To the editor:

In Tuesday’s paper, Isaac McPheeters defended for-profit health care. Let’s look at the facts. In 2007, Americans spent $2.4 trillion on health care (17 percent of GDP), or $7,900 per person. No other country spends more than 12 percent of their GDP.

What do we get for $2.4 trillion? The U.S. ranks an abysmal 41th on life expectancy (well below most countries with national health care). One reason for our low ranking is that seven of every 1,000 babies in the U.S. die during their first year (double for African Americans). That puts the U.S. infant morality rate higher than in Canada, Sweden, and Cuba.

Do I want the government making health care decisions for me? Maybe. Is anyone under the illusion that your doctor alone determines what insurance companies cover? Americans move from insurance company to insurance company, thus insurance companies profit when they limit short-term costs even if it is at the expense of your long-term health.

What about access to the latest technology? Mr. McPheeters is appalled that Great Britain did not cover angioplasties until last year. However, new research suggests that angioplasties produce no better outcomes than lower cost non-surgical interventions (drugs, lifestyle changes) (Kansas City Star, March 22, 2009). I don’t know about you, but if outcomes are equal, I would prefer a lower-cost intervention.

It is time to face facts. In Westernized countries with national heath care, people spend less on health care but live longer and healthier. Sign me up.

Nancy Hamilton,

Lawrence