Finland ranks 13th on UN’s “Human Development Index”, U.S. ranks 10th - Finland’s high unemployment and low GDP are key
Suprised to see the U.S. beating Finland in human development. Out of the top 20 countries, Finland had the second lowest healthcare expenditure per capita with $1,943 (US) while the U.S. had the highest $5,274. Finland had the smallest gap between richest 10% and poorest 10% in the top 20 countries, while the U.S. had the largest gap. Finland’s poorest 10% took the largest share of total income/consumption in the top 20, while the U.S.’s poor took the smallest share. Finland’s richest 10% tied for 3rd in total income/consumption in the top 20, the U.S.’s richest 10% took the largest share.
Finland tied for 2nd with Germany (France was #1) for highest unemployment in the top 20. Finland’s unemployment is twice (or three times) as high as Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Ireland. Finland had the highest “Average Annual Unemployment” rate (12.2%) in the top 20. Finland had the second highest youth unemployment rate (21.6%) in the top 20 (Italy is #1), even more than France (20.8%)!!
The United States had the third or fourth lowest “Long-term Unemployment, % of total unemployment” (12.5% men/11% women), Finland had double, but was still quite average (27.7% men, 21.4% women) compared to Germany, Belgium, France, and Italy who had around 50%.
19.1% of Finland population was victimized by a crime, while 21.1% of U.S.’s population was victimized by a crime. Finland had the second highest “Women in government at ministerial level” (47.1%) in top 20, the U.S. tied for 2nd lowest (14.3%)
The UN Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, childbirth, and other factors for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare.
The HDI measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development:
* A long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth.
* Knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weight) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio (with one-third weight).
* A decent standard of living, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) in USD.
This is quite OK. All the big European nations UK, France, Italy and Germany (not to mention Russia) are behind us and US.
Comment by jtp — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
Interesting though, I’ve always thought of Denmark as a “rich country” and I found it slightly odd to be behind Finland, but perhaps Greenland burdens the economy a bit.
BTW are you by any chance bored up there in Pieksämäki
Comment by Hank W. — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
I agree on the Health Care. At least here in the USA I can get a MRI, but wow, go to Canada, and I can wait 6 months for a Government opening in a MRI unit. Or go to the UK and find out I am to OLD, for any procedures at all.
Comment by winter — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
It seems that in healthcare the US public expenditure is pretty much on par with the rest of the top placed countries (6,6% of GDP, Finland 5,5%), but the private health spending is huge, 8% of GDP when in most other countries this figure is under 3% (Finland 1,8%). Indeed in the top 30 the US is the only country with a significantly higher private than public health expenditure.
Comment by Drakon — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
Yep, the US health care system costs a huge amount of money, leaves millions uninsured and delivers worse national health statistics than most of the other Western countries. It is unaffordable and inefficient, about the worst system imaginable. To be fair for the blind free market enthusiasts (for this thread read winter), it is more due to the silly combination of private and public sectors than to market forces. The private sector though happily freerides currently on the semi-private-public-non-universal mish-mash system that gives it the possibility to waste and absence of effective competition. But don’t let facts spoil a happy image, winter…
Comment by mjr — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 7:37 pm
It is unaffordable and inefficient, about the worst system imaginable
Yeah, and people wonder why Americans don’t want MORE socialized healtchare!
Comment by Phil — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
I don’t know that it’s unaffordable if you have a job that gives you a decent health care package. Between the dental care I got back in the US and the private dental care I had to pay through the nose for here to get an appointment before 2008, there’s no comparison as the dentist back in the US had the latest technology, explained to me what he was doing and gave my teeth an actual cleaning instead of the 10 minute lame excuse for one I got here and paid nearly 100 euro for.
The US system has oodles of problems, no doubt, but Finland shouldn’t feel so smug by comparison when even the private medical services are mediocre.
Comment by hfb — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
Yeah, and people wonder why Americans don’t want MORE socialized healtchare!
Im guessing it’s because they’re being fed a bunch of bolony and lies about socialized healthcare from neocons and their ilk. And as usually happens in those arguments the rightwing arguments always fail to stand up to scrutiny so they pull the last argument stating: “Yeah well look at our goverment, they can’t do anything right and it always costs ass loads, even if other goverments can and have done it we won’t be able to, so lets just give up!”
Comment by Captain Haddock — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
Unaffordable in the sense of national economics - the current US health costs and their rise is not sustainable in the long run. This is not a happy case of a public-private partnership. I am myself an agnostic as regards the best methods here, market forces could probably be reasonably used in some areas, but the cover should absolutely be universal: human worth should not be measured in money when it comes to health and education. Those two areas are in my eyes the biggest hindrances to admiring the American system: the playing field is not kept level, and millions are precluded from competing and developing freely based on their talents and capabilities. In this respect the Nordic system is effortlessly superior.
Comment by mjr — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 9:02 pm
I wonder where the USA would stand in the ranking if the other top 20 countries spent the same percentage or at least their fair share of their GDP on defense spending throughout the Cold War.
During the almost 45 year history of the Cold War, the USA spent about 3% more each year of their GDP on defense spending than the other 20 countries, most of them NATO or SEATO allies of the USA.
If the USA could have redeployed this 3% each year over these 45 years, alot of universities, schools, hospitals,and other social services could have been provided in the USA. In fact, the USA probably could have had developed an universal medical plan as well as free university education for its postwar population.
In retrospect, the USA was of course obliged to protect its allies since it was also in its vital interests, even though these allies were largely freeloaders.
Furthermore, some of these countries developments are largely the result of special situations. For example, Belgium benefits from the large number of EU and NATO agencies located on its home soil, as well as special tax breaks for financial centers (can you name any world-class Belgian companies?). Luxembourg and Ireland also has benefited from tax advantages for incoming investors. And, Norway is blessed with oil.
To its merit, Finland has not benefited from the USA defence shield directly, has a conscription army which has kept its defence spending down, and has not been bestowed with a large number of EU or other supranational agencies or special tax advantages for investors. Most of its development has resulted from its own investment in the postwar period in its people’s education, which bore fruition in the 1990’s as witnessed by Finland’s telecom and other high tech and engineering successes.
Comment by Peter — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index shows that the difference between the USA and Finland is very small (0.944 vs. 0.941).
Comment by i.s. — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
To comment #9, one big, maybe the biggest, drawback of the US systems is the large amount of administrative overhead generated by loads of HMO’s and competing service providers. 26% of the money in the US goes to administrative overhead for just this, another 3% is taken by medicare overhead.
Not to mention things like specialists being so overpaid and sucking money from GP’s, the massive amount of lawsuits etcetera…
Comment by Dennis — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
Like I said, I don’t want to be the PAYING guy, and then have to sit in a Government line for a service, like health care, that I paid for, but now have to share with others.
If you all think thats fine, then keep your system, I kinda like mine, where the paying customer, gets health care.
Now show me where lines (like 6 months to get a MRI) are acceptable to all of you, and I may convert into a “Government please will you care for” me type.
Comment by winter — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
If you all think thats fine, then keep your system, I kinda like mine, where the paying customer, gets health care.
If you think thats what you got then you are delusional.
Now show me where lines (like 6 months to get a MRI) are acceptable to all of you, and I may convert into a “Government please will you care for†me type.
A) We don’t need these horror story waiting line bullshit lies here, thats just a bunch of crap spouted by right wing apologists and fearmongers who oppose the idea of a UCH by any and all means. If you need something you’ll get it. If it’s elective then pay for it yourself at a private clinic.
B) This isn’t about ideology, this is about the most cost-effective solution and what is best for the nation at large. There’s a reason Canada got a few certain big auto contracts as opposed to the US…
Your goverment please care for me line is hilarious in light of how much of your tax money is squandered on a useless craptastic healthcare system that doesn’t even provide full coverage compared to mine.
Comment by Dennis — Sun, Apr 16th, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
“Yeah well look at our goverment, they can’t do anything right and it always costs ass loads, even if other goverments can and have done it we won’t be able to, so lets just give up!â€Â
Take a guess - how do you think the U.S. government would handle something as big and important as socialized healthcare? Good? Bad? Terrible? Take a look at their recent track record and give me your honest opinion.
Comment by Phil — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 12:13 am
Oh thats self-evident. They’ve done a crap job of most of the things since god knows how far back. My point is that it shouldn’t stop people from trying to get a better system, almost every other industrialized nation can and has done it. Give up? Never.
Never quit, never surrender.
Comment by Dennis — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 12:43 am
Table 1 is quite revealing. Take a look at the figure on the RIGHT-hand side. It measures per capita GDP rank minus HDI rank, and thus gives a crude approximation of what a country does with its common wealth. If you like, this could be argued as “the bang you get for your buck”.
A positive figure indicates a country is fighting above its weight in terms of human development, relative to its pure economic prowess. Finland, for instance, has per capita GDP that would put it into 16th spot, but places in 13th on HDI, and therefore scores +3. This is nothing to shout about when one compares with the Swedes, who - who’d have thought we’d see the day!!!??? - are actually BELOW Suomi in per capita GDP (in 20th), but manage to place 6th on HDI, for a creditable +14. Australia, too, seems to be doing the right things. The U.S. has traditionally scored negative in this department, but in past years I think the gap has been even larger than the present -6. The heavy income disparities noted in the original post are unlikely to be of much help - a lot of people are getting left behind.
Take a look down at some filthy rich (oil-producing) Gulf states (Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi), and see the minus numbers rack up, or alternatively look at a country like Chile (or the dreaded Cuba), where the wealth has been put into education and health and improving life expectancy, etc, etc. Cuba scores a thumping +40, and Chile (which has always shown up well on the HDI) is +17. Even naughty Mr. Chavez in Venezuela is riding high in the plus column.
Somebody mentioned the Danes earlier: they don’t show up too well in this respect. Nor do the Germans or the Austrians. Germany’s unemployment is an obvious blot on the landscape, and the gap between the West and the Osts, but what has Austria been doing wrong?
Finally, can anyone tell me how the fuck Equatorial Guinea is so rich? Not that it does the poor sods who live there any good, mind you. Have they got oil, or strategic minerals, or what?
Comment by Bang for your buck — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 3:04 am
Equatorial Guinea has enjoyed massive new oil discoveries. In addition to that, it has a small enough of a government and a rather stable society that the amount of usual payoffs to government officials do not threaten the financial viability of investments.
If only all oil producing states were small. They’re the ones that really succeed.
Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 4:08 am
Dennis
The 6 month wait for a MRI in Canada was from an Canadian source? Are you saying the wait is shorter?
How about a hip surgery “lost in a lineup for the operation at the Rockyview General Hospital that she says could last 18 months.”
or a better list
Alberta Health’s website says waiting times in Calgary are as follows:
- 62 weeks for a hip replacement at Peter Lougheed Centre;
- 62 weeks for general surgery at Rocky- view General Hospital;
- 30 weeks for MRI scans at Foothills Medical Centre;
- 54 weeks for knee replacement surgery at Rockyview General Hospital;
- 11 weeks for cardiac surgery at Foothills Medical Centre.
link here: Need surgery?
Here’s how long you’ll wait
Comment by winter — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 4:59 am
My point is that it shouldn’t stop people from trying to get a better system, almost every other industrialized nation can and has done it. Give up? Never.
Never quit, never surrender.
It’s not about giving up, it’s about being realistic. The federal government will take healthcare further down the toilet if they completely take over. Americans are smart enough to realize this and that’s why they don’t have socialized healthcare, they’ll never give up nor surrender
Comment by Phil — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 5:09 am
Even better one… DO NOT GET OLD in Canada..
Please remember when reading this one, the Government set this system up.. read that, the incentives are gone to care for old folks.
Date on this one is March 17, 2006
Link: Ont. physician turns away patient for being 55+
Comment by winter — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 5:09 am
Ah yes and a form letter from the Government no less.
“A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: “If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies.”
Link: Canadian health care is free and first-class
– if you can wait
Comment by winter — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 5:14 am
It’s not about giving up, it’s about being realistic. The federal government will take healthcare further down the toilet if they completely take over.
I completely agree with Phil on this one. Finns should imagine their health care managed from Brussels, to understand the correct parallel.
I’m interested in the new initiative from Governor Romney, of Massachusetts (who just introduced legislation making health insurance mandatory for everyone in his state, with a rather ingenious reallocation of funds that won’t require businesses to front the costs). It’s quite a bold one, and something to observe. Though it’s already drawing fire, the best thing about it is that it’ll force competition to a statist system (within the American states) that are bogged down with regulations, which aggregately drive up costs.
Either Massachusetts will win, by drawing young engineering talent (to complement “Route 128″, MA’s Silicon Valley), or it’ll lose, by having entrepreneurs start their businesses just across the border in Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, etc., just a few hours from Route 128.
That is why the states have always wanted the federal government in Washington to foot the bill: they never wanted to deal with the financial and political costs of universal health care. If there’s one thing to be said about Romney’s initiative: it’s got balls.
Of course, he’s also eyeing a run for the White House in 2008. What better way to start than to institute a universal health care initiative.
Only a Republican could do it, and survive politically.
Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 7:20 am
Why are we discussing healthcare systems on a thread about the HDI? The HDI is blind to systems but is partly made up of outcomes. It’s all very well huffing and puffing about the negative experiences of some people in society winter, but when the fact is that people in the US die younger than in most other developed countries it’s not worth much.
The evidence from the data is clear. Socialised medicine is a) cheaper and b) leads to better outcomes for the many not the few. The fact that winter can show it to be imperfect is neither here nor there.
Comment by finnsense — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 8:39 am
It’s not about giving up, it’s about being realistic. The federal government will take healthcare further down the toilet if they completely take over. Americans are smart enough to realize this and that’s why they don’t have socialized healthcare, they’ll never give up nor surrender
Phil, this is the very definition of surrendering to me. Lets not change the system is what you’re saying, lets keep getting suckered by the goverment. If the federal goverment doesn’t do it’s job, then you should disband the system and make something new, maybe something run at state level instead of federal. Hell even if it’s replaced by a completely privatized system it’ll still be better than what you got now.
Frankly when you say that americans think socialized healthcare always = worse treatment then I think you are insulting your fellow americans.
Comment by Dennis — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
This is just the kind of generic scare-mongering we’ve come to expect from the antu-UHC people. Take some incident and portray it most likely out of conttext and as the norm, then add a “the end is nigh” tone over the whole thing and you got just the right kind of emotional dribble to win people who aren’t skeptical by nature over.
Lets not forget that the US system has people waiting in queues as well but in the US you can skip ahead by waving money, thats clearly so much better than in Canada where you skip in line depending on how quickly you need treatment.
Some good sites to debunk those other myths as well:
http://www.healthcoalition.ca/debunking-myths.html
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared#Quality_of_care
http://cthealth.server101.com/healthcare_bureaucracy_u_s__vs__canada.htm
http://www.20six.co.uk/MooseRot/archive/2003/08/
And this sums up the idiocy of the waiting times figures quite nicely as well:
It helps to understand how medians are calculated. If someone is deemed to have a non-life-threatening condition upon initial assessment, corrective procedures and tests will be pushed to the back of the line. People with short-term life-threatening conditions always get bumped to the front of the line.
Ergo, the result is that people with non-life-threatening conditions can have wait times which are quite long. Now, remember that a median is calculated not by computing an average, but by simply cutting the population in half and taking the middle number. Since the number of people with non-life-threatening conditions outnumbers the number of people with life-threatening emergency conditions, a median figure (a method which I suspect was chosen in order to deliberately exaggerate the problem) will inevitably give you the wait time for a patient with a non-life-threatening condition, hence it is unrepresentative of the wait times for patients with life-threatening conditions.
But of course, that is much too complex for the “big government = baaaaaad” crowd to understand.
And another funny thing, statements like “do not get old in canada”, hah, it’s far better than getting old in the US if you don’t have money to support yourself, atleast in canada you won’t have to worry about dying because you don’t have money or be bankrupted due to it.
Your needs come first and they move you ahead in lines according to your needs. For every not so honestly reported article about a person too old to get a certain service(as if that had anything to do with the UHC or not, god the dishonesty here…) we got thousands upon thousands getting just that.
Comment by Dennis — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
“Take a guess - how do you think the U.S. government would handle something as big and important as socialized healthcare? Good? Bad? Terrible? Take a look at their recent track record and give me your honest opinion.”
No need to guess. Look at the Veterans Affairs Hospitals. The last thing we need is to socialize health care. One aspect of that is regulating salaries. Who is going to tell the doctors that?
Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
Plenty of doctors in america are for a universal health care system. Those overpaid specialists might not like it very much but GP’s would be more positive to such a change. But for american to do such a thing it would need a complete teardown and rebuild. I am not saying it would be easy but hell, anything is better than what you got now.
Comment by Dennis — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
The Nordic health care models never factor in the costs of medical R&D, which are wholly borne by the American worker-consumer. Europe has long ago passed on the initiative to the US on that one, though they do insist on regulating the prices of the products created in America: another form of freeriding.
Comment by Finnpundit — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
The fact that it costs the american taxpayer a dime to begin with is a byproduct of the american goverment giving taxpayer money to the pharmaceutical companies and also not instigating price-checks like any sane nation, they even buy medicine in bulk at high prices.
The motivation behind this is that the R&D companies have razor-thin profit margins because of naughty europe putting price caps on their medicines so they need the help. A claim so monumentally errorenous it might cause the computer it’s typed on to explode. Their profitmargins are insane and they spend more on administration and marketing than they do R&D. It’s price gouging and they use europe as a scape goat.
Comment by Dennis — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
What the above shows is a high degree of corruption in the goverment by the way. Politicians got a nose-ring with a chain thats held by big corporations wanting special privilegies. A depressing situation.
Comment by Dennis — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
Posted without comment:
“GM, which provides health care for 1.1 million employees, retirees and dependents, is the world’s largest private purchaser of Viagra, the popular erectile dysfunction drug produced by Pfizer Inc., whose sales reached $1.65 billion last year. The pill is covered under GM’s labor agreement with United Auto Workers, as well as benefit plans for salaried workers.”
“Many government and company health plans have already eliminated impotence drugs from their coverage plans.”
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060416/AUTO01/604160393
Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
26# Medical R&D? We do not need expensive cholestrol or blood pressure drugs. Corrupted doctors are happy to order them. Just eat less junk food.
Comment by jtp — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
Oh dear me, why care for the facts if you have ideology? For what it is worth the Nordic model beats the current US model like 6-0, but why should we care, child mortality is something that happens to poor people, it is the people in the ghettoes that lower the average life span etc. etc. An ugly society in that sense, unenlightened. As little as we have andvanced it still gives satisfaction to at least live in the society that is as civilized as it has so far gotten. (Well, Canada might give some tough competition to the Nordic countries.) But no, worries the quiet downward trends are taking us towards the American model: the pension funds are getting impatient at all this waste that goes to providing protection to all sections of society. With these trends we’ll soon have real slums and real slum schools. That’ll be something interesting and new here in the developed and enlightened far North…
Comment by mjr — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
You have such a pessimistic view of the future. I am hoping for a brighter future myself.
Comment by Dennis — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
Well, the times certainly good be better. I have somewhat pessimistic view of the capacity of humanity for reason and moderation, and this current economic shortsightedness might be leading us to fairly dark scenarios - as reasonable as the separate short steps in themselves are. A good dose of Burkean conservatism might be in order:
http://stockholmslender.blogspot.com/2006/04/note-on-conservatism.html
Comment by mjr — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
The Nordic health care models never factor in the costs of medical R&D, which are wholly borne by the American worker-consumer. Europe has long ago passed on the initiative to the US on that one, though they do insist on regulating the prices of the products created in America: another form of freeriding.
Hah, hah. In fact, it’s the US which is regualting not Europeans - or Canadians for that matter. Ever heard about that? And there are, of course, lots of large and small medical firms in Europe investing heavily in R&D. What universe do you live in?
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
It’s a Human DEVELOPMENT Index, can’t improve perfection =)
Comment by A Finn — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
I wonder why Finland’s unemployment figure is so high? The official figure is about 8%. WHere does the UN get comparable unemployment figures? Or thinks it get.
Anyway, the “traditional wisdom” has been that Finland’s rather low position has depended primarly on comparable low life expectancy. That again reflects Finland’s rather late industralization and perhaps even certain genetic “problems” (inbreeding in English).
Comment by TomiA — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 7:37 pm
Well I don’t think 8% is that horribly high myself, it was 20% in the early 90’s IIRC and according to the moderates in Sweden their actual unemployment figure is 17%
Comment by Dennis — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
Also we got our immigrants pretty well integrated in the job market last I looked, almost 70% and most of those that can’t get jobs are first generation immigrants and asylum seekers who don’t really come to finland for the jobs but rather fleeing war and persecution, compare and contrast to other european countries on that one.
Comment by Dennis — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
Dennis, the report says:
“Finland had the highest “Average Annual Unemployment†rate (12.2%).”
Either this figure is quite a few years old or it’s based on something else then the official figure (8) which is comparable with, at least, other EU countries..
That’s what I meant.
Comment by TomiA — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
BTW, Finland’s youth unemployment rate (21.6%) is … well, OECD reported a few weeks ago that Finland’s youth unemployment rate is the fourth highest in the OECD countries. Later it turned out that the Finnish figures included those who were doing their mandatory military service or studying unlike the figures of other countries, if I remember correctly. Something fishy was going on, anyway. I wonder if the UN figure has the a problem like that, too. 21,6% seems way too high, something closer to 10% would sound more credible.
Comment by TomiA — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Hmm, maybe it’s an aggregate of several years worth of unemployment?
This is where I got the figures for 2005 anyway.
http://www.stat.fi/til/tyti/2005/08/tyti_2005_08_2005-09-20_tie_001_en.html
Comment by Dennis — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Well, the youth unemployment certainly is high, though I suppose statistical method will leave room for the usual debates. Strange, how the economy recovered from the famous early 90’s recession but without leading to full job recovery. Here we then have those who very persistently argue for creating lots of low pay jobs for the service sector (with local contracts, cutting the employer payments and liberalizing the entry for foreign job seekers). For many reasons that is not an altogether pleasant vision, but I think we will eventually slide into something very much like it.
Comment by mjr — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
“For what it is worth the Nordic model beats the current US model like 6-0″
It is one thing to have the ‘model’ right, it’s another thing to execute it correctly. Those countries that have socialized medicine spend way too little on providing the care and infrastructure. Yes, socialized medicine, great idea, I hope someone get’s it right one day.
In doing my taxes, I had to figure out what I spent on medical and dental last year. It came out to $2,500 in pre-tax (taken from my pay before taxes) and another $2,000 in after tax money. For that, we had a baby, had a titanium implant for a replacement tooth, checkups for three, mole removal for one, and dental visits for two, amoung other things. In terms of the care received, it was money well spent. the total cost was over twice that much, but thanks to insurance, we got the care we needed.
The thought of dealing with Government health care is a huge step backwards for 200+ million Americans. Better to figure out how to include the 40 million without in the current system than to screw most of us over just to say that the rest have health care.
Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
Hmm, maybe it’s an aggregate of several years worth of unemployment?
Of course, sorry, it’s the average between 1993-2003.
The youth unemployment figure is said to base on OECD figures from one year (2003) and it’s indeed incredibly high. I don’t understand it, can’t be correct.
Comment by TomiA — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
The thought of dealing with Government health care is a huge step backwards for 200+ million Americans.
The American system isn’t statistically great. It’s actually in many ways worse than most European systems despite the fact that something like three times more money is spent - or apparently mostly wasted. Health is not the kind of commodity that bends to the market rules like, say, toilet paper, particualarly when it’s financed with a private insurance. There are several problems but perhaps the main one is that no party has a strong incentive to cut down on demand: People want more “health” than is efficient or even necessary. Hospitals and doctors want naturally to supply, that’s their task. And insurance companies don’t want to have the reputation of being the “firm that doesn’t pay”.
Comment by TomiA — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 8:58 pm
“People want more “health†than is efficient or even necessary.”
Exactly.
In some respects it is for nothing other than peace of mind. I had a headache one day and the next day I was in a Doctor’s office. It turned out to be a result of a neck sprain and not a ‘tumor.’ since I thought something was very wrong, I made sure that I saw a doctor the next day. Waiting was not an option.
In many respects, ‘necessary’ is not good enough for many of us, and many are willing to pay for more than the minimum. My wife needed a replacement tooth. There were three options;
1) Use a temporary tooth
2) grind down (ruin) the neighboring teeth and put in a bridge.
3) Put in a titanium implant and screw in a new tooth.
#1 was cheap
#2 was expensive, but insurance would cover 80%
#3 was more expensive and insurance covered nothing.
We ended up with #3 simply because options 1 and 2 SUCK. We even looked at getting this (#3) done in Finland and the cost was the same as in the US. For many, option 3 is not a choice they can afford, but that does not mean that my wife should suffer having two good teeth ground down, just to replace 1 tooth, simply because that is what others decide is good-enough care.
As a woman if she wants more than the minimum pain killers necessary when having a baby.
In the US, there are two main types of insurance, HMO and PPO. HMO is cheaper but hase more rules that you have to live by. PPO gives you much greater freedom in care, but you have higher premiums. You can say that HMO is more towards limiting care to what is required, as oppossed to PPO which is more flexible. However, in many cases, you see the very same doctors.
Comment by Fred Fry — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 9:21 pm
BTW, are health insurance costs deductible for firms in the US. IF they are the system is even more incomprehensible: the state or states or municibalities in essence channel tax money into a mostly private system which is probably the least efficient in the industrialized world. And for who’s benefit? Not the patients, that’s for sure, or the nation in general.
Comment by TomiA — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 9:26 pm
As for the finnish system, people get regular checkups here, atleast once a year or more. My father gets monthly or bi-monthly checkups for his blood pressure. My mother gets regular checkups and free mammographs which did infact find a malignant tumor and did infact save her life recently. So thank for for public healthcare.
I get yearly dental checkups, I recently removed two wisdom teeth, a procedure for which I only had to wait a few weeks and which I postponed because I wanted a better date. And it was free except for the admissions fee(22 euros per time) and medicine, all of which I will get back as well thanks to my additional private insurance(only €170 a year), that additional insurance has just almost paid itself off right there.
My mother also had private dental work done to get new front teeth, this kind of work by the way is a luxury service by any standard and is not even supposed to be covered by any UHC. Thats where private health care steps in, a UHC is there for neccesities, elective surgery will always take a back seat in queues or you will have to take it private.
The US system is great if you got money, but you can be screwed even if you got insurance because they vary incredibly depending on your HMO, and if you’re a just an “average joe worker”, good luck getting an appointment right away. Off to the queues it is.
Comment by Dennis — Mon, Apr 17th, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
Dennis
Yes, the US system is great if you got money. At least here the bill payer, gets seen, and not put on a list BEHIND NON Bill payers.
I figure that if I am the Bill payer, then I get to the head of the line.
Its that simple.
You can have your system, now go to the back of the line and wait.
Comment by winter — Tue, Apr 18th, 2006 @ 4:16 am
Winter, even if you are really rich or have a job with a good insurance the American system is way too expensive to be called great. With the kind of money these people have to spend on their health care, they could have the best possible insurance in Finland many times over.
Comment by TomiA — Tue, Apr 18th, 2006 @ 7:40 am
In the US employer health insurance premiums are fully deductible, while employee paid premiums and medical costs become deductible after 7.5% gross income threshold. This is my recollection, I never prepared my taxes myself. You can probably find the tax code.
Comment by Oregon — Tue, Apr 18th, 2006 @ 8:20 am
Fred, I wasn’t really engaging in the argument whether healthcare should be private or public (though of course the latter is more suited to the task), but the generally accepted point is that the present US system is not sustainable. (Right wing think tanks are actually in the forefront of this consensus.) It manages to be simultaneously overly expensive AND non-universal which is not a mean feat… So, it has to be reformed one way or the other - of course with the current balance of political forces in the US, it’s hard to see a reasonable and just reform taking place, but there we go.
Comment by mjr — Tue, Apr 18th, 2006 @ 10:23 am
Yes, the US system is great if you got money. At least here the bill payer, gets seen, and not put on a list BEHIND NON Bill payers.
Because money is more important than people…
I figure that if I am the Bill payer, then I get to the head of the line.
Its that simple.
Yeah. Money talks - bullshit walks.
You can have your system, now go to the back of the line and wait.
Depending on my need of treatment I would get put ahead of others even if they had more money. Gee what a strange concept, the sicker you are the higher priority you get. How sick! Clearly money should decide the quality of your care and your place in line. Poor people got it coming anyway right? Fucking non-payers getting sick and leeching of the system….
Comment by Captain Haddock — Tue, Apr 18th, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
“Fred, I wasn’t really engaging in the argument whether healthcare should be private or public (though of course the latter is more suited to the task), but the generally accepted point is that the present US system is not sustainable.”
Might be, but the Finnish system is showing signs of strain. Take Amniocentesis for example. It is the norm that pregnant women 35 and older should get one. Finnish health used to pay for that for women 35 and older. I have been told that due to the high numbers of older women getting pregnant in Finland, the age at which the Government will pay for it has been increased to 40. Not because they have determined that they are not needed between 35 and 40, but only because they cannot do the test for all that qualified for it when it was covered for 35 and older.
That is a bad way to dispense healthcare. However, it does manage to shift the cost to the citizens who now pay for the test out of their own funds.
Lets face it, both systems have problems!
I have experienced both systems and for me, it is better here.
Comment by Fred Fry — Tue, Apr 18th, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
I wouldn’t deny that, we have plenty of problems: the care for the elderly is bordering criminal in many places due to a serious lack of staff. There are many ways we could rationalize and lighten the structures but we have to make serious new investments as well. I well believe that there are imaginative and effective public-private solutions that would work - I don’t really care how we reach the goal which is high quality universal health care for all people regardless of their wealth. The US system is worse in the sense that it is not currently universal and much more expensive with a worse public economy, but we have serious problems as well.
Comment by mjr — Tue, Apr 18th, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
“The US system is worse in the sense that it is not currently universal and much more expensive with a worse public economy, but we have serious problems as well.”
It not being universal does not make it worse. One reason it is not universal is because everyone is not working. With unemployment low, businesses will have to increase benefits to find and keep their workers.
Don’t think that there is no care for those without insurance. The Government spends lots to get poor people into see doctors, especially those that are pregnant and for children. While those with insurance have to pay a copay, THEY PAY NOTHING. Yep, my illegal alien neighbor (from Estonia) paid nothing to have baby. Why do they pay nothing? Because if they had to pay a copay, they would not take their children to see a doctor. There are lots of people who pay nothing. Go to my daughter’s last doctor in Washington, DC. There were two signin sheets. One for those with insurance (a small list) and those without. (everyone.)
Everyone got the same care. One thing that did bother me was that those without insurance got newer vacination shots, that covered more diseases in each shot, than my daughter because they were very expensive and the Government paid for them, unlike the traditional shots that insurance paid for.
Don’t belive for a second that there is no free health care in the US. But it’s just for the poor and the illegals.
Comment by Fred Fry — Tue, Apr 18th, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
Well, there are lots of places where you can find exhaustive studies and analysis of the uninsured status in the US and the healthcare system in general (I would recommend the Angry Bear and Washington Monthly series on the subject - very informative and politically moderate indeed). The system is so complex that it seems impossible to sort it out with significant groups currently not getting reasonably priced treatment. Falling sick is financially a very risky business in the US in the sense that it would not be with a more unified and automatically universal European-Nordic-Canadian type of system. This I think is quite an uncontroversial opinion. The controversy only starts when you get to the actual remedies with this silly American superstition about the state being an inefficient and untrustworthy player in ALL fields.
Comment by mjr — Tue, Apr 18th, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
MJR
I really don’t know what you are reading about the USA. But here are some Facts.
I only pay a max of $1,200 in Health Care (annual deductible for 2 people) plus premiums each month.
Drugs are FREE or $2 or $10 co-pay. Insta-wife has 8 or more drugs each month to take. Most are 3 month fills at either $2 or the $10 charge or free.
I file no form’s except for Dental pay backs. So that’s 4 per year.
I just pay $15.00 co-pay each visit.
I am fully covered (%80) of all bills using a non-preferred provider and hospital. I am 100% covered in most cases using preferred providers.
I have zero wait lines, as I get in the day I call, or early the very next day.
I did get an MRI in less than 3 hrs after the doctor ordered it.
Insta-Wife had an operation, 5 days in a hospital, my total costs were under $300.00, and that was the charges for Food.
And you all think I have a rotten system? Go figure. I have good service and low Cost? Its at $1200 plus premiums.
Best news out there, is…. No Government guy saying where in line I stand. No Gov guy saying I am not sick enough, we have this here needy, underprivileged “drug addict” who needs an operation before you issue. No waiting 6 months for the Canadian MRI machine to open up.
Comment by winter — Tue, Apr 18th, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
Maybe you should all stop simply comparing The USA and Socialist Suomi and look a little closer to the top of the list where liberal Australia kicks both of your asses. Over the past decade under the liberal conservative leadership of John Howard, Australia has privatised and developed a functioning system for the world to envy. Cutting back on old fashioned socialist welfare and creating an economy that flourishes and motivates participation by forward thinking such as job search allowance not unemployment benefits. After more than a decade of Labour socialism and welfare (big nosey government) getting in your face, a sleek competetive country has formed and is leading the way in the industrialised world. Just a pity that forward thinking is not something Finns are accustomed to so no change on the horizon here……….
Comment by ozy — Tue, Apr 18th, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
winter, go and read for example the Angry Bear blog’s very illuminating (and factual and moderate) analysis about the US system and how it does comparatively (as much as we all value anecdotal evidence). Below the link for the first essay (of seven):
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2005/04/real-crisis.html
Comment by mjr — Tue, Apr 18th, 2006 @ 11:03 pm
Winter: “I have good service and low Cost? Its at $1200 plus premiums.”
Me too. Plus once I had three years in the company they took over the premiums for my wife and child. (they paid my premiums the whole time.)
What is good health care worth to you?
Ever hear of you get what you pay for? Think private health care is expensive in the US now? Let the Government get in there. Quality will go down and costs will skyrocket.
Oh yes, one part of the expense is the doctor’s costs? Who is going to tell them that they can’t make good money any more? Just why are Finnish doctors and nurses leaving the country? (same for Canada.)
Comment by Fred Fry — Wed, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:52 am
Fred
I am a full believer that all health care should be paid for when used. That means NO insurance, no government intervention.
Saying that, I do believe in Insurance. Just that it kicks in at the 100% level when you have hit a cap each year of say $5,000.
That will give you efficiency, and a buffer when a big bill arrives.
Let the market work its wonders, not a Government decree, that says at age 87 you are now to old for any service. (See the UK, and my grandmother who died for the younger ones)
Comment by winter — Wed, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 1:34 am
Let the market work its wonders, not a Government decree, that says at age 87 you are now to old for any service.
Indeed, let the market do its wonders and not let anyone live to the age of 87.
(Hint: European life expectancy vs. US life expectancy)
Freedom Fry:
Let the Government get in there. Quality will go down and costs will skyrocket.
Of course, this is an expression of an article of faith (GOVERNMENT=KOMMIEZ=BAD) rather than a factual statement. Strangely, conservatives favour government intrusion into citizens’ private lives (there’s no talk of pork when it comes to that) and starting senseless and expensive wars abroad despite their often-voiced disdain for the government.
Life expectancy is an objective measurement of the quality of health care and it tells us that Americans are not getting bang for their buck.
Just why are Finnish doctors and nurses leaving the country?
I’m not aware of any mass emigration of Finnish doctors. Nurses leave the country because there’s an excess of training and wages in Finland are pretty miserable. Not a bad deal for the nurses working abroad: free training and a hefty salary on top of that.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Wed, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 2:01 am
“Nurses leave the country because there’s an excess of training and wages in Finland are pretty miserable.”
The wages suck because the Government needs to control the cost of health care because they need to pay for it. As for an exces of training, how come there has been in the news stories about a lack of nurses in nursing homes?
Me: “Let the Government get in there. Quality will go down and costs will skyrocket.”
Franklin: “Of course, this is an expression of an article of faith (GOVERNMENT=KOMMIEZ=BAD) rather than a factual statement”
I pointed out in an earlier post that in the US we have the Veteran’s Administration, which has VA Hospitals and is a perfect example of Government run health care, and it sucks.
Eventually the joke will be on me, since I will most likely be living in Finland when I get older. (To keep the wife happy, not to live off the state.)
Comment by Fred Fry — Wed, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 6:25 am
It does seem like an article of faith: the army of the unshakeable law… And thus irrational. In the semi-private US system costs are already skyrocketing while the Finnish state controlled system is almost miserly in its “efficiency” (the reasons why we have staffing problems are multiple: low pay, bad hours, non-fixed contracts - sounds like a libertarian heaven to me, actually) But no matter, the costs in the US will only “sky rocket” when the state gets into action. An article of faith.
Comment by mjr — Wed, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 9:16 am
Oh yes, one part of the expense is the doctor’s costs? Who is going to tell them that they can’t make good money any more? Just why are Finnish doctors and nurses leaving the country? (same for Canada.)
For any number of reasons, doctors are also entering the country. This is another horror story without connection to reality, that there is some kind of mass immigration. Pfft, it’s just like all these other bullshit arguments about MRI’s taking long, fucked up little horror stories portraying isolated incidents as norms or just screwed calculations.
It’s a classic case of taking an example from a sparsely populated area where services are strained and below average, which is a problem in all countries, even the US. But nobody in their right mind would portray it as the norm. But those sites and people who write them aren’t in their right minds.
http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/pdf/myth19_e.pdf
Comment by Captain Haddock — Wed, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 10:40 am
Well, for doctors leaving the country, Finland may have crap salaries, but in the USA the doctors need to have an insurance against the patients. I think the biggest healthcare cost is paying for the doctors malpractice insurance…
Comment by Hank W. — Wed, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
If it’s supposed to be the biggest factor, and adminstrative overhead alone is 25%> then it must be atleast 26%, which means 51% of all the money goes to waste! Administrative overhead costs 400bn so add another 400bn to that. 800 billion US dollars down the drain.
Comment by Captain Haddock — Wed, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
If it’s supposed to be the biggest factor, and adminstrative overhead alone is 25%> then it must be atleast 26%, which means 51% of all the money goes to waste!
You don’t understand! Money in the pockets of lawyers fuels the economy, since they are worker-consumers. Whereas money in the pockets of civil servants (enter the infamous “pork”) does not. If you support two lawyers in addition to your doctor, it is only good for the economy, and ultimately, you. Voilà, the perpetuum mobile has been invented.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Wed, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
Ah, now I understand. Money in the hands of lawyers fuels the economy, and
Keeps unemployment low.
Example: you don’t see any Americans burning their Citron’s, demanding Dental coverage no less.
You all, just need more lawyers. Thats the ticket.
Comment by winter — Wed, Apr 19th, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
you don’t see any Americans burning their Citron’s, demanding Dental coverage no less.
That’s because they, the likely rioters, are in jail, I suppose.
Prison populations:
EU average is 88
England and Wales top with 128
Finland is lowest at 52
USA has world high of 702
The key question is, if there are unsolved social tensions building up within a society. In France there are, but so are in the US (the reasons and outcomes are different though). Finland has been pretty lucky in this respect for decades. People seem to trust each other, even - gasp - the government. This has to do with dental coverage, it indeed does, although the connection is a bit difficult to see, especially for an outsider.
Comment by TomiA — Sat, Apr 22nd, 2006 @ 9:47 am
Finland had the second highest “Women in government at ministerial level†(47.1%) in top 20, the U.S. tied for 2nd lowest (14.3%)
I got it now..the reason we have all this unemployment and violence in comparison to the US is that we have too many women in government !
Comment by bill — Wed, Aug 16th, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
josos sicylocy gokma
sica http://ti622282.gb4pgs4.net/sitemap20.html [url=http://ti622282.gb4pgs4.net/sitemap20.html ]wazi[/url] zywud
Comment by ti622282 — Sat, Feb 2nd, 2008 @ 9:41 am