Your contention is interesting. Let us compare cancer survival rates.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737
Breast cancer survival rates in the US are 90.1%, versus 79.0% in Europe. The prostate cancer survival rate in the US is 99.3%, as compared to 77.5% in Europe.
We get better health care in the US.
The US also subsidizes drug discovery for the rest of the world. In the late 90's, I worked for a company that made robots used for drug discovery. Every once in a while, they would put up a chart showing year over year growth. There was a healthy, steady climb until the Hillary health care initiative. The company almost went out of business. Drug companies froze spending on drug discovery because it wasn't worth their while to spend the hundreds of millions to bring a new drug to market if the US was going to go to a single-payer system. US drug prices pay for R&D, and all the countries with enforced pricing get a free ride.
> Breast cancer survival rates in the US are 90.1%, versus 79.0% in Europe. The prostate cancer survival rate in the US is 99.3%, as compared to 77.5% in Europe. We get better health care in the US.
You conclusion doesn't follow from the data. The only conclusion you could make from that data is that the US has better care for prostate and breast cancer than Europe.
Most people don't die of these diseases. Indeed, most people don't die of cancer. So we should be looking at survival rates for all conditions, i.e. life expectancy.
As it happens, most (all?) western European countries have longer life expectancies than the USA, and all spend less on healthcare. If you wish to conclude that the US system is the best one, your conclusion isn't supported by the facts.
In 2004 and 2007 12 countries from central and eastern Europe joined the EU, with lower standards of living and (presumably) healthcare. The western EU countries are more comparable with the USA, since they have a more similar standard of living.
Comments
Your contention is interesting. Let us compare cancer survival rates. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737 Breast cancer survival rates in the US are 90.1%, versus 79.0% in Europe. The prostate cancer survival rate in the US is 99.3%, as compared to 77.5% in Europe.
We get better health care in the US.
The US also subsidizes drug discovery for the rest of the world. In the late 90's, I worked for a company that made robots used for drug discovery. Every once in a while, they would put up a chart showing year over year growth. There was a healthy, steady climb until the Hillary health care initiative. The company almost went out of business. Drug companies froze spending on drug discovery because it wasn't worth their while to spend the hundreds of millions to bring a new drug to market if the US was going to go to a single-payer system. US drug prices pay for R&D, and all the countries with enforced pricing get a free ride.
> Breast cancer survival rates in the US are 90.1%, versus 79.0% in Europe. The prostate cancer survival rate in the US is 99.3%, as compared to 77.5% in Europe. We get better health care in the US.
You conclusion doesn't follow from the data. The only conclusion you could make from that data is that the US has better care for prostate and breast cancer than Europe.
Most people don't die of these diseases. Indeed, most people don't die of cancer. So we should be looking at survival rates for all conditions, i.e. life expectancy.
As it happens, most (all?) western European countries have longer life expectancies than the USA, and all spend less on healthcare. If you wish to conclude that the US system is the best one, your conclusion isn't supported by the facts.
As it happens, most (all?) western European countries have longer life expectancies than the USA
The average life expectancy in the EU is 78.7 and in the USA it's 78.06, according to Wikipedia.
Bear in mind that western Europe != the EU.
In 2004 and 2007 12 countries from central and eastern Europe joined the EU, with lower standards of living and (presumably) healthcare. The western EU countries are more comparable with the USA, since they have a more similar standard of living.
I fail to see how having a public plan option would make drug companies stop investing in R&D.
Is it because you think the public plan would negotiate drug rates too low?
Don't the major private insurance plans already negotiate drug rates?
It is true that America is an innovator in health care, but I don't think that will change when the govt is signing the checks.
We also have the best missiles, bombs, and tanks. And all of that is govt funded.