I have been studying economics since last fall when certain world events triggered my interest in the topic. I, of course, am new to the topic and I still have much to learn. Therefore I would like to obtain some feedback from participants on this forum regarding a challenge a socialist minded friend of mine had given to me.
Citing this study, he said:
heart surgeons charge over TWICE as much for a coronary bypass surgery as do Canadian surgeons. No difference in morbidity or mortality.
Canada, of course, has a more socialized system than the USA. Therefore, should it not be the case that health care costs for comparable services ought to be lower in the USA than in Canada? Since the comparison shows otherwise, the study has been by some journalists used to conclude that socialism is better and more efficient in providing medical services, as they have lower internal costs.
I expect someone may wish to reply following Mises general argument that analysis of historical price data is useless as there are just too many factors affecting prices to draw any meaningful conclusions; instead only deductive reasoning (praxeology/catallactics) should be applied. This is quite probably true, however, I think it is useful and not beyond our capability to examine particular comparisons and identify the plausible factors which may explain such costs differences.
That said, as this study found results contrary to my expectations, I am wondering if anyone would be kind enough to consider the report and offer any reasons why this outcome may have occured.
Thanks,
It is not apples to apples. We need more data about wait times for example. We also don't know how many people were turned away at the US and Canadian price for lack of service (as opposed to inability to pay).
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
The way Canada and European and many other countries mask a lot of costs. For instance, they have laws saying how much doctors, nurses, etc. can be paid. That is why all the good doctors from those countries come to the US. Plus their laws limiting costs often make it so people can not receive the newest drugs or utilize equipment such as MRIs and EKGs, etc.
Socialized medicine is no panacaea. The money must come from somewhere, and as with all things socialized, there is a net loss.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Pete: Canada, of course, has a more socialized system than the USA. Therefore, should it not be the case that health care costs for comparable services ought to be lower in the USA than in Canada?
Canada, of course, has a more socialized system than the USA. Therefore, should it not be the case that health care costs for comparable services ought to be lower in the USA than in Canada?
I lack the expertise to address the rest of your post, but to say that a free market is more efficient than a centrally planned system does not mean that a less heavily-regulated system will necessarily be more efficient than a more heavily-regulated or socialized system. There's nothing to say that the rules laid out for the less heavily-regulated system could be very stupid ones.
Say, tomorrow the US Congress could pass a bill mandating that every family must select a grocery store and exclusively shop at it for the next 30 years. Canada, on the other hand, could nationalize all grocery stores and put in place strict price and quality controls. The Canadian system would almost certainly be more efficient while also being more socialized, because such additional regulation limits the degree to which a manipulated system can drift from the ideal one.
plack: There's nothing to say that the rules laid out for the less heavily-regulated system could be very stupid ones.
There's nothing to say that the rules laid out for the less heavily-regulated system could be very stupid ones.
regulation of free-will is the core of the stupidity
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
It is NOT accurate to say that Canada's system is not as socialist.
There really isn't any linear "socialist spectrum"... and if there was, you'd have to conclude that in many ways, we are more socialist because when government interferes with, consolidates, regulates, mandates, and controls private insurers and healthcare providers, you can only conclude that these actors are fundamentally arms of the state and not at all individuals acting voluntarily - that is, they are not "private" in any sense that retains any meaning.
when you are comparing a single-payer system to a patchwork federal government and state intervention framework, it's just apples and oranges.
Also, price is held down due to price fixing/rationing in Canada, while in the US prices are largely allowed to come to equilibrium (except in medicare...).
These articles do a good job:
http://mises.org/story/3613
http://mises.org/story/3586
Pete: I have been studying economics since last fall when certain world events triggered my interest in the topic. I, of course, am new to the topic and I still have much to learn. Therefore I would like to obtain some feedback from participants on this forum regarding a challenge a socialist minded friend of mine had given to me. Citing this study, he said: heart surgeons charge over TWICE as much for a coronary bypass surgery as do Canadian surgeons. No difference in morbidity or mortality. Canada, of course, has a more socialized system than the USA. Therefore, should it not be the case that health care costs for comparable services ought to be lower in the USA than in Canada? Since the comparison shows otherwise, the study has been by some journalists used to conclude that socialism is better and more efficient in providing medical services, as they have lower internal costs. I expect someone may wish to reply following Mises general argument that analysis of historical price data is useless as there are just too many factors affecting prices to draw any meaningful conclusions; instead only deductive reasoning (praxeology/catallactics) should be applied. This is quite probably true, however, I think it is useful and not beyond our capability to examine particular comparisons and identify the plausible factors which may explain such costs differences. That said, as this study found results contrary to my expectations, I am wondering if anyone would be kind enough to consider the report and offer any reasons why this outcome may have occured. Thanks,
Among the more obvious criticisms of this example, I'd also like to point out that, in general, the US spends more on reporting and investigation also, so even in comparison you have to take it with a grain of salt. We aren't comparing identical studies here.
existence is elsewhere
Wilmot of Rochester:Among the more obvious criticisms of this example, I'd also like to point out that, in general, the US spends more on reporting and investigation also, so even in comparison you have to take it with a grain of salt. We aren't comparing identical studies here.
Also, in the US malpractice means something. Good luck in Canada (I am Canadian) trying to get accountability for a misdiagnosis or poor treatment. The cost of accountability is another big difference.
I ran in the Ontario election for the LP two years ago and did an all candidates meeting at a retirement community. I went in literally shaking, wondering whether I would leave the building alive. I was flabbergasted when I got applause even after calling for the abolition of communist health system. In the questions from the audience, one man broke down crying saying that the treatment for his cancer was not covered. This was the most dissatisfied with health care crowd I've ever seen.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap