Will the real 10 year cost of ObamaCare be over $6 trillion?

[Lurker]

It's certainly plausible that under government run health care of JoeTheJuggler's Vision that a trillion dollars each year could be "saved".

Say at the cost of 3 Trillion dollars of health care not delivered. After all, people got by before medicines, heart transplants, emotional counseling, and chiropractice.

How, pray tell, do all those foreign countries manage to pay so much less for their public health care than we do without private system? Why assume that health care would be cut if we went to a public system. What would happen if we adopted the Japanese system exactly as they have it? Currently they pay less than half of what we pay. Plus no lines!

 

[mhaze]

Well, why would American democracy work or not work in Afganistan?

Why would free medical care in Greece be a travesty?

I don't see - at all - logic in cherrypicking another country to support the argument. We know what happens here. We've got a considerable track record on the cost and success or failure of such programs here.

 

[Lurker]

Well, why would American democracy work or not work in Afganistan?

Why would free medical care in Greece be a travesty?

I don't see - at all - logic in cherrypicking another country to support the argument. We know what happens here. We've got a considerable track record on the cost and success or failure of such programs here.

OK, let's not cherry pick a country. How about ANY of the countries in Europe that have public health care? Are you saying there is absolutely NOTHING to be learned there? Are we really so different than our bretheren in England, Germany, France, Holland, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Canada, Luxembourg, Austria, Norway, Switzerland...all of whom spend substantially less than we do per person on health care? If they can do it, why can't we?

 

[joobz]

I don't see - at all - logic in cherrypicking another country to support the argument.

Of course not, because it refutes your fundamental argument.
If state managed health care systems work in other countries which are western democracies, it refutes the argument that they are universally flawed systems.

If you could demonstrate a health care system that is completely laissez faire, which is cheaper than our system and provides health care for everyone* than you would have a valid counter argument.

We know what happens here. We've got a considerable track record on the cost and success or failure of such programs here.

We do?

 

[Lurker]

FYI, from the OECD

National per capita spending on healthcare, 2007
United States: $7,290
Norway: $4,763
Switzerland: $4,417
Luxembourg: $4,162
Canada: $3,895
Austria: $3,761
France: $3,601
Germany: $3,588
Netherlands: $3,527
Belgium: $3,462

 

[mhaze]

FYI, from the OECD

National per capita spending on healthcare, 2007
United States: $7,290
Norway: $4,763
Switzerland: $4,417
Luxembourg: $4,162
Canada: $3,895
Austria: $3,761
France: $3,601
Germany: $3,588
Netherlands: $3,527
Belgium: $3,462

This reminds me of an actual example of Soviet communist era discussions of why they were better than the Western world. The (propaganda, sort of, but it had some truth to it) discussion was that in the West, there were dozens of brands of paper towels, they were all basically the same, and many were priced high and bought unwittingly by consumers.

The Soviets on the other hand had one brand of paper towels that it was asserted was economically produced - thus, they argued, they had a more efficient system that provided more for the many.

The premise of that argument was exactly the same as yours - there was in the Soviet method, less monetary cost in supplying the necessity. (In Mao era China, clothes = blue suit)

It's a false premise because in the free economy, people have of their own volition chosen to buy something other than the "necessity".

Isn't there likely a reason why we don't have one style of car, one type of bicycle, and one brand of toothpaste?

 

[Lurker]

This reminds me of an actual example of Soviet communist era discussions of why they were better than the Western world. The (propaganda, sort of, but it had some truth to it) discussion was that in the West, there were dozens of brands of paper towels, they were all basically the same, and many were priced high and bought unwittingly by consumers.

The Soviets on the other hand had one brand of paper towels that it was asserted was economically produced - thus, they argued, they had a more efficient system that provided more for the many.

The premise of that argument was exactly the same as yours - there was in the Soviet method, less monetary cost in supplying the necessity. (In Mao era China, clothes = blue suit)

It's a false premise because in the free economy, people have of their own volition chosen to buy something other than the "necessity".

Isn't there likely a reason why we don't have one style of car, one type of bicycle, and one brand of toothpaste?

Sweet Jesus take the wheel. It is not a false premise. We are not extrapolating one item and making judgements on the whole political system. That is the false premise you allude to above. We are comparing HEALTH CARE programs, nothing more. Further, we are not comparing flavors of programs and instead assuming the programs are approximately similar. Of course there may be differences in what is covered but the countries I cited are not substantively different from us when it comes to coverage and outcomes.

So, how can these other countries provide comprehensive health care at such a cheaper cost?

 

[mhaze]

Sweet Jesus take the wheel. It is not a false premise. We are not extrapolating one item and making judgements on the whole political system. That is the false premise you allude to above. We are comparing HEALTH CARE programs, nothing more. Further, we are not comparing flavors of programs and instead assuming the programs are approximately similar. Of course there may be differences in what is covered but the countries I cited are not substantively different from us when it comes to coverage and outcomes.

So, how can these other countries provide comprehensive health care at such a cheaper cost?

Your logical argument is by your own admission of the sort...

if A B C D E F G H I J K are true, then X and Y are comparable, and since I want to maintain that that's true, then why don't you want me to push my ideas on you and control your life?

See, you are not smarter or better informed than other people who disagree with you.

 

[joobz]

Your logical argument is by your own admission of the sort...

if A B C D E F G H I J K are true, then X and Y are comparable, and since I want to maintain that that's true, then why don't you want me to push my ideas on you and control your life?

See, you are not smarter or better informed than other people who disagree with you.

Is there a reason why you are not presenting an example of a private sector health care system that is better and cheaper than ours?

Of course not, because it refutes your fundamental argument.
If state managed health care systems work in other countries which are western democracies, it refutes the argument that they are universally flawed systems.

If you could demonstrate a health care system that is completely laissez faire, which is cheaper than our system and provides health care for everyone* than you would have a valid counter argument.



We do?

 

[Lurker]

Your logical argument is by your own admission of the sort...

if A B C D E F G H I J K are true, then X and Y are comparable, and since I want to maintain that that's true, then why don't you want me to push my ideas on you and control your life?

Um, the italicized part is not part of my argument and you know it. It is your editorial on my argument and clearly an attempt to obfuscate.

See, you are not smarter or better informed than other people who disagree with you.

You are getting defensive. I never made any comment whatsoever about my intellect or state of informedness. If it makes you feel better, I admit to being woefully stupid and ill-informed. Now that we have that out of the way, let's get back to the argument. Since you prefer symbolic logic I'll frame it for you again.

If A,B,C,D,E,F,G are all less costly than X yet there is no substantive difference between them and X when it comes to outcomes, what is the reason X costs so much more and if there is no strong reason, shouldn't A-G be held up as superior to X?

Or you can just find a cheaper private plan like joobz suggested to rebut.

 

[mhaze]

Um, the italicized part is not part of my argument and you know it. It is your editorial on my argument and clearly an attempt to obfuscate....

Not at all. It is the net effect of the argument you make. In order for you to possess something that you believe is a good, you want to force me to pay for it.

....If A,B,C,D,E,F,G are all less costly than X yet there is no substantive difference between them and X when it comes to outcomes, what is the reason X costs so much more and if there is no strong reason, shouldn't A-G be held up as superior to X?

Or you can just find a cheaper private plan like joobz suggested to rebut.

It's unnecessary for me to "find a cheaper plan" because I haven't made an argument relating to cheaper plans. Some people shop at Walmart, some at Fifth Avenue stores in NYC.

I've bolded the sections in your argument that represent opinions, not facts.

And I'm not sure why you didn't see (or don't want to discuss) the obvious exact parallels between my references to similar thinking in the Soviet and Chinese economies. They are exact parallels because they stem from the same style of thinking, socialist top down planning and organization.

Frankly, I'm not opposed to experimentation at the state level with socialist medical schemes - I'd encourage it, although I view it as a ridiculous waste of money, and doomed to failure. But you really don't have any shining examples of success in US state plans, do you? That's why you must go abroad to try to find "better" examples.

You asked me to "prove a negative" (eg surely of all these countries that have "better cheaper" we could ...). But why did you not answer these questions or comment on these parallels?

1. The premise of that argument was exactly the same as yours - there was in the Soviet method, less monetary cost in supplying the necessity. (In Mao era China, clothes = blue suit)
2. It's a false premise because in the free economy, people have of their own volition chosen to buy something other than the "necessity".
3. Isn't there likely a reason why we don't have one style of car, one type of bicycle, and one brand of toothpaste?
4. Why would American democracy work or not work in Afganistan?
5. Why is it that free medical care in Greece is a travesty?

PS: I'm sure you are aware that if I simply click and go to heritage.org, I'll come back loaded with facts to refute your "OECD" statistics. This has been done before on JREF many times IIRC.

Why not just be up front about this all and just state

"Yes, I like the central top down planning such as in communist China and Russia, and I think these socialist method should be applied to US health care".

 

[BeAChooser]

This reminds me of an actual example of Soviet communist era discussions of why they were better than the Western world.

Actually, a comparison with the Soviet Union is even more instructive than you suggest.

Remember that prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, many on the left in the US held up the Soviet Union's health care system as a model of what ours should be. It was said they had more doctors. Better doctors. And it was all free, cradle to grave. Here's an article, for instance, by a University of Chicago (where else? ) sociologist back in the 1970's that rather glowing described the Soviet health care system: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/selectedpapers/sp42.pdf .

And many of the people touting those wonders were the same people Obama hung around with in his youth or associated with for decades prior to running for President. The same people who helped get him elected. For example, Alice Palmer, came back from the USSR in 1986 raving about it's health care system. The same people now touting the wonders of the Cuban health care system rolleyes.

And then The Wall came down and the USSR collapsed.

And it turned out the Soviet health care system was actually in total shambles. Here, from 1991; http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/10/3/71.pdf "Health statistics for the Soviet Union’s 280 million citizens reveal poor life expectancy and high mortality rates, with striking disparities among the individual republics. The nation’s health care system is plagued by chronic underfunding, antiquated and deteriorating facilities, inadequate supplies and outmoded equipment, poor morale and few incentives for health care workers, and consumer dissatisfaction." Or this, more recently, http://mises.org/story/3650 "In 1918, the Soviet Union became the first country to promise universal "cradle-to-grave" healthcare coverage, to be accomplished through the complete socialization of medicine. The "right to health" became a "constitutional right" of Soviet citizens. … snip … In the depths of the socialist experiment, healthcare institutions in Russia were at least a hundred years behind the average US level. Moreover, the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration that paralyzed the system. According to official Russian estimates, 78 percent of all AIDS victims in Russia contracted the virus through dirty needles or HIV-tainted blood in the state-run hospitals. … snip … At the end of the socialist experiment, the official infant-mortality rate in Russia was more than 2.5 times as high as in the United States and more than five times that of Japan. The rate of 24.5 deaths per 1,000 live births was questioned recently by several deputies to the Russian Parliament, who claim that it is seven times higher than in the United States. This would make the Russian death rate 55 compared to the US rate of 8.1 per 1,000 live births." In was only after the collapse that we learned half of the hospitals in the Soviet Union didn't even have running water.

And yet Obama and his leftist friends are still touting the same *solution* to our problem. It seems they are incapable of learning.

 

[Lurker]

Not at all. It is the net effect of the argument you make. In order for you to possess something that you believe is a good, you want to force me to pay for it.

Well, that is part of democracy, is it not? We have unemployment insurance which we all pay for, social security, medicare, FEMA aid, public schools ... I am not forcing you, it is the democratic process at work. If your side wins then we don't pay for it.

It's unnecessary for me to "find a cheaper plan" because I haven't made an argument relating to cheaper plans. Some people shop at Walmart, some at Fifth Avenue stores in NYC.

OK, some people will buy more expensive plans than others. Perhaps there is a public plan and one can buy insurance beyond that plan. I am not opposed.

I've bolded the sections in your argument that represent opinions, not facts.

No, they are facts. I provided the OECD data, for example. I see that you mentioned the Heritage site and I searched it and could not find the opposing view of the data there. If you could direct me to it I would appreciate it.

And I'm not sure why you didn't see (or don't want to discuss) the obvious exact parallels between my references to similar thinking in the Soviet and Chinese economies. They are exact parallels because they stem from the same style of thinking, socialist top down planning and organization.

You have changed your argument to include style of thinking. I don't care one white about the "style of thinking" and would prefer to cooncentrate on the merits of the data and the implications. I don't care if Karl Marx himself is the source of the "style of thinking" as that is immaterial to the argument. Really it is an ad hom argument on your part.

Frankly, I'm not opposed to experimentation at the state level with socialist medical schemes - I'd encourage it, although I view it as a ridiculous waste of money, and doomed to failure. But you really don't have any shining examples of success in US state plans, do you? That's why you must go abroad to try to find "better" examples.

Good point. I too would prefer a state plan that we can point to as successful as the data set would be more consistent than comparing to overseas. Regardless, the overseas countries seem to fare well and we cannot discount that data. Or at least you have not provided a reason to do so yet.

 

[Lurker]

Actually, a comparison with the Soviet Union is even more instructive than you suggest.

Remember that prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, many on the left in the US held up the Soviet Union's health care system as a model of what ours should be.

(...)

And it turned out the Soviet health care system was actually in total shambles. Here, from 1991; http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/10/3/71.pdf "Health statistics for the Soviet Union’s 280 million citizens reveal poor life expectancy and high mortality rates, with striking disparities among the individual republics. The nation’s health care system is plagued by chronic underfunding, antiquated and deteriorating facilities, inadequate supplies and outmoded equipment, poor morale and few incentives for health care workers, and consumer dissatisfaction."
And yet Obama and his leftist friends are still touting the same *solution* to our problem. It seems they are incapable of learning.

Is it your contention that all of the countries that I listed from the OECD study are similarly hiding their true statistics? All of them?

 

[joobz]

It's unnecessary for me to "find a cheaper plan" because I haven't made an argument relating to cheaper plans.

Or is it because none exist?

Why not use Hawaii as a model system?

 

[mhaze]

2x

 

[mhaze]

Is it your contention that all of the countries that I listed from the OECD study are similarly hiding their true statistics? All of them?

Hiding is not really the right phrase. There are differences in the definitions of terms, for example "live births" is so widely variant as to make the OECD comparisons of "live births" preposterous.

BeAChooser brings up a valid point, though: To what extent do we believe the stats and from whom?

But would progressives really even care?

Why is the dismal track record of the US Government in conceiving, administering, and expanding Social Security and Medicare not prima facie evidence of the likely result of expansion of these very same programs, eg., "universal health care"?

If we have with these programs generated a (A) $100T liability, then by doubling their size, we (B) likely generate a $200T liability. Since neither number can be paid, what this reduces to in an economic sense is:

A. Borrow from the future and give part of that to today's program recipients
B. Borrow twice as much from the future and give twice as much to today's program recipients.

Option A is likely stable for a decade or two. Option B.....

 

[Random]

If we have with these programs generated a (A) $100T liability, then by doubling their size, we (B) likely generate a $200T liability.

It’s not a zero sum game though. A big reason for the huge price tag of Medicare is the rising cost of healthcare. Cut the cost in half and Medicare’s problems are seriously reduced. Japan spends half as much per capita on healthcare as we do and covers everyone. If we adopted a government run Japanese style healthcare system we could provide twice as many services as Medicare does now and still come out ahead financially.

 

[mhaze]

It’s not a zero sum game though. A big reason for the huge price tag of Medicare is the rising cost of healthcare. Cut the cost in half and Medicare’s problems are seriously reduced. Japan spends half as much per capita on healthcare as we do and covers everyone. If we adopted a government run Japanese style healthcare system we could provide twice as many services as Medicare does now and still come out ahead financially.

That's the logical fallacy that we are discussing.

"The Federal Government can do this cheaper".

By the way......take a look at Japan's debt burden and see if you still want to hold that opinion regarding how great their system is.

 

[Random]

That's the logical fallacy that we are discussing.

"The Federal Government can do this cheaper".

By the way......take a look at Japan's debt burden and see if you still want to hold that opinion regarding how great their system is.

The United States spends more money on its military than any other nation on earth. Clearly, this is a perfect indicator of our flawed healthcare system.