5 Myths About Health Care Around the World

[Colin P. Varga]

While WHO does valuable work, I'd guess this list is worse that worthless.

China's reporting of SARS cases during the outbreak wasn't considered terribly honest. Going back to 1985, the date of the WHO study, China had almost no environmental regulations worthy of the name. Even today, regional governments officials often cover up the extent of pollution -- and its human costs -- because they're in bed with factory owners. (Remember the problems with melamine adulteration?)

Many, though certainly not all, of the countries on the low-incidence list are countries where only a small portion of the population had -- or has -- access to modern medicine and modern diagnostic tools.

Overlapping with the above group, the low-incidence list includes countries where, even today, infectious diseases remain a common cause of death. The higher rate of cancer in the West is due in large part to longer life spans tied to the virtual elimination of infectious disease as a large-scale cause of death. The precancerous cells in a person who dies of an infectious disease in his thirties won't turn cancerous in his seventies.

Yeah, I knew it was from 1985, and reporting in China would probably spotty. 3XTHX3X made a statement and has no evidence to back it up, even if we knew what he was trying to say. Cancer rate, cancer treatment, cancer survival, it seems to me the best number would be a combination of all three and I doubt if we will find stats combining all three.

[Colin P. Varga]

The five myths are interesting reading. Unfortunately, they suggest that the U.S. already has a system with many of the pitfalls that other countries' systems have managed to avoid, and that Obamacare is designed to make the problems we don't already have a permanent part of U.S. system.

I know you have something specific in mind as to our own pitfalls and that we will add problems, could you tell us what you are thinking about?

I should add that I'm not in favor of any government plan for healthcare, but I don't think the private companies don't seem to be giving the American people a choice between rising cost and "pre-existing conditions".

[Colin P. Varga]

that still doesn't answer why cancer rates are higher in countries with socialized medicine.

Could you supply something to support the above statement?

[raider.adam]

You too, are intended to your opinions. I am not someone who feels the government is good at much (one of the reasons why can never take the birther or truther movement seriously). While I am for a small government on one side, I am a humanist on the other who seriously believes that eudaimonia is a noble goal for humanity.

What does eudaimonia have to do with the size of government?

[Niked]

Could you supply something to support the above statement?

http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/p...CI5vol9-14.pdf

Discuss.

[Colin P. Varga]

What does eudaimonia have to do with the size of government?

Eudaimonia? Is this contagious?

[raider.adam]

Eudaimonia? Is this contagious?

Only from Greeks.

[Illiniwek]

What does eudaimonia have to do with the size of government?

They are inversely related.

Eudaimonia? Is this contagious?

Only from Greeks.

If there's any country that isn't experiencing eudaimonia right now, it's Greece.*


*The Greeks thought eudaimonia and government size were directly related.

[Dayman]

What does eudaimonia have to do with the size of government?

I don't know how you'd do it in a country this large without public schools, health care, etc.

[raider.adam]

I don't know how you'd do it in a country this large without public schools, health care, etc.

So you are saying that you could not be Eudaimon 500 years ago? 1000? I am also not sure what the size of the country has to do with it either.

I also don't think eudaimonia is a social state, but is an individual state. Also, I believe a state of eudaimon is more about internals and less about externals.

You mind elaborating on what you think eudaimonia is?

[Dayman]

So you are saying that you could not be Eudaimon 500 years ago? 1000? I am also not sure what the size of the country has to do with it either.

So far it hasn't happened, as far as I can tell. But I don't think with 300 million people you can achieve this without social programs. Maybe local on a smaller scale, perhaps. But there has to be structures there in place to ensure no one falls between the gaps and each person's output is valuable and contributes in some way, however small it may be.

I also don't think eudaimonia is a social state, but is an individual state. Also, I believe a state of eudaimon is more about internals and less about externals.

But the internals rely on stable externals which allow it to occur.

You mind elaborating on what you think eudaimonia is?

A society where citizens are able to do what makes them happy (provided no rights are violated), where the society is able to achieve "flourishing" in the sense of productivity and where social ills are marginalized, where a citizen does not have to worry about getting food on the table even if they have a job they love.

[Illiniwek]

I know you have something specific in mind as to our own pitfalls and that we will add problems, could you tell us what you are thinking about?

Short answer: we're squeezing all the market out of health care. Patients will have even fewer options, and when Obamacare is done, we'll all still find that insurers, rather than patients, are the customers whose wishes count. That's not all of it, but I'm really getting bored with this.

There are a lot of good ideas in health care overseas. Unfortunately, the Democrats believe the problem is that too few of the decisions are being made by the government. If they looked at some of the successful programs overseas, the program would look plenty different.

I should add that I'm not in favor of any government plan for healthcare, but I don't think the private companies don't seem to be giving the American people a choice between rising cost and "pre-existing conditions".

That's why I'd take health insurance out of all but catastrophic cases. I'd let you keep what you pay and what your employer pays for your health insurance, most of which is prepayment, not insurance. (Well, except the catastrophic premium.) It's more than most people think.

For checkups, broken arms and the like, you pay out of pocket.

If you need something like a knee replacement, you pay out of your tax-advantaged HSA. (The government can seed this for the poor with direct transfers.)

If you get a chronic disease or an injury that results in extremely expensive surgery or long-term therapy, catastrophic insurance kicks in.*

It eliminates insurance companies from the vast majority of health care. It also takes the government out of most of it, except in its most important capacity: as a referee.

The downside is that there's no possibility for graft. And Congress isn't interested in going down that path.

*I wish I could say that was my idea, but it's not. The author is a Hollywood liberal and donor to Democrats. And I think his plan is brilliant.

[raider.adam]

So far it hasn't happened, as far as I can tell. But I don't think with 300 million people you can achieve this without social programs. Maybe local on a smaller scale, perhaps. But there has to be structures there in place to ensure no one falls between the gaps and each person's output is valuable and contributes in some way, however small it may be.

Again, not sure how that correlates to eudaimonia.

But the internals rely on stable externals which allow it to occur.

A society where citizens are able to do what makes them happy (provided no rights are violated), where the society is able to achieve "flourishing" in the sense of productivity and where social ills are marginalized, where a citizen does not have to worry about getting food on the table even if they have a job they love.

Eudaimonia isn't a societal status, but a personal one. Government can promote eudaimonia for its members (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) and people achieve it individually based on how they live.

[Illiniwek]

Eudaimonia isn't a societal status, but a personal one. Government can promote eudaimonia for its members (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) and people achieve it individually based on how they live.

Government can't give life, liberty or happiness; it can only get in their way.*


*Unless I'm misreading what you mean by "members." Brady and the machine certainly grant insiders things like liberty from the rules that apply to the rest of us and well-paying jobs that let them pursue their happiness. But that's at the expense of the rest of us.

[Dayman]

Again, not sure how that correlates to eudaimonia.

You can't flourish if you can't go to school or if you can't afford health care.

Eudaimonia isn't a societal status, but a personal one. Government can promote eudaimonia for its members (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) and people achieve it individually based on how they live.

I agree there, however I stick by my point that there has to be an external structure to allow the state to exist internally.

[raider.adam]

Government can't give life, liberty or happiness; it can only get in their way.*


*Unless I'm misreading what you mean by "members." Brady and the machine certainly grant insiders things like liberty from the rules that apply to the rest of us and well-paying jobs that let them pursue their happiness. But that's at the expense of the rest of us.

I didn't say government gives those, but it can be structured to create an environment to promote it (by not restricting liberties, for example).

You can't flourish if you can't go to school or if you can't afford health care.

Of course you can. Are you saying home schooled people are doomed to a life of misery? And at what level of school do you have to attain before you think someone has a chance to be happy? 5th? high school? Baceholer's? Doctorate?

Are you also saying no one, or civilization, flourished during the Renaissance? The Industrial Revolution? No one was capable of reaching a high level of happiness?

I agree there, however I stick by my point that there has to be an external structure to allow the state to exist internally.

No there doesn't. It is a scary concept that people can not achieve eudaimonia without government providing for them.

[Dayman]

Of course you can. Are you saying home schooled people are doomed to a life of misery? And at what level of school do you have to attain before you think someone has a chance to be happy? 5th? high school? Baceholer's? Doctorate?

Are you also saying no one, or civilization, flourished during the Renaissance? The Industrial Revolution?

I think we have a different take on the subject, mine is certainly futurist. In our society, today, can some one be truly happy and contribute to society without access to our modern conveniences? And as I said, I view it as societal, not merely individual. While there is certainly happiness to be found in a simple life, I don't buy that the eudaimonia of a society can occur with one.

No there doesn't. It is a scary concept that people can not achieve eudaimonia without government providing for them.

The external structure need not be government, I'm just not convinced it's possible overall in the US without it.

[Illiniwek]

You can't flourish if you can't go to school or if you can't afford health care.

Note that the two things you've mentioned, education and health care, represent a government near-monopoly and the most heavily regulated area of the economy.

Yet the costs of public education (primary through tertiary) and health care are rising far faster than the CPI. The government simply can't contain costs by fiat. (It can easily raise them, however, by expanding services for the sake of political benefit.)

Eudaimonia won't last long if providing it breaks the ekonomia.*


*It's all Greek to me. Forgive me if this isn't the right word.

[raider.adam]

I think we have a different take on the subject, mine is certainly futurist. In our society, today, can some one be truly happy and contribute to society without access to our modern conveniences?

The fact it is called a convenience should be enough to determine it is not necessary to achieve eudaimonia.

I would argue home schooled missionaries in third world countries have a better chance of achieving eudaimonia than an Ivy League grad with a BMW and cell phone.

You seem to be be moving the concept away from virtue and health of the soul (the internal) and more towards tangibles (the external).

[Dayman]

Or the virtue and health of the society. We simply have philosophical differences on the subject. I feel we can use technology, science, the infrastructures of the modern world to build a society that allows each person to achieve their personal best and happiness while ensuring (through either public or private means) that people are not marginalized. I think this is what the goal of humanity should be.

Note that the two things you've mentioned, education and health care, represent a government near-monopoly and the most heavily regulated area of the economy.

Yet the costs of public education (primary through tertiary) and health care are rising far faster than the CPI. The government simply can't contain costs by fiat. (It can easily raise them, however, by expanding services for the sake of political benefit.)

Eudaimonia won't last long if providing it breaks the ekonomia.*

Which is why I said that I feel that public healthcare is a bad idea right now. We need to balance our budget and pay off the money we owe before we even consider such a thing.