Re no. 6, that's a subset of obesity which can be measured relative to other countries.

I would add litigation and defensive medicine to your list.

It would be interesting to try to figure out what % of the US excessive cost is attributable to each of these items.

Somehow we should also look at disparities amongst the US states. For example, (and it's hard to research this without Wikipedia) my recollection is that my state has a higher life expectancy that most European countries, but poorer states (such as Mississippi) have a much lower life expectancy. If you can compare health care spending by state with life expectancy, we may learn something.

Points 1, 2, 3 and 5 are improved in other "socialist" health care systems. Some better than otehrs but better than the US.
I suspect #4 is more complex and involves things like societal structures, the nature of urban geography, and the general state of health of elderly people. The last concept is improved when people don't deprive themselves of early treatment of health problems due to affordability...
Point number 6 we've discussed. (See Texas insurance rates and healt care costs not falling after torte reform.) But litigation costs and defensive medicine are also tied into the nature of the insutance industry, and the nature of the profit centres in a US health care system. Someone benefits financially from every test ordered...

Monte,

I took a look at life expectancies by state. This one is for 2006, could have used the census bureau this table is easier to look at:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... 099763.htm

This site is a great resouce for health care facts:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparecat.jsp?cat=5

So I took the top ten states in life expectancy and paired them with health care spending per capital

Top ten

Hawaii $6,856
Minnesota $7,409
Utah $5,031
Connecticut $8,654
Mass $9,200
New Hampshire $7,839
Iowa $6,921
North Dakota $,7749
Rhode Island $8,309
California $,6238

Average state spends $6,800 so six of the top ten states spend significantly more than average, two are about the average, and two are well below average.

Bottom 10

North Carolina $6,444
Georgia $5,467
Kentucky $6,596
Arkansas $6,167
Oklahoma $6,532
Tennessee $6,411
West Virginia $7,667
South Carolina $6,323
Alabama $6,272
Louisian $6,735

Seems to be correlation overall between higher health care spending per capita and longer life expectancy . Also took a look at homicide rates by state. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder- ... -and-state Those states with high homicide rates correlate with lower life expectancy (which is obvious up to a point--i don't how much of the homicide states explain the discrepancy in life expectancy or whether--as it seems more probable-- other underlying causes lead to both higher homicide rates and reduced life expectancy.by factors other homicides.

This is what happens when you put the state in charge of more than you should.

People live longer?

The horror!

And the debt gets bigger?

Freeman:

So I took the top ten states in life expectancy and paired them with health care spending per capital

Top ten

Hawaii $6,856
Minnesota $7,409
Utah $5,031

So, this begs the question: what is Utah doing that works so well? Basically they have the same hodgepodge health care system that the rest of the US has. Yet their spending is low and their life expectancy is high. Is it Mormon family structure, good genes, or something else? Presumably their business people are as greedy as others, no?

Freeman:

Seems to be correlation overall between higher health care spending per capita and longer life expectancy .

But not necessarily causation. Education leads to higher income and better health care. Higher income leads to both better health and higher health care spending per capita. Some of the increased life expectancy is health care spending, but not all given the disparities we see above.

I'm just keeping an open mind and asking.

Ok, about 3 years ago, during the initial debate over Obamacare, I had read 2 different reports. One dealt with the claim about low infant mortality rates and the other dealt with the lower life expectancy.

The IMR report made the argument that I put forth, i.e. equalizing the standards of determining what equalled a live birth moved the U.S. from 20th or around 5th. It used government definitions and gov't reported statistics.

The ALE study showed if you remove gun deaths and automobile accident deaths from the mortality studies, i.e. deaths that have nothing to do with medical care, the U.S.'s mortality rates also jumped towards the top of the list.

However, after about 3 or 4 days of looking for them, I can't find them again. So, while I can not provide them for you, all I can say is that I did see the studies and the arguments, based on actual gov't statistics, were convincing. Believe me, don't believe me that is ups to you.

Well, I believe you saw studies. But without links we can't compare the infant mortality one to the CDC report.

The second is not a difference in 'method', it's a difference in the data itself. It would be interesting to see if the study you mention can be found so we can have a look at how they normalised the data.

I agree with you Monte--all I can say about the data is that is correlation, causation is a far more difficult hurdle. You need to be isolate the potential causes in some manner to prove causation. And Utah is an interesting case--even Hawaii and California seem to have far better life expectancies than their spending would predict. With regard to Utah, perhaps the Mormon's prohibition on alcohol and smoking accounts for increased life expectancy. And with California and Hawaii my guess would be mild weather.

bbauska wrote:And the debt gets bigger?

Well, increase taxes to make up for the historic low, reduce the stupid bureaucracy that riddles healthcare in the USA, do someting about the social problems that affect health (and other issues), and you could do more for healthcare and with less of a budgetary deficit.

still, I'm one of those romantic fools who thinks that life and quality of life are more important than money.

I think my family's life and quality of life is more important than money as well. I spend my money for medical insurance and the safety of my family. I drive large vehicles to protect them. I have their needs in front of mine.

It is not my problem that everyone does not think the same way we do, Danivon. I put forth the effort, you do as well I am sure.

There is a program called Medicaid for those in need. There are charities that assist, there are families. With this umbrella, why the need for ANOTHER program to take more tax money (a common fall back position for the left), when the needy can apply under Medicaid for medical care.

bbauska wrote:I think my family's life and quality of life is more important than money as well. I spend my money for medical insurance and the safety of my family. I drive large vehicles to protect them. I have their needs in front of mine.

But what abotu the quality of life for other people? Not your concern, I guess. Besides, I'm not sure that 'a large vehicle' is always safe. It can create a false illusion of safety. It can be less safe for anyone that it hits (which can happen on yor own driveway) as well.

It is not my problem that everyone does not think the same way we do, Danivon. I put forth the effort, you do as well I am sure.

Sure,

There is a program called Medicaid for those in need. There are charities that assist, there are families. With this umbrella, why the need for ANOTHER program to take more tax money (a common fall back position for the left), when the needy can apply under Medicaid for medical care.

Well, you are makigg a few assumptions here to argue on.

Firstly, the initial discussion only got me interested when Russell said that government should not be involved in healthcare, which implies reducing (or removing) the existing provision.

Secondly, you assume that Medicaid (and the other one, Medicare) is sufficient and effective.

Thirdly, you assume that the charities can cover the gaps in Medicaid and Medicare

Fourthly, you assume that families are all in the same kind of position as yours or mine is, to be able to cope. Not all families can. Indeed, medical bills can easily cripple the financial health of families - even those who thought their paid-for insurance covered them.

Fifthly, in answer to your question, you assume that the current US system 'works'. Do you really think it does? Do you think that paying between 50% and 100% more per head for all healthcare but getting similar outcomes is working? Do you think that the large proportion of insurance premiums that ends up being spent on administration could instead be used more effectively?

But here's the cognitive difference between us I guess. When I talk about 'people' I'm thinking of more than just the people immediately related to me.

I guess the difference is that I am making the best decisions I can for my family, and expect others to do the same.

Firstly, varying shades of grey..
Secondly - Is Medicaid sufficient? If not, why would ANOTHER government program do any better?
Thirdly- Charity CAN and DOES help. They should not be discounted any more than they should be required to carry the load.
Fourthly - Not all families are like ours. That is why there is Medicaid and Charity.
Fifthly - cost is a non-sequiter. Either it is right or not. If someone wants to pay less for their health care, go to another nation that fits your needs. I would not stop them. They have that personal right to leave.

I am all for people being assisted. I think it is wrong to have another program to do what the Government should be trying to do less and less of. Why is there no "war-weariness" when it comes to the War on Poverty that LBJ started? We have been fighting that war for 40 years, and things are not getting better according to those on the left. Still we have a wonderful standard of living compared to the rest of the world. Not the highest, but still better than most.

We always seem to come to this, Owen. I think the Government should be doing less and less, whereas you think the Government should be doing more and more. I surmise you think me less caring because I want limited Government.