Apparently, Brits angry with right-wing Americans' lies and distortions of health care

[Kuciwalker]

Also, you post in far more US politics threads than CanPol threads.

[KrazyHorse]

CanPol is boring lately. No real discussions going on. US pol has been shaken up. Big econ ideas on the table.

[Jon Miller]

I might misunderstand the numbers, my understanding is that per capita they spend 1/2 of what we spend (% wise of income).

Also, my understanding is that only 2/3 of Americans are covered.

So to cover all Americans we would have to spend 3x what they do (% wise of income).

If they spent that much, the problems due to lack of funding would disappear.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

a) It's more like 5/6 have coverage in the US
b) US spending as a percent of GDP is close to, but not quite twice (9.4% vs 17% in 2006)
c) People who aren't covered STILL RECEIVE CARE. Sometimes out of pocket. Sometimes emergency room. Some who aren't covered are actually eligible for Medicare/Medicaid and are just waiting until they get sick in order to apply for coverage. Yadda yadda yadda
d) Those who aren't covered CANNOT simply be accounted for by scaling costs. For example, most/all seniors are covered, and their costs are FAR in excess of the average. Many of the uninsured are 20somethings in good health willing to play the lottery a little bit.

[Jon Miller]

I would still suggest that my conclusion is correct, even if some of my estimates were wrong.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

What conclusion? The 3X figure? That's blatantly wrong.

[KrazyHorse]

Also, your figures once more completely neglect the effect of shadow health care spending on education, as we discussed previously. In the US that spending is already mostly reflected in the cost of care. In the UK it is not.

[Jon Miller]

If they spent that (as much as we would to cover all our population) much, the problems due to lack of funding would disappear.

The 3x figure was incidental. 2x would be more than enough, 3x was just a next order correction based on (somewhat) faulty estimates.

While we agreed that the education costs were significant, and greater than the costs due to insurance for the doctors, I don't think it was coming anywhere near to 1/2 of our health expenditures.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

If they spent that (as much as we would to cover all our population) much, the problems due to lack of funding would disappear.

This presupposes a couple of things:

1) That the problems are due to lack of funding
2) That the cost of care would not increase dramatically as spending was ramped up. A shift in the demand curve up and to the right (due to increased gov't spending) increases both the quantity supplied as well as the cost per unit.

[Asher]

Also, you post in far more US politics threads than CanPol threads.

CanPol threads are stagnant. Nothing happening yet til the presumably impromptu fall election.

[Jon Miller]

If they spent that (as much as we would to cover all our population) much, the problems due to lack of funding would disappear.

This presupposes a couple of things:

1) That the problems are due to lack of funding
2) That the cost of care would not increase dramatically as spending was ramped up. A shift in the demand curve up and to the right (due to increased gov't spending) increases both the quantity supplied as well as the cost per unit.

People refer to the main problems as dirty bathrooms and (very) old equipment. This seems to me to be funding problems. I am not talking about using the newest and best, but there is a big difference between 5 years-old, 10 years-old, and 30 years-old (for example). Just a general update program can do a lot (but requires funding).

I am not sure why many of the things mentioned in MikeH's article would cause an increase in the cost per unit. I mean, they are things already provided a lot to other employers, and having the medical community purchasing a few more wouldn't do anything to increase the cost per unit, since the raw goods aren't scarce.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

People refer to the main problems as dirty bathrooms and (very) old equipment.

Which people?

By the way, now you're entering into the realm of what, exactly, each system does well and badly. I'm not sure this is going to be an easy task, Jon.

[notyoueither]

And if only there were actually pots of gold at the end of rainbows...

I have my starry eyed moments.

[notyoueither]

Really? How?

There is a lot of information coming out, or given greater exposure, that the media here would either never know about or completely ignore normally.

The flap regarding the British NHS is a good example. The PBS series on healthcare around the world is another. Maybe it will get some people who have influence here to begin to look outside the regularly scheduled box.

Healthcare reform in Canada is the political third rail. It has been either what we have, just more money by the bucket, please, or those barbaric Yanks as the alternative. No other choices are ever seriously examined (or very seldomly).

Just having your debate is helpful, in my mind.

[Kuciwalker]

Healthcare reform in Canada is the political third rail.

Not just in Canada, apparently.