Is National Health Care Hazardous to Your Health? Check the Facts

by LaVonne Neff 07-22-2009

Various Web sites and e-mails are reporting that cancer survival rates are much higher in the U.S. than in various European countries. Some quote Mark Tapscott in the Washington Examiner, who quotes Jim Hoft in the American Issue Project, who quotes Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute, who quotes … well, quite a group of conservative pundits and politicians are involved. They appear to be using the same set of statistics to argue that national health care results in dramatically increased mortality rates from breast, prostate, and other cancers.

To check the facts, I went to the World Health Organization and made myself a chart. Using the most recent statistics available, I compared the health outcomes of six Western nations. No nation’s health-care program is totally private, and no program is totally nationalized. Government funds pay for a percentage of health-care expenses in all six countries: the United States (45.8 percent), Germany (76.6 percent), Italy (77.1 percent), France (79.7 percent), the Netherlands (81.8 percent), and the United Kingdom (87.4 percent).

Do mortality rates increase with a higher percentage of government funding? Here’s what I found:

The United States ties with Italy for the lowest cancer mortality rate of all six countries. Interestingly, the U.S. and Italy also have the lowest smoking rates. The Netherlands and the U.K. have the highest smoking rates and also the highest death rates from cancer. The cancer mortality rate in the Netherlands is 15 percent higher than that of the United States and Italy.

However, cancer accounts for fewer than a quarter of all deaths in the United States. Heart disease is an even bigger killer, and statistics on cardiovascular mortality are not so good in America. Of the six countries, the U.S. has the second highest mortality rate, with 59 percent more heart-related deaths than France.

The U.S. also has the second highest death rate from injuries. American mortality in this category is more than 100 percent higher than that of the Netherlands.

In the largest category, non-communicable diseases, the United States has the highest mortality rate of all six countries, with 25% more deaths than France.

The adult mortality rate — that is, the probability of dying between the ages of 15 and 60 — is highest in the United States. The next runner-up, France, is 20 percent lower, and Italy is 70 percent lower.

Personally, I don’t want to die from cancer. I don’t want to die from heart disease or other non-communicable diseases either, and I’d rather not be smashed to death in an accident. In fact, I’d just as soon stay healthy as long as possible, so I’d be very happy if the United States had the best health care in the world. Alas, we have a long way to go.

Of the six countries I compared, the United States is at the bottom in terms of healthy life expectancy: 69 years here compared to 71 in the Netherlands and the U.K., 72 in France and Germany, and 73 in Italy.

The U.S. is also at the bottom in terms of total life expectancy: 78 years here compared to 79 in the U.K., 80 in Germany and the Netherlands, and 81 in France and Italy.

Please, when you get an e-mail or see a Web page giving statistics to argue that the United States already has excellent health care and doesn’t need to revamp the system, stop and ponder. We currently spend roughly twice as much per capita on health care (counting both public and private sources) as these European countries.

What lots of Americans don’t realize is this: The U.S. government already spends more per capita on health care than do the governments of these other countries — over 50 percent more than the Italian government spends, for example. And yet the Italians manage cancer just as well as we do, and their health-care outcomes are better than ours in every other category.

LaVonne Neff is an editor, writer, and publishing consultant in Wheaton, Illinois, who blogs on book, bodies, and belief at livelydust.blogspot.com

To learn more about health-care reform, click here to visit Sojourners’ Health-Care Resources Web page.

Categories: Health

xfree9

Please, when you get an e-mail or see a web page giving statistics to argue that the United States already has excellent health care and doesn’t need to revamp the system, stop and ponder.

This is a straw man. I've not come across any blog, email, or conversation with people who believe that the health care system is fine as it is and needs no reform. Even folks like Rush and Hannity admit that health care is in desperate need of reform.

What lots of Americans don’t realize is this: the U.S. government already spends more per capita on health care than do the governments of these other countries–over 50% more than the Italian government spends, for example. And yet the Italians manage cancer just as well as we do, and their health-care outcomes are better than ours in every other category.

Ummm, wouldn't that be an argument for less government spending on health care, not more?

No nation’s health-care program is totally private, and no program is totally nationalized.

What is the point of this comment? Big deal if some are, some aren't, or somewhere in between. The point is that when government pays for things, costs inevitably go up. When people are "guaranteed" something, the demand for that thing goes up, while supply is not guaranteed to go up.

It's ironic that the two areas in our nation in where there is the most inequality of access and the most need for reform—education and health care—are the two areas where government has a huge influence, and the free market is stifled.

prk

Amen.

"The United States ties with Italy for the lowest cancer mortality rate of all six countries"

In the studies from Cato, I believe, the reasons for the cancer mortality rate being lower here is that the patient(with or without insurance) is seen and gets their treatments, where as in Britian they would still be waiting to see the specialist.

arachne646

I don't know about the UK, but in Canada, when someone's Family Dr. suspects cancer, they get referred to a surgeon within days. Emergency surgery like this does not go on a waiting list for OR time like a knee replacement might have to. Here in Vancouver we also have a world class Cancer Clinic for other than surgical treatment. I am a medical assistant to a Family Physician.

DITE

"It's ironic that the two areas in our nation in where there is the most inequality of access and the most need for reform—education and health care—are the two areas where government has a huge influence, and the free market is stifled."

Preach.

Stein

You have GOT to be kidding. "THE two areas"?

I guess that the 300-to-1 inequality in pay difference between CEO and factory-worker is not one of "the two areas" where there is the most inequality (in your opinion).

In fact, in my differing opinion, the greatest problem in inequality in our nation is financial inequality (which is at the root behind education and health care inequality), and that is because it is LEAST regulated by the government and the "free market" has run amok.

lumens

He referred specifically to inequality of access, not inequality writ large. And what the original post assigns to American healthcare is true of public schools. We spend more on public education, as a percentage of GDP, than all six nations the author mentions, and we have worse results.

The public school system is not a free market system. Government is in complete control over it. And it fails.

It goes to show that the United States has a set of unique factors that don't necessarily apply in European nations. In the case of education, we have more students who lack the basic grounding necessary to learn. In the case of health care, we have a processed food industry that is poisoning us, with ample assistance from, well, us.

Stein

What he wrote was "inequality of access". What he implied (and I
believe he intended to imply) is inequality writ large -- why else write
the post? He was taking a cheap shot at government, and implying that
regulation is harmful. I believe that rampant non-regulation is just as
harmful, and that is what I pointed out.

lumens

You asserted it was so, but did not address DITE's point about regulation, which is that it does not address the issue of equal access.

xfree9

Regulation is harmful. So is deregulation. Which set of problems do you want?

Stein

Don't fall into the fallacy of extremes. Can we agree that unfettered
capitalism is harmful as well as agreeing that fascist centralized
government control is harmful? ...that the best system involves some
middle ground where each institution checks the excesses of the other?

xfree9

If you define "unfettered" as absent rule of law, then of course. But no free market advocate worth his salt would advocate no rule of law, no protection against fraud, theft, et al. Your other alternative, fascism or centralized control, is obviously not a good choice. I think you're falsely understanding the two as opposite ends of a spectrum, and a "middle ground" approach is best. There is not always a middle ground approach to everything. I do not believe semi-fascism, or a little bit of fascism, is a good thing. It's one thing to have rules set in place to keep people from harming another person against his/her will. It's quite another to insist that your way of running society is best, and everybody else has to follow your way.

If what you really want is freedom with boundaries, then fine, and we can have a debate one what those boundaries should look like. But central planning assumes a domination, and I am not for domination.

xfree9

My simple point to the above is that when there are two extremes, assuming a middle ground is just as fallacious as assuming an extreme. There is no "middle ground" on racism, rape, or torture. I would add to that list tyranny.

xfree9

Why is income inequality an issue with you? Is it because you envy "all that money" the rich have but don't "need"? Or is it because you're jealous that some people are ahead in life? Or is it because you used to be wealthy, gave all of it to the poor, and can't stand that others aren't doing such a good service that you do?

Perhaps you should gain some basic economic understanding, and you'll rethink the "evils" of income inequality. Worth is not determined by salary. CEOs making 300x the salary of the lowest worker does not mean they are "worth more," it means their responsibility is higher, has a higher risk involved, and thus should be compensated appropriately. Even if you say they shouldn't make that much, if they give back that money in the form of salaries or increased wages, it only equals a few dollars per employee per year, depending on the size of the company.

Stein

My concern is that people get what they need. I see a lot of people
without health insurance and a lot of people being denied basic health
care. This materially hurts the quality of their lives.

In a nation as rich as the U.S., and a nation that spends so much more
on health care than any other nation on earth, I ask WHY do we still
have a health care crises among so many people?

I believe it is because the free market insurance system and the greed
that capitalism causes.

You say "perhaps you should gain some basic economic understanding". I
challenge you that perhaps you should gain some basic understanding of
Biblical justice.

xfree9

First of all, blaming capitalism is too broad. You may want to actually look into what capitalism really is, and not just naively assume that what we have now is capitalism, and what we need is less of it. What we have now is not a free market health care system, especially with government mandating that I pay for the medicare and medicaid, neither of which I voted for, asked for, or wish to pay. When government is paying 50% of the health care being provided, that is not a free market.

In a nation as rich as the U.S., and a nation that spends so much more
on health care than any other nation on earth, I ask WHY do we still
have a health care crises among so many people?

The very question you ask betrays your desire to use other people's money to your benevolent wishes. And kudos for feeling that way. But that isn't biblical justice. Biblical justice is not enrolling the force of the empire to take money from the wealthy and give it to those without. Biblical justice does not compromise one ethic for another.

I'd love for every rich person to donate more money than they already do, and out of the goodness of their hearts, to pay for the healthiness of those who cannot. But unfortunately I don't have that authority or power, nor should I seek power-over tactics to get my way. That's not the nonviolent way of Jesus.

So, while you look up basic economic principles (Thomas Sowell wrote a book called Basic Economics that is a good start), maybe you should try understanding biblical justice alternatively than you already do (Money, Greed, and God is a new book that I recommend).

I mean no disrespect. I understand there are competing views and understandings of economics and biblical justice. But having studies several sides of this, I've concluded that some basic things are just that: basic.

Stein

"The very question you ask betrays your desire to use other people's
money to your benevolent wishes."

"The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof."

The very assumption of capitalism (and your phrase "other people's
money") is that the earth is NOT the Lord's, rather it is owned by
people.

I am not being glib here. The assumption framework that you are using
starts with property ownership. That is unquestioned and sacred. After
accepting that, you then ask "what can we do to assure that people's
needs are met". Of course, built on this basic non-God foundation, the
answer may always be "not much". But I don't accept your assumption.

xfree9

Property rights and "the earth is the Lord's" are not competing presuppositions. I affirm with you that what I "own" is not truly mine. Whatever I "own" under a "property rights" basis is simply mine to steward for the Kingdom. But it is mine to steward, and other people are to steward their money according to their conscience and their faith. Jesus told many parables that assumed that people "owned" something, but that does not mean he implied that he didn't own everything.

Using your logic one could counter the pro-choice woman who says, "It's my body and my fetus" by saying, "Actually, 'The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof,' so it's not really your body."

Obviously we're talking about stewardship when it comes to property rights. We're not talking about something not being God's but being "ours."

lumens

The Bible recognizes the right of property owners, and asserts them rather emphatically.

Stein

Yet Jesus chastised those who "devour widow's houses".
There has to be balance. When property rights are emphasized to the
point where they are used to justify oppression, then God is offended.

I believe that in the present we have tilted the scale so far in favor
of individual property rights that people are being hurt. God is not
pleased with such selfishness.

We have a rich society with a wealth of natural resources and massive
spending on health care, yet still we have a crises of people not having
insurance, people going bankrupt due to health-related spending, a lower
life-expectancy that some other countries, higher infant mortality. No,
God is not pleased.

xfree9

When property rights are emphasized to the
point where they are used to justify oppression, then God is offended.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, here. If you're talking about slavery, slavery itself is a violation of property rights!

Can you elaborate on your quote about "devouring widow's houses"?

We have a rich society with a wealth of natural resources and massive spending on health care, yet still we have a crises of people not having insurance, people going bankrupt due to health-related spending, a lower life-expectancy that some other countries, higher infant mortality.

You chastise greediness, yet you are clearly envious of the wealth/property of others. You can't stand that some people have wealth, and you can't do what you would do with it if that wealth were yours. You disdain the free market, yet the free market is in large part how we got to this point of wealth.

No, God is not pleased.
... with your envy.