An objection was made to my quoting the World Health Organization regarding our healthcare system and whether it is the best in the world. Those of you who read the post yesterday will have seen that the WHO ranks our healthcare system as only 37th in the world. The objection was made that the WHO supposedly has a bias towards a more socialist style of healthcare distribution. So, today I am going to quote a very USA source, the CIA World Factbook. If you wish to read parts of it, it is available online at the website of the USA Central Intelligence Agency. So, what statistics does the CIA publish regarding our country?
First fact, our death rate per 1,000 people. Out of 223 countries and territories listed, we rank in position 102. That is, there are 101 countries and territories that have a worse death rate than us. And, there are 121 countries and territories that have a lower death rate than us, per 1,000 inhabitants. Our infant mortality rate puts us as 180 out of 223 countries and territories. That is, there are 179 countries and territories that have a worse infant mortality rate than us and 43 countries and territories that have a better infant mortality rate than us. Our life expectancy at birth ranks us 50th in the world. That is there are 49 countries that have a higher life expectancy than us and 173 countries that have a worse life expectancy at birth than us.
Sourced Stats from: https://seniorslifeinsurancefinder.com/
By the way, Canada, France, England, Germany, Greece, Finland, etc. are ahead of us in those categories.
The July 17, 2008 edition of The Lancet Oncology did publish a study where they found that the best survival rates for breast and prostate cancers are in the USA. However, the same article pointed out that the best survival rates for colon and rectal cancers overall are in Japan, while among women the best survival rates for colon and rectal cancers are in France. The US News and World Report also pointed out that, “. . . Canada and Australia also have very high survival rates for most cancers.” The conclusion by the American Cancer Society was that, “. . . the study provides evidence for what has long been suspected — namely, that where you live plays a role in cancer survival.” But, what the study did NOT say was that the USA had the best overall cancer survival rates. It only had the best cancer survival rates among certain cancers, but not among others. So, the claim that the USA has the best cancer survival rates is only partially true.
Here is what is true. We cannot fix our healthcare system as long as we hide our heads, parrot phrases that are not statistically true, and try to say that any organization that disagrees with those phrases is automatically part of some “socialist” cabal. I certainly hope that the readers will not try to say that the CIA is part of a socialist conspiracy. We cannot fix our healthcare system by trying to shut some voices out of the debate, whether trying to get the Church to not speak or whether by drowning out speakers in mob action at open town hall hearings. For those of you who try to claim that the Democrats did it first back when, my easy answer is that no Christian should ever answer evil with evil (even if that claim were true). My second answer would be the less polite parents’ answer asking that if Jimmy jumped off of a cliff, would you do it too?
The dissemination of information needs to be cautious if we are at all serious about being accurate. One may argue that a bill is so badly written that it may very well lead to a particular undesirable result. But, one should never argue by lying about what a bill actually has within its pages. There has been too much of that going on, and we need serious debate not simply false stories.
Even if we’re not number one, we’re still number one!
ROFL, yes, I do not know of any major country that wants to be number two.
I didn’t know we were a high school football team. 🙂
It blows my mind that the richest of the rich would choose to come to a country that has an inferior system.
And the argument is specious that this great healthcare is only limited to the super rich.
I had my knee operated on by a top surgeon, who has the Saudi Royal family as his patients as well, and I make less than thirty thousand dollars a year.
My uncle, who was penniless, had the finest doctors operate on him at County USC medical center where the poor and destitute regularily receive care.
So, we will throw out this excellent system, for one where a huge bureauocratic apparatus stifles innovaton, rations care, and costs more tham the current system.
Unbelievable.
Good intentions = bad results are the hallmark of big governments
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
10 facts about U.S. healthcare that may suprise you.
Sorry, Father. The CIA is not right enough. You’ll have to try harder.
If anyone believes there are not left wing types in the CIA, then they are kidding themselves.
The State Department is an example of a highly left wing govt. agency.
I believe what I see with those who vote with their feet.
30,000 Canadians coming across the border to spend their own money on “worse” healthcare does not compute.
” I certainly hope that the readers will not try to say that the CIA is part of a socialist conspiracy”
ha ha … you were saying, eh?
There was a time when Americans would have laughed about the President and Congress being part of a socialist conspiracy, also.
It’s not so funny, anymore.
…can the next topic be about the Bildabergers and how they actually control the world?
Steve, if the CIA, the State Department, the President, and the Congress are all involved in socialist conspiracies, then there is no way I can win an argument with you. Everything I quote that may show you as mistaken, you promptly label as “produced by socialist supporters.”
If I only quote “approved” sources, I have no doubt that those sources will only agree with you and never disagree. Thus, you have built a closed universe in which there is no way to show you wrong.
However, I will mention that Fox news, in a story published on May 27, 2009 noted that the USA cancer death rate for 2006 dropped to 181 per 1,000 people. But, uhm, according to the National Cancer Institute, that puts the USA only around 25th in the world, not anywhere near first, as a whole. Of course, we know that Fox News is filled with leftists. But, on the list that you linked, they carefully only quote the statistics for certain cancers to make it appear as though we are number one.
Medicare and Medicaid are broken (inefficient and losing money).
So the parts of healthcare that are government controlled do not work and the answer is to turn the whole thing over to the government?
Why can’t we fix Medicare and medicaid first? What’s the rush to have the government take over everything?
Why not look at other plans? Or is this more about politics than finding real solutions?
Besides the fact that there is no plan to have the government take over healthcare, there is the fact that the reason Medicare and Medicaid are doing so bad has been precisely because of the stalling tactics that have been going on since close to the Reagan era. Any attempts to change those programs to make them function have consistently been used as political fodder by conservatives who try to claim to seniors that their program is being taken away from them. Should I mention that the last unfunded Medicare mandate, the changed drug policy for seniors, was passed under a Republican Congress and President?
That is why the current healthcare legislation does not propose a government takeover, but does propose setting limits and responsibilities on private insurance companies. By using a limited government involvement, the hope is to avoid the Medicare / Medicaid mistakes. To leave the system untouched is to have Medicare / Medicaid collapse all too soon.
Fr. Ernesto,
I’m about one or two ‘politics’ posts shy of unsubscribing from your most excellent blog. The posts have become far too political far too regularly. 🙁
-L
Fair enough, although the danger is that of separating the Church from part of society. You see, I do not believe that there is such a thing as politics separate from the Church, and, uhm, neither does either Pope or Patriarch. Nevertheless, I will try to steer away somewhat from what some call politics. But, here is a question. Are you separating our faith from our everyday experience of life? My argument is that every part of human existence is either under God’s oversight or none of it is.
The danger is that we separate off part of our existence from God’s control. This does not in any way mean that there is only one possible political view. There is more than one possible political view. But, having said that, we cannot refuse to debate political views. It is all to easy to put off debates by saying that they do not apply to the Church, but that would be a terrible mistake. It is painful to debate political views, but we cannot avoid involvement in the world, as much as we may like to.
Nevertheless, my next posting will have nothing to do with politics.
I love C.S. Lewis’s chapter, “Social Morality” from Mere Christianity. Couple of choice quotes:
“… Christianity has not, and does not profess to have, a detailed political programme for applying ‘Do as you would be done by’ to particular society at a particular moment. It could not have. It is meant for all men at all times and the particular programme which suited one place or time would not suit another.”
“… The job is really on us, on the laymen. The application of Christian principles, say, to trade unionism or education, must come from Christian trade unionists and Christian schoolmasters: just as Christian literature comes from Christian novelists and dramatists …”
I agree we should never separate our faith from our politics. I’ve also found my personal politics turning much more moderate the more seriously I take my faith. For my part, I let my faith guide every one of my votes, and to judge every one of my political positions.
But I also think that Christian *statesmen* are best suited and most knowledgeable when it comes to discussing politics at length and in depth. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the series of posts on law, the Supreme Court, and the analogy to the Church; you expressed many points that I’ve adopted as well with my new moderate state of mind. But there’s now been a few post series that seem to simply echo the news outlets’ Politics programming.
I’m not saying never to post about politics, because I agree the Church should address political and social systems head-on, as Pope Benedict did in Caritas in Veritate. But I’m personally just kinda jaded on the modern political scene and I only like to dabble in it. 😉
So keep up the excellent posts!
Hmm, I see what you mean. I will try to concentrate more on the structure and less on the details.
..Luke…i visited your blog tonite..good stuff…i was struck by the photo of yourself at what appears to be Mass…thats an amazing photo from a human perspective..i cant recollect ever seeing a human face with such an auora of contentment,satisfaction,warmth and peace…….i envy you brother..
thanks Mike. it is indeed Mass – Easter Vigil Mass 2009 specifically; during which I received Confirmation into the Roman Catholic Church. for me, it was everything you described. 🙂
..Father Ernesto..i respect and admire your courage to address relevant and controversial social issues ….
The bottom line is that tying health care to a person’s wealth is wrong. More secular nations put us to shame when it comes to helping “the least of these.” The icing on the cake is that opposing reform is really defending 30% margins for insurance companies — to pay for denying and rationing our care.
As far as our health care, medical tourism is a huge business. Deloitte consultants (it’s hard to call any consulting group socialist) estimated about 400,000 foreigners coming here for surgeries/treatments (includes cosmetic surgery) compared to about 750,000 Americans going abroad.
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/us_chs_MedicalTourismStudy(1).pdf
GRIN, you mean that more Americans actually leave the USA for medical treatment than foreigners that come here? Heh heh heh.
Americans go abroad to get elective surgery done.
Often people paying for an unnecessary surgery out of pocket will look to save money and get the best deal.
That is called the free market system. Heh heh.
Let’s see, if foreigners come here for healthcare it is evidence of our better healthcare system. But, if more Americans leave to go elsewhere for healthcare than foreigners that come in (a net loss for the USA) that is not evidence that our healthcare system is not as good as others, but evidence of frugal shopping.
Let’s try that again, if foreigners coming in is evidence of our better healthcare system, then the greater number of Americans leaving the USA for healthcare elsewhere is also evidence that those who live here (and have the means) know that in certain areas they can do better elsewhere.
If, however, you are going to argue the free market system, then foreigners coming here has nothing to do with how good our healthcare system is but simply that the foreigners coming in are getting a better deal here, or other benefits. Which means that the whole set of arguments you mounted based on foreigners coming here just fell out the window.
Let me try this again.
Our insurance covers ‘necessary procedures’, and rightly so.
Things that people want but are not necessary ought to be paid for by the individual. I think that is common sense.
So if one has to pony up there own money for something that they want and they do not have unlimited funds like a Joan Rivers, or a Michael Jackson (had), they will often look to the free market. Normal and good. No problem there.
Medical clinics and hospitals and doctors in places like Thailand, India, Mexico can use the money and charge a lesser fee, so it makes perfect sense for people to go there if they so desire.
This free market principle stuff really seems to confuse some people.
More evidence of a government run school system that does a lousy job of teaching economics.
Except that was not the argument that you were using. The argument that you were using was that because people came here our healthcare system must be better. Someone else pointed out that more people go elsewhere than come here. Therefore, following your own logic, that must mean that our healthcare system is worse. Then, you suddenly shifted to this free market argument, as though anyone had been arguing against the freedom for people to price shop. No one had or has been arguing against the individual freedom to choose a doctor. That has been clearly stated again and again. In fact, having the freedom to choose a doctor would be something new for those in mandatory PPO and HMO plans provided by their employers.
I must admit that this article set me straight on a few points in the healthcare INSURANCE end of things to which I was previously ignorant:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574332293172846168.html
That is a good and rational article. I do not buy their arguments, but at least it is a rational argument. If our level of debate can be at the level of this argument, we have a chance to fix the healthcare crisis in this country. And, both Republicans and Democrats do agree on that point. That is why it is an issue.
The dean of the Buckingham Medical School compares the British and U.S. healthcare systems:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6017690/Barack-Obama-healthcare-NHS-patients-missing-out-British-expert-warns.html
Ahem, Steve, the problem is that there is no proposal whatsoever to turn the USA healthcare system into the British NHS system. Please note that in the very article you cited, both France and Germany, both of which have highly rated hybrid systems, spent good amounts on cancer care per patient.
Republicans persist in claiming what is not in the bill. There is NO proposal to nationalize healthcare. That is simply not in the bill, therefore, one is arguing what is not there.
Father Obregon,
You missed my entire point about people looking for cheaper alternatives when they pay out of their own pocket for elective procedures. It has nothing to do with being better or worse, but rather economic realities.
People that can go anywhere (because they are wealthy) choose to come to the States for their healthcare needs.
No one in this country goes without healthcare.
Why totally change a system that works, for a dubious one that will definitely morph into a bureacratic monstrosity, like every other thing government gets it’s hands on?
The free market always does a more efficient job at providing goods and services.
Would you like the government to take over food distribution too, because some in this country go hungry?
You can look at the state run grocery stores of the old soviet union to see what that would look like.
I probably did miss your point. Lately my wife has pointed out that there have been a couple or three instances when what I said was not consonant with the situation. I think that between my surgery and my mom’s surgery, I have been a little out of it.
If you go back and read my posts on capitalism, you will see that I do not favor either laissez faire capitalism or socialism. I favor ordoliberal capitalism. This means that I do believe that government should set boundaries, but I do not believe that it should go as far as socialism. It is an inbetween position.
Father,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I hope that you and your Mother are doing well.
It is tough to go through medical problems. My mom has lung cancer and assorted other problems and it sure ain’t easy.
I’ll be happy when our Lord decides He has waited long enough and brings in His New Kingdom.
This one can sure wear on you.
Fr. Ernesto,
I feel so overwhelmed by all the contradictory information. But I’ll throw a couple of links into the mix that have influenced my thoughts:
http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs/columns/archive/2009/06/30/if-the-us-passes-obamacare-where-will-canada-send-their-preemies.aspx
and
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024280.php
The first link shows that some of these countries which claim to have lower infant mortality rates do not count babies below certain weights as live births, even if they are born alive. Which means they don’t count towards a mortality rate. I think this is a very important factor to consider (in fact, I consider the whole pro-life/special needs impact to be of paramount concern regarding the current health “care” bills).
The second link takes apart that whole “45 million uninsured” number the President keeps throwing out. Remember, this is not about care; it’s about insurance.
I believe strongly that health care should be available to everyone, regardless of ability to pay, etc. I do not feel that way about health insurance. They are two different things. The President has been making wild accusations in his speeches and contributing to the misinformation problem. I also believe that in a country as big as ours, it is nearly impossible to have an efficiently run government system. As the President said, look at the Post Office. I think that certain kinds of health care programs work well in small countries. Although, some of those countries which are acclaimed so loudly are going to be in crisis fairly soon because of their low birthrates. As Margaret Thatcher said, eventually you run out of other people’s money, and I would add, especially when you run out of people.
I think that comparing the US to small countries is disingenuous. Their economic situations are so totally different and they are simply not dealing with the number of people nor the varied regional cultures. They tend to be more culturally homogeneous and while many of these countries have growing immigrant populations, they do not have the variety and concentrations that the US has. These factors affect health care.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you (and I love your blog and hope to keep seeing you on Imonk!), and I’m not saying that the current system is perfect or ideal. I just think that there are so many factors and ideologies to be considered and I really think that the rush to “just do something” on the part of the President and the Congress is foolish and underhanded.
Again, here is the problem with the links. In the first one, the Canadian story about the premature babies, a nationalized healthcare system is used to argue against the current proposals. But, and let me keep repeating it until it sinks in, there has been no proposal to nationalize healthcare in the USA.
Second, notice carefully that the other stories that are quoted from other countries are nationalized healthcare systems NOT hybrid healthcare systems. Notice very carefully that neither blogger nor physician quote statistics from the top-rated hybrid systems. And, I cannot blame them since they would have severe difficulties making their cases if they were honest in their quotations.
Please note what I point out over and over. The opponents to the current proposals quote horror stories from systems that are NOT being proposed for the USA. Second, believe me that I can quote horror stories from our own healthcare system. That is why overall statistics are better than individual stories. Every system has horror stories, such as the people who have died in USA emergency rooms without ever being seen by either doctor or nurse.
As to statistics, I will check out claims that the statistics are not comparable. However, I must admit to doubts since the whole purpose of the field of epidemiology is to do the type of comparable studies that will help to forward medical knowledge. It seems strange to me that neither ostensibly liberal and ostensibly conservative medical data gathering organizations have noticed the discrepancies for years until revealed by bloggers. Remember that I quoted both the World Healthcare Organization and the CIA Factbook. I was most careful to stick to organizations considered reliable, both from the USA and outside the USA.
Sure enough, when I did a check, the claim by that non-practicing California doctor has been widely debunked in more than one publication. No matter how a country keeps its internal statistics, all countries report infant mortality rates to the WHO using the same formula. And that formula defines a live birth as any baby that breathes, moves, or has a heartbeat after birth, regardless of length of life or weight. The actual WHO website says:
“Live birth is the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached; each product of such a birth is considered live-born.”
Second, there is no record that Canada ever reported its infant mortality using a different method for a couple of years. And, even if the claim about the difference in infant mortality records for Canada were true (remember the WHO definition), both infant mortality rates mentioned for Canada in the supposed data article are still BETTER than the current USA infant mortality rate.
Let me repeat again that most people are reading and repeating material from either bloggers or from supposed data gathering institutes without going to the actual original sources. This means that much deliberately false information is getting spread or, even worse, there is deliberate misunderstanding of the healthcare bill with a win at all costs attitude.
There is no proposal for nationalized healthcare. It does not matter what Britain or Canada do since there is no proposal to copy their system. Horror stories are just that and have little value, since there are strong horror stories about the USA healthcare system right now. Statistics are standardized globally, and no, there is no political lean to the data gathering since all countries–from a wide variety of policies–have agreed to the definitions, including the USA.
And, finally, in a world with countries from as many political systems as are present, there has been no global conspiracy to hide the “truth” of healthcare from you, and no one modern blogger of pundit has mysteriously and suddenly revealed the hidden truth. That may be a good Hollywood plot, but it is not reality.
We can all differ in our opinion about what the best way is to solve the problems with USA healthcare. But, the debate needs to be just that, rather than the “fog of war” that is being deliberately created by those who oppose some of the current proposals.
Father,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my comment.
I don’t mean to disagree with you, but when I did a search (admittedly cursory – your search was probably much more in-depth and productive) to find more information about Dr. Halderman, I found one weblog claiming to “debunk” her. I don’t know if this was the same one you looked at. I don’t have any particular interest in this doctor, but the blog that posted about her statements clearly is a liberal-leaning publication (based on reading other articles on the site). On the other hand, she has been quoted by many other reliable sources, including physicians. She is also an advisor to the California State Senate, for what that’s worth. This is the frustrating thing about the information coming out – there is so much that is contradictory!
That issue aside, the fact is that I will probably never know all the specifics of the health care plan. My husband has a copy of the bill on his computer and has apparently read more of it than the legislators voting on it. But, since I will never be able to understand or know all the behind the scenes issues and language, at some point I have to decide whose opinion I’m going to trust – whose word I’m going to take at face value. And what it has come down to for me is that the people in government who are pushing this type of health care reform are simply not people whom I feel are trustworthy. They are people whose fundamental beliefs are different from mine and I believe many of their beliefs are not good for the people living in this country. I do not trust Nancy Pelosi. I do not trust Harry Reid. I do not trust Barack Obama. I do not trust Kathleen Sebelius. Is this simplistic and naive? Perhaps, but when I hear about “end of life” consultations (which I think are fine, as long as they are not mandatory), federal funding for abortion, home visits for low-income families, etc., as well as our ballooning deficeit, and then there is almost NO support from the people that I do respect, I get suspicious and think that maybe nothing should be done without more thought and discussion.
While I do agree with your statements in your original post about being careful about sources, I also think that bloggers (both on the right and left) are doing the reporting that newspaper and MSM reporters can’t or won’t do. I read news blogs on both sides. I don’t agree with 100% of what anybody says, but again, sometimes it comes down to trusting the people who share my core values, such as a commitment to the protection of the unborn, especially those who are not perfect, the formation and strengthening of families, the freedom to practice religion with the understanding that this country was formed with a Judeo-Christian worldview and sense of morality and ethics (no, I do not believe this was ever a “Christian” nation; however the founders of our government system were coming from a strong Judeo-Christian perspective). And honestly, those are not the people supporting this approach to health care, for the most part.
I think the United States is unique and lawmakers need to be sensitive to that. And I still believe that as a general principle, less government involvement is better than more. Reform may indeed be needed, but government control is not the only answer, and probably not the best, regardless of who’s in power (I do not support No Child Left Behind, either).
I am open-minded and willing to learn. I am Orthodox and the longer I “simmer,” the more open I become to alternative ways of thinking. Plus, you are someone whose wisdom and insight I respect very much. So, thank you again for taking the time to respond to my earlier comment.
You are welcome to “mean” to disagree with me. GRIN. I actually believe in the robust debate of democracy, otherwise I would not blog on political issues. GRIN.
Here’s a good one (short, too) from Dr. Thomas Sowell
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081909.php3
I am having this same discussion on facebook where i posted your previous post on health care. I am a day-old fan of your writing, and truly hope that you do not refrain from writing about political topics, especially when they affect so many people. I believe the church must be involved in the well being of the community around us, so the love of God is shown. This is an excerpt from the conversation we are having:
“And again, providing health care is for those who NEED it. Those who live without the means to save for medical emergencies, some that we have helped before at outreaches that cannot afford it. It’s what I had when I was a kid, and saved my family from financial ruin. The church nor charities are providing this for the common public. I don’t … Read Moreunderstand why we are not supporting this. there are over 45 million people without coverage, 8.1 million children without coverage, paying over $30 billion in health care costs out of pocket, with the GOVERNMENT paying $56 billion to cover some of these costs (all in 2007). Again, many churches do not cover this, or they take up an offering that provides very little. I have a professor with a child with special needs, and he rants about how the government helped him more in 1 day than the church ever has throughout his life. These are people’s NEEDS we are talking about.”
Sorry for the rant, but thank you for your writings. They are stirring good, revealing conversation for some students here at Southeastern University in Lakeland, Fl.
You have several good points there. For all that people argue about the statistics of the uninsured, and about how everyone in America can get healthcare, the bottom line is that there is no way that individuals or churches can provide the financing needed in today’s modern medical environment.
Most people have no historical memory. Thus, they forget that people my age were already adults before hospitals were required to treat those needing emergency care. Hospital emergency rooms used to routinely shuttle non-paying patients to the “PUBLIC” hospitals. The change was after some scandals were people died on the way to other hospitals. But, uhm, that is Federally mandated care.
The latest from Breitbart:
http://www.breitbart.com/image.php?id=app-47250bbb-6eb8-4019-a28e-d1f2024bb07e&show_article=1&article_id=D9A65AL80
How bad can our system be?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation
Glenn Beck talking about how good healthcare is after he talked about how bad healthcare is. Of course one clip is from after the election of President Obama while the second is from before the election of President Obama.
This is the level at which the healthcare argument is taking place among conservatives. The very conservatives who agreed that healthcare needed revision before the election have mysteriously changed their whole story.
That is not true at all.
Conservatives agree that there is room for improvement.
We do not believe the whole system needs to be scrapped and replaced with a big, fat, lazy, inept, wasteful, govt. run system.
That’s all.
Ahh, but two issues. One, what I pointed out was the utter and hypocritical contradiction by Glenn Beck. He quickly changed his story the moment that the administration changed. Look again at the video.
Two, there is no proposal to replace the current system with a government run system.
Only 214 of the countries were ranked. The ones above 214 were N/A.