That is just the tax share percentage. There are no complete numbers on the costs of all the private insurance you would need to supplement the NHC to approach what is normally covered in the USA.
So, 6.3% is okay, 10% is okay, but 15% is appalling? And how many of the world's drugs, treats, and medical equipment create? And how much quicker do we get to see doctors for "elective" procedures? We could probably be at 10% if we could get the retarded government out of the equation, let people buy what they want, and let competition work...
No, that’s not what it says. In that case, the US government alone would be spending 15% of GDP on healthcare, in a healthcare system that’s mostly private. That doesn’t make any sense. The numbers cited represent total spending, public and private. But hey, let’s assume you’re right. Korea’s government spends 6.3% of GDP on healthcare, which the article suggests is 55% of all healthcare costs. That’s still 11.5% of GDP in total—less than what, as you interpret, the US government alone spends. Here’s a better source. Again, total expenditures: http://www.economist.com/node/16473122 It's especially appalling when you consider (a) the tens of millions of people that don’t benefit from it and (b) the horrible results we get from it: http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2011/03/healthcare_spending Yes, we develop awesome treatments for the rest of the world and only rich Americans to enjoy. Is that supposed to be an argument for the status quo?
Conservatives always talk about running government like a business. A smart business owner should be willing to consider a program that reduce costs and improve performance, but all someone has to do when it comes to healthcare is call single payer "socialism" and they crap their pants. Pay more, get less...some business you're running.
The things on your list are just dry statistics that may or may not have any meaning. Hospital beds per 1000 persons? Maybe we're better at out-patient procedures. Maybe we're able to turn-over patients in hospitals more quickly. Practicing doctors per 1000 persons? Maybe our doctors are more productive. It's interesting to note that for cancer and stroke, our outcomes are actually pretty good. Of course, the availability of MRI machines may have a lot to do with that. And considering we're "last" in obesity (which isn't a function of the health care system) that we're not last in heart disease. As I said, we could do better. We could open up competition so that more people could get health insurance. We could deregulate health plans so the states wouldn't dictate so much of what must be covered. Our technology and our treatment is very good--actually, the best in the world--and our responsiveness is, as the WHO ranked it, #1. We just need to find and eliminate the cost drivers in the system...most of which are put in place by a government that wants to "help" us...
It is none of the federal governments business Mickey. Last I checked the Constitution has nothing it identifying that as one of its powers.
As Diacanu mentioned (and did so correctly), some recognition and movement that things need to be fixed is a step in the right direction. But I would remind people, this problem with healthcare has been a long time coming, and the Republicans did have 6 years of the House and 4 years of the Senate to do something about it from 2000 - 2008. It's a little difficult to believe then, that now, all of a sudden, they are so interested in fixing the Health Care system, when they had several opportunities to do something but didn't. A lack of action had created a vacuum, and how can the public believe their motivations are genuine now, and not simply reactionary? I would also (on a note not specifically related to what you posted) remind that before Republicans get too excited, while Obamacare is fraught with problems....remember, Obamacare and mandate are not synonymous. Yes, Obama's Neo-Bolshevik harridan have so messed up the matter that the politics is all screwy now, but if there is a health tax (instead of a mandate) that is constitutional. Either get insurance, or pay the tax, and avoid Commerce Clause questions. Of course, Obama would never call it a tax, he is not really that straightforward. There are also other ways to ensure participation, such as point of contact enrollment.
How so when, for example, France (which I consider one of the world's major economies) does not have a single-payer system? Or are you just making that one up because it suits your ideology?
I'm actually a modified Minarchist, classical liberal, Constitutional conservative. For ease of conversation I'm a conservative.
Here's a brief excerpt on the French system that I found interesting. To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member. SAFETY NET But the french system is much more generous to its entire population than the U.S. is to its seniors. Unlike with Medicare, there are no deductibles, just modest co- payments that are dismissed for the chronically ill. Additionally, almost all French buy supplemental insurance, similar to Medigap, which reduces their out-of-pocket costs and covers extra expenses such as private hospital rooms, eyeglasses, and dental care. In France, the sicker you get, the less you pay. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and critical surgeries, such as a coronary bypass, are reimbursed at 100%. Cancer patients are treated free of charge. Patients suffering from colon cancer, for instance, can receive Genentech Inc.'s (DNA ) Avastin without charge. In the U.S., a patient may pay $48,000 a year. LINK Interesting comparison to Medicare. Overall it sounds even more convoluted than Obamacare, but hey if the French (and American expatriates) like it, fine by me.
Are you saying we should go further than a single-payer system, and just have retirement, medical, unemployment, et al, lumped together in one package, not separate from the rest of the government's budget? After all, the French system is often considered the finest in the world. The difference between the French, and (for example) the British system is rather trivial to this debate. But on that note, I found this Men's Health article interesting. http://www.menshealth.com/health/america-health-care-crisis
Albert's right. We DO NOT have free market health care. The standards were set by Medicaid and Medicare years ago...which is at the heart of a lot of the current problems.
So...you're just going to ignore all of the evidence provided to the contrary, and not even bother with the request that you back up your own several claims. Rightie-forge may accept what they want to hear at face value. Anyone objective does not.
Mike, does the French government has the same type of Constitution that the US has (One that defines the limits of power the government has over its states and people)?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that people, fundamentally, don't have a preference for how their health care bills get paid. They just want them paid. They can look at the mess that's been made of the system, though, and know that it needs an overhaul without everyone having to stick their tongues in the eletric socket of government single payer. Anyone that's been paying attention for the past half-century has seen the failure of that in the U.S. and doesn't want it expanded.
And make things up to suit yourself, it seems. People have been asked what they think, and while the data may be confusing at times, you cannot choose to ignore it and decide that something else is the case.
That post was for information only, so that anyone who wants to compare the systems might know what they're talking about. If you want to know about the French Constitution, there's this thing called "Google". Give it a try.
You are well known to interpret things to suit yourself. Bills getting paid is something people identify with all over. It's hardly me going out on a limb to say that someone "just wants a bill paid" in preference to how it gets paid. Unless, of course, they're rich socialists and really want to see their sociieties collapse. But you wouldn't identify with that at all, would you?
Again, people have been asked their preferences, and have answered. This data is relevant. Your musings about what they should think based on your own intuition and your (heaviliy ideological) reading of the past half-century is not.
Poor, poor Rick. You're actually trolling the bottom of the relevancy meter with this one and the biased source.
I love how you Fascists think everyone else lies because you do. I knew nothing about the French system, looked it up, found something interesting and shared it. Nice how you lash out at someone delivering information, even information that could back your viewpoint...
That's a lot of words to use to say: "Jacques needs to see a doctor. Jacques can't afford to see a doctor so you need to pay his doctor bill." How about if I'm responsible for my doctor bill and Jacques can be responsible for his? If Jacques can't afford a doctor that is his problem and not mine. And what happens when I need to see a doctor, but my money went to pay for Jacques doctor? "No problem, we'll find someone else that has money."? What happens when you run out of other people's money?
