With regard to the ongoing contentious battle over Healthcare and the efforts by the opposing political factions to either illegitimately control it or to allow "the remaining non-social" (natural marketplace forces) to determine the "authentic direction" of medicine's flow--we thought it might prove interesting to look at a number of facts that seem to be missing in the debate.

On its own, the debut Conservative Refocus article ,"Mainstream Media's Holographic Reality," has generated a readership of nearly staggering proportions.  We have been amazed--not only by the interest generated but also by what the information covered in the article implies (which is in direct contradiction to both our Fearless Leaders in the Government and our Media--such as it is).

The initial report, as detailed below, shows how far ahead the US is with regard to Healthcare Quality in comparison to any other population of similar size:

Somewhat surprising, wouldn't you say?  So it's not as bad as one might have been led to believe by both the Government and the Mainstream Media; in fact, it is quite the opposite.  For our complete analysis, please click on the linked article above.

In addition to the facts we initially covered, there are a few other interesting data comparisons that the Socialist Eggheads just seem to "simply overlook"--most likely due to the fact that the truth tends to massively foul-up their arguments in support of government-controlled Healthcare.

The first element of our comparison should, of course, initially setup the scale in which we are observing all of the data.  So let's look at what our total respective Healthcare Comparison Economies produce while we are all "still" Capitalists:

Wow!  Did you notice? It's enough to make even the most ardent Capitalist blush with regard to those stunning comparative numbers.  But those US numbers appear to be dropping fast--just to be fair and to make all the Socialists and left-wingers feel better...(Gee...wonder why?)

Ok, so I know what you're wondering, and here is the answer to your naturally competitive/inquisitive mind outside of the medical system comparison:

Wow, again!  When the Government and the Media keep insisting on how horrible our Country is and how we squander the world's resources, they invariably seem to leave out just how productive "We the People"--living in our Free Market Economy--are and that we are producing a better-than-substantial proportion of the world's economy.

Now, since that's been settled, let's look at how much we spend per person on our Healthcare coverage, as well as our per capita income:

It would seem that--with higher life expectancies and world best-of-class Healthcare--an individual's costs within the higher paradigm of per capita income should logically be a bit higher since the individual is in control of their own Healthcare.  In addition, our system pays what could be considered a very comfortable living to some of the best and the brightest in the world, and by doing so attracts a great many doctors from all over the planet.  This can be attested to by the number of foreign doctors who have migrated to the US in order to seek a higher income and better lives.  You know,the fabulous doctors that we all run into in our daily lives who are still a bit sketchy on their command of the English language.  I expect--with the rationing which is involved with any Government healthplan--the number and quality of our doctors would most likely decline over time; this would also incur the byproduct of  "waiting periods" for necessary but non-emergency care.

Now, let's look at total number of all Physicians and Healthcare Providers--including Dentistry--a valid inclusion (I should point out that Dental speaks to overall Healthcare quality far more than the Eggheads might suggest)--ask any Cardiologist:

Now these are simply staggering comparative numbers when you consider that we are comparing our many and varied available facilities and personnel to countries that have populations easily (3) or even (4) times the size of our population.  This particular comparison simply begs the question:  "Why does a competitive marketplace medical system absolutely dwarf socialized medical countries with regard to the available number of facilities and personnel?"  Once again: Government care must naturally involve rationing in order to control costs.

Next we look at the number of hospital beds per capita, because this speaks to patient availability within a given country:

Now there is one particular wildcard when one looks at the number of hospital beds, and it is in regard to Outpatient Surgery Centers.  The fact is simply that the US has progressed so far within the medical arts that doctors here can perform far fewer invasive surgical procedures, thereby far lessening the negative effects on patients.  Now a particular procedure in the US can be completed and the patient sent on their way in (3) hours--which when done 10 years ago might have required a three day bed stay.  Thus this would equate a need for far fewer hospital beds.

Outpatient Centers currently number approximately 5,000 spread throughout the US and are rapidly increasing as a measure to control costs as well as to serve patients more readily.  This type of center was started in the US back in the 70's and is now catching on in other countries.  With Free Market principles in place, new types of treatments in the art of medicine continue to rapidly increase.  But with socialized medicine, we can say goodbye to rapid innovations--which are initially too costly and offer no profit incentive.

Finally, as we all can see, the US is like an oasis within a desert when compared to other countries that have socialized medicine.  Our quick study did not even look into the sterling cleanliness of most US facilites, nor did it look at treatment mortality rates--perhaps fodder for another in-depth look at the US' medical system in comparison to others.

The Final Budgetary Solution (until thats gone too)?

One final point that I find interesting, if not perplexing, is the ratio differences when we compare the Canadian system with the US system.  Many have asked the question (including me) why are the Liberal Democrats and President so insistent on taking over the system aside from the obvious answers indicated in my previous work?  If one notices the total per capita income of the US as opposed to the total per capita income of Canada--and then subtracts the amount that we spend on OUR medical treatments--we find that the per capita income becomes nearly equal.  Then, when we look at the total amount the Canadian government spends on its citizens' medical care, which is about half of what Americans spend, the possible answer to this question becomes clearer.

The total Canadian expenditure for Healthcare is approximately $3,000 per capita per year, as opposed to the United States, which spends approximately $6,000 per capita per year.  When one looks at the US' total budgetary income for 2009 the total is $2.1 Trillion.  While the latest figures available show the total expenditure in the US for Healthcare is approximately $2.3 Trillion per year. If the US Government could hypothetically gain control over Healthcare and then essentially halve the amount that it pays on Healthcare--as in Canada--the Government then could have an extra $1 Trillion to put towards wealth redistribution and/or whatever else it desires, including shortfalls. This would assume that we would all be paying into the government essentially what we pay into our entire Healthcare system (and the like) currently.

In Benjamin Franklin's day, as the Minister Plenipotentiary for the American Revolutionary Government, Franklin's chief job was to facilitate diplomacy with regard to the French, but, in particular his focus was the procuring of loans from the French Government in order to finance America's war effort against the British.  A fact that is often lost in the history books is simply that-- without the French's help--our independence may have never actually happened.  Historically speaking --D-day, then was in essence figurative payback.

Must Be Something in the Water Up There....

The problem--in our current context--was simply as follows:  Even in Franklin's day, the Continental Congress of the existing body of states was so ravenous in its incessant spending that Franklin actually became embarrassed at his having to beg the French for more war funds on behalf of his country on a wearily continuous basis.  If not for his singular celebrity-like popularity with the French peoples, he might not have been able to obtain the funds at all.

On this basis, one must suppose, whatever is in the water of the Potomac has most obviously been there for at least 250 years, for Heaven's sake.

Always follow the money.....especially when Congress is involved.  We are all aware of the studies that have come out indicating that the US pays far too much for its Healthcare.

Has anyone considered the possibility that perhaps all the other socialized medicine countries are paying too little?

Barry Secrest

*All statistics presented were gathered from The World Health Organization, Nationmaster.com, CIA Factbook, United Nations 2009 Census, and The CBO. Historical excerpts are from the book The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin.