Health Care Article from The Economist

In a comment to my last post, Cody asked what my thoughts were on this article about health care from The Economist which seems to advocate for universal health care or at minimum attack the American health system. This is a very long article that jumps all over the place, but as I looked through it, there are many questions that popped in my mind. I'll quote a few things that stick out and give you my thoughts. I'd be curious to hear yours as well.

"Although 68% of them rate the care they receive as “excellent” or “good”, 52% are dissatisfied with the quality in the country as a whole."
I've seen studies that show a much larger percentage of the population than 68% are satisfied with their health care, but that aside, this seems to be the trend. The vast majority of Americans are satisfied with what they have personally, yet at the same time are dissatisfied with the system. This makes absolutely no sense to me, and the only conclusion I can draw is that people are stricken with guilt about what they have and what they perceive others not to have. I blame the politicians for this who are constantly agitating, dividing up a population and pitting the 2 sides against each other. This amounts to , "I love my health care system, so let's destroy it!" Absolutely no sense at all.

"But if the system in general were providing value for money, America’s vast expenditure would at least be reflected in a healthier population than in more frugal countries."
I think this is a false argument. Lifestyle is far more predictive of an overall healthier population and our affluence in this country which allows us to eat the crap we do, never walk anywhere, etc. has in my opinion caused the falling health of our population. Also, if you want access to the latest and greatest medical equipment, procedures, and medicine, you have to pay for it. Fact is, this country produces by far the most medical innovation which the rest of the world happily uses. A health care system designed after those like Britain would put a grinding halt to that innovation.

"...it appears that many Americans are getting mixed or even downright dreadful health care."
Huh? Where? If this system is so bad, why do so many come here when they need a procedure done and need it done now? I'd be curious to see the stats of America's "medical patient imports" vs. "medical patient exports". I have a feeling I know which way that study would turn out. This is an extremely broad statement with no backup whatsoever.

"Mr Orszag points to the Dartmouth work to argue that up to 30% of America’s health-care spending is sheer waste."
Ironically, the paragraph this sentence is in is referring to Medicare. Our government has driven this program into the dirt, yet we should trust them to run health care of all of us. This quote is a great reason not to have government-run health care. Again, a serious lack of logic. On another not, I didn't see anything in this article about the astronomical medical malpractice insurance premiums doctors must carry because of all the slip-and-fall lawyers and their effect on health care cost. Nothing about how fear of lawsuits does cause many doctors to run tests that they really don't think necessary as a CYA measure. If we're serious about reducing costs, why did the committees in Congress (run by Dems) that are drafting these bills immediately shoot down any ideas about limiting payouts in malpractice lawsuits?

"Such reforms would expand coverage, but could exacerbate the third symptom, cost, as the experience of Massachusetts, a trailblazing state that has already implemented a plan for universal coverage, suggests. The state faces possible bankruptcy unless it finds a way to rein in costs."
Not much to say on this, as I agree with it. It should also be pointed out that the respondents to a survey quoted in this article responded by a 2-1 margin that the largest concern was "Cost of care and insurance" vs. "number of uninsured" and "poor quality of care" combined. See, Americans don't really think our system sucks, they have just been conditioned to believe they shouldn't have to pay for it.

"For instance, the OECD countries have an average of 11 magnetic-resonance imaging machines per 1m people. America has 25.9. America uses them more often, too: 91.2 times per 1,000 people per year, compared with the OECD average of 39.1."
So what? Access to state-of-the-art equipment is now a bad thing? The only difference here is lack of supply in other countries (that pesky "reining in costs" thing) plus the fact that a government bureaucrat has to approve it, and we all know how efficient they are. I really don't care if it costs more. If a doctor says you need a certain test for diagnosis, I'd rather have the option available right then and not a few weeks down the line.

"If patients pay very little out of their own pockets they have little desire to curb consumption."
This I agree with, which is why I love high deductible plans and HSAs. However, I thought the point of the article was how much Americans pay for health care...

"In Britain NICE has come under fire for rulings that limited access to expensive drugs for Alzheimer’s and cancer on the NHS."
This is a very legitimate fear for many Americans. The article says we could get around it by leaving insurers and individuals to decide whether to pay for the treatment. That might be difficult when a government-run nonprofit plan with a printing press runs private insurance companies out of business. As I've said, any plan put forward by the Dems which has a government-run option is an automatic "no" in my book.