The day the Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare, the Jewish Daily Forward provided a good explanation of the similarities and differences between the two health systems. One of its points: America can learn a lot from the Israeli system. “The quality is high, and the outcomes are good,” said Orly Manor, dean of Hadassah-Hebrew University’s Braun School of Public Health.
It doesn’t seem that Romney had that in mind, since his campaign soon walked back his praise for Israel’s healthcare system. A campaign spokesman said “the governor was criticizing our broken healthcare system and the failure of Obamacare to address the healthcare challenges facing our country.”
OK. Meanwhile, one of Romney’s comments that didn’t get much play merits some journalistic scrutiny, too. He also said:
We have to find ways, not just to provide healthcare to more people, but to find ways to fund and manage our healthcare costs.
Is Romney another Republican moving away from the goal of bringing more Americans under the private insurance tent? Should he be added to the list of top Republicans who want to de-emphasize more coverage for more people—a philosophical trend that NPR’s Julie Rovner reported might be the new Republican healthcare mantra? Good question.
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