortality amenable to health care --tell us little about the effectiveness of a health care system."

The Commonwealth Fund's report is formally titled, "Why Not the Best? Results from a National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance."

"Infant mortality is measured too inconsistently across nations to be a reliable indicator," said Hogberg. "Nations use different definitions of 'infant mortality.' Some nations' infant mortality statistics do not register many infants who die during the first twenty-four hours after birth. Switzerland, for example, doesn't count as 'living' any infant born under 30 cm long, while the U.S. does. Italy has at least three different definitions for infant deaths in different regions of the nation. Many, but not all, nations tabulate births that occur while their citizens are living or traveling abroad as if their own health systems were tending to care, which they clearly are not. Overall, infant mortality is measured far too inconsistently to make cross-national comparisons useful."

Life expectancy is also a poor measure to use when comparing the health systems of various nations, said Hogberg. "Any measure of life expectancy is going to be influenced by factors -- GDP per capita, diet, lifestyle, income level, clean water, sanitation, etc. -- that have nothing to do with a health care system."

The measure of "mortality amenable to health care" comes from a 2003 article in the British Medical Journal. However, the authors of that study were far more sanguine than the Commonwealth Fund about the limits of that measure: "...amenable mortality has itself some limitations... A major limitation is that, for many conditions, death is the final event in a complex chain of processes that involve issues related to underlying social and economic factors, lifestyles, and preventive and curative health care... it is equally clear that large international differences in mortality are caused primarily by factors outside the health care sector."

"When one looks at factors that a health care system can actually influence, like cancer or heart attack survival rates, the U.S. consistently tops other nations," Hogberg said.

Hogberg noted that the Commonwealth Fund, along with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, has a project on formulating quality cross-national measures of health care systems. "The measures that the Commonwealth Fund uses in its new National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance are not the ones they are using in their project on cross-national measures. Why didn't the Commonwealth Fund use some of the measures in its quality indicators project to compare the U.S. health care system with other nations?"

The National Policy Analysis paper "Don't Fall Prey to Propaganda: Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others," by David Hogberg, Ph.D., is available online at

www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html.

The following is from that report:

Life expectancy is a poor statistic for determining the efficacy of a health care system because it fails the first criterion of assuming interaction with the health care system. For example, open any newspaper and, chances are, there are stories about people who die "in their sleep," in a car accident or of some medical ailment before an ambulance ever arrives. If an individual dies with no interaction with the health care system, then his death tells us little about the quality of a health care system. Yet all such deaths are computed into the life expectancy statistic.

"I suggest you read a few alternate articles and papers. I recommend The Heritage Foundation"

Of course you would, because you're aligned with their viewpoint.

"The free market works…when government gets out of the way."

Oh yea, just ask the people who were bilked in the first savings and loan debacle. Or look at the wonderful example of electricity deregulation - Enron was a huge success and the lack of regulation really helped the consumers in California. What about the reduced enforcement by the SEC and how all of those corporations were real honest with the shareholders?

Sorry, but a pure free market is just as dysfunctional as a socialism. It's about finding the right balance.

Sean, you seem like a pretty bright person and I thank you for taking the time to discuss these important issues with me.

Of course you would, because you're aligned with their viewpoint.

I wasn't always aligned with them. I had to do a lot of reading and talking to discover my true opinion because both sides made some sense to me.

Oh yea, just ask the people who were bilked in the first savings and loan debacle. Or look at the wonderful example of electricity deregulation - Enron was a huge success and the lack of regulation really helped the consumers in California. What about the reduced enforcement by the SEC and how all of those corporations were real honest with the shareholders?

If you look deeply into the S&L failures you will find that government played a significant role in the failures...the so called de-regulation in California was in fact politically motivated regulation. Enron was a criminal act that was handled through the courts as it should have been...that has nothing to do with the free market...it is a matter of the fallen nature of man and occurs in all systems involving human beings: businesses, schools, charities, environmental organizations, police forces, hospitals, fire departments, preschools, churches, you name it. Criminal behavior will happen in any system. Why not choose the one that works best as our governing body? Besides the free market is consistant with the Constitution...socialism is not.

What about the reduced enforcement by the SEC and how all of those corporations were real honest with the shareholders?

The level of oversight that makes sense is another issue for another day...and has little in general to do with the differences between socialism and free markets.

Sorry, but a pure free market is just as dysfunctional as a socialism. It's about finding the right balance.

No it isn't just as dysfunctional. One system of government is an enabling thief. The other asks you to work if you want to eat. No comparison.

The "right balance" can only be achieved by individuals. Survival and the opportunity to thrive is a matter of demanding something of yourself. The survival of your soul is a matter of treating others, particularly those less fortunate, as you would like to be treated. This creates a natural balance more incredibly beautiful than any cold government program could ever hope to create.