Here's the graph provided by CNN that shows pretty convincing that a nation's health expenditures are a pretty poor indicator of life expectancy around the world.
One conclusions that is often drawn from graphs like these is: the UK has an publicly-run health care system that would make Newt Gingrich's head explode, but they still have higher life-expectancy. But the real winner of this graph seems to me to be Singapore, whose long lives and small health expenditures are the envy of the world. As EconLog puts it, Singapore "makes Europe look like the United States."
But there's a problem with turning Singapore into a sexy pin-up for health care wonks: it breaks a lot of rules. Conservatives should hate it because the government regulates supply and sets prices and forces all its citizens to put money into a health care savings account. More liberal reformers should be irked by its famously high co-pays to help the government recoup money, because too-high co-pays are supposed to discourage the less fortunate to seek preventative care when the illness can be more cheaply treated. As Watson Wyatt sums up, it's a bizarre combination of a public option and private special care where "the private healthcare system competes with the public healthcare, which helps contain prices in both directions."
So where will Singapore fall in the health care discussion? Probably close to nowhere, unfortunately. Singapore is an extraordinary hodgepodge of health care principles, but it's also a city-state whose health care system is comprised of fewer than 30 hospitals. Still, perhaps it deserves a place in the summer-long blockbuster discussion that begins with "What are we paying for, exactly?"
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/in-health-care-do-we-all-lose-to-singapore/19385/