Alternatively, you can atomise the populations and look at the size and coverage of the most disadvantaged subgroups. This does not work in the US’s favour – according to the OECD only 1% of the Australian population has no health insurance (vs. about 10% of the US), and if you want to trawl the literature you’ll find that the US has the highest proportion of people with poor health care outcomes in the developed world (that ubiquitous statement about “worse than Cuba” springs to mind). Similarly, infant mortality in the US is shocking. (I have pasted links to research on this in other threads – I won’t do it again now, you can do your own homework).

The funny thing is, you can look at OECD historical stats and see how these things changed for countries like Australia after the introduction of medicare. For the US they didn’t. Do you think that constitutes a hint?

GMT, thanks for confirming, contrary to some above, that the boy is meant to be the argument, and that therefore there’s no appropriate response. BTW: no one doubts that welfare “works” in some sense, but there are disagreements about its merits.

In point of simple fact, there hasn’t been, only disinformation and character assassination in a mode all too familiar to, and thoroughly beneath the contempt of, anyone who thinks for a living.

The boy’s a living example of something that works. His very existence is therefore hateful to those whose ideology states that such a thing is impossible. Their response, in turn, will continue to be useful as a weapon against them.

There are consequences.
.

In answer to your question about Aborigines, yes they are meant to be covered by Medicare and yes, they are very poorly covered. There are several reasons for this but the main two are Australian racism, and the extreme remoteness of Aboriginal communities. It’s difficult to talk about medicare in connection with Aborigines because they live in areas without sewerage, fresh food or houses.

In terms of discussing health systems, the better comparison is between those racial/ethnographic minorities who are actually within comparable urban networks. This is why I raised the example of hepatitis C, since it is a problem of IDUs in both countries, and in both countries IDUs are disproportionately from disadvantaged minorities (black in the US, aboriginal in Australia). You get the joy of 80-99% HCV prevalence, we don’t.

I don’t think it has yet been established that any ethnic group has significantly different health care needs to any other. The only possible explanation for large differences between groups is systemic, and systemic exclusion of subpopulations of Americans from health insurance does not serve to explain the high cost of that health insurance for the remainder of the population – if anything the generally poorer health of those (generally poor) minorities should mean their exclusion will reduce the cost of health insurance for the remainder.

Where did I suggest that racial/ethnic demographic differences were the principal difference between the US and Australia? I asked what I described as a sincere question about accident and violence rates and racial/ethnic demographics, to which you responded not with an answer about these three things, but with cries of racism. I would guess that the first two would be more likely to drive diffferences in health outcomes, but it is possible that the third (and many others as well) would too. But I don’t know if there are any differences between Australia and the US on these points. Do you have information about the comparisons there, or are you more interested in demonstrating your bad-faith for your friends?

1) the appropriate response to people’s anxieties about not having health insurance is not to point to foreign systems and say “socialism will eat your babies” (or whatever you said, is it okay if I paraphrase?); nor is it to point to the super rich in your own country and say “they’ll be anxious if they have to endure socialism” (kind of the same thing isn’t it?) The appropriate response is to reassure people that the current system is working. When you don’t do that people start to wonder …

2) Well, I do have the OECD stats to back me up. But have it your way, if mere stats aren’t persuasive enough for you

3) I gave you an example of the pre-eminence of health systems over ethnic differences (shall we agree to call it “empirical evidence”?). When you said I “shrink from the demonstration” perhaps you meant I haven’t given you a simple enough explanation? Feel free to ask. Another nice little example you might like to consider is HIV - but remember, you need to be careful that you don’t start blaming the differences on strong traits intrinsic to a particular ethnic group because that would be…

4) … never mind

As to the ethnic/demographic concern. Either

1) the people you allude to are getting private health insurance, in which case they aren’t (to judge by all the quotes being bandied about) poor at all. So they either have such powerful genetic differences that even your efficient highly priced private health care can’t make a dent; or they aren’t really the problem at all.

Or

2) The people you allude to aren’t getting private health insurance, in which case they can’t really be responsible for the high cost of private health insurance.

You can’t have it both ways. So, which is it?

Oh, and if you bother to look you can find some of these differences described in OECD stats. It doesn’t make for encouraging reading though…

I had no family to worry about

Quickly:
1. “Anxiety” was first mentioned by jim in 18.
2. is the subject of our disagreement, which you’ve resolved summarily, if not persuasively, in your favor.
3. is about the actual analysis to be done—you claim that comparisons of health care systems demonstrate something, but you shrink from the demonstration, and then complain that it’s asked for.
4. is your absurd attempt to deflect your failings by suggesting racism.

Having lived in the US, both with and without health insurance, yes. I had the choice above, build a business and no insurance or work for someone else and be able to afford it. I took the business route: it’s not exactly comparable as I had no family to worry about.

1) Fear (changing the system will cause “anxiety”)
2) Lies and misrepresentation (UHC is not “better and cheaper”)
3) Invent or claim dubious facts (There are other drivers of health care, so you can’t compare the systems)
4) Blame minorities

Now you have that out of your system, perhaps you can present some actual information…?

Australia has a hepatitis C epidemic amongst Injecting Drug Users (IDUs) which most researchers agree can be traced to middle-eastern/greek migration from the 50s. It blew out of proportion in the 70s in IDUs, but because of our UHC system it is now under control. The US and Australia have hep C epidemics now, but our hep C prevalence amongst high risk groups is half yours. This happened because our poor and minority groups get free health care.

This, I am sure, is just one example among many.

Also Thomas, it is not the case that the solution to the problem is to “[remove] entirely the private spending”. It is to extend government spending to all individuals, so that private spending becomes a matter of choice for the rich who want luxuries. This is how Australia works. Is it ignorance or a desire to spread disinformation which makes you pretend that UHC means no private care?

SG, do you know that the current public expenditure on health care in the US is greater, as a percentage of GDP, than in most of the comparison set? The only problem, apparently, is removing entirely the private spending.

John, I love you, stay crazy.

Having followed the blog as long as you have, Martin, I’m surprised that you still have the idea that Thomas would feel shame about anything.

Your claim that less money will be spent rests on the assumption that the US health care system is efficient, and therefore spending less money means getting worse outcomes. Other countries’ experience suggests that this is not true.