Comments on: SOCIALIZED MEDICINE REDUX http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/socialized_medicine_redux/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:36:07 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Michael Demmons http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/socialized_medicine_redux/comment-page-1/#comment-10257 Michael Demmons Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=4563#comment-10257 James, In fairness, I have not read Kevin's post. I would venture a guess though, that the reason Healthcare is not a higher - a MUCH HIGHER - percentage of GDP in other "socialized medicine" countries is because of the fact that government has stripped so much money out of healthcare that Doctors and nurses are leaving for better paying jobs in the US. Canadian doctors and nurses make much less than in the US, and they work longer hours for that money. Additionally, you'll find all the latest medical magic here. You're lucky to get a lot of it at even the better hospitals in Canada. Case in point: MRI's. In the US, I believe the average wait for a potentially life-saving MRI is a couple days to a week. In Canada, it's 17 weeks!! Why? Because they are so understaffed that there's nobody to do them, and so underfunded that, even if the staff was there, there'd be a lack of MRI machines. If Canada, for example, had the quality of Healthcare that we have here (and I am speaking as a Canadian) it would be a much larger percentage of the GDP - a MUCH larger %. James,

In fairness, I have not read Kevin's post. I would venture a guess though, that the reason Healthcare is not a higher - a MUCH HIGHER - percentage of GDP in other "socialized medicine" countries is because of the fact that government has stripped so much money out of healthcare that Doctors and nurses are leaving for better paying jobs in the US. Canadian doctors and nurses make much less than in the US, and they work longer hours for that money.

Additionally, you'll find all the latest medical magic here. You're lucky to get a lot of it at even the better hospitals in Canada.

Case in point: MRI's. In the US, I believe the average wait for a potentially life-saving MRI is a couple days to a week. In Canada, it's 17 weeks!! Why? Because they are so understaffed that there's nobody to do them, and so underfunded that, even if the staff was there, there'd be a lack of MRI machines.

If Canada, for example, had the quality of Healthcare that we have here (and I am speaking as a Canadian) it would be a much larger percentage of the GDP - a MUCH larger %.

]]> By: William http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/socialized_medicine_redux/comment-page-1/#comment-10258 William Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=4563#comment-10258 I think that a single payer system is a good idea . . . but as for the whole "density" arguement, it seems to me that Finland, Iceland, and Australia might have a low population density when you look at the size of their country and divide it by the number of people who live there . . . but when you look at where people actually live, they are pretty dense countries. For example, in Iceland, which has more glaciers than all of Europe, there are about 288,000 people, of which about 112,500 live in Reykjavík and about 180,000 live in Greater Reykjavík. Obviously when you average in the glaciers and Greater Reykjavik, there are low overall population densities . . . but in the areas where most folks live, there is a much higher population density. Australia, with its vast interior desert seems like it might have similar characteristics. I'm not sure about Finland. But maybe population density needs a more nuanced look. I think that a single payer system is a good idea . . . but as for the whole "density" arguement, it seems to me that Finland, Iceland, and Australia might have a low population density when you look at the size of their country and divide it by the number of people who live there . . . but when you look at where people actually live, they are pretty dense countries.

For example, in Iceland, which has more glaciers than all of Europe, there are about 288,000 people, of which about 112,500 live in Reykjavík and about 180,000 live in Greater Reykjavík. Obviously when you average in the glaciers and Greater Reykjavik, there are low overall population densities . . . but in the areas where most folks live, there is a much higher population density.

Australia, with its vast interior desert seems like it might have similar characteristics. I'm not sure about Finland. But maybe population density needs a more nuanced look.

]]> By: James Joyner http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/socialized_medicine_redux/comment-page-1/#comment-10259 James Joyner Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=4563#comment-10259 William, Interesting. And, yeah, that makes sense. It certainly seems quite reasonable to me that it would be more expensive to provide medical care to, say, all the people of North Dakota than to, say, all the people of Washington DC, even though the populations are comparable, since fewer hospitals, etc. would be needed. But the simple calculations don't show that; maybe a more rigorous operationalization would help. --- William,

Interesting. And, yeah, that makes sense. It certainly seems quite reasonable to me that it would be more expensive to provide medical care to, say, all the people of North Dakota than to, say, all the people of Washington DC, even though the populations are comparable, since fewer hospitals, etc. would be needed. But the simple calculations don't show that; maybe a more rigorous operationalization would help.

---

]]>