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

[BeAChooser]

14days vs. 37days vacation

Yeah, all of which you'll spend on those crowded, rocky French beaches rather than on America's glorious, sandy, relatively uncrowded California beaches … all because you made a trade … $12,000 less per capita GDP for $3000 in lower health care costs. Leave it to the French.

Oh … you want to know another part of that tradeoff? The average size of homes you French can afford, when you're not at the beach, compared to those in the US. According to http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070523/WIRE/705230320/-1/news , American homes, on average, are nearly twice as large as those in Europe. In fact, apparently only tiny Luxembourg comes close, with average homes that are (wow!) three-quarters the size of those in the US.

Want more tradeoffs?

16%GDP health care vs. 11% or less

A difference of 5%. Yet the per capita GDP in the US is 35% higher than in France. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs.

I have no problem getting paid less for higher quality of life.

And how is quality of life measured?

By how happy the citizens are on average?

Let's see … here's a very recent study by the OECD (so it shouldn't be biased towards Americans) that ranks various societies on the basis of various indicators. Let's look at the "life satisfaction" indicator, which seems to me akin to "happiness". The US comes in 11th in the ranking of 140 countries with a life satisfaction index of about 8.3 while France comes in 14th with an index of only about 8. So not only do the French get paid less but in terms of "life satisfaction" they score lower. How about work satisfaction? The US comes in 8th. France comes in 19th.

Here's another study on happiness that ranks various countries. http://www.thehappinessshow.com/HappiestCountries.htm . The US ranks 15th. France ranks 25th.

If you aren't as happy, on average, as we are, why do you say your quality of life is better?

 

[BeAChooser]

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

LOL! You got that from the same source (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5530Y020090604 ) that claimed medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of US personal bankruptcies. Problem is that both claims are false.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/25/2/w74.pdf

David Himmelstein and colleagues recently contended that medical problems contribute to 54.5 percent of personal bankruptcies and threaten the solvency of solidly middle-class Americans. They propose comprehensive national health insurance as a solution. A reexamination of their data suggests that medical bills are a contributing factor in just 17 percent of personal bankruptcies and that those affected tend to have incomes closer to poverty level than to middle class.

Quality of life is also important, and I would argue that the shorter lifespan in the US

Are you sure the US lifespan is lower or are you only looking at statistics where other effects that have nothing to do with the quantity and quality of healthcare haven't been accounted for? Turns out that if you do account for those factors, the US life expectancy is actually higher than in most other countries.

http://papers.nber.org/papers/w15213#fromrss

Low Life Expectancy in the United States: Is the Health Care System at Fault?

Samuel H. Preston, Jessica Y. Ho
NBER Working Paper No. 15213‚ Issued in August 2009

... snip ...

Life expectancy in the United States fares poorly in international comparisons, primarily because of high mortality rates above age 50. Its low ranking is often blamed on a poor performance by the health care system rather than on behavioral or social factors. This paper presents evidence on the relative performance of the US health care system using death avoidance as the sole criterion. We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

Americans live 75.3 years on average, fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the French (76.6) or the citizens of any Western European nation save Portugal. Health care influences life expectancy, of course. But a life can end because of a murder, a fall, or a car accident. Such factors aren’t academic—homicide rates in the United States are much higher than in other countries (eight times higher than in France, for instance). In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don’t die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.

 

[joobz]

Yeah, all of which you'll spend on those crowded, rocky French beaches rather than on America's glorious, sandy, relatively uncrowded California beaches … all because you made a trade … $12,000 less per capita GDP for $3000 in lower health care costs. Leave it to the French.

Oh … you want to know another part of that tradeoff? The average size of homes you French can afford, when you're not at the beach, compared to those in the US. According to http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070523/WIRE/705230320/-1/news , American homes, on average, are nearly twice as large as those in Europe. In fact, apparently only tiny Luxembourg comes close, with average homes that are (wow!) three-quarters the size of those in the US.

Size of house makes one happier? Interesting world you live in. No wonder why other nations view us Americans as materialistic.

 

[mhaze]

Size of house makes one happier? Interesting world you live in. No wonder why other nations view us Americans as materialistic.

Yes, it is an interesting world. It's a world in which those Americans who are not overly materialistic can buy that house that fits their needs and pay it off easily and quickly, while the French who buys the house that fits their needs are suckered into longer term chains and shackles of debt.

I certainly do consider that a fundamental part of what might make one happier.

 

[joobz]

Size of house makes one happier? Interesting world you live in. No wonder why other nations view us Americans as materialistic.

Yes, it is an interesting world. It's a world in which those Americans who are not overly materialistic can buy that house that fits their needs and pay it off easily and quickly, while the French who buys the house that fits their needs are suckered into longer term chains and shackles of debt.

I certainly do consider that a fundamental part of what might make one happier.

If you say so. Although I find it an extremely Ironic argument considering the primary cause of the financial disaster of 2008 was precipitated by thousands of AMERICAN families suckered into larger homes and shackled with debt they couldn't afford.

 

[BeAChooser]

Size of house makes one happier?

Absolutely. And so do larger hotel rooms ... you know ... the kind you rent when you go on vacation. One thing that is always disappointing about visits to France and Europe are the accommodations. Your hotel rooms are just as expensive as the much bigger rooms with much better amenities that one routinely encounters in the US. Go figure.

 

[jimbob]

Are you sure the US lifespan is lower or are you only looking at statistics where other effects that have nothing to do with the quantity and quality of healthcare haven't been accounted for? Turns out that if you do account for those factors, the US life expectancy is actually higher than in most other countries.

You missed my point:

You are proclaiming the economic performance more than compensates for more expensive healthcare.

I would argue that life expectancy (from all causes) is a better proxy measure of economic well-being, on the grounds that people would tend to spend whatever they can to prolong their life.

If the deaths come from guns guns, then that is still a death, and a society where fewer people are maimed or die violently could be considered more wealthy.

Anyway, gun deaths only account for about 25% of excess mortality:

I have found one estimation, in what seems like an appropriate journal.

Thank for for your research.

"The United States thus suffers from a life expectancy gap of 1.7 years."

Now add 1.7 years to your previous stats and tell me were we are.



Keep in mind that this is only one factor to be considered.

"These deaths account for 26.86 percent of the U.S. males' excess mortality when compared to peer nations, and 8.7 percent of the racial gap between black and white males in the United States."

So, yes Jerome, it is significant, but only explains about a quarter of the difference between the US and the other thirty-four other richest countries.


In fact I am surprised at the magnitude of the effect, but it still leaves 74% unexplained by gun-deaths.

 

[jimbob]

BeAchooser,

I have been in email correspondence with one of the author of the study I was referring to, Deborah Thorn:

http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

And she states that this is (as of September 2009) is probably the most accurate:

As far as other studies re: medical bankruptcies, ours is probably the most accurate, since others tend to rely only on the court records, which do not accurately report medical debt--for example, when a debtor puts a medical bill on a credit card (which is pretty common on this side of the Atlantic), it is considered a credit card debt, rather than the medical debt that it actually is.

If you look at the figures, you see that the mean medical bills are similar to the mean annual income for the group defined as medical bankruptcies. This is not insignificant.

Unfortunately I don't have access to the median figures, which I would prefer.

 

[joobz]

I find it an extremely Ironic argument considering the primary cause of the financial disaster of 2008 was precipitated by thousands of AMERICAN families suckered into larger homes and shackled with debt they couldn't afford.

Absolutely. And so do larger hotel rooms ... you know ... the kind you rent when you go on vacation. One thing that is always disappointing about visits to France and Europe are the accommodations. Your hotel rooms are just as expensive as the much bigger rooms with much better amenities that one routinely encounters in the US. Go figure.

I do not know what your point is, but you certainly are demonstrating a solid case for why Free market without regulation causes problems.

 

[joobz]

BeAchooser,

I have been in email correspondence with one of the author of the study I was referring to, Deborah Thorn:

http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

And she states that this is (as of September 2009) is probably the most accurate:



If you look at the figures, you see that the mean medical bills are similar to the mean annual income for the group defined as medical bankruptcies. This is not insignificant.

Unfortunately I don't have access to the median figures, which I would prefer.

From your article, I found this to be especially troubling

Many families with continuous coverage found themselves under-insured, responsible for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Others had private coverage but lost it when they became too sick to work. Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year.6 Income loss due to illness also was common, but nearly always coupled with high medical bills.

It seems strange. Here we have a health care system that costs 16% GDP, but still results in an under insured population.

 

[mhaze]

If you say so. Although I find it an extremely Ironic argument considering the primary cause of the financial disaster of 2008 was precipitated by thousands of AMERICAN families suckered into larger homes and shackled with debt they couldn't afford.

It may well be ironic, that I would agree. But that doesn't have much to do with the question or the answer.

Further the nature of the 2008 bubble was, yes, financial instruments related to housing - but it could have as well been tulips....or carbon credits.

 

[joobz]

It may well be ironic, that I would agree. But that doesn't have much to do with the question or the answer.

But it does relate. the same stressor that prevents unregulated markets from ever being viable is the same stressor that has made our healthcare system too costly....greed.

Further the nature of the 2008 bubble was, yes, financial instruments related to housing - but it could have as well been tulips....or carbon credits.

I agree.

 

[BeAChooser]

you certainly are demonstrating a solid case for why Free market without regulation

Who has suggested NO regulation of the Free Market? Certainly not me. This must be what they call a Strawman.

 

[joobz]

Who has suggested NO regulation of the Free Market? Certainly not me. This must be what they call a Strawman.

Then why are you against a national plan that could compete with private companies?
Then why do you argue that government is inefficient?
Then why do you claim that everything(except Military) should be private?

 

[mhaze]

Then why are you against a national plan that could compete with private companies?
Then why do you argue that government is inefficient?
Then why do you claim that everything(except Military) should be private?

I think if you simply tested your utopian health care scheme in a state for five years, and then had some level of success, some of us would be less skeptical about it. It'd still be unconstitutional, but granted a lot of people don't care about that. But you are pushing a really untested and unproven scheme.

As some have pointed out, for every example that you can point to in another country of national health care "success" we can point to rather horrible failures. And you don't have any testbed states to point to.

Under those circumstances, to argue for forcing everyone into your scheme is ...well, it's ridiculous on a practical or business like level.

Believe me I do understand that it is not "ridiculous" from the progressive point of view of striving to create the "perfect utopia".

 

[tyr_13]

I think if you simply tested your utopian health care scheme in a state for five years, and then had some level of success, some of us would be less skeptical about it.

Done.

Hawaii for the last forty years.

Next?

 

[joobz]

It was in this thread, I believe, where BAC presented arguments showing Canadians entering america for healthcare and that this was somehow a strike against the canadian System.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"

Ironic? More like Hypocritical.

 

[BeAChooser]

Ironic? More like Hypocritical.

Joobz ... you liberals just spent months and months claiming that Palin is stupid. Now you're claiming she wasn't?

 

[joobz]

Joobz ... you liberals just spent months and months claiming that Palin is stupid. Now you're claiming she wasn't?

Nice dodge. When you don't have an honest response, this is what you provide. It would have been better for you had you just ignored this thread.

 

[BeAChooser]

When you don't have an honest response, this is what you provide. It would have been better for you had you just ignored this thread.

LOL! Joobz, why call Palin a hypocrite? Note that her full statement was this:

“My first five years of life we spent in Skagway, Alaska, right there by Whitehorse. Believe it or not – this was in the ’60s – we used to hustle on over the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember my brother, he burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing and my parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse and I think, isn’t that kind of ironic now. Zooming over the border, getting health care from Canada.”

So, first, it was Palin's parents, not Palin, who were making the decisions. So there could be no hypocrisy on her part. And second, socialized medicine only came to the Yukon in 1972 (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/pubs/system-regime/2005-hcs-sss/time-chron-eng.php ). Palin's parents were being good consumers in what was basically a private sector market. No hypocrisy there either.

So if anyone is being dishonest here, it would appear to have been you.