Equity market says US Health Bill is killed

[Magyar]

Who are the socialists in this scenario?

The UK can only be considered "socialist" if it's some ultra-right-wing conservative fundy doing the considering. And on that note, two right-wing conservative policy think-tanks in the US do a measurement of economic freedom (which I assume you are alluding to with your tax statistics) and, funny of funnies, they both score the UK and US at the same level, give or take a percent.

Heritage Foundation: US = 78.0 (rank 8/179), UK = 76.5 (rank 11/179)
Cato Institute/EFW project: US = 8.06 (rank 6/141), UK = 7.89 (rank 9/141)

Then there are other freedom indicators:

Transparency International CPI: US = 7.5 (rank 19/180), UK = 7.7 (rank 17/180)
Freedom House index: US = 1,1 (top score) UK = 1,1 (top score)

And most of the other nations with universal health systems score up there too, some higher than the US. Denmark probably annoys the heck out of tax-welfare-loathing types by being as economically free as the US depite having massive tax rates.

So it appears you are no more free after all.

And surely you can't be oblivious to the common knowledge that total US health spending--what with all its pathologically warped incentives and partial cover--is a bundle higher than any other OECD country, all of which have universal systems except the US.

However, we respect your choices

B-B-B-But TRUE patriots KNOW and have told us that these organizations have sold out along with McCain and can not be trusted.

Besided YOU KNOW what they say about statistics!

How can you trust statistics compiled by edumacated eeentilectuals when you have common sense that tells you bett'r

 

[Faithkills]

Don’t forget that in the US you need to pay an additional ~7.5% of GDP for medical care. This is included in the UK number, but not in the number for the US.

You neglect, with intent as I will not assume ignorance, that when you quote GDP you're also including medical tourism from abroad. More of our GDP is spent on health care but that includes you guys who come here and give our health care market business.

The NHS routinely outperforms the US healthcare system for half the cost.

If when you say 'outperforms' you mean 'much more likely to die when you have a serious illness' then I'll grant your assertion. And don't think we don't know when you say 'half the cost' we don't know you are counting absolute and not cost per person.

Misrepresentation doesn't lend you credibility.

There may be some people in the US with access to better care then what the average person in the UK gets, but it’s overwhelmingly likely that you are not one of them.

If by 'overwhelmingly likely that you are not one of them' you mean 100% certain you are then you're right.

I of course do have a 'Cadillac' health care plan, and I pay for it.

And on that note, two right-wing conservative policy think-tanks in the US do a measurement of economic freedom(which I assume you are alluding to with your tax statistics)..

Nice try but I didn't allude to anything, I stated tax burden differential. I didn't allude. Brits have 10% more of their productivity sucked up by government that yanks.

Also I didn't assume that some of that extra burden isn't used to actually benefit taxpayers. Of course that means I'll have to pay for some things myself, but I have that much more choice in how to allocate my resources.

And surely you can't be oblivious to the common knowledge that total US health spending--what with all its pathologically warped incentives and partial cover--is a bundle higher than any other OECD country, all of which have universal systems except the US.

And surely you can't be oblivious that part of that 'spending' is spent by people in those nations with 'universal' health care who have to come and pay so they can survive.

However, we respect your choices

And we thank you for your business

 

[Random]

One could grant it is an issue, and address it. It's the complete takeover of everything that's the issue.

And your above observation presumes a useful treatment is available at any price. The choice isn't between expensive care and reasonable priced care. It's between expensive care for cutting-edge, new tech, and the same, but years later. I'll leave the math as to what this does to the average health as an exercise to the reader. It's not pretty, and is similar to compounded interest.

The math depends on so many variables that it is entirely possible that you are wrong.

In the first place, the number of lives saved by differing rates of medical advancement does not increase geometrically without limit, as the advancement of medical science has a built in limit. The perfection of medical technology to the point where we live as long as we want in any physical condition we want. This is the end goal of medical science, and once we get there, regardless of how long it takes to get there, medical advancement will stop.

Next, access is very important. The advancement of medical technology from 1980 to 2000 was huge, but would it be enough to justify the lives lost by restricting access? If you had a choice between everyone getting access to 1980 style medicine or half of the population getting 2000 style medical care and the other half getting nothing, which model saves the most lives?

Next is your unspoken assumption that US style healthcare leads to the best development of medical science. This is a questionable assumption at best. Yes, we have a bunch of new medicines being developed, but most of them are essentially copies of other drugs, and many of the unique drugs we develop are based on discoveries made by government funded basic research. Even if we assume that our system is them best model for medical advancement so far, that does not mean that there could not be a better one that has not been put into widescale practice yet (medical technology prize bills for example).

Take it all together and yeah, it is mathematically possible that the US system cumulatively kills more people than it saves.

 

[Francesca R]

Nice try but I didn't allude to anything, I stated tax burden differential. I didn't allude.

Well I thought you attempted to argue that US citizens have more economic freedom. If you didn't then fine, because they don't. Who were these "socialists" you referred to BTW?

And surely you can't be oblivious that part of that 'spending' is spent by people in those nations with 'universal' health care who have to come and pay so they can survive.

Fill me in. To be honest I have not seen numbers for net medical tourism into and out of the US. Please provide some if you can.

 

[lomiller]

More of our GDP is spent on health care but that includes you guys who come here and give our health care market business.

Their healthcare expenses would appear under their health care spending not yours.

If when you say 'outperforms' …

I should think the meaning of outperforms would be self evident.

And don't think we don't know when you say 'half the cost' we don't know you are counting absolute and not cost per person.

Then I will make it clearer. For each person with healthcare the US pays twice as much as almost any other country in the world for that health care. IRCC the next highest is Switzerland, compared to whom the US pays ~1.5X as much per person covered. Switzerland, BTW also has a system of private insurance.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then I will make it clearer. For each person with healthcare the US pays twice as much as almost any other country in the world for that health care.

You are conflating insurance coverage with health care. They are not the same thing.

 

[Faithkills]

Certainly.

http://www.themckinseyquarterly.net/Health_Care/Strategy_Analysis/Mapping_the_market_for_travel_2134

You have to register to read the full thing.

Here's a Forbes article on the report that is is freely available.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/he..._avd_outsourcing08_0529healthoutsourcing.html

As for various measures of 'economic freedom' I'm not indifferent to other criteria.

Ultimately for me it boils down to how much of my life I have to spend working for the government. I only get one life. So I'm sure CATO has reasons for their metrics, but I don't think one needs to walk past the elephant in the room to suss out the subtle.

From a more overall perspective it's the spending, regardless of tax. The spending has to be paid for with taxes, inflation, or ever increasing service. Well I needn't tell you about that.

Hence the immorality of ever increasing debt which is essentially stealing from our progeny. The taxes are just what I pay now. A selfish person doesn't care about the debt so long as he never has to shoulder the full burden of what benefit he thinks he receives. That can only continue so long as productive nations oblige us by buying the debt of consuming nations which is already starting to unravel. Which I also assume I needn't lecture you about.

Which is the problem. All these western nations you laud have to borrow more and more from from net productive nations, like China, whose populace doesn't have the nice free access to the simplest medical procedures you have.

 

[lomiller]

You are conflating insurance coverage with health care.

Nope

 

[Faithkills]

Their healthcare expenses would appear under their health care spending not yours.

What part of Gross Domestic Product has you confused?

GDP: Y=CIG. Most of the 16% is G and C but some is I.

I should think the meaning of outperforms would be self evident.

Well significantly less likely to survive a major illness under the tender mercies of the NHS than under the U.S. private system is an odd definition of 'outperforms' but to each his own.

IRCC the next highest is Switzerland, compared to whom the US pays ~1.5X as much per person covered. Switzerland, BTW also has a system of private insurance.

I don't think anyone is disputing U.S. health care is too expensive or the expense should be addressed. Most Americans however are not interested in duplicating the quality of service under socialized health care systems.

Shifting the cost to the government doesn't reduce the cost, and shifting the burden burden for creating 'efficiencies' to the government hasn't a very good track record. Creating more demand without increasing supply is an economically unsound approach.

I can't help but wonder why you guys are so vehement about insisting we follow your path.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope

Then pony up your numbers, because I don't believe you for a second. There are a lot of people without insurance but with healthcare.

 

[WildCat]

Ultimately for me it boils down to how much of my life I have to spend working for the government.

Is working for your employer's chosen insurance company better than working for the government?

 

[WildCat]

Then pony up your numbers, because I don't believe you for a second. There are a lot of people without insurance but with healthcare.

So who is paying for that health care?

 

[lomiller]

There are a lot of people without insurance but with healthcare.

Which is why I specified people with healthcare rather then people with insurance

 

[Magyar]

Then pony up your numbers, because I don't believe you for a second. There are a lot of people without insurance but with healthcare.

Ok, from your post it's hard to tell whether you think this is a good or a bad thing.
But regardless you admit that we ALREADY have some level of UHC. So really the argument is the "will you sleep with me for a $Million vs $10.


This is THEEE major reason that health care and insurance continue to rise at such a crazy rate.


Your argument then boils down to lets continue to keep things the way they are because

1) I got mine and I don't really give sh8 about any one else

2) It will cost the profits of a special interest group and that is more important than your community and social responsibility no matter the personal devastation.


Both of these are understandable ( I don't agree with them but that's a personal moral issue) HOWEVER, trying to rap this into some BULLSH* Freedom blanket is just silly!

 

[Ziggurat]

So who is paying for that health care?

That varies. And it's got nothing to do with my point.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok, from your post it's hard to tell whether you think this is a good or a bad thing.

There's a reason for that: I'm not trying to convince anyone that it's a good thing or a bad thing. But it is. Facts are what they are, regardless of how we feel about them. And I care about getting the facts straight.

Your argument then boils down to lets continue to keep things the way they are

Nope. Uh uh. Wrong. Incorrect. Missed the target. Way off.

I said nothing about keeping things the same. Hell, I didn't even say anything in the exchange you quoted to indicate any preference. I'm arguing about what the facts are, not what we should do about them. The rest of your post is therefore irrelevant, and only confirms that you couldn't actually read my post without projecting content into it that isn't there.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is why I specified people with healthcare rather then people with insurance

Is that another way of saying you don't have any numbers to support your claim? Please, enlighten me.

 

[Faithkills]

Is working for your employer's chosen insurance company better than working for the government?

Lol is that rhetorical? Of course it's better. I can choose who to work for, how much to work for them, and in the case of insurance, how much I want to buy.

The government just takes and then tells me how much better of I am because of it.

I'm no fan of big business but at the end of the day they have to pay me to get me to do stuff or offer the best product to get me to buy stuff.

The government has no such requirement and we see the results.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I must admit that the only reason I continue to follow this thread is to ogle Faithkills' avatar.

 

[Francesca R]

http://www.themckinseyquarterly.net/Health_Care/Strategy_Analysis/Mapping_the_market_for_travel_2134

You have to register to read the full thing.

Thanks, I'm registered with them already. However, McKinsey's analysis doesn't make any estimate of net medical tourism by value. It refers to patient numbers and, incidentally, finds it to be small (72,500 inpatient visits globally, all destinations, per year). Even if all those visits were to the US (which they're not) it is highly unlikely that it makes a dent in the 16% of GDP which is healthcare product.

I would suggest, therefore, that net exports of healthcare is a red herring from the perspective of reducing the assessed amount of income that the US spends on health care of Americans.

As for various measures of 'economic freedom' I'm not indifferent to other criteria.

Ultimately for me it boils down to how much of my life I have to spend working for the government. [ . . . ] From a more overall perspective it's the spending, regardless of tax. The spending has to be paid for with taxes, inflation, or ever increasing service. Well I needn't tell you about that.

Well I speculated in another thread about this that probably many conservatives would give the "tax" and "government spending" categories far more weight than other categories of economic freedom. But it is a credit to the objectivity of both the EFW and the Heritage calculations that they don't (see below).

[ . . . ] (Their index is actually pretty good, whatever one thinks of their mission and other work. The index is decent because it is a cross section of economic freedoms equally weighted. I suspect that many conservatives in real life would attach much greater importance to low tax and low redistribution/public provision than the 20% it gets in the index, and less to other things.)

You're merely choosing a shallow (or narrow) definition of freedom, which is what you critiqued Rolfe for above. People differ in what is important to their freedom. You may hate government size, and may console yourself with the observation that taxpayers in the UK cough up more per person, only to find that others like Rolfe simply don't weight this category as highly at all, which seems to suggest that she feels freer than you do, even along this dimension.

Conversely she (along with--I think--the vast majority of UHS participants, me included) places a fair bit of weight on the peace of mind that medical costs need never bankrupt anyone in the UK, at the same time as knowing that medical costs will almost never result in primary care not being available either. You don't apparently think that is very important to the perception of freedom. Can you at least see why others might (vehemently) disagree?