By Will Collette
One of the most enduring right-wing fantasies is that the United States is the best at everything that counts. Since the debate over health care reform began, and continuing to this day, über-conservatives argue that since American health care is the best in the world, any changes, such as “Obamacare,” will only spoil this perfect machine.
One of our more prolific right-wing anonymous commenters, “G.W.,” recently wrote this comment on an article we published on the problems within our health system:
“It is ironic that so many people from countries with socialized health care come to America to partake in its "villainous, privatized" system. I am so looking forward to waiting for years for referrals or to see a specialist[1]. Yippee for socialized medicine. GW”
Hate to bust your bubble, GW. First, the phenomenon you’re describing is called “medical tourism.” Very sick people, if they have lots of money, tend to travel the world in search of cures and to get medical procedures to deal with intractable illnesses. Sure, we get such travelers who come to the US for specialized medical treatment, but Americans have been traveling all over the globe searching for medical help as well.
Mexico used to be a popular medical tourism destination. In recent years, Americans have been traveling a lot to India for medical care.
GW, you may think that American medicine is superior, but objectively, it is not. A new 404-page report by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine shows just how badly American medical standards have fallen.
The study looked at 17 modern industrialized countries – all but the US have national health care programs that would fit GW’s “socialized health care” description. Of those 17 nations, the United States finishes dead last in life expectancy.
On the other hand, we are first in the world for how much we spend to get this poor result, devoting 17.6% of our gross domestic product to health care costs compared to 11.6% for the next highest, France and Germany.
The United States lagged behind the rest of the industrialized world in:
- infant mortality
- low birth weight
- violent death
- teen pregnancy
- sexually-transmitted diseases
- obesity
- diabetes
- heart disease
- chronic lung disease
- disability.
And, GW, you know the reason why, even though you’ll never admit it.
The study provides some of the reasons why the US has fallen so far behind the other major First World nations. Researchers cite our fascination with guns and cars, our high poverty rate and the large number of uninsured, and a weak outpatient healthcare system, along with poor diet and lack of exercise.
Compared to the other nations, we are seven times more likely to die by homicide and 20 times more likely to be shot to death.
The Washington Post’s Harold Meyerson made the interesting observation that the numbers change radically based on age bracket.
But then, Meyerson observed, once Americans reach age 70, they have among the longest life expectancy in the world. Why is that, Meyerson mused, and then answers his own question: social Darwinism….and Medicare.
Violence and disease carries off the young, especially in the low and moderate income range, in appalling numbers.
If you make it to 65, you “enter a health-care system that ceases to be exceptional when compared with the systems in the other 16 nations studied. They leave behind the private provision of medical coverage, forsake the genius of the market and avail themselves of universal medical insurance. For the first time, they are beneficiaries of the same kind of social policy that their counterparts in other lands enjoy. And presto, change-o: Their life expectancy catches up with and eventually surpasses those of the French, Germans, Britons and Canadians.”
Perhaps GW and his conservative peers think it’s a good thing that the poor die young. You’re more likely to live to a ripe old age if you live in a good neighborhood, have access to good food and good health care, and are less likely to be shot dead on the street. As for Medicare, perhaps the GW answer is that we really don’t need it because all it does is lengthen the life of those lucky moochers who make it to age 65. Let the free market and natural – or should we say economic – selection deal with them.
I’m sure there’s a Fox News/Tea Party/GOP spin on these new data. Most likely their reaction will be to ignore their existence, or dispute the facts. Or accuse those who say that the US of A is not Number One of treason.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] That’s also a myth. Over many years of world travel, Cathy and I have seen a lot of the world’s health care system and have not experienced or seen any of these problems GW claims are rampant. We were especially impressed with New Zealand’s standard of care where it was easy to get in to see a specialist even in a rural area, get state of the art medical treatment and, even though we were not in the national health care system and were paying cash, the price of treatment was far less than it would have been in the States. My Progressive Charlestown colleagues report similar experiences. GW gets too much of his information from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
