Matthew Yglesias » French Health Care Costs

Jul 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

French Health Care Costs

Bruce Bartlett emails to point out that it’s probably not right to say, as I quoted Kevin Drum saying this morning, that France spends half of what we spend on health care. If you look at it in terms of percent of GDP, they spend about two thirds of what we spend. Here’s a chart of OECD data on the subject:

Now I think that’s a pretty striking chart. Politics is politics, and that means change that’s fairly incremental. But looking at that chart, and abstracting away from the practicalities of it, you’ll need to show me overwhelming evidence that the United States is getting better health outcomes than these other countries are before I stop thinking that a hefty dose of socialism is what the health care sector needs.

Update To be clear, Kevin's not wrong to say that the French spend about half of what we do. If you look at health care spending on a per capita basis, that's what you get. But I think looking in percent of GDP basis creates a more enlightening comparison; otherwise you just get the conclusion that richer countries spend more money.

Comments
65

Filed under: France, Health Care,

65 Responses to “French Health Care Costs”

Mattyoung Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
A little socialism and we can eliminate 1/3 of our health care industry. It is one way to get rid of too much health care industry.

I bet a good old fashioned energy tax would also get rid of that useless 1/3 of the health care industry. Health care is one of the most inefficiency energy users.

But, in way we can, lets attack that useless resource.
DTM Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Yep. That is why I don’t really care about the debates involving whether the United States is actually getting worse outcomes than other developed countries, or around the same outcomes as other developed countries. The bottomline is that in the absence of proof we are getting much better outcomes–and there is no such proof to be had–we are necessarily wasting a lot of resources.
Myles SG Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Again, the Swiss model si purely private, with no public provision but plenty of very strict public regulation of private plans. Socialism, in that case, clearly wasn’t the inspiration.
ron Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
But % of GDP is the wrong metric. Per capita is the correct metric.
If Bill Gates makes $2 billion/year and has great health care, that doesn’t make up for 1000 other people who have none.
Bartlett is a disingenuous scumbag.
Nick Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
But looking at that chart, and abstracting away from the practicalities of it, you’ll need to show me overwhelming evidence that the United States is getting better health outcomes than these other countries are before I stop thinking that a hefty dose of socialism is what the health care sector needs.

Uh…what? It’s a sign of how far conservatives have managed to warp the conversation that even those in favor of “a hefty dose of socialism” use this bizarre standard. I should fucking hope that the US is getting better health outcomes than every other country on that list. We spend more than 50% more per person than them! Even if France produces slightly worse health outcomes, they’d still obviously have the superior system.
ron Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
And let’s not forget that a big chunk of that GDP was ephemeral financial sector gain, that as it turns out, never actually existed.
JD Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
I am always interested to know how much perscription drug costs factor into this. I know many countries like Canada keep costs down by using generics several years before the US can use those same generics because Canada basically ignores US patents. If this is happending a lot then it is true that the US is basically subsidizing drug research for the rest of the world. Since the higher US profits fund new research it doesn’t seem like we could just cut them off by forcing them to lower costs or using early generics ourselves, and if we did then we would have to fund the research through the government which would still mean that the US carries the burden of research costs.

This sort of thing is why I am sorta dubious of all the claims to lower costs. Sort of how the US carried the vast majority of the defense spending for western europe for 50 years and then they spent the money that would have been defense money elsewhere. Its not that they spent so much more ‘wisely’ than us, its that noone was subsidizing our budgets.
SqueakyRat Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
ron is right. If you want to measure cost, look at expenditure per capita. About BB qua disingenuous scumbag, I reserve judgment.
zed Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Where is Paraguay on this list?
JD Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
We spend more than 50% more per person than them! Even if France produces slightly worse health outcomes, they’d still obviously have the superior system.

I do not think that this is at all obvious. It all depends on how much you value the increase in health outcomes. Also, as you increase the quality of anything beyond a certain point you run into increasing marginal costs, so increasing quality could involve much higher spending for relatively small objective gains. That might not be worth the cost, but that would be a pretty subjective analysis.
DTM Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
JD,

A large amount of the private funding for pharmaceutical research and development in the United States goes to things that don’t actually improve health outcomes, whereas the exact opposite is true for public funding of pharmaceutical R&D. So you don’t need to raise public funding anything close to dollar for dollar to compensate for reducing private funding, assuming health outcomes are your actual goal.
Al Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
you’ll need to show me overwhelming evidence that the United States is getting better health outcomes than these other countries are before I stop thinking that a hefty dose of socialism is what the health care sector needs

You’ll need to first show me that the presence or absence of socialism in the health care system is related to the amount spent, or even the health outcomes.
Steve LaBonne Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
But % of GDP is the wrong metric. Per capita is the correct metric.

x100. Pay no attention to glibertarian obfuscation on this point.
Steve LaBonne Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
P.S. When considering comparative health outcomes it is totally fucking dishonest to ignore the dire outcomes of all the people our “system” barely serves at all. Our public health statiscics are a disgraceful outlier among advanced countries. (And no, glibertarian assholes, it’s not because of McDonald’s.)
Seth Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
As has already been pointed out, GDP is not the correct measure to use here. GDP per capita is:
http://www01.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=france+GDP+per+capita+%2F+us+gdp+per+capita
Since France’s GDP per capita is about 80% of the US, and they spend roughly 2/3 what we spend on health care, than that means that France does, in fact, spend just about 50% of what the US spends per capita on health care.
mds Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
So, no matter how you slice the 2006 WHO figures:

$3554 per capita vs. $6714 per capita

11.1% of GDP vs. 15.3% of GDP

France is spending less than the US, managing to insure everyone, and avoiding the cloud of scary anecdotes surrounding the UK’s National Health Service. What’s Bartlett’s point, exactly? That it’s bad that France spends less than the US for at least comparable outcomes no matter how one measures it?

Though I at least give Bartlett some credit for openly preferring % of GDP over per capita. At least he didn’t conflate government healthcare spending with total healthcare spending to assert that France spends 90 percent what we do.
JD Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
JD,

A large amount of the private funding for pharmaceutical research and development in the United States goes to things that don’t actually improve health outcomes, whereas the exact opposite is true for public funding of pharmaceutical R&D. So you don’t need to raise public funding anything close to dollar for dollar to compensate for reducing private funding, assuming health outcomes are your actual goal.

Perhaps this is true, but your statement still basically agrees with my main assertion, namely that it is not fair to say France pays A for B results and the US pays X for Y results. It is more France pays A for B results and the US pays X for Y results plus Z research. So we not only get more for X than just Y, but we also subsidize the rest of the world with Z.
joe from Lowell Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Mattyoung Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
A little socialism and we can eliminate 1/3 of our health care industry. It is one way to get rid of too much health care industry.

Is that what France did? If it was, then I’m on board, because France, which spends 2/3 of what we do on health care, has much better health care.

But I don’t think that’s what they did.
Max424 Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Socialism? Everybody working together for the betterment of the team?

Sounds vaguely un-American too me.
DTM Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
You’ll need to first show me that the presence or absence of socialism in the health care system is related to the amount spent . . . .

Um, hence the chart (of course you do have to know that all those countries have a more “socialist” health care system than the U.S., but I would think that is common knowledge at this point).

. . . . or even the health outcomes.

But that’s the point: past a certain level, there doesn’t appear to be any notable relationship between more resources spent on health care and health outcomes.
DTM Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
What’s Bartlett’s point, exactly?

I didn’t see the email, of course, but my guess is that he just wanted Matt to get his facts straight.
joe from Lowell Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
JD,

If your argument is true, and America’s screwed up health care system is subsidizing health care for all of the those other countries that outperform us in outcomes, then the adoption of a public health care system in the United States represents a serious threat to the fiscal and physical health of those other countries.

So, why don’t I ever see the alleged victims express this concern? I only see American conservatives ever argue this point. If the point you raise is true, we should expect there to be a great deal of concern among Canadians and Western Europeans in particular – but we don’t.
DTM Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Perhaps this is true, but your statement still basically agrees with my main assertion . . . .

To clarify, I agreed with your underlying factual assumption for the purpose of argument. The evidence that the U.S. is the only major net subsidy provider of the sorts of medical and pharmaceutical technologies that actually improve health outcomes is quite thin (of course the developed world as a whole subsidizes the developing world in this sense, but presumably we are talking about subsidies within the developed world).
Jeffrey Davis Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Where’s Cuba?

Cuba spends $229 per person. Life expectancy on that benighted island: 76 years (male) 80 years (female)

Health care doesn’t need to be elaborate. Just timely.
Steve LaBonne Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
joe, anybody who makes JD’s “argument” is a dishonest and/or ignorant twat. Most research that leads to new treatments is federally- or charity-funded basic research. Most Big Pharma research is devoted to finding new “me too” drugs to keep the gravy train running when old patents expire, and even at that their spending on it is dwarfed by their spending on marketing.
Halfdan Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
At least he didn’t conflate government healthcare spending with total healthcare spending to assert that France spends 90 percent what we do.

Oh, snap.
sserial catowner Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
That is a “striking chart”- for the sheer amount of intellectual dishonesty displayed.

Of course the expenditure as a percentage doesn’t rise as fast- we have a huge GDP.

In fact, our expenditure should be less as a percentage of GDP than anyone else’s, because of mass production.

You may have heard of mass production. You make many things from the same investment in manufacturing ability, and the price per unit falls. Huge markets give you large numbers that allow more accurate predictions. In fact, markets that are large enough can shape behaviors- for better or worse.

And something about our health care has taken us down the path of “worse”. Maybe it has something to do with the kind of dishonesty displayed by Bartlett here.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
So, why don’t I ever see the alleged victims express this concern? I only see American conservatives ever argue this point.

Well, if American conservatives are prepared to support the introduction of an actual healthcare system only because it might make the French unhappy, I’m sure that suitable expressions of concern can be ginned up.
Paula Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I thought the reason the “per cent of GDP” adjustment was necessary was to align the cost differences. In France, per hour salaries are slightly higher than in the U.S., they just work fewer hours per year. Two months off, 35 hour work weeks, etc. But that shouldn’t make health care have an intrinsically lower cost the way it would in, say, Mexico. Their costs should be equivalent. Of course, being a physician in France is not automatically a path to extreme wealth, but they are well-to-do.
Matt Mc Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Hey- not all of those cheaper countries are socialist.

Answer me this- does France have nearly as many senior citizens that spend nearly every day of the week being shuttled from specialist to specialist? Unfettered access to a resource is subject to abuse.
Not as Stupid as Will Allen Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
It amazes me there are people still stupid or dishonest enough (hey there resident idiot) to defend the current system that fails to provide care to millions.

The “I got mine” crowd is a bunch of anti-social fuckwits.
Fleur Delacour Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
“before I stop thinking that a hefty dose of socialism is what the health care sector needs”

There will be too much to say about our health care systems. Let’s just say that it is in no way “socialist”. In France or Belgium, doctors are not employees of the government, and people can choose their general practitioner etc. The only thing is that we get back the 20-something euros of a consultation to the doctor. Doctors are still free to make us pay wathever they want, but, because we will not get as much money back, in reality they are stuck to the official tariffs (22 euros in France). Costs are less in some countries because there is less freedom (in Netherlands for instance, it is almost impossible to contact his doctor, and we are forced to see a general practionner before going to a specialist). I don’t know what you Americans want nor the direction you are going to (or the feasability of importing our european medical tariffs and restrictions to freedom, within the american culture), but please stop mixing everything and talking about subjects too far or complex for you. Not everyone in Europe has a “socialist” system like the one you on the american left seem to praise (Cuba or England).
Steve LaBonne Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
While I personally wouldn’t want to go the UK route, it should be pointed out that there’s probably little wrong with that system that wouldn’t be fixed by funding at the levels other Western European countries spend.

There are many ways of getting this more or less right, and one outstanding example of getting it spectacularly wrong: the US.
Ed Smithe Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Evidence? Ok…How many folks died a few years back when France had that unusually hot summer? Do you know why most of them (elderly) ended up dying? It was because the health care system was on holiday because it can’t afford to run at full steam all year round.

What was even more disturbing about that story was how many folks went unclaimed at the morgues.

Don’t get me wrong I love the French, but their health care system isn’t better than ours–especially when it comes to prolonging life, cancer survival rates, and access to new medications and technology. Then again, we pay through the nose for all of that stuff…and probably subsidize a large part of the world (given their penchant for price controls).
Campesino Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
sserial catowner Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
That is a “striking chart”- for the sheer amount of intellectual dishonesty displayed.

Of course the expenditure as a percentage doesn’t rise as fast- we have a huge GDP.

In fact, our expenditure should be less as a percentage of GDP than anyone else’s, because of mass production.
============================================================

Well, since the lion’s share of health care costs are labor, it’s hard for mass production to make a dent.
Ed Smithe Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
FYI, the heat wave was in 2003.
DTM Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
In case people are confused, with the term “socialism” in “a hefty dose of socialism”, Matt means any role for the government in providing basic health care or basic health care insurance. Of course that is a somewhat ridiculous definition of “socialism”, one that originated with the vested interests opposing health care reform in general. But at this point, people like Matt are freely using the term “socialism” in that way, I think in part because the last presidential campaign really beat the stigma out of the term.
DTM Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I think all opponents of health care reform should be put on official notice that if all they can bring to the table is anecdotes, the argument in question will be considered official won by the proponents of reform. We really have wasted enough time with that nonsense.
joe from Lowell Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Do you know why most of them (elderly) ended up dying? It was because the health care system was on holiday because it can’t afford to run at full steam all year round.

See, and here I was, thinking that it was because they experienced a record-breaking heat wave, with temperatures higher than they’d seen in a couple of centuries.

I had no idea that providing air conditioners to people who don’t normally use them is a form of health care; nor did I know that the American health care system excels at such a thing.

Thanks, Ed!
joe from Lowell Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Fleur,

Most Americans on the left want a system similar to France’s, not England’s. Socialized heath insurance, not socialized medicine.

Not even Dennis Kucinich, who is about a far left as one will find in the Democratic Party, wants the doctors and nurses to be government employees.
DTM Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Yeah, the only group in the U.S. strongly in favor of socialized health care provision, as opposed to socialized health care insurance, are veterans.
ron Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
If I were going to a car dealer to have my car repaired, I would be interested in the cost to repair a car.
Apparently Bruce Bartlett would be more interested in the car dealer’s revenue from car repairs as a % of his total revenue.
Nick Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Also, as you increase the quality of anything beyond a certain point you run into increasing marginal costs, so increasing quality could involve much higher spending for relatively small objective gains.

Are health outcomes in France much worse than in the US? I’d think if they were, someone would have claimed so by this point (in a more convincing way than “Socialist medicine means fewer air conditioners!!1!”). Otherwise, we are in a scenario where health outcomes in France are, at worst, slightly worse than the US. And you want me to believe that that gap couldn’t be made up by a 50% increase in spending? Please.
mds Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I had no idea that providing air conditioners to people who don’t normally use them is a form of health care; nor did I know that the American health care system excels at such a thing.

Well, Mr. from Lowell, if that’s your real name, Mr. Smithe has you cornered. For instance, during the major heat waves in Chicago in 1995 and 1999, no one died**. And that’s all thanks to US-style health care. Plus, in the US, for-profit health insurance companies apparently operate the morgues.

**Sure, quibblers might note that “[i]n July 1995, a [Chicago] heat wave resulted in 485 heat-related deaths and 739 excess deaths. An epidemiologic investigation of the heat wave identified advanced age and an inability to care for oneself as major risk factors for heat-related death. During 1999, a heat wave resulted in 103 heat-related deaths; 80 were attributed to extreme heat.” But this works out to effectively zero deaths as a percentage of GDP.
Steve LaBonne Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
It’s revealing that the wingers have absolutely nothing on this issue but blatant lies and obfuscation, isn’t it? There are many issues that have (at least) two rationally arguable sides, but this ain’t one of ‘em.
Ed Smithe Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I’m sure that all those Chicagoans who died were black. Similarly, the few hundred people that die of heat stroke every year are predominantly blacks and hispanics. The French people who died actually count, though.
Steve LaBonne Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Add the phony racism card played by racist fuckwit wingers to the lies and obfuscation.
Ed Smithe Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Mds,

Thanks for the defense there. To be intellectually honest here, this case study isn’t by any stretch a perfect one. For example, many of those folks had not been through a summer like this, and, as Joe points out, many (if not all) of them did not have air conditioners.

Having said that though…it’s not like this was a one day event. This went on for a week, and in the aftermath there were calls to oust the health minister precisely because he didn’t order doctors back from their vacations.

As I’ve said before, I’ve been to many of these European nations, I’ve studied them, indeed, I’ve used their health care. They’re all wonderful, provided that you’re not really sick.

If we go the public route, Americans won’t stand for it. When I hurt my knee, it took me a week to get an MRI. That doesn’t happen in Europe. It can take months…and then you’ve got to schedule surgery. Of course, I really don’t need a reconstructed ACL to walk around, but having been through that process, it was best for the future health of my knee that I had that surgery in less than a months time.

Don’t even get me started on cancer. I’ve had friends (or friends of friends) who have either ditched the public system for the private one…or come to the US. When you receive a diagnosis of cancer, for the most part, you ought to start treatment right away. Again…that tends not to happen in Europe.
Ed Smithe Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
THE PREVIOUS POST WAS NOT BY ME. SOMEONE SPOOFED MY NAME.

WHOEVER DID SO IS A RACIST AND A BIGOT…AS WELL AS A COWARD.

FOLKS, WE’VE HAD OUR DIFFERENCES, BUT THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. I’D ASK THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SPOOFED MY NAME AND WROTE THAT HIDEOUS COMMENT BE PERMANENTLY BANNED.

THIS SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE TERRIBLE STATEMENT. BY NOT BANNING HIS IP, YOU ARE TOLERATING THIS RACIST BEHAVIOR.
Ed Smithe Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
POSTER 46…SHOULD BE PERMANENTLY BANNED.
Ed Smithe Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
MDS,

If my numbers are correct, 14,000 people died in France. That’s more than 14 times the number of folks that died in Chicago.

That’s a lot of people for a health care system that’s superior to ours.
ron Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Not to worry Ed.
No one takes your posts seriously anyway.
joe from Lowell Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
But this works out to effectively zero deaths as a percentage of GDP.

I just hope my health insurance covers snark overdoses. Medic!

Also, whomever it is spoofing Ed needs to stop. That’s not ok.
Ed Smithe Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Thanks Ron. I don’t care if the majority of you don’t take me seriously, but folks should not have the wrong impression of what I believe.
joe from Lowell Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
If my numbers are correct, 14,000 people died in France. That’s more than 14 times the number of folks that died in Chicago.

Chicago is a city of 2.9 million people. France is a nation of 61.5 million people.

France is more than 21 times larger than Chicago.
joe from Lowell Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
…although Chicago could still kick their ass.

South Side vs. South of France? Fugghedaboutit.
ron Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Sorry Ed.
I gave in to temptation.
Bengt Larsson Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
What joe from Lowell at 55 said. If you scale up the extreme heatwave in Chigaco to the size of France you get a very similar death-toll.

And Europe’s military spending is about 40% of America’s.

Just some facts for the apparently fact-shy.
DTM Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Like I said above, this anecdote stuff always just ends up being a waste of time.
joe from Lowell Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
If you scale up the extreme heatwave in Chigaco to the size of France you get a very similar death-toll.

I’m not surprised that the tolls are very similar, despite France’s better system of health care, for the simple reason that the quality of a nation’s health care has very little to do with excess deaths from extreme weather events.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Ed Smithe: It was because the health care system was on holiday because it can’t afford to run at full steam all year round.

Everything after that ‘because’ is a lie. There were plenty of studies done on the response to the heatwave; the most critical failing was that the Ministry of Health’s response plan wasn’t anticipatory, but instead was triggered by hospital admissions reports. It then became a scramble to locate those at risk — otherwise healthy elderly people, living in homes without air conditioning, who often didn’t know that they were dehydrating or suffering heatstroke because they’d never experienced the symptoms.

The main culprit was ‘lack of imagination’, and you might as well say that the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon took place because the FAA couldn’t be bothered telling air passengers that hijacked planes might be flown into buildings.

An epidemiology study showed that the 2006 heatwave in France actually departed from with the trend of previous years, including 2003. That’s because both the government and those at risk knew the danger signs.

Don’t even get me started on cancer. I’ve had friends (or friends of friends) who have either ditched the public system for the private one…or come to the US. When you receive a diagnosis of cancer, for the most part, you ought to start treatment right away. Again…that tends not to happen in Europe.

Again, everything after “Again…” is a lie. Now, I can tell you of someone who remortgaged his home and flew to New Jersey for experimental brain cancer treatment after receiving six months of timely, extensive state-funded treatment on a fast-growing tumour. He died a couple of weeks after he got back.

DTM: the only group in the U.S. strongly in favor of socialized health care provision, as opposed to socialized health care insurance, are veterans.

One aspect of the VA system that doesn’t often get mentioned: it’s probably the best place to work in public mental health. The rough side of that field is not profitable, and it’s also subject to resource cuts and tinkering by state governments. And while the work is hard and often thankless — PTSD will be a gift that keeps giving for the current generation of vets — plenty of graduating clinical psychologists consider the VA their ideal employer.
JonF Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Re: does France have nearly as many senior citizens that spend nearly every day of the week being shuttled from specialist to specialist?

Does the US? My father, and other elderly people I’ve known, had plenty of doctors visits, but overwhelmingly those visits were to their regular doctor– in fact, I don’t think my father, in all the years he spent dying of emphysema, ever saw a specialist unless one stopped by during his frequent hospitalizations. In fact, the only elderly person I know who did routinely see a specialist was my aunt who went to an oncologist while she was dying of multiple melanoma.
JonF Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Re: does France have nearly as many senior citizens that spend nearly every day of the week being shuttled from specialist to specialist?

Does the US? My father, and other elderly people I’ve known, had plenty of doctors visits, but overwhelmingly those visits were to their regular doctor– in fact, I don’t think my father, in all the years he spent dying of emphysema, ever saw a specialist unless one stopped by during his frequent hospitalizations. In fact, the only elderly person I know who did routinely see a specialist was my aunt who went to an oncologist while she was dying of multiple melanoma.
BTW I love your blog!
World Vitamins Online Says:
July 8th, 2009 at 9:12 am
While the United States spends about twice as much on health care than most industrialized countries we are not getting the benefits of that spending. We are behind most other countries in infant mortality and life expectancy.
RationalNotRhetoric Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
What I know for sure is America spends more on health care no matter how you slice it, per capita, % of GDP…As this link clearly shows, in addition to the US being #1 in per capita spending, we can also brag at being number 1 for Obesity, teen pregnancy and Plastic Surgery!

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/hea-health

Life expectancy, cancer, heart disease, we are middle of the road…So we pay nearly twice as much as the EU Countries per capita to live shorter lives and suffer just as much or more from disease…

But hey, for now I can enjoy the fact that Pharm companies continue to spend more money on Marketing (Can I PLEASE go one night withoout seeing 50 Cialis, Propocia, Zertec or whatever commercials) than on Research!

Matt Yglesias

French Health Care Costs

65 Responses to “French Health Care Costs”

Blogroll