The American healthcare debate is not a debate for Americans only. In two ways at least, the debate implicates the well-being of everybody in the developed world.
The first implication: medical innovation.
The profit-seeking American healthcare system is always looking for new products to sell: new drugs, new surgical procedures, new ways of delivering care. The result is that the United States has become the leading -- often the unique -- source of progress in the treatment of disease.
Just one example out of many: Through the 1990s, at least as much prescription drug research was done in Europe as the United States. But as European governments cut back on the price they were willing to pay for drugs, European pharmaceutical research shriveled. In the 1980s and early 1990s, at least as many new drugs emerged from European as from American labs. Since 1997, however, American labs have outproduced European labs by a margin of two to one.
New drugs are expensive, because the sale price must recoup -- not only the cost of manufacturing the pill -- but the years of research and development before a single pill was made. American consumers pay this full price. In Canada and Europe, however, government healthcare monopolies can use their market muscle to force discounts. Soon enough, the patent expires, and generic manufacturers cut the price even more radically.
But everything rests on that first decision by the American drug consumer to buy a new product at a high price. If changes in U.S. health policy stunt American drug development, it is not only Americans who will suffer.
The second implication: global peace and security.
The U.S. taxpayer pays the cost of the military protection that shelters Canada, Europe, and all the other democracies. The U.S. defense budget costs about 4 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. Rapidly rising U.S. health costs call into question America's ability to pay that bill.
The United States operates far and away the most expensive healthcare system on earth: 17 per cent of GDP and still rising. Most other developed countries spend between 10 per cent and 12 per cent. Runner-up Switzerland pays 13 per cent.
If the United States paid as much for healthcare as Switzerland, it would be the equivalent of getting the defense budget for free. Instead, healthcare and defense are becoming competitors for straitened government resources.
Remember, despite the supposedly "private" nature of the U.S. healthcare system, the majority of the dollars in the healthcare system are tax dollars: Medicare (for the elderly), Medicaid (for the poor), benefits for veterans, Indian tribes, public employees and poorer children.
The first of the baby boomers became eligible for Medicare in 2011. Medicare will soon surpass defense as the largest single item in the U.S. federal budget -- and federal budget-cutters will begin eyeing defense as a source of Medicare funding.
That's what happened in Europe, where defense budgets have declined below 2 per cent of GDP, in many countries nearer to 1 per cent.
At 3 per cent of GDP, the U.S. could still buy the world's most powerful military, but not a military so powerful as today's, and likely not a military that can secure all of America's allies as they would like to be secured.
When Americans talk about today's health costs, they are also talking about tomorrow's defense budget -- the budget that protects us all from a world of dangers.
Follow David Frum on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@davidfrum
Private health insurance simply doesn't work.
Also, it's hilarious to hear any american threatening the dangers of reduced military spending. Considering the history of the past decade, that can hardly be considered a bad thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/07/02/glaxosmithkline-settlement-drug-fraud_n_1644412.html?utm_hp_ref=canada
How many people spent money needlessly and suffered even worse health because doctors were encouraged to prescribe useless and/or potentially harmful medications, just so drug companies could profit?
The U.S. spends more money on defense than the next 26 countries put together.
25 of those countriies are allies of the U.S. I find it hard to believe that Western Security is in any
form of jeopardy.
Washington will still be the defacto leader of the Western World and all will be right with the Western World, as it should be.
To ensure that every U.S. citizen has access to some form of Health Care and proper Medicine
is the least that the U.S. can do to ensure that all U.S. citizens have the ability to pursue Life,
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Without proper Health there is not much Life and certainly no pursuit of Liberty and Happiness.
On a more practical matter, which of America's allies actually need this security anyway? If the American government decided that they weren't going to help with the defense of Canada, what, exactly, would change? Would Russia suddenly decide to roll their way across Europe if the Americans weren't there to hold them back? Doubtful. Is there a real need for tens of thousands of soldiers to be stationed in Japan? Of course not. You could probably count on one hand the number of countries who actually need that protection.
If a person is healthy, they don't need CARE.
If a person is healthy and they become injured or injure themselves, they need MEDICAL CARE.
If a person succumbs to a infection from anaerobic molecules of bacteria or virus, they are DISEASED and need DISEASE CARE.
So straighten out the language and start training the populations, starting at Grade One, on how to PREVENT themselves from succumbing to those dreaded anaerobic molecules.
In fact, go back to day one of a breast fed infant where mother nature deems the hydrogen peroxide molecule so important that the female biochemistry creates the molecule and transfers it to that infant via the first produced breast milk.
The reason is simple.
The infant is going from a protected environment in the womb to a environment where it will be subjected to airborne anaerobic bacteria and virus molecules. The addition of the hydrogen peroxide molecule to its blood immune system combats that anaerobic wave.
The Pharmaceutical Cartel knows this fact and counters it with a chemical based infant formula for FUTURE profits.
A writer named D. Chopra was asked once why he gave up being a licensed physician. His answer was that he got tired of being a LICENSED drug pusher.
Better to use the money to invade a country that had nothing to do with 911 and no WMD and squander lives and treasure that lined the pockets of companies like Haliburton. You must be so proud of your adopted country and your role in cheerleading for the invasion.
The idea that drug companies spend huge amounts of money on research is an industry driven ploy to justify the outrageous prices charged for the drugs. The reality is that most of the pure research is done at universities. Drug companies spend more money on advertising and paying for 'independent' studies that show their drug to be an improvement over the competitors brand or an earlier version of their own.
What Frum misses about Obamacare is that it will force Americans to buy private health insurance they cannot afford in the first place. It will either bankrupt them or they will buy such lousy insurance to be compliant that it will do nothing other than tak money out of their pocket and give it to the insurance companies by sheer force of law.
That is so wrong . In 2008 when Obama was elected I thought he would be good for the U.S. - today I have my doubts.
You have also overlooked that the health care companies are now required by law to use 80% of the money they bring in must be used for delivery of healthcare costs instead of administrative costs and salaries. Thus, many Americans will be receeiving rebate cheques in the mail this month.
"the debate implicates the well-being of everybody in the developed world."
O.K. buddy, then again, Frum shows his true colours because only people in the developed world matter. And if your right Frum, then the people in the developed world can live like the majority of people in the un-developed world. Then maybe things would begin the change in the world...