Money the Answer in Health Care?

The Commonwealth Fund just released its state scorecard report on U.S. Variations in Child Health System Performance. Guess where Oregon placed? How about in the top ten? How about in the top twenty? How about in the top thirty? NO. Oregon placed 43rd in the nation.
However, and this is critical, Oregon placed the 12th lowest in the nation in personal health care spending per capita, so money is obviously the answer, as the governor and others would have you believe.

Oregon spends less on health care per person than 37 other states.

Bottom quarter in spending — bottom quarter in results. Is more money the answer?

You can read the entire report at

  • Anonymous

    The Oregon Health Plan staff must be taking lessons from the OEA.

  • dmf

    Socialized medicine has been a failure where ever it has been tried. Even Medicare.

    How nice it would be if people could have the pride of providing for their families themselves.

    As long as it is believed provision by the government is the answer, it will always fail. Government intervention in the name of medical welfare has caused so much of the high costs of medical care.

    Sure they’ll raise our taxes and bet themselves on the back and it will be no better. They’ll take from the poor ( higher taxes) to give to the poor. What’s wrong with this. I can see it, can you.

    Every where government has intervened in our lives, they have cost us. I was talking to a dealer in Reno, who with his wive was able to purchase his home for $120,000 earning minimum wage. When the congress raised the minimum wage to a Quote, unquote, higher wage, his cost of living has increased more than his wage.

    Government provided medical care, even if it is for the children, which it is not, will not improve. In fact I look for it to get worse. Why do they think people don’t want to sign up on the Oregon Health Plan. Don’t let them pull your leg. This is not for “THE CHILDREN”. It is so the politicians can feel good.

  • Delia Lopez

    Our medical system was once the envy of the world. Government decided to help us out and as is usual they padded lots of their pockets and made many rich people even richer, while making it more expensive less efficient. As they ad regulations to cover minor items, costs sky rocket. Look at Lasik eye surgery a few years ago it cost about $10,000 insurance companies won’t cover it, government won’t, so now it is under $1,000 and the quality has improved as well. Lets get the government out of health care and lets allow people to band together to purchase group health care and insure against the things we need to insure against, large unexpected costs. There are Doctors that refuse insurance and government payments and charge less than ½ because they do not have the same paperwork and the wait for payment, so they can. The most important thing is, I want to be the consumer to be satisfied, not the government or my employer, Me.

    Delia Lopez
    US Congressional Candidate Oregon #3
    [email protected]

    • dmf

      You have my vote

    • Martha

      I voted for you too.:)

  • David from Eugene

    A more careful reading of the report reveals that Oregon is the 12th lowest in the nation for health care spending and not 12th Highest as Mr. Dawson reports. That is per capita spending not government spending. It is Oregonians and not the State of Oregon who spend on a per capita basis $4,880 a year.

    So it is the population of 37 states who pay more then the residents of Oregon do for health care. With bottom quarter spending and bottom quarter results maybe more money is part of the answer.

    • hawkeye

      You’ve uncovered the usual wildly erroneous stuff of Mr. Dawson. My inspiration eagle eye demolished his nonsensical claim that Oregon schools are number 49 in the country.

    • Jerry

      I stand corrected. Thanks.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      The idea of linking per capita spending on health care and charting it against some sort of metric for overall health is almost always going to result is statistical vapidity at best. This is not to say I consider your point incorrect, just that I think it is best to be wary, in all cases, of this sort of statistical analysis.

      Here are some examples:

      Two population samples, one 10-20 year olds, one 70-80 year olds, the second will spend far more on health care and have lower overall health, the first will spend nothing and have higher overall health.

      Two states bordering each other. One state has lots of medical facilities, medical colleges, etc. The other does not. People will have medical procedures done in the first state, resulting in higher spending on health care in that state than the one without facilities. Spending will again be skewed.

      Oregon. People here have crap teeth compared to a lot of other states. The number of people I know who have dentures at a young age is astonishing. This probably results in quite high dental spending, with overall dental health being poor if one considered dentures at 40 a criteria. However this is not due to poor doctors, nor is it due to insufficient spending. The major culprits would be the number of people on wells, lack of fluoridation, and the high level of meth use.

  • Dave R

    > Socialized medicine has been a failure where
    > ever it has been tried. Even Medicare.

    Hardly. Single-payer health systems around the world almost *all* deliver better results than the US at far cheaper rates, and they cover everyone. This has been documented time and time again. Open your eyes. In the US, the Veteran’s Administration provides great care at a fraction of the US average.

    You might also want to watch the recent Frontline show, “Sick Around the World” (4/15/08), available on their Web site.

  • dean

    Using Jerry’s flawed thesis…the United States spends more per capita on health care than any nation in the industrialized world, has the least socialized of all national systems, and ranks 37th in health care results according to the World Health Organization.

    So yes…”more money” is not the answer. But more socialism in health care probably is the answer.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    I get a little tired of every time there is some sort of issue, real or otherwise, that there seems to be a certain segment of our population that has a vested interest in turning it into a crises type situation, where large coercive measures are seen as the answer.

    Health care is a perfect example of this. There are those that will only be satisfied with some sort of massive plan. Yet another area where tentacles can be extended by those fascinated by running others lives.

    Why is it, if their motivations are truly about health care, that they wont even consider simple things that would introduce market forces? This might just make health care affordable to all with no real fiscal down side should they in the end fail?


    Allow individuals to avoid senseless mandates imposed by state legislatures by buying insurance across state lines.

    Allow individuals to pool together to buy insurance, rather than individual plans.

    Allow individuals who are so enamoured of government insurance, such as the VA or Medicare to buy into them at the actual market cost.

    None of these market ideas would really cost anyone anything. All of them would give individuals more choices. The last one would provide a proving ground for government health care advocates to both make their case and indulge in their own philosophy. None of them are coercive and in fact they reduce the current level of government coercion.

    The final benefit is philosophical. In the back of everyone’s mind we know that while better health care is a part of the equation, running yet another facet of peoples lives is the second part of that equation for government health care advocates. People should be made more wary of that fact. Opposition to introduction of simple market forces accomplishes just such an illustration.

  • Dave R

    Rupert wrote:
    > Allow individuals to pool together to buy insurance, rather than
    > individual plans.

    Rupert, the federal government has made this illegal — a random group of people cannot band together to seek cheaper health insurance.

    > None of these market ideas would really cost anyone anything.

    You’re wrong — it would cost the insurance companies. And so it had to be made illegal.

    Tell me again about this “free market?”

  • pk2

    I don’t think we will ever get the chance to see universal health care work as long as we tinker around teh edges. Everytime there is a good idea, both sides amend it to death.

  • Pingback: scam()