4 ms·

"In this case, the French spend enough money on public health and social benefits that there's reason to believe that the relationship is more than coincidental

"In this case, the French spend enough money on public health and social benefits that there's reason to believe that the relationship is more than coincidental." Why? Because it is common sense! If you spend money on public health you are making people healthier. Why do you think they call it public health? More money, more health. It's really very simple, don't you understand basic arithmetic? Here's an interesting link (from 2000, sorry about that): http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap-care-funding-public-per-capita http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_ca...

anigbrowl 17y ago
Well, here in the US I believe we spend more (as a function of GDP) than the French do, but the results are less good overall. India spends relatively little but they have a different philosophy about medicine (I don't mean 'alternative' medicine, but health administration, scheduling etc). I think our heavily private system is failing in the US for two reasons: 1. health consumers can never be fully informed without getting a medical degree, and indeed they can't get access to facilities or tools without one; and 2. healthcare isn't an asset that you can choose to buy at a given time. You can't decide to have your heart attack at 30 when your recovery prospects are very high, or to postpone developing a chronic condition while you make more money to buy better health insurance. Ill health is, to a large extent, something that happens to you rather than something you can plan for, notwithstanding the benefits of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. With limited knowledge, limited ability to make decisions, and limited ability to schedule your healthcare spending, it's very hard for normal market conditions to prevail. Though one can buy insurance, there is a massive gulf between the information available to the supplier and the consumer, and suppliers leverage this to give consumers a poor deal.
laut 17y ago
In this case it's mo' money mo' problems :) If the government spends the money you don't get the same result as if it is spent privately. Economics is a social science, not a natural science such as physics, nor is it pure math. Part of the argument was that the government taxing the population and doling it out as "social benefits" leads to better health. But if government pays people not to work more people will not work. Common sense if you want. In general people who are on welfare are less healthy. Denmark is probably the place that pays the most for not working. Off the top of my head it's something like 80-90% of your previous income for 4 years. And as previously stated life expectancy - on average - is relatively low.

anigbrowl 17y ago

Well, here in the US I believe we spend more (as a function of GDP) than the French do, but the results are less good overall. India spends relatively little but they have a different philosophy about medicine (I don't mean 'alternative' medicine, but health administration, scheduling etc). I think our heavily private system is failing in the US for two reasons: 1. health consumers can never be fully informed without getting a medical degree, and indeed they can't get access to facilities or tools without one; and 2. healthcare isn't an asset that you can choose to buy at a given time. You can't decide to have your heart attack at 30 when your recovery prospects are very high, or to postpone developing a chronic condition while you make more money to buy better health insurance. Ill health is, to a large extent, something that happens to you rather than something you can plan for, notwithstanding the benefits of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. With limited knowledge, limited ability to make decisions, and limited ability to schedule your healthcare spending, it's very hard for normal market conditions to prevail. Though one can buy insurance, there is a massive gulf between the information available to the supplier and the consumer, and suppliers leverage this to give consumers a poor deal.

laut 17y ago

In this case it's mo' money mo' problems :) If the government spends the money you don't get the same result as if it is spent privately. Economics is a social science, not a natural science such as physics, nor is it pure math. Part of the argument was that the government taxing the population and doling it out as "social benefits" leads to better health. But if government pays people not to work more people will not work. Common sense if you want. In general people who are on welfare are less healthy. Denmark is probably the place that pays the most for not working. Off the top of my head it's something like 80-90% of your previous income for 4 years. And as previously stated life expectancy - on average - is relatively low.