A Data Point Ignored in SiCKO
Andrew Sullivan's got the goods, quoting the Telegraph:
So, tell me: how is this supposed to support Klein's position that we should move to a European-style UHC system post-haste?
Tony Blair poured millions into Britain's socialized healthcare system, pumping unprecedented resources into a healthcare system that Michael Moore admires and the American left loves. This is the result:Wait just a second, says Ezra Klein:More than 70,000 Britons will have treatment abroad this year – a figure that is forecast to rise to almost 200,000 by the end of the decade. Patients needing major heart surgery, hip operations and cataracts are using the internet to book operations to be carried out thousands of miles away.
India is the most popular destination for surgery, followed by Hungary, Turkey, Germany, Malaysia, Poland and Spain. But dozens more countries are attracting custom. Research by the Treatment Abroad website shows that Britons have travelled to 112 foreign hospitals, based in 48 countries, to find safe, affordable treatment.
Indeed, there are more Americans -- 100,000 -- traveling abroad for cosmetic surgery alone than there are Britons seeking any type of services in foreign lands. America is actually driving the medical tourism industry that some Britons are taking advantage of. The growth of foreign treatment centers aren't a result of the failings of the British health care system (of which there are many). They're a result of the cost of American health care, and the huge numbers of sick individuals we price out.Well, first things first. There are five times as many Americans as Britons, so comparing raw numbers isn't appropriate. Also, Americans are going for plastic surgery while Britons are seeking treatment abroad in order to stay alive. Obviously they aren't the same. In addition, the American model is a free trade model, so "medical tourism" isn't exactly a critique of the system; it's part of the system. Seeking out lower prices for procedures is what you're supposed to do. In Britain, however, everything is intended to be provided by the government (and at much lower cost, as Klein goes on to remind us). But the fact is that the service is so unsatisfactory that people are choosing to opt out of Britain's system in favor of the free trade model. The fact that citizens living in countries which provide UHC are choosing to forego the free coverage (for which they've already paid, through taxes) in favor of a free exchange is not supportive of arguments in favor of UHC.
So, tell me: how is this supposed to support Klein's position that we should move to a European-style UHC system post-haste?
Labels: Health Care, Michael Moore
posted by Kindred Winecoff at
5:55 PM
2 Comments:
First things first is that 70,000 of 60,000,000 brits is only 0.1%. That's so miniscule that it can't account for anything on anything. Plus I think the point on 100,000 Americans going for plastic surgery alone is to point out that a portion of that number could be accounted for people going abroad to get operations like that. Really though, 0.1%, that could probably be accounted for by all the people who prefer to receive treatment in their original homeland. Even people who go to India for "spirtual" operations are probably counted. Another thing to point out is that it's possible some of these brits were abroad when becoming sick and had the operation where they were. I know of someone here that had a motorcycle accident while visiting England and was not allowed to fly back to Germany until they performed the treatments they thought were necessary first, but someone else that was in Austraulia had to fly back to Germany, when she came down with an illness, to receive any treatment. There's a slight difference between a flight from England to Germany and Austraulia to Germany, but nonetheless, that's what happened.
Anyways, my main point is that 0.1% of the population going abroad for treatments doesn't say anything about the system, or if anything, since the number is so low, that it's pretty good.
J.S.
p.s. does anybody else read this but me?
70k in one year is a large number, for a few reasons.
1. most people can't afford to pay the cost required to travel to India for heart treatment. since 70k only represents those who have the means to travel for care, comparing that number to the entire population isn't appropriate, since the vast majority of the overall population can't afford to travel for such procedures.
2. this isn't measuring English citizens who are injured while abroad. this is measuring "health tourists" only, so those who are injured overseas are left out of the sample. (this is clearly stated in the original Telegraph article, which also predicts the trend increasing dramatically over the coming years.)
3. these are people who are fleeing the NHS for superior care elsewhere. this isn't supposed to happen in a UHC plan, where everyone is supposed to have access to a high quality of care. The fact that anybody is opting out of a free system in favor of paying a ton of money out of pocket for a replacement is an indictment of UHC.
however, it supports a free market system.
no, you aren't the only person who reads this. you're about one of five, or so. you are the only person who ever comments, tho.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home