From the Washington Monthly comes this rather excellent interview/debate on private v.s. public health care. There’s not too much worth summarizing, so I’ll just give you a few teasers from the article itself.
For private care:
At that time there were something like, I think, five CAT scans in the Province of Ontario. Now, at the same moment in 1984, there were some hospitals in America that had five CAT scans. CAT scans were in doctors’ offices. And this is sort of a small thing but it tells you the cost. Canada has achieved a wonderful thing, which is universal health-care coverage, but it has achieved it at a price, and that is quality of care.
For public care:
My wife’s sister had a very premature baby born in Edmonton six years ago, the kind of baby who normally lives in about 20 percent of cases—and they had eight months of intensive care. I mean really intensive care. And the baby ended up living. It was a pound and a half at birth, the smallest baby that survived in western Canada in that year. The one thing they never thought about, the one thing they never considered, the one thing they never had to pay a moment’s attention to was: How much will this cost? When does our insurance run out? It simply was not in the agonizing equation of worry and concern that they had to face. That seems to me, in itself, the most powerful argument you can make for socialized medicine, to put it in the bluntest possible terms.
And then there are views not so easily categorized…
What a man wants from a health-care system is a system that is acutely oriented, not chronically oriented, that is much more interested in quality of care, much less interested in access. A man doesn’t need access to care until he’s very old. He wants a high end, super-specialized system that when he has something seriously wrong with him fixes it right away. A woman, on the other hand, wants a system that’s low tech, that sacrifices quality for a kind of presence. She can go to the doctor three times a month if she wants to and get a personal relationship with that doctor.The Canadian health-care system is a health-care system for women. The American health-care system is a health-care system that is perfectly situated for men. This whole debate about what is better, the American system or the Canadian system, is essentially a variant on the gender war.

Comments to this entry
Elizabeth
February 28, 2006
6:37 am
However the last point is a good one. Women, as primary caretakers of children, have to think about expenses because they never know what could happen to their children. They have to plan against risk for their babies (like the Canadian couple with their premature baby).
Men can put this worry aside because they are only worried about themselves (at least, in the example given in this post). If men felt the same responsibility towards their vulnerable children as women did, I'd venture they'd be much keener on a lower-risk system.
snow
February 28, 2006
12:35 pm
Elizabeth
February 28, 2006
12:42 pm
Well, that's one thing our health care systems have in common!
Younghusband
February 28, 2006
12:51 pm
My Dad was diagnosed with a collapsed artery in his stomach in December. He is only 54. Any physical activity aggravates it and causes his right leg to go into spasms. The doctor warned him not to do anything other than average daily things because he might get the blood cut off to his leg at the wrong time, and end up losing it or even dying. They put him on an emergency list for surgery. Guess when the appointment is? March 23rd! _Emergencies_ have a 3 month waiting list!
"Presence" my arse!
Elizabeth
February 28, 2006
1:09 pm
Dan
February 28, 2006
1:10 pm
Curzon
February 28, 2006
2:50 pm
Elizabeth
February 28, 2006
3:05 pm
Later in life I got most of my medical care in Europe where I had no trouble at all. Admittedly, this was mostly preventative care, but I've also seen Europeans get treated for emergency cases. They moan over a three month wait, not considering that in the US, they might have been too poor to get treated at all. Of course, those people die so we don't hear about them, as we do about the charity cases.
You want to tell the whiny Brits: look, at least you're not DEAD. At least you got the drugs.
I'm not for a totally socialized system: I think the state should aim to provide basic preventative and emergency care, and allow private practices. I don't believe in price caps on drugs, but our patent system leads to monopolization in which the consumer suffers terribly. I know, I know: R&D costs, but there are alternatives to one company doing 100% of the R&D for the whole industry, as well.
Better shut up now as I've left myself open to attacks on a hundred fronts and I'm late for my work deadlines.
Chief Wiggum
February 28, 2006
3:45 pm
I recommend CA readers click on Dan's link above for another look at the man-woman divide. It's a very interesting and funny bit:
_"The main difference between men and women is that men are lunatics and women are idiots." Rebecca West (Black Lamb and Grey Falcon)_
_Over and over again she [Rebecca West] saw the same pattern: men were swept away by far-away schemes and ideas (like lunatics), while women were so absorbed by families and personal relationships they ignored those same forces (like idiots). To Dame Commander West, men were idiotically refusing to focus on the real details of daily living while women were foolishly refusing to focus on the fate of their nation and culture. In other words, men are idiots for not engaging in long-term coalition building on a family level (in "tight" or "dense" networks) while women are fools for not engaging in long-term coalition building on the national and ideological level (in "loose" or less "dense" nets)._
It is worthwhile to read the entire article.
Younghusband
March 1, 2006
2:39 am
Also, Alberta has released a one-two punch on medicare today by "suggesting how to cut wait times":http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060228.wsim0228/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20060228.wsim0228 and laying out a "third-way framework":http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060228.walta0228/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20060228.walta0228 which would allow doctors to work in both the public and for-profit systems.
Admiral
March 1, 2006
5:47 am
Consider the illegal immigrants who receive service and are unable to pay. Consider the pressures on the federal government to come to the rescue, causing taxpayer money. Consider that prescription drugs are cheaper in Canada because they FORCE pharmaceuticals to charge ALMOST AT COST thereby forcing them to raise costs here in America. Canada achieves through force what we never could here in America without completely bankrupting this prescription drug engine that is now spreading across the world extending lives and keeping people out of hospitals. (Canada is not the only countries that tries to put the American companies out of business-- Japan and others do too.)
Consider the extraordinary cost of insurance caused by frivolous lawsuits. Doctors are being discouraged from practicing for similar reasons that doctors have for fleeing the UK-- they just aren't making the money in a lot of cases.
National health insurance in Taiwan is a disaster and in my opinion the system in Canada will collapse eventually too. It will in the long-run. These systems are now political footballs that will go where the political winds go, and it's very, very sad.
The best way to go is, of course, private care mostly free of regulation. In the US, health savings accounts, as shown on the Beckner-Posner blog, would go a long way towards establishing some robustness in the price elasticity of demand now inelasticized by 8 years of "managed care" under Clinton.
I know I have rambled, so... in summary: Canada is able to spend less almost entirely because of their demographics and the United States. We subsidize their healthcare ENORMOUSLY with the drugs and the technology, not to mention the trade, which allows them to keep prices down so they may pay ludicrous taxes for their ridiculous healthcare system (waiting list fatalities/casualties anyone? Any waiting list in the US is but pale in comparison...) and have more discretionary dollars to keep their standards of living up. Yes, once again, Canada owes everything to us.
Their economic model is simply not the answer. They're parasites, just like the rest of the world, when it comes to our healthcare. You try using the Canadian system for 300 million across such a beautifully stratified economic range. It'd be silly. We're the best.
Wot Wot! as they say.
Admiral
March 1, 2006
5:52 am
The problem is no different in Canada, and you will see higher and higher taxes, higher and higher costs, and more and more dependence on American health services. As Taiwan's national health insurance (soon-to-be) disaster shows, these sorts of plans can only raise the costs and prevent innovation in the long run.
Canada's system looks good to the short-sighted, but for those who understand how the system really works, what it is predicated upon, and the cost structures... wow... we have to do everything we can to make it more responsive to the market.
Bush's prescription drug benefit will be a fiasco and break the US far faster than any other entitlement, so it is perhaps ironic that his recent healthcare suggests, although no panacea, may provide a good starting point for effective reform.
Elizabeth
March 1, 2006
6:12 am
Admiral, you got one thing right: Bush's plan is ridiculous.
The rest of the hyperbole is hardly worth answering, because once again we have an extreme positive version of the idea of a free market ("markets solve everything, because self-interest is the main motivator in all human activity") being pitted against systems which are imperfect and moreover- actually being implemented.
If we look at the most free markets in the world- where systems have totally broken down- like Russia, we see that their citizens and doctors for some reason prefer to emigrate to Western Europe and America. That's because the richer you are, the better the systems work. Funny thing, that.
It's really cute that you appear to think only America has an immigration issue, though. Sweet.
Curzon
March 1, 2006
8:58 am
Europe now has more illegal immigrants entering every year than the US and may have a higher number of illegal immigrants. There are pluses and minuses to illegal immigration from a public services point of view. For example, while what you say may be true, illegal immigrants also contribute to social security without the right to claim benefits.
Not the whole story -- stupid print and TV advertisements greatly contribute to the high cost of many medicines in the US.
Absolutely. A first-year gynacologist's insurance premiums can run as high as $175,000! Frivolous malpractice claims are the number one threat to the US system and the biggest thing driving up medical costs.
What's even funnier is that you tried to call Russia a free market. Functioning capitalism requires the reinvestment of profits; Russia was a loot-and-run system and fluctuates between orderless and oligarchy.
Elizabeth
March 1, 2006
9:32 am
I couldn't agree more. I didn't say Russia was a functioning capitalistic system. I said it was a free market. I believe these are different things. I don't care for ready-made "isms" but I do believe that a market requires some level of regulation to prevent oligarchy (as you refer to).
My point was to emphasize to Admiral that the free market does not, in and of itself, solve social problems.
I presume that you would agree with me that capitalism is more than free markets.
Curzon
March 1, 2006
9:56 am
Elizabeth
March 1, 2006
10:31 am
Free market proponents are not allowed to just define in all they want to their own advantage.
"Main Entry: free market
Function: noun
: an economic market operating by free competition"
I realize this is not what many people have in mind when they talk about their free-market utopias, but because each utopia differs in its degrees of freedom, I think that the burden is on free marketeers to define to what extent the market should be free. You can't just say, "free market means only this free, because that's what it would take to work". Free means free. The definition of "free market" is taken. Y'all will have to come up with your own definition.
Essentially, Russia was just this for a time: an economic market operating by free competition. No ifs, ands, or buts. Unfortunately.
snow
March 1, 2006
11:17 am
He didn't say that a free market was the way to go, whatever the definition. Why not some kind of mixed system where there is alot of freedom, but which also includes some level of safety net?
It seems that either extremes have problems, too much inefficiency and waste in the Canadian system (though it sounds like the US has some of this problem too) and not full coverage in the US. Isn't there some way to widen the coverage and yet use private healthcare to provide the cutting edge stuff? So what if some people get better care, if they pay for it? Do we want to limit everybody to the same mediocre care? Admittedly, creating such a mixed system, is it feasible, or does it just mean the crumbling of the public side?
Joe
March 1, 2006
2:17 pm
It comes down to a tradeoff. If you want universality, you have to sacrifice quality; there's no way to have both unless you have an abnormally high per-capita GDP to fund it.
People who advocate universal health care never address how to tackle this issue. They never really address how to bring down the R&D costs for medicines, or how to keep people coming into the medical profession. There are a host of interconnected issues here that have yet to be resolved in a way that's satisfactory to everyone, and I don't think these issues ever /can/ be resolved to everyone's satisfaction because it all comes down to an issue of haves vs. have-nots, the debate we all know will never end.
That said I don't think it pays to be fatalist about the system and say "it will never work that well, so why care?" The key is to find the proper balance between the haves and have-nots. It's the story of America, right? So I think Curzon's view from both sides is really the right way to look at this.
I reckon that if health care is fixed in America, it has to happen on a local level where the system can actually be tinkered with on a day-to-day basis. A top-down national universal health care system is not happening in the US. It sounds nice but it's too impractical; look at the bloat we have /just to pay our taxes/. If we can get good, balanced local systems, turn those into good, balanced state systems, then turn those into a functioning national system (if we deem it necessary), we might have something. It's just going to take lots of experimentation that doesn't work on paper.
This is just a general thought, though, because I really know jack-all about health care administration.
Elizabeth
March 1, 2006
2:31 pm
That's not quite true. I've suggested that R&D needs to be spread among more organizations, which will keep costs down through competition. Internal R&D departments in huge monopolies are not likely to be the most efficient drivers of innovation.
Regarding how to keep people coming into the medical profession: one might ask how we keep teachers in teaching. And no, not all teachers are crap.
Anyway, most of us here are for some kind of hybrid, with free market AND public services, with minimum guaranteed benefits. I don't think it's meant to be in bad feeling at all.
Dan
March 1, 2006
2:32 pm
The clear implication is that, until 1980, hospitals, doctors, &c across the world were killing as many people as they were saving. So before 1980, it really didn't matter how you ran your system, it wouldn't be that bad. Life expectency didn't vary dramatically between the Germanies, or between Russia and America, for example.
What changed after this were the introduction of two medical technologies: prescription drugs and assembly-line surgeries. Prescription drugs are currently subsidized by America for the world. Assembly-line surgeries, which are fought everywhere because they threaten the profits of otherwise useless (literally on a net basis) hospitals, are available in the United States, India, Thailand, etc.
Joe
March 1, 2006
2:50 pm
What do you mean by "more organizations?" Do you mean academic institutions (which already do lots of drug research on contract with companies)? And how are smaller organizations supposed to get the scientific and monetary capital for truly colossal research projects, like curing cancer or AIDS? How is separating the brains from each other going to make anything any better?
Also, how can you call these companies monopolies? The only monopolies they have come after they develop the drug, in the form of a patent, and even then it won't be permanent and it will be restricted to treating a certain type of condition.
I think it's fair to say there's plenty of competition in R&D these days. I'd like to know why you disagree.
monocrat
March 1, 2006
4:30 pm
And, though I dislike Medicare/Medicaid (for, inter alia, their costs and the dilution of the federal system), it isn't a monolith: There's at least modest variation and tinkering with the programs at the state levels, under "waivers" from CMS: Tennessee, for example, provides services through managed care, whereas Florida simply reimburses or funds recipients for covered services at approved physicians. States have seen no small process innovation to contain costs whenever possible.
Elizabeth
March 2, 2006
6:28 am
I didn't say it requires this: I meant that the meaning of the term can be applied to Russia since it isn't specifically limited in any way.
And although some groups were initially favoured by the government, I'm talking about the wild period in which the government controlled almost nothing.
"What do you mean by "more organizations?"Â?"
I used the term 'organization' to be as broad as possible. I certainly didn't mean to constrain it to non-profits or academic institutions.
" And how are smaller organizations supposed to get the scientific and monetary capital for truly colossal research projects, like curing cancer or AIDS?"
Let's be clear: I'm not talking about "dismantling" anyone. I never favour extreme destructive action. I am talking about spreading subsidies around a bit more, in particular for general R&D costs and overheads, to increase creativity.
"Also, how can you call these companies monopolies?"
Fair enough. There is more than one company, but let's call them something like a not-poly-enough-poly. Monopoly threatens, mainly because of the way they control patents. Power and profits are consolidated over time as smaller companies without the R&D get less and less as they lose patents to larger companies that get there that much faster thanks to subsidies. Thus the smaller researchers are edged out. This is what I'm opposed to- not to profits or patents.
Elizabeth
March 2, 2006
6:30 am
Kenneth
March 3, 2006
2:14 am
And although some groups were initially favoured by the government, I'm talking about the wild period in which the government controlled almost nothing._
"What wild period?":http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Russia
Russia's economy is firmly in the stranglehold of a vast bureaucracy and has been since the Soviet years and the Yeltsin years- look at the '95 score on the Index, it isn't exactly stellar (placing Russia firmly into the "mostly unfree" category).
Elizabeth
March 4, 2006
7:49 am
Have you ever tried to do business there? I can tell you, it was either a million pieces of paper- and even then you'll never get anywhere- or a bribe, which will get you past anything. I'm not trying to describe Russia as a great place to do business. I'm just saying the laws applied not as laws, but as roadblocks for people who could not pay. That is very close to lawlessness, which is why so much of the worst kind of business flourished there for a time.
I mean, do you really think Abramovich succeeded because he filled in all the papers?