Universal Health Care in the US. Yea or Nea?

[lomiller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day

You should read the page before you link it, you seem to have missed the part about:

Due to the different ways that nations collect and categorize public finance data, however, Tax Freedom Days are not comparable from one country to another.

OECD numbers place Canada’s tax burden at ~33.3% and the US at ~28.3%, but this doesn’t include the ~$3000 extra Americans have to pay in medical insurance.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/13/41501413.pdf

 

[lomiller]

BTW, "responsiveness" w.r.t. the WHO report is defined as:



So the US healthcare system is No.1 in the world when it comes to being nice to the customer.

I wonder why that might be?

Hmm it seems I was mistaken about there definition in my previous posts. My point remains unchanged, however as that particular metric seems even less relevant then I believed and it certainly not the be all and end all metric Segnosaur claims.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

OECD numbers place Canada’s tax burden at ~33.3% and the US at ~28.3%, but this doesn’t include the ~$3000 extra Americans have to pay in medical insurance.

It surely also does not include what Americans pay for food and housing and transportation and clothing and all the other necessities of life.

 

[Darat]

Umm... that makes no sense.

It may be possible that overall costs will go down, depending on what's covered in the health plan (and some may see a decrease in payroll deductions if insurance payments are replaced by cheaper health taxes). But I can't really see taxes going down.

Since all universal health cares systems are cheaper than the USA system* it would be more reasonable to assume that a universal health care system in the USA would be cheaper than what it currently is. If the government does not need as much money to provide the universal health care system compared to how much is currently spent then overall the tax burden could go down. (Remember that to just provide the limited health-care schemes such as Medicare currently costs the USA tax-payers more than UK folk pay for our universal health-care system - if I remember the statistics correctly from a previous thread.)

What doesn't make sense is the assumption that a universal health-care system in the USA would be more expensive than the current system.





*If the USA spends more per capita than other countries to provide its current non-universal health-care system I think this is a matter of simple logic.

 

[Darat]

I've already dealt with that issue in this thread, post 85.

Of those 46 million 'uninsurred'...
- Many (10 million) are illegal immigrants (I doubt such people would be covered under most universal systems)
- Many (17 million) have incomes over $50,000, so they can afford insurance; they just choose not to get it.
- Only about half of the remaining people have been (or will be) uninsured for more than a few months. (Many people get insurance through work, but it may take a little while for their insurance to 'activate'.)

So, the number of people who cannot afford insurance and who truly need it is much smaller than the '46 million' you quoted. (More in the range of under 5%, rather than 18% of the population.)

...snip...

" Many (17 million) have incomes over $50,000, so they can afford insurance; they just choose not to get it."

These still have no insurance - whatever their reasons for not having it.

" Only about half of the remaining people have been (or will be) uninsured for more than a few months."

These still have no insurance.

"- Many (10 million) are illegal immigrants (I doubt such people would be covered under most universal systems)"

For the sake of the argument I'll concede that - so you have removed 10 million, what proportion of the USA population under the age of 65 is 36 million?

Not sure why you think I'm treating it as a "one off" charge. I realize that medical treatments often require followups. I also realize that there may be costs associated with treatments that wouldn't necessarily count as "medical bills" (things like taking time off work.) It just means that whatever money a person needs for the treatment, they have to make sure they borrow enough to handle all the followups.

This is just getting silly "they have to make sure they borrow enough to handle all the followups". Please consider what you are saying.

Patient with Cancer:

Hey Mr Bank Manager I've been diagnosed with cancer...
...yeah I know it's terrible but that's life....
Now I need some treatment,
..yeah sure glad I'm in the USA - most responsive health-care system in the world!
The treatment will cost about $250,000
...insurance...?
Funny you should mention that, been self-insured for 30 years but with the downturn in the construction industry I've let my payments slip these last 6 months ... so no insurance... in fact that's what I was ringing to discuss with you I was hoping for a loan to cover the treatment...
...monthly income? Well I can't work at the moment so it's pretty much zero...
..they say it will be about 6 months before I can work again if everything goes well..
...yeah I did say if "everything goes well"...
..well they say my chances of surviving to 5 years are really good, about 80% for someone of my age, especially if there are no complication. Sure glad I've never smoked or drank, the odds would be much lower than...
...yeah I said complications. Sometimes things don't go that smoothly and more treatment is needed but that's pretty rare - only 1 out 4 people have expensive complications, as the surgeon called them...
...Yeah the the surgeon was a real joker, nice guy, as they say the best money money can buy! Mind you I hadn't thought of the cost of any complications... tell you what let's make the loan for $350,000 just to be on the safe side...
..so back to the loan.. as I was saying it's about 6 months for treatment and recovery and then I'll have to re-train because I won't be able to return to construction.. so I was hoping to get a loan and defer payments for 9 months and then something like a 25 year term to pay back...
..yeah I'm 55...
...you can't loan me the money... I'm a bad risk!?

 

[jdp]

" Many (17 million) have incomes over $50,000, so they can afford insurance; they just choose not to get it."

These still have no insurance - whatever their reasons for not having it.

And you'd proabably have to earn a lot more than $50k to afford decent insurance for you and your family. The plan at my employer is about 11k for a family. A similar plan purchased independently would almost certainly cost more. And of course the older you get the more it will cost. If you happen to develop any kind of recurring illness or have one when you apply you can forget it. No amount of money will buy any kind of coverage.

 

[Lonewulf]

And you'd proabably have to earn a lot more than $50k to afford decent insurance for you and your family. The plan at my employer is about 11k for a family. A similar plan purchased independently would almost certainly cost more. And of course the older you get the more it will cost. If you happen to develop any kind of recurring illness or have one when you apply you can forget it. No amount of money will buy any kind of coverage.

Bah! That just proves that they aren't working hard enough!

 

[jdp]

Bah! That just proves that they aren't working hard enough!

I think it's just a way to reduce the surplus population.

 

[Lonewulf]

I think it's just a way to reduce the surplus population.

Really? According to BPSCG, only silly liberals talk about overpopulation; conservatives don't even buy it as a possibility.

 

[Drewbot]

Free Health Care?

Remember what happened when The gubment guaranteed the mortgages given to people who couldn't normally qualify.
Housing prices shot up due to increased demand.

Now, imagine the same thing happening if they give out free health care. The gubment is going to guarantee health care to everyone. Driving up demand, increasing costs, making the prices escalate uncontrollably, driving private insurees out of the system, forcing them to the public system.

 

[boooeee]

Since all universal health cares systems are cheaper than the USA system* it would be more reasonable to assume that a universal health care system in the USA would be cheaper than what it currently is. If the government does not need as much money to provide the universal health care system compared to how much is currently spent then overall the tax burden could go down. (Remember that to just provide the limited health-care schemes such as Medicare currently costs the USA tax-payers more than UK folk pay for our universal health-care system - if I remember the statistics correctly from a previous thread.)

What doesn't make sense is the assumption that a universal health-care system in the USA would be more expensive than the current system.





*If the USA spends more per capita than other countries to provide its current non-universal health-care system I think this is a matter of simple logic.

I think you're drawing causation from correlation here. Do you honestly believe that if the US Government said: "Okay, we're going to extend Medicare to everybody below 65", that total aggregate government expenditures would actually go down? That doesn't seem like simple logic to me.

 

[Flo]

Free Health Care?

Remember what happened when The gubment guaranteed the mortgages given to people who couldn't normally qualify.
Housing prices shot up due to increased demand.

Now, imagine the same thing happening if they give out free health care. The gubment is going to guarantee health care to everyone. Driving up demand, increasing costs, making the prices escalate uncontrollably, driving private insurees out of the system, forcing them to the public system.

Universal access to healthcare doesn't necessarily means that it is free, nor does it mean that everybody is/will be forced to use the public system exclusively, or that it will bankrupt the country, as shown in many countries.

 

[volatile]

Now, imagine the same thing happening if they give out free health care. The gubment is going to guarantee health care to everyone. Driving up demand, increasing costs, making the prices escalate uncontrollably, driving private insurees out of the system, forcing them to the public system.

Did this happen in the dozens and dozens of other Western, industrialised nations that have universal healthcare?

No.

So what's so unique about the US' [in]ability to run a large-scale bureaucracy?

The experiment's been done. The results are in. You're wrong.

 

[Darat]

I think you're drawing causation from correlation here. Do you honestly believe that if the US Government said: "Okay, we're going to extend Medicare to everybody below 65", that total aggregate government expenditures would actually go down? That doesn't seem like simple logic to me.

This isn't a matter of logic, it's a matter of what actually happens in the real world. There is no reason in principle why it shouldn't or rather why it couldn't. For example, the UK's universal health care system is funded by less per capita cost than the current USA publicly funded health care system that does not cover everyone.

So it is not only a possibility but an actuality that a universal health care system in the USA could cost less than what the current USA state funded non-universal health care system (per capita) costs the USA state.

 

[Policenaut]

Expanding coverage while decreasing costs? Sounds like free energy.

 

[Darat]

Expanding coverage while decreasing costs? Sounds like free energy.

It may sound counter-intuitive but that is because the current USA system is very inefficient (in terms of the health care provided and outcomes compared to the amount spent on it). Changing to a more efficient system would mean you could provide more for more people for less.

And these are not hypothetical systems - they already exist in many countries of the world.

 

[boooeee]

This isn't a matter of logic, it's a matter of what actually happens in the real world. There is no reason in principle why it shouldn't or rather why it couldn't. For example, the UK's universal health care system is funded by less per capita cost than the current USA publicly funded health care system that does not cover everyone.

So it is not only a possibility but an actuality that a universal health care system in the USA could cost less than what the current USA state funded non-universal health care system (per capita) costs the USA state.

I don't take issue with those facts. What I take issue with is your assumption that the sole reason for the difference in cost is due to a lack of universal coverage in the US. Doesn't the huge discrepancy in costs suggest that there might be something else going on? Not to go all Beerina on you, but is it possible that the US is subsidizing medical advances for the rest of the world?

Your assertion that expanding government coverage to the under-65 population would reduce total costs sounds like cargo cult healthcare reform.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I don't take issue with those facts. What I take issue with is your assumption that the sole reason for the difference in cost is due to a lack of universal coverage in the US.

It will be interesting to see your evidence that he made such an assumption.

 

[volatile]

It will be interesting to see your evidence that he made such an assumption.

...and the evidence that "is it possible that the US is subsidizing medical advances for the rest of the world".

I seem to remember a certain Gnome of this parish making similar claims, and being unwilling to be able to back them up with even a scintilla of evidence.

 

[Policenaut]

It may sound counter-intuitive but that is because the current USA system is very inefficient (in terms of the health care provided and outcomes compared to the amount spent on it). Changing to a more efficient system would mean you could provide more for more people for less.

And these are not hypothetical systems - they already exist in many countries of the world.

That seems like a herculean task. It obviously works in other countries but they have mostly had it in place for half a century. It's likely a good idea but how long would this restructuring and rehauling take and how much would this transition cost? Also how many people in the health insurance industry would lose their jobs?