The Wicked Witch of the West and Obamacare

[casebro]

I'm wondering if there is a commonality of UHC to national debt?

Sure, GB, Canada. much of Europe, charges less per capita than the US, but how is there national budget? Surplus or Debt?

Macro-Economics question- How much healthcare can a society afford? Are we all going bankrupt ? Or is it merely a growth sector with no downside?

 

[jj]

And the big lie goes on and on.

And, still, the USA is the only 1st world country who can't provide universal medical care.

Of course, given the level of acceptance of "creation science" and Tea Party tommyrot, we're on our way to 3rd world status really fast.

 

[casebro]

Ok, so we have a bunch of people who buy their own health care/insurance. And we have a bunch on a national plan- Medicare. And we have some who have neither, numbering some where between 11 M and 42M, depending on who's numbers you use. But most of the non-covered are the healthy young adults. So what percentage actually suffer from non-coverage, like dying of treatable problems without care ?

It looks to me that while we lack UHC, about 99% of use DO NOT NEED Obamacare.

Then, didn't Obama recently ummm void much of the Obamacare plan? No money to pay for it ?

 

[jhunter1163]

Note: My day job includes dealing with employee medical insurance policies on a daily basis. The following is my opinion, but it's an informed opinion.

I believe that medical insurance as we currently know it in the US will be with us for only a few more years (5 to 10 years, perhaps). The annual increases in costs are simply unsustainable. I believe that by about 2020 we will see an expansion of Medicare and/or Medicaid to cover the general public with a corresponding increase in the payroll tax to cover the cost (perhaps to 3% from the current 1.45%). The current Part B premium is around $110/month per person, and I expect that would remain the same. Still a damn sight cheaper than anything else out there.

 

[casebro]

Average per capita health care cost in the U.S. is about $8,000 per year. That averages out to , over a 75 year life span, $600,000 each.

Since 1960, our average life span has increased by 10 years. To me, that means that those extra ten years cost $60,000 per year. (QALY is the term used when figuring medical treatment costs/benefit). Average wage is $25,000 per year. (Oh yeah, wage earners get paid more, but children and the aged don't earn any) How much grandiose health care should we buy? Do you have $60,000 to the inevitable for one year? Should Uncle Sam (me) pay for that?

Macro economics, anybody?

 

[Unabogie]

Then, didn't Obama recently ummm void much of the Obamacare plan? No money to pay for it ?

No. Where do you get this nonsense anyway?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Oh, I could easily see Nancy dressed in black leather, all serious with a whip in hand (Or a giant gavel maybe), standing over some poor cowering underling...
Not that I'd want to, mind you, but I could see it.
Sounds a bit like an extra cheesy horror movie though, you know, like one you'd see on MST3K.

There's an SNL skit with a not to dissimilar premise.

 

[akama1]

I'm wondering if there is a commonality of UHC to national debt?

Sure, GB, Canada. much of Europe, charges less per capita than the US, but how is there national budget? Surplus or Debt?

Australia has both universal health care (Medicare) and PBS (subsidized drugs) and our debt is negligible (both major parties are arguing about who will get us out of debt faster). I do have private health ($50 a month) but that is to avoid tax increase after you earn a certain amount (over $70k a surplus is applied to the levy unless you have private, this keeps health care free for everyone, but puts pressure on those who can afford it to move to private) I'm still flabigasted a nation like the US has not got such a basic nessesity in place.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Average per capita health care cost in the U.S. is about $8,000 per year. That averages out to , over a 75 year life span, $600,000 each.

Since 1960, our average life span has increased by 10 years. To me, that means that those extra ten years cost $60,000 per year. (QALY is the term used when figuring medical treatment costs/benefit). Average wage is $25,000 per year. (Oh yeah, wage earners get paid more, but children and the aged don't earn any) How much grandiose health care should we buy? Do you have $60,000 to the inevitable for one year? Should Uncle Sam (me) pay for that?

Macro economics, anybody?

Macro economics are that either you let a lot of people die, or the expenses get paid somehow.
Macro economics are that most people need some amount of healthcare over a lifetime.
Macro economics are that you can choose between having insurance companies handle this, or the state. The cost is roughly the same, but it is a huge chunk of national economics, and it makes quite a bit of sense to have the state handle it.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ok, so we have a bunch of people who buy their own health care/insurance. And we have a bunch on a national plan- Medicare. And we have some who have neither, numbering some where between 11 M and 42M, depending on who's numbers you use. But most of the non-covered are the healthy young adults. So what percentage actually suffer from non-coverage, like dying of treatable problems without care ?

It looks to me that while we lack UHC, about 99% of use DO NOT NEED Obamacare.

That is, quite frankly, nonsense. Yes, you have some who pay for their own health insurance. Do you think they pay much less than you would have to pay for universal health care?

Healthy young adults tend to get older, you know. And a fair number suddenly stop being healthy even while young, mainly for reasons beyond their control. Wouldn't it be a bloody good idea the have all those healthy young adults pay some now, so they can get help when they need it? (And barring sudden death, they are ALL gonna need it, sooner or later)

Hans

 

[Robert Prey]

Just out of curiosity, Robert, why do you suppose most representative democracies have national healthcare plans, are happy with them and don't seem to be hemorrhaging doctors to the U.S.?

Many reasons. One, most people are not sick. A seemingly "free" system might seem to be worth the excessive taxes required -- until you have to use the system, and wait on line for months for an important procedure. Also, most representative democracies have most of their national defense needs in effect covered by Uncle Sucker allowing for more funds to go elsewhere. And they do hemorrhage doctors.

 

[Robert Prey]

I never understood how free healthcare could get American's knickers in such a knot. Why on earth would anybody NOT want free healthcare?

(Well, I can imagine some wealthy people not wanting to share their privileges with the masses, but I dare anybody to say that out loud.)

Hans

Milton Friedman postulated that "there is no free lunch". Obviously, that goes for heath care as well. Health care is never so expensive as when it is "free."

 

[Darat]

Many reasons. One, most people are not sick. A seemingly "free" system might seem to be worth the excessive taxes required -- until you have to use the system, and wait on line for months for an important procedure. Also, most representative democracies have most of their national defense needs in effect covered by Uncle Sucker allowing for more funds to go elsewhere. And they do hemorrhage doctors.

In the USA you pay around the same amount of tax to cover around half of the population as we do in the UK to cover all of the population. Where is the excessive tax?

 

[Kid Eager]

Milton Friedman postulated that "there is no free lunch". Obviously, that goes for heath care as well. Health care is never so expensive as when it is "free."

Ah, so that explains why your non-free costs are higher than the "free" ones then. Impeccable reverse logic there sir: you just made Milton Friedman cry.

 

[Kid Eager]

Many reasons. One, most people are not sick. A seemingly "free" system might seem to be worth the excessive taxes required -- until you have to use the system, and wait on line for months for an important procedure. Also, most representative democracies have most of their national defense needs in effect covered by Uncle Sucker allowing for more funds to go elsewhere. And they do hemorrhage doctors.

Most people are not sick most of the time under any health care system. Your logic lacks substance.

We don't have to wait in line for months for an important procedure.

Defence is a total non-sequiteur.

Next.

 

[Robert Prey]

In the USA you pay around the same amount of tax to cover around half of the population as we do in the UK to cover all of the population. Where is the excessive tax?

Well then congratulations. But I sure wouldn't like to pay your gas tax prices. And if things are so good, why is your current government making such draconian cuts in spending causing the rioting in the streets of your spoiled youth? And are people still dying in the corridors of your hospitals? Just curious.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Milton Friedman postulated that "there is no free lunch". Obviously, that goes for heath care as well. Health care is never so expensive as when it is "free."

Bah.

OK, seems I have to cut it out for you: Tax financed health care. (I thought that would have been clear, but apparently I overestimated some people)

No, there is no particular reason to think healthcare is more expensive when tax financed.

Hans

 

[jj]

But I sure wouldn't like to pay your gas tax prices.

Why is this relevant, other than to point out the USA is still remiss in dealing with energy policy?

And if things are so good, why is your current government making such draconian cuts in spending

Probably because, like everything else, the relaxation of banking rules in the USA that caused the bubble and now double-dip depression hurt the British economy. This, of course, holds a relationship only to economic policies that didn't workin 1920's either, but newer regulations that were removed in the USA, in order to allow the same kind of disaster that happened in 1929 to happen again, created this misery. It's just a cheap way to raid people's 501K's without getting arrested.

causing the rioting in the streets of your spoiled youth?

Now, have you any excuse for the obviously manipulative, obviously unsupportable, and emotionally laden rhetoric? In other words, I see what you did there, and your choice of words is a classic example of a false extrapolition.

And are people still dying in the corridors of your hospitals? Just curious.

Probably just like they are stilld ying in the corridors of many hospitals in NY, LA, SF, and throughout all of the depressed urban areas in the USA. The only difference is that their families won't be bankrupted after final medical care fails, as it will eventually for all of us.

 

[Darat]

Well then congratulations. But I sure wouldn't like to pay your gas tax prices. And if things are so good, why is your current government making such draconian cuts in spending causing the rioting in the streets of your spoiled youth? And are people still dying in the corridors of your hospitals? Just curious.

I did not make that claim.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Average per capita health care cost in the U.S. is about $8,000 per year. That averages out to , over a 75 year life span, $600,000 each.

Since 1960, our average life span has increased by 10 years. To me, that means that those extra ten years cost $60,000 per year. (QALY is the term used when figuring medical treatment costs/benefit). Average wage is $25,000 per year. (Oh yeah, wage earners get paid more, but children and the aged don't earn any) How much grandiose health care should we buy? Do you have $60,000 to the inevitable for one year? Should Uncle Sam (me) pay for that?

Macro economics, anybody?

Ah so we do need to kill off the elderly. Thank you for showing your desire to end Medicare. If only more conservatives could admit they needed to kill their base like that.