Business Roundtable Shines Light on U.S. Health Care Shortcomings

I imagine the Business Rountable to very similar to depictions of the Knights of the Round Table: Large, well dressed men sitting around a round table (who would have thunk) discussing how powerful and wonderful they are and then getting down to solving the problems of the world. In reality, the Business Roundtable is a group of modern-day powerhouses-the CEO's of America's largest corporations, in fact. The purpose of the Business Roundtable (to be referred to as BT throughout the rest of the article) is to unite these bigwigs and hope they can churn out some good solutions to the world's problems. I mean, who better to address all the poverty and despair in the world then some of the wealthiest folks in America, right? Sarcasm aside, I find myself impressed with a recent study that the BT released, comparing the success/cost of health care in the United States with that of European countries. Considering that the recent economic malaise has sent numbers of former employees to the ranks of the uninsured - or even, gasp, resorting to self-employed health insurance - the findings are grim, a little nauseating. Still, there may be nuggets of wisdom the U.S. Government can take to make some much needed changes. The U.S. Health Disadvantage Here is a little bit on what the BT's study found regarding the United States health care system. It's estimated that the United States spends nearly $643 billion more every year on health care than other industrialized countries like France, Germany and Japan. The BT rounded up 19 different metrics of looking at a method for measuring the impact of health care spending on U.S. global economic competitiveness. What did the BT find? "The United States stands at a 23% disadvantage relative to five leading economic competitors: Canada, France, Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom (the so-called G-5 group); and a 46% disadvantage relative to the emerging competitors of Brazil, India and China (BIC).” To continue, the report states “As a group, workers and employers in G-5 countries spend approximately 63 cents for every dollar we (U.S.) spend on health care. The gap is even wider when we look at the BIC (Brazil, India, China) group; they spend just 15 cents for every dollar we spend on health care. These health spending gaps persist after adjustment for our higher per capita GDP (Gross Domestic Product).” Take a minute to let all of that sink in. If you're a regular reader of this blog, you'll recall that a few months prior I wrote a piece about the different health care models in large countries around the globe, how much they cost for the country in a given year and how much they cost consumers. Most industrialized nations have something similar to a universal or nationalized health care system. There are variations, of course, but they all stand in a similar ilk. The United States really stands all alone in it's little corner while those in European countries not only spend less, but get more thorough, easily accessible and affordable care. What is wrong with this picture? One thing I did read that lightened my spirits a bit is this: the study "has had profound influence on the thinking of Obama’s White House staff of economists and analysts." Let's make some changes here people. photo credit: hans s

Sick

The great Paul Krugman takes Dubya to the woodshed: Now, why should Mr. Bush fear that insuring uninsured children would lead to a further "federalization" of health care, even though nothing like that is actually in either the Senate plan or the House plan? It's not because he thinks the plans wouldn't work. It's because he's afraid that they would. That is, he fears that voters, having seen how the government can help children, would ask why it can't do the same for adults. And there you have the core of Mr. Bush's philosophy. He wants the public to believe that government is always the problem, never the solution. But it's hard to convince people that government is always bad when they see it doing good things. So his philosophy says that the government must be prevented from solving problems, even if it can. In fact, the more good a proposed government program would do, the more fiercely it must be opposed. This sounds like a caricature, but it isn't. The truth is that this good-is-bad philosophy has always been at the core of Republican opposition to health care reform. Thus back in 1994, William Kristol warned against passage of the Clinton health care plan "in any form," because "its success would signal the rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy at the very moment that such policy is being perceived as a failure in other areas." But it has taken the fight over children's health insurance to bring the perversity of this philosophy fully into view. There are arguments you can make against programs, like Social Security, that provide a safety net for adults. I can respect those arguments, even though I disagree. But denying basic health care to children whose parents lack the means to pay for it, simply because you're afraid that success in insuring children might put big government in a good light, is just morally wrong.