5 years later, government still can't run a business (or a healthcare system).

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Grim Reader

But, lets submit this theory tot he reality check: Other governments do run healthcare systems. How do they perform when compared to the US system?

They cost half as much.

No, their governments REPORT they cost half as much. When you start believing goverment reports on the costs, you have become a mindless sheep. Further, not only do they do their utmost to obscure true costs, they ration services dramatically. Not only do they not tell you what things cost, THEY DO NOT PAY THE COST. They simply refuse to deliver.

On the average, people living in government run UHC systems live longer than Americans.

Completely irrelevant. While my wife was working on her Master's degree, one of the things she addressed was this very question. I did some research with Google, looking for information for her. It turns out that "health care" is almost insignificant in terms of longevity, and the MOST important was genetics. The ethnicities that live longest - like Japan - when living here, broken out of the general population... live longer here, than there. Japanese are genetically predisposed to live longer, but they live longer here than in Japan.

Another reason, is that we include deaths from accidents, including industrial and recreational and crime in our longevity statistics... and some countries do not. Removing deaths from things like sports, outdoor activities, work, etc, Americans move up, well INTO the top 10.

What separates, however, the nations with great longevity, from those who don't, is mostly... sanitation.

On the average, people living in government run UHC systems spend more years out of that lifespan in good health. This is a measurement called HLY.

This means that their health care systems fail to keep them living after they're not healthy.

On the average, people living in government run UHC systems lose fewer years to ill health. This is a measurement called DALYs.

No, they survive fewer years when not healthy.

On the average, fewer people living in government run UHC systems die as a result of inappropriate, late or complete lack of healthcare. This is a measurement called Amendable Mortality.

LOL, when you base statistics on wild ass guesses called "projections", your numbers are flipping meaningless.

When the efficiency of healthcare systems are compared in Public Health, large, over-arching measures are used. Measures that involve as many factors as possible. This is to even out the confounding factors introduced by some countries having particular competencies or challenges. More people die from malaria in Nigeria than in Iceland, but that says nothing about how their healthcare systems perform. Cuba is pretty good on preventive medicine, Norway on resuscitating people who has been under snow or ice, America does well on many cancers. And systems have their areas where they do badly as well.

Cuba has ONLY preventative medicine. Their health care system is so abysmally bad, that once you get ill, you might as well give up. It's hard to use them as a yardstick.

But the measurements above are highly appropriate for measuring the performance of a healthcare system across all levels of a population.

No, they're not. They are arrived at by amassing data, and then defining factors to achieve the desired outcome.

Additionally, they have a lower rate of infant mortality. More children born there survive birth. A lower rate of maternal mortality, more mothers survive giving birth. And a lower rate of under-5 mortality.

This has been demonstrated to be nothing other than variances in statistical reporting methodologies.

This is worth keeping in mind when remembering that for every dollar spent on healthcare in the US, for example the UK spends 40 cents. Per person. And gives healthcare to all.

No, it does not. It denies vast amounts to many, by having too few resources and people, and by selecting certain demographics to refuse to spend money on.

So in conclusion, we can say quite certainly that this theory does not work out in real life. At all.

No, YOUR theory is pure and utter BS!

At least in respect to healthcare systems. Of course there are a lot of basic economic reasons why healthcare systems are badly unsuited to being run as a business in the first place.

Total Horse S#@7

Also, competition matters. The American government has grown up in a very competition-light environment compared to the governments who survived the last 4-500 years in Europe. You don't see Burgundy; Bjarmland, Flanders or Austrohugary around much as countries these days.

You really need to explain what possible meaning and relevance this has.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

Your premise here is that we have had private-sector health care (as opposed to government run) in America, but we haven't really had it since WWII. What we have is a very messy hybrid system with government tentacles throughout.

What are the "basic economic reasons why healthcare systems are badly unsuited to being run as a business in the first place?"

It doesn't give politicians enough control to keep buying votes.

[hoffdano]

Infant mortality is one of the least credible measures of the quality of healthcare. Cuba has lower (better) infant mortality than the US. Seems improbable - but it is true. The main reason is that their doctors have incentives for successful births. OK - sounds good. But what is the unintended (or unreported) effect? Much higher abortion rate. The doctors want easy deliveries. So they are aggressive in the use of abortion to prevent potentially problematic pregnancies from hurting their statistics.

[DRob4JC]

Originally Posted by OICU812

I'm fairly certain most of the problems with our health care system come from government interference, and the mandates forced upon the system by government.

Agreed.