Thanks to Mitt Romney’s laudatory remarks about the Israeli health system during his trip to Israel, we now know a bit about how another country provides healthcare—and how that nation manages to have better mortality and other outcomes than we do, at a far lower cost. The press, laudably, took a bread-and-butter political story—what Romney said—a big step further, explaining how and why Israel covers everyone and spends far less. Reporters did a good job. I just wish there had been such coverage of other systems three years ago, when the shape of healthcare reform was on the table.
But anyway: On a trip to raise money from wealthy donors in Israel, Romney told the Israelis:
Do you realize what healthcare spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? Eight percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP. on healthcare. You’re a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18 percent of our GDP on healthcare, 10 percentage points more.
What exactly does Israel have? For starters it has a national health insurance system in which every citizen is covered, and those citizens care is paid through a system of income taxes. Some funding comes from out-of-pocket payments and supplemental coverage that provides adult dental and vision care. Israel has four nonprofit health plans that function similarly to HMOs in the US. The Ministry of Finance gives each health plan a “capitation” payment, similar to the payments American HMOs run by private insurance companies give to medical groups to provide care for a group of patients.
Sarah Kliff, a Washington Post health blogger who wrote the best account of Romney’s visit, reported that the Israeli government controls about 40 percent of the country’s medical expenditures through the payments it makes to the four health plans. It figures the amount by adjusting for the age of the citizens they serve and what their healthcare costs are likely to be.The plans must figure out how to provide the best care within its budget, and they are prohibited from withholding care in order to balance their books. Everyone gets treatment, and there are no exclusions for preexisting health conditions.
The government mandates a broad set of benefits which Rich Ungar, a contributor to Forbes, called “pretty darn good.” They include diagnosis, treatment, preventive care, fertility treatments, surgery, transplants, and ambulance services, as well as prescriptions and occupational therapy. Children also get preventive dental care. Contrast that with the US, where dental care for kids is something that’s hard to get if they’re poor. Many states offer dental coverage for children under Medicaid, but in recent years some have dropped coverage because of budget constraints. President Obama’s health reform law tries to expand Medicaid coverage, including dental care, though several states are resisting the expansion.
The Los Angeles Times framed Romney’s comments about the Israeli system as another of his healthcare flip-flops.
Mitt Romney established universal health coverage in Massachusetts with an individual mandate to buy insurance. But he says he’ll overturn an identical system at the federal level. He has dismissed the idea of a Medicare-for-all insurance system in the United States. And what do you know—Israel has something like a Medicare-for-all system.The reporter didn’t quite get it right. Obamacare is hardly Medicare-for-all. Medicare is social insurance and Obama’s Affordable Care Act firmly rests on the private market. Nevertheless, we haven’t heard that term for a while—not since the Dems were told by their pollsters not to advocate for it since it didn’t play well with voters.
So what does this Medicare-for-all system mean for the Israeli citizens? I looked up some health stats from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development—the OECD, a pretty reliable source. People live longer in Israel. In 2010, the OECD reported that life expectancy for the total population was 81.7 years, compared to 78.7 years in the US.
- 1
- 2
Now if we're going to look into the Israeli health care system, let's really do so.
In Lieberman Liberal La La Land, the one thing we don't do is delve into those pesky numbers when they make a Gubmint boondoggle look bad.
If we had a country the size of New Jersey with a surplus of doctors (Israel has 60% more doctors, per capita than the U.S), a healthier population with a median age of 29 instead of 37 and if we were willing to ration health care like Israel does, we could mimic the Israeli system if we were willing to put health care spending on a credit card, like Israel currently does.
Let's not forget... That, despite the $3 billion we give them every year (about 5% of their entire annual budget), Israel still has a huge Gubmint debt and runs an annual budget deficit.
It's just a matter of time before the Isreali Gravy Train derails. Costs will go up, services will deteriorate, or both. It's already happening.
Doctors are already FLEEING Israel in what the medical association there describes as a "brain drain" brought about by poor public sector compensation. Indeed, "the rate of MDs up to the age of 65 dropped during the past decade from 3.71 per 1,000 in the year 2000 to 3.38 in 2010."
That's almost a 10% decrease in just a decade.
The piper must be paid. The Gubmint Money Fairy can't sprinkle Free Health Care Dust forever.
It's just arithmetic.
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 09:51 AM
And yet Romney praises it.
#2 Posted by hobiejeepguy, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 03:21 PM
You've got that right. Romney loves him some Gubmint health care.
You won't see me waving any Romney flags. I'll be holding my nose when I vote for him, that's for sure...
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 05:30 PM
Padikiller just admitted:
1 Israel has a healthier population
2 and has a surplus of doctors
3 yet doesnt see the irony in doctors "fleeing Israel" (well, if demand for them is lower than supply, doesn't this make sense? why do so many Israelis study medicine in the first place? Maybe fewer should do so?)
As for Israel "being the size of New Jersey" ...the size of population is completely irrelevant. It's *per capita* resources (both human/infrastructure/capital) that you should be looking at, and Israel is actually making more with less than the United States has.
As for "putting healthcare on a credit card" ...well, apparently the United States has trillions to spend on frivolous wars, but no on healthcare.
Healthcare -under a single-payer system- won't cost any more than you're currently paying into private health insurance; in fact, it'd be less. So the affordability argument is moot point; you'd actually be saving money because a govt system doesn't need to pay off stock holders, and because everyone is forced to pay into the system, spreading the risk.
People like padikiller need to stop feeling so threatened by ideas from abroad. We don't know EVERYTHING in the US. We CAN learn a thing or two from others.
#4 Posted by eggsk, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 10:27 PM
eggsk wrote: Healthcare -under a single-payer system- won't cost any more than you're currently paying into private health insurance; in fact, it'd be less
padikiller responds: Of course it would, Crappy, rationed care is cheaper that good, state-of-the-art private care.
But Americans don't want it. We don't want to die of thirst in National Health hospital rooms or lie dead in triage as the nurses step over us.
We don't want to wait 100 days for an MRI like they do in Ontario.
And if you have a young population (like Israel does) and a surplus of doctors from Eastern Europe (like Israel does, at least for the time being) and if you're willing to put the bill on the credit card (like Israel is) then yes... You can live on the cheap for a while.
But when the population ages... And when the doctors leave because the pay sucks.. And when the credit card is maxed out...
Then the Crap is going to hit the Proverbial Fan and the Gubmint's Money Fairy is going to run out of Free Health Care Dust to sprinkle on the Israeli masses.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 11:12 PM
Okay, if we're going to talk about the Israeli health care system, let's make sure we know what we are talking about.
1.# Romney was merely pointing out that Israel spends less on health care than we do in the USA. No serious Republican would deny that other countries spend less on health care than we do or that we need to find ways to lower our costs. He did not, at any point, say he liked the Israeli system or argue that we should try to replicate it.
2.) Also, one needs to look at the Israeli system before claiming that it is "socialized". In fact, it has a number of features that may actually make it more market oriented than the US system or at least other systems in developed nations. For instance, if you look at WHO data, you would see that 40% of the Israeli system is privately financed. Compare that to the UK, where only 15% of the system is privately financed #In the USA, it is 50%).
3.) Likewise, the Israeli's utilize a key market mechanism in their system: cost sharing. About 30% of health care spending is out of pocket in the Israeli system. That means that individuals pay 30% of their costs directly. Compare that to the USA, the supposedly more "market oriented" system, where only 12% of costs are out of pocket.
The fact is that the Israeli system does not resemble either the USA model of health care or the single payer model in the UK or Canada. It is certainly more "market oriented" than anything those on the American left are advocating, but it is also has more "government control" than anything being pushed on the right. What does that mean?
Well, it probably means that the Israeli health care system doesn't have a whole lot of relevance to US health policy.
#6 Posted by John Brown, CJR on Mon 6 Aug 2012 at 11:46 PM
I think John is right about the importance of out-of-pocket payments.
France does the same thing.
Demanding payment at the time of service is the best way to keep costs down.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 7 Aug 2012 at 06:44 AM