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

[BeAChooser]

So your best argument for a free market system is to say "this other system's worse."

LOL! No, I was only responding to your implication that the free market system is bad for health care.

You have advocated that government regulation results in a worse health care system.

No, joobz, I've only advocated that the degree of government regulation and control of the health care system being pushed by Obama and democrats will result in worse health care.

If this were true, you should be able to show a correlation between increased free market policies, a decrease in health care cost and increase in quality.

No problem.

A study by the Eurocare-4 working group, which appeared in Lancet Oncology, found (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/give_me_liberty_or_give_me_hea.html ) "that the United States outperformed European countries in 5-year relative survival rates for all malignancies in men (66.3 versus 47.3) and women (62.9 versus 55.8)."

Or look at it this way. The more free-market US economy is far outperforming the more-socialist European economies in terms of per capita GDP (PPP) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SqVEXe7MudI/AAAAAAAALQY/hj8sjsavCoQ/s1600-h/gdpworld.jpg ) and outperforming them in per capita GDP growth too. So much so that we can afford to pay twice what you claim those socialist UHC systems pay for health care (ignoring the fact that they don't really buy the same health that we do), and still have enough left over to buy a small car for our new college graduate. Sounds like a good tradeoff to me.

By the way …

The following link has a chart showing the average annual change in per capita spending on health between 1990 and 2007. The U.S. shows up almost exactly in the middle of the pack. And as noted in the source, "this is not an artifact of the years picked—it’s true for 1997-2007 and 2000-2007 as well."

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/09/where_are_healt.html

You'll note in that chart that the US annual percentage change per capita in health care costs is 5.8%. Granted, that's a lot. But then note that more than half a dozen European nations have larger health care cost growth rates than the US ... including that socialized medicine *utopia* (according to some around here), the United Kingdom, where it is 6.9%. Maybe the British should change to our system to stop their spiraling health care costs.

You'll notice that Ireland, Poland, Norway, Greece, Spain, the Czech Republic, The Netherlands (another UHC system touted as a model for us), and Belgium ... all countries with universal health care systems ... have health care cost growth rates of 9.0%, 7.8%, 7.6%, 7.1%, 6.8%, 6.5%, 6.0%, and 5.9%, respectively. All higher than the US rate. Maybe they should *reform* to our current system too?

And you'll notice that the delta between the growth rates in the rest of the European UHC countries and the US isn't all that great either. France's growth rate is 5.5%, only a tenth of a percent below ours. Austria's is 5.1%. And all the rest ... Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy ... all have health care cost growth rates above 4% ... less than a third lower than ours. And Canada's is 4.9% ... a mere 1% lower than the US's health care growth rate. So it looks like the excess in our GDP (our advantage) is growing faster than the delta in health care costs (Canada's advantage). So next year we'll not only be able to buy a car with the extra money we get thanks to the free market, but we'll also get to buy the latest electronic toy as well.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
For example, do they have the same number of lawyers per capita that we do? No, they have far fewer lawyers.

A result of market forces.

No, joobz, it's more than that. It's a function of the political system and how each culture handles disputes. To get the European solution you'll have to make our culture and political system more like theirs … with all the baggage that brings.

and what is the motivating factor for "illegals" to enter into the country? Market forces.

LOL! You don't think illegals go to European countries because of market forces? Of course they do. But what allows them to actually succeed in getting in and staying in the US is the permissibility of our government. European governments are notably more strict when it comes to illegals. Both in terms of stopping entry and locating them/deporting them if they do succeed in entering. Which is one reason they have far fewer illegals as a percentage of the population. They also aren't as generous in taking care of illegals. For example, some of those UHC government have rules prohibiting illegals from getting free healthcare. Unlike ours. So again, to make our system more like theirs, we will need to be harsher with illegals. But it doesn't look like democrats are prepared to do that.

Why do american doctors get paid more???? hmmm, free market forces?

So what are you going to do. Get rid of the free market forces in this country so that US doctors make no more than European doctors? And what will be the consequence of doing that if you only control the salaries of doctors. Three guesses.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Second, do those european/canadian governments you admire provide the same healthcare that Americans as a rule enjoy? No.

This is just false.
http://www.pnhp.org/PDF_files/ReviewUSCanadaOpenMedicine.pdf

LOL! Ever consider that study's result might have more to do with lifestyle choices than anything else? The OECD found that Americans have slightly higher rates of smoking and alcohol consumption than do Canadians, as well as significantly higher rates of obesity. And Americans not only have higher rates of obesity, but other health risk factors such as less physical inactivity, more diabetes, more hypertension, more arthritis, and more chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The fact is that Americans do enjoy better care in a variety of ways. As evidenced by the following:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0325natashamar25,0,3093948.story

Could actress Natasha Richardson's tragic death have been prevented if her skiing accident had occurred in America rather than Canada? 

This is a legitimate question because of how Canadian and American medical care differ. Canadian health care de-emphasizes widespread dissemination of technology like CT scanners and quick access to specialists like neurosurgeons.
... snip ...

Richardson died of an epidural hematoma, a bleeding artery between the skull and brain that compresses and ultimately causes fatal brain damage via pressure buildup. With prompt diagnosis by CT scan, and surgery to drain the blood, most patients survive. Could Richardson have received this care? Where it happened in Canada, no. In many American resorts, yes.

And what about cardiac patients? If things are so wonderful in a socialized Mecca like Canada, why are people coming to the US for treatment?

http://blog.acton.org/archives/2220-Will-Socialized-Health-Care-in-the-US-Kill-Canadians.html

March 3, 2008

... snip ...

More than 400 Canadians in the full throes of a heart attack or other cardiac emergency have been sent to the United States because no hospital can provide the lifesaving care they require here.

... snip ...

At least 188 neurosurgery patients and 421 emergency cardiac patients have been sent to the United States from Ontario since the 2003-2004 fiscal year to Feb. 21 this year.

Canada can't even handle it's own births:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/canadas_universal_health_care.html

August 17, 2007

... snip ...

Canada welcomes the birth of the newest set of quadruplets born to proud Canadian parents. Karen and J.P. Jepp. However, the Jepp quads will be eligible to run for the presidency of the United States when they reach the age of 35, having been born in Benefis Hospital in Great Falls, Montana, 325 miles from their home in Calgary, capital of the Canadian oil industry.

The precious gift of American citizenship comes to the Jepp Quads because there were no hospital facilities anywhere in Canada able to handle 4 neonatal intensive care babies. Not in Calgary, a city of over a million people, the wealthiest in Canada, or anywhere else in Canada. Local officials looked.

However, Great Falls, a city of well under one hundred thousand people, apparently had no problem with unusual demand for such facilities.

As Don Surber points out, the United States functions as Canada's back-up medical system, enabling it to run with less investment in facilities. America's evil, heartless private medical care system saved the day. In any capital-intensive field, whether it be electric power generation or medicine, gearing up for peak demand costs a lot of money.

... snip ...

Having the government pay means having other people pay your medical bills, and that leads to endless demand, which leads to rationing, which leads to insufficient capacity to handle peak demands, like, say, the birth of quadruplets.

And what happens if the US health care system becomes just like Canada's? We will experience the same sorts of inefficiencies, quality and supply problems that they have, and more Canadians will die as a result, because the safety net that currently exists in the United States will be gone. Here's another article that points out that obvious fact:

Canada's vaunted socialized medical system depends on America for more than peak capacity back-up, of course. When was the last time you heard about a new drug being developed by a Canadian pharmaceutical company? Under the price control system in Canada it makes no sense to develop drugs there. Canada lets the United States bear the major burden of drug development (and so does the rest of the world). Our high drug prices and federal research subsidize the world's medical R&D.

Do you know that:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

... snip ...

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

... snip ...

Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."

Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding".

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).

... snip ...

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country. Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States. [See the table.]

And I can go on and on and on.

In June of 2008, the Toronto Star reported (http://www.thestar.com/article/445835 ) that over 4 MILLION Canadians (12 and older) have no family doctor. That's about 15% of the population (12 and older). Why is the Brain and Spine Clinic in Buffalo serving about 10 border-crossing Canadians a week? According to http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/does-canadian-health-care-really-stack.html , a recent study comparing the two countries found that in six out of eight medical conditions investigated, Americans have higher treatment ratios. Americans also do better when it comes to preventative procedures such as PAP smears, mammograms and PSA tests. In the US 88.6% of women ages 40 to 69 have had a mammogram. In Canada only 72.3%. In the same age group, 54% of American men have been tested for prostate cancer. Only 16.4% of Canadians have received this test. Both men and women in America receive testing for colorectal cancer six times as often as their Canadian counterparts.

American outcomes appear superior after hip fracture repair and cataract surgery (in fact, the hip replacement center of Canada in Ohio -- at the Cleveland Clinic, where 10 percent of its international patients are Canadians). Just 62.5% of Canadians from ages 20 to 64 said their health was very good or excellent compared to 67.5% for Americans in the same age group. For those over 65, it was 38% for Canadians and 40% for Americans. American doctors have more training than Canadian doctors (according to one source, 50% of all Canadian doctors are general practitioners compared to only 10% in the US).

The better access we have to more highly trained doctors (expressed in much shorter wait times and not having to leave the country to find a specialist), better access to high tech diagnostic equipment (we have 5 times the number of MRIs and 3 times the number of CT scanners, per capita), and better access to preventive tests is of course going to translate into higher costs for us. But those also translate into better care. You simply are not justified in claiming the health care systems of countries with socialized medicine provide better outcomes. Or that they are less expensive for the same outcome.

We can have a system with costs like the Canadians, but don't think there won't be consequences in terms of care. Don't think the quality of our health care won't go DOWN if we do that. And don't think that the quality of health care in the rest of the world won't go DOWN if we do that either. We are a backup system for many other countries. And when it comes to drugs ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/other/interviews/taurel.html

June 19, 2003

... snip ...

Thirty years ago, because of the quality of its pharmaceutical scientists, France was number two in pharmaceutical innovation in the world. Today, after 30 years of price controls, it is number nine. ... snip ... More than 60 percent of new drugs are invented and developed in the United States. ... snip ... We've seen that, again, not only in France, but in Japan, in Italy, in Spain, in Canada. Really, most of the pharmaceutical innovation is now concentrated in the United States. More than 60 percent of new drugs are invented and developed in the United States.

Those facts translate into cheaper health care in other countries. Because they get benefits their citizens do not pay for.

And speaking of apples and oranges, you might want to read this before we continue. It makes the point again that we need to compare apples and apples, not apples and oranges. Medical costs are only a portion of a health care system's costs. Other things affect the health of a country's citizens. If we really wanted to compare what two countries' health care systems cost, we'd need to compare not only medical costs but what is spent on things like parks, which enhance health.

http://www.governing.com/articles/0902healthmyths.htm

You Get What You Pay For?

February 2009

... snip ...

In the United States, we know what our medical care costs are, but we haven't a clue what our real health care expenditures are. And the rest of the world doesn't know what it spends on health either.

... snip ...

Generally, what we call "health care costs" is really spending on medical care. Medical care is only part of health care, as it is largely made up of what happens between patients and doctors. The United States indeed spends a lot on medical care. But if we confuse health care and medical care, we might conclude that our medical care system is responsible for an individual's overall health, when medical care is a very small part of the picture.

... snip ...

These differences between health care and medical care are important when discussing how to overhaul the overall U.S. health system. To calculate health care expenditures, we would need to include widespread social expenses, such as law enforcement to combat violent crime, a portion of prison costs as a deterrent to crime, the cost of city green space construction to permit jogging, a portion of the cost of after-school programs to help deter teen pregnancy, a portion of welfare payments to combat poverty, subsidized housing, and the costs borne by children of the elderly who care for their parents at home, to name a few. Those are rarely included in calculations of what we call "health care costs."

... snip ...

We spend about 16 percent of our gross domestic product on medical care.

... snip ...

Canada spends a greater percentage of its GDP on nonmedical but health enhancing "social programs" compared with the United States. And that key difference is not reflected when comparing the statistics on medical expenditures.

 

[joobz]

LOL! No, I was only responding to your implication that the free market system is bad for health care.

Don't laugh. It was your stupid argument, not mine. And I didn't say free market was bad. Only that quality isn't the driving force. Profit is. And profit doesn't always equal good health.

No, joobz, I've only advocated that the degree of government regulation and control of the health care system being pushed by Obama and democrats will result in worse health care.

Than why use the USSR as an example? Do you honestly believe the USSR is an accurate depiction of the Submitted plan?
Seriously, Don't lie to me.

No problem.

A study by the Eurocare-4 working group, which appeared in Lancet Oncology, found (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/give_me_liberty_or_give_me_hea.html ) "that the United States outperformed European countries in 5-year relative survival rates for all malignancies in men (66.3 versus 47.3) and women (62.9 versus 55.8)."

Or look at it this way. The more free-market US economy is far outperforming the more-socialist European economies in terms of per capita GDP (PPP) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SqVEXe7MudI/AAAAAAAALQY/hj8sjsavCoQ/s1600-h/gdpworld.jpg ) and outperforming them in per capita GDP growth too. So much so that we can afford to pay twice what you claim those socialist UHC systems pay for health care (ignoring the fact that they don't really buy the same health that we do), and still have enough left over to buy a small car for our new college graduate. Sounds like a good tradeoff to me.

By the way …

The following link has a chart showing the average annual change in per capita spending on health between 1990 and 2007. The U.S. shows up almost exactly in the middle of the pack. And as noted in the source, "this is not an artifact of the years picked—it’s true for 1997-2007 and 2000-2007 as well."

You switch from GDP absolute to health cost growth rate comparisons. Are you this dishonest or do you think I'm that stupid?

In addition, the U.S. has a much higher absolute level of health spending than anyone else ($7290 per capita in 2007—the next highest was Norway at $4763). The country with the fastest rate of growth, South Korea, still spends less than $1700 per person on health, way below the U.S.

You'll note in that chart that the US annual percentage change per capita in health care costs is 5.8%. Granted, that's a lot. But then note that more than half a dozen European nations have larger health care cost growth rates than the US ... including that socialized medicine *utopia* (according to some around here), the United Kingdom, where it is 6.9%. Maybe the British should change to our system to stop their spiraling health care costs.


You'll notice that Ireland, Poland, Norway, Greece, Spain, the Czech Republic, The Netherlands (another UHC system touted as a model for us), and Belgium ... all countries with universal health care systems ... have health care cost growth rates of 9.0%, 7.8%, 7.6%, 7.1%, 6.8%, 6.5%, 6.0%, and 5.9%, respectively. All higher than the US rate. Maybe they should *reform* to our current system too?

And you'll notice that the delta between the growth rates in the rest of the European UHC countries and the US isn't all that great either. France's growth rate is 5.5%, only a tenth of a percent below ours. Austria's is 5.1%. And all the rest ... Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy ... all have health care cost growth rates above 4% ... less than a third lower than ours. And Canada's is 4.9% ... a mere 1% lower than the US's health care growth rate. So it looks like the excess in our GDP (our advantage) is growing faster than the delta in health care costs (Canada's advantage). So next year we'll not only be able to buy a car with the extra money we get thanks to the free market, but we'll also get to buy the latest electronic toy as well.

So, you admit that you DON'T have an example of a health care system that is cheaper than our "free market" system. Way to go.

I need to check how they are calculating cost of health care. IS that actual health care expenditures and does it include total insurance contibutions? I know health insurance costs over the last 3 years has averaged ~10% So I find the 5% number a bit hard to take.

No, joobz, it's more than that. It's a function of the political system and how each culture handles disputes. To get the European solution you'll have to make our culture and political system more like theirs … with all the baggage that brings.

because our system favors capitalism...

LOL! You don't think illegals go to European countries because of market forces? Of course they do. But what allows them to actually succeed in getting in and staying in the US is the permissibility of our government. European governments are notably more strict when it comes to illegals. Both in terms of stopping entry and locating them/deporting them if they do succeed in entering. Which is one reason they have far fewer illegals as a percentage of the population. They also aren't as generous in taking care of illegals. For example, some of those UHC government have rules prohibiting illegals from getting free healthcare.

links please.

So what are you going to do. Get rid of the free market forces in this country so that US doctors make no more than European doctors? And what will be the consequence of doing that if you only control the salaries of doctors. Three guesses.

You made the argument that we are different and I agree. But you claimed this difference means we can't compare, but failed to explain WHY we are different. I explained it. Sorry if you are unhappy about that.


I'll get to the rest of your wall of blog later.

 

[joobz]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0325natashamar25,0,3093948.story

Are you claiming that epidural hematomas are not missed in the US?

If you believe this is a true failing of the Canadian system, present the epidemiological data which shows a greater mortality rate from epidural hematomas in Canada vs. the US.

And what about cardiac patients? If things are so wonderful in a socialized Mecca like Canada, why are people coming to the US for treatment?

http://blog.acton.org/archives/2220-Will-Socialized-Health-Care-in-the-US-Kill-Canadians.html

Are you really expecting me to believe that Canada doesn't use Thrombolytics? and this is 400 patients from 2003-2008? Something's fishy here.

Canada can't even handle it's own births:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/canadas_universal_health_care.html

good argument and shows a true deficiency in canada. One that the government picks up the tab for.

And what happens if the US health care system becomes just like Canada's? We will experience the same sorts of inefficiencies, quality and supply problems that they have, and more Canadians will die as a result, because the safety net that currently exists in the United States will be gone.

No.

Re the pharmaceutical issue, it has a lot more about the R&D of the NIH vs. canadian investment than it does with pharm companies.

Do you know that:

That we pay twice as much as any other nation and DON'T have twice the quality in care?

Yeah. I knew that.


ETA: US Health expenditure is 16% GDP. Next highest, France at 11%.
http://www.oecd.org/findDocument/0,3354,en_2649_34631_1_119656_1_1_1,00.html

 

[FarmallMTA]

Are you claiming that epidural hematomas are not missed in the US?

If you believe this is a true failing of the Canadian system, present the epidemiological data which shows a greater mortality rate from epidural hematomas in Canada vs. the US.


Are you really expecting me to believe that Canada doesn't use Thrombolytics? and this is 400 patients from 2003-2008? Something's fishy here.





good argument and shows a true deficiency in canada. One that the government picks up the tab for.



No.

Re the pharmaceutical issue, it has a lot more about the R&D of the NIH vs. canadian investment than it does with pharm companies.


That we pay twice as much as any other nation and DON'T have twice the quality in care?

Yeah. I knew that.

The Canadian province premier who just got his heartvalve fixed in Florida begs to differ with everything you have to say.

 

[joobz]

The Canadian province premier who just got his heartvalve fixed in Florida begs to differ with everything you have to say.

Are you sure about that? Who paid for the care?


ETA: And I have no clue what my post has to do with a heart valve reconstruction.

 

[BeAChooser]

And I didn't say free market was bad. Only that quality isn't the driving force.

And you think "quality" is the driving force in government run health care systems? Or government run *anything*? If that's the case, why haven't you taken up my challenge back in post #82 to name "US government run programs have been demonstrably cheaper than their private sector counterparts?" Why aren't you defending the War On Poverty, War On Drugs, Public Education, Medicare? Why did you suddenly drop your TVA comparison? Sorry to disillusion you, joobz, but quality isn't the driving force behind government … it's aggregating power and privilege where one's political group is concerned. Or where one's union is concerned and believe me, government unions are amongst the biggest and strongest. Or often where one's own job in government is concerned.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
No, joobz, I've only advocated that the degree of government regulation and control of the health care system being pushed by Obama and democrats will result in worse health care.

Than why use the USSR as an example?

Oh I don't know. Because Marx said that socialism is a step on the road to communism? Because the USSR approach (total government control) was not all that different from what democrats were advocating or at least shooting for in the long run here … a single payer system with government deciding who gets treated and when. Or how about this:

http://jimblazsik.com/2009/06/25/na...nd-reagan-tells-jokes-about-the-soviet-union/

You switch from GDP absolute to health cost growth rate comparisons. Are you this dishonest or do you think I'm that stupid?

Well, seeing as you don't seem to have understood the point I was making …

So, you admit that you DON'T have an example of a health care system that is cheaper than our "free market" system. Way to go.

LOL! I tell you what, joobz. You can go live in those socialist paradises and make the average per capita GDP in them. I'll stay here and make the average per capita GDP for the US. Then I'll visit you in the spring and fall when I take vacations ... using the delta in what I make to what you make AFTER paying twice as much for my health care insurance.

because our system favors capitalism...

And thank goodness it does. Let's just pray Obama doesn't succeed in changing that. Sure *hope* not.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
LOL! You don't think illegals go to European countries because of market forces? Of course they do. But what allows them to actually succeed in getting in and staying in the US is the permissibility of our government. European governments are notably more strict when it comes to illegals. Both in terms of stopping entry and locating them/deporting them if they do succeed in entering. Which is one reason they have far fewer illegals as a percentage of the population. They also aren't as generous in taking care of illegals. For example, some of those UHC government have rules prohibiting illegals from getting free healthcare.

links please.

Come on, joobz. Where have you been during all the previous discussion on this, when links backing up those statements were supplied (and not challenged by anyone here)? We're not going to go through this "playing clueless" again tactic, are we? Here are some of the many links I offered:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/197745/france_illegal_immigrants_lose_health_care_under_new_law/

http://humanrights.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/06/19/illegal-immigrants-in-france-mobilize/

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/04/sweden-illegal-immigrants-to-get-low.html

http://www.thelocal.se/11924/20080522/

http://www.erblawg.com/illegal-immi...lth-care-without-repercussions-in-the-future/

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/health_care.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275

But you claimed this difference means we can't compare, but failed to explain WHY we are different.

Guess you are going to play that game, again. Which is probably why my responding to you on this thread is coming to an end. It's a waste of time.

 

[joobz]

And you think "quality" is the driving force in government run health care systems? Or government run *anything*? If that's the case, why haven't you taken up my challenge back in post #82 to name "US government run programs have been demonstrably cheaper than their private sector counterparts?"

You do understand that quality and cheaper aren't the same thing, right?
Policeforce, firedepartment, education, research....

Why aren't you defending the War On Poverty, War On Drugs, Public Education, Medicare? Why did you suddenly drop your TVA comparison? Sorry to disillusion you, joobz, but quality isn't the driving force behind government … it's aggregating power and privilege where one's political group is concerned.

Yawn. I'll ignore the crazy.

Or where one's union is concerned and believe me, government unions are amongst the biggest and strongest. Or often where one's own job in government is concerned.

ok...if you say so.

Oh I don't know. Because Marx said that socialism is a step on the road to communism? Because the USSR approach (total government control) was not all that different from what democrats were advocating or at least shooting for in the long run here … a single payer system with government deciding who gets treated and when. Or how about this:

SO you were being dishonest. Ok.

Listen, if you are going to go all half stupid on UHC, then why do you not take up my challenge and show a system that is private and cheaper than other systems?

Well, seeing as you don't seem to have understood the point I was making …

Clearly, I understood your point better than you did.
WE pay the most by %GDP than any other healthcare. In other words, even when we factor in the higher GDP of the US, we STILL pay more.
http://www.oecd.org/findDocument/0,3354,en_2649_34631_1_119656_1_1_1,00.html

LOL! I tell you what, joobz. You can go live in those socialist paradises and make the average per capita GDP in them. I'll stay here and make the average per capita GDP for the US. Then I'll visit you in the spring and fall when I take vacations ... using the delta in what I make to what you make AFTER paying twice as much for my health care insurance.

16% GDP is paid by the US.
THe next highest is 11%. I'll take you up on your offer.
http://www.oecd.org/findDocument/0,3354,en_2649_34631_1_119656_1_1_1,00.html

And thank goodness it does. Let's just pray Obama doesn't succeed in changing that. Sure *hope* not.

Capitalism is great, as long as it remains in check. Other wise, you end up with a healthcare system like the one we have now. Twice as expensive and not better for it.

Come on, joobz. Where have you been during all the previous discussion on this, when links backing up those statements were supplied (and not challenged by anyone here)? We're not going to go through this "playing clueless" again tactic, are we? Here are some of the many links I offered:

Don't assume I've read all of your crazy posts. And forgive me if I simply don't trust you to take your word for it. I think your reputation for being dishonest excuses me of this.

I'll click on the first few to see what the news is:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/197745/france_illegal_immigrants_lose_health_care_under_new_law/

2003?
Why not look at 2009 information?

Also that year, France clarified rules for illegal residents: Those who can justify more than three months of presence on French territory, and don't have financial resources, can receive full coverage.

That made the system universal.

In the U.S., health-overhaul bills don't attempt to cover illegal immigrants. Doing so would increase costs and is considered politically difficult http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html

The funny thing about France is that they were worried about soaring healthcare costs becuase they were starting to pay 11% GDP for health care. We are at 16%! And still can't get people to realize we have a problem.

http://humanrights.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/06/19/illegal-immigrants-in-france-mobilize/

A link that has nothing to do with Healthcare for illegals.

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/04/sweden-illegal-immigrants-to-get-low.html

A blog? I'll skip it.

http://www.thelocal.se/11924/20080522/

Wow, a URL that supports your argument. Good job.
One country in EU prevents healthcare currently.

http://www.erblawg.com/illegal-immi...lth-care-without-repercussions-in-the-future/

Did you read this article? It describes an increase in healthcare for illegals. Thanks for that.

Guess you are going to play that game, again. Which is probably why my responding to you on this thread is coming to an end. It's a waste of time.

I didn't know giving honest answers was considered "a game". I can understand why you would wish to stop responding to me. I expose your dishonesty.

 

[Lurker]

I am curious about why this is. Where is the extra cost coming from? But even more importantly can the government eliminate that cost?

There was a study that broke down the cost differences. If I recall, most of it was in extra tests, longer hospital stays, and less outpatient surgery.

 

[Lurker]

And what about cardiac patients? If things are so wonderful in a socialized Mecca like Canada, why are people coming to the US for treatment?

Are you aware that Canadien helath care providers advertise in the US along the border regions to lure people there for their cheaper healthcare? I personally know four people who traveled to Canada so they could have operations done cheaper there than in the US.

The flow goes both ways, my friend.

 

[mhaze]

So now Lurker is an advocate of free markets?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I tell you what, joobz. You can go live in those socialist paradises and make the average per capita GDP in them. I'll stay here and make the average per capita GDP for the US. Then I'll visit you in the spring and fall when I take vacations ... using the delta in what I make to what you make AFTER paying twice as much for my health care insurance.

... snip ... I'll take you up on your offer.

And you asked if I thought you were that stupid?

 

[Lurker]

So now Lurker is an advocate of free markets?

Sure. But that was not my point. My point was a refutation of your noting that Canadiens are coming to the US for health care. I showed that Americans are likewise heading north to Canada for healthcare.

 

[joobz]

And you asked if I thought you were that stupid?

Except that I would have more money in my pocket than you would.

Do you not understand that the US pays 16% GDP for health care.
The next highest is France at 11%.

So, if you consider saving money stupid, then by all means call me stupid.



ETA:
If you are going to visit me, make sure you give me some time. I'll use 14 of my 37 days (in france) to take you around. And While you are back working in the US (you only get 14 on average), I'll use my other 23 days to tour America.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922052.html

 

[BeAChooser]

Except that I would have more money in my pocket than you would.

LOL! Is joobz incapable of reading, folks?

He accepted my offer which said he would get the per capita GDP of one of the socialist paradises with UHC (say the UK, or France, or Germany) ... and I get the per capita GDP of the US.

That means he will make about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita ) $35,000 dollars next year if he lives in the UK, or $34,000 if he lives in France or Germany. While I'll make a little over $46,000. So I'm going to make $11,000 - $12,000 more in PPP dollars than him. And he says he'll have more money in his pocket.

Perhaps it's not a failure to read but an inability to do the math?

 

[Lurker]

LOL! Is joobz incapable of reading, folks?

He accepted my offer which said he would get the per capita GDP of one of the socialist paradises with UHC (say the UK, or France, or Germany) ... and I get the per capita GDP of the US.

That means he will make about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita ) $35,000 dollars next year if he lives in the UK, or $34,000 if he lives in France or Germany. While I'll make a little over $46,000. So I'm going to make $11,000 - $12,000 more in PPP dollars than him. And he says he'll have more money in his pocket.

Perhaps it's not a failure to read but an inability to do the math?

I'm not sure you are using this PPP properly. If I use your methodology, Luxembourg pays less for their health care and has an extra $30k to play around with. Norway pays far less than the US for their health care and walks away with an extra $25k in addition.

Is this the point you are trying to make? By the way, your cite says "As estimates and assumptions have to be made, the results produced by different organizations for the same country tend to differ, sometimes substantially. PPP figures are estimates rather than hard facts, and should be used with caution."

 

[joobz]

LOL! Is joobz incapable of reading, folks?

He accepted my offer which said he would get the per capita GDP of one of the socialist paradises with UHC (say the UK, or France, or Germany) ... and I get the per capita GDP of the US.

That means he will make about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita ) $35,000 dollars next year if he lives in the UK, or $34,000 if he lives in France or Germany. While I'll make a little over $46,000. So I'm going to make $11,000 - $12,000 more in PPP dollars than him. And he says he'll have more money in his pocket.

Perhaps it's not a failure to read but an inability to do the math?

Lurker addressed the primary point you are ignoring. But you are also ignoring the amounts that are actually money in hand and you haven't subtracted out the cost of health care in your earnings as well.
Add on top of that the vacation time available, and you start to see why I keep asking the same question:

Where is the example of a free market system that is cheaper/better at health care?

 

[BeAChooser]

you haven't subtracted out the cost of health care in your earnings as well.

Does joobz have trouble reading? I clearly stated in the offer he accepted that "using the delta in what I make to what you make AFTER paying twice as much for my health care insurance" I'd still have lots of money left over. Indeed, here are per capita health care expenditures by country in 2007:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

Note that the Americans (the US kind, not Americans in the way Obama keeps using the term) spent about $6100 on health care. While France spent only $3000. Subtracting the two, and then subtracting that result from the $12,000 delta in per capita GDP between France and the US, will leave me with $9,000 dollars to enjoy the wonders of France. On second thought, maybe I'd prefer to visit Greece and leave the crowded beaches in France to French people. Doubt I'll see joobz there on his salary.

 

[joobz]

Does joobz have trouble reading? I clearly stated in the offer he accepted that "using the delta in what I make to what you make AFTER paying twice as much for my health care insurance" I'd still have lots of money left over. Indeed, here are per capita health care expenditures by country in 2007:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

Note that the Americans (the US kind, not Americans in the way Obama keeps using the term) spent about $6100 on health care. While France spent only $3000. Subtracting the two, and then subtracting that result from the $12,000 delta in per capita GDP between France and the US, will leave me with $9,000 dollars to enjoy the wonders of France. On second thought, maybe I'd prefer to visit Greece and leave the crowded beaches in France to French people. Doubt I'll see joobz there on his salary.

14days vs. 37days vacation...
16%GDP health care vs. 11% or less
I have no problem getting paid less for higher quality of life.
But that's just me.


ETA: Although, note, that there are things that I think Europe could learn from the US. For instance, our educational system permits a much greater number of non-traditionals to enter into the program to obtain better quality of life later. That's a very strong program made possible through government support and Public Universities.

 

[jimbob]

Does joobz have trouble reading? I clearly stated in the offer he accepted that "using the delta in what I make to what you make AFTER paying twice as much for my health care insurance" I'd still have lots of money left over. Indeed, here are per capita health care expenditures by country in 2007:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

Note that the Americans (the US kind, not Americans in the way Obama keeps using the term) spent about $6100 on health care. While France spent only $3000. Subtracting the two, and then subtracting that result from the $12,000 delta in per capita GDP between France and the US, will leave me with $9,000 dollars to enjoy the wonders of France. On second thought, maybe I'd prefer to visit Greece and leave the crowded beaches in France to French people. Doubt I'll see joobz there on his salary.

Two points:

Firstly

This is the average per capita amount.

Healthcare is a type of insurance, most healthy people don't use it very often.

The correct question concerns what happens if you actually need to use the healthcare.

In the US the cost then rockets, remember that 75% of medical bankruptcies occur in people who had had medical insurance at the start of their illnesses (PDF).


In countries with universal systems, there is a financial strain, but not nearly so severe.
​

In other words, if you are simply comparing financial outcomes, the US system has higher premiums and also costs more if you need to use it.

It also systematically fails the most vulnerable, which I find distasteful, and which universal healthcare aims to avoid.

Secondly.

Quality of life is also important, and I would argue that the shorter lifespan in the US is indicative of (at least) less optimal spending of the wealth of the US.

 

[mhaze]

Two points:

Firstly

This is the average per capita amount.

Healthcare is a type of insurance, most healthy people don't use it very often.....

Actually, not, it is not a type of insurance, in the way that it is being discussed as a "right" or a "social service".

Insurance pays off for unusual risks. What Healthcare is like is all maintenance and repair on cars, all remodeling and improvements on houses, etc.

That ain't insurance.