We Don't Spend Enough on Health Care

We Don't Spend Enough on Health Care

online.wsj.com

Americans are being urged to worry about the nation spending 17% of its gross domestic product each year on health care—a higher percentage than any other country. Addressing the American Medical Association in June, Barack Obama said, "Make no mistake: The cost of our health care is a threat to our economy." But the president is mistaken. Japan spends 8% of its GDP on health care—the same as Zimbabwe. South Korea and Haiti both spend 6%. Monaco spends 5%, which is what Afghanistan spends. Do all of these countries have economies that are less "threatened" than that of the U.S.?

No.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is a completely different perspective to the healthcare debate, and one I never really thought about. He cites a group of economists that say that:

"Viewed from every angle, our results support the proposition that both historical and future increases in the health spending share are desirable. . . . [W]e believe it likely that maximizing social welfare in the United States will require the development of institutions that are consistent with spending 30 percent or more of GDP on health by the middle of the century."

Note that this doesn't mean we can't reform healthcare or have health savings accounts to help people with the costs...but the article does raise an interesting question...who's to say when we spend too much on something in the private sector?

online.wsj.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 17-8-2009 by yellowcard]

Originally posted by yellowcard

Note that this doesn't mean we can't reform healthcare or have health savings accounts to help people with the costs...but the article does raise an interesting question...who's to say when we spend too much on something in the private sector?

Anyone who has been in the hospital and has been charged 22 dollars for an aspirin.

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by yellowcard

Note that this doesn't mean we can't reform healthcare or have health savings accounts to help people with the costs...but the article does raise an interesting question...who's to say when we spend too much on something in the private sector?

Anyone who has been in the hospital and has been charged 22 dollars for an aspirin.

Where does that money go though, why is that cost so high, and what is governments role in it. I think most money is spent on bureaucracy in the middle men, I think healthcare costs can be lowered and I have ideas of how they can be lowered, and I don't agree with the article entirely...but it is a different view on things that I think needs to be addressed in the healthcare debate. We have countless examples of "gouging" we spend 5 dollars for a drink at the movies when we could buy it for 50 cents at a gas station, but that's where most of their profit comes from and the theater would be in disarray without that....so does government then need to reform theaters?

[edit on 17-8-2009 by yellowcard]

Going to a movie compared to healthcare is like comparing an apple to a hand grenade.

The private sector includes lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers who reap huge benefits win or lose in healthcare lawsuits. Want to reduce healthcare? Look into the percentage of healthcare that has nothing to do with care and everything to do with greed.

380 Billion on medicare/medicaid, 8 trillion on prescription drugs, and 39 trillion on liabilities is plenty enough spent. If they want more, find ways to cut their own costs. Don't ask for more money to waste.

Originally posted by badgerprints
Going to a movie compared to healthcare is like comparing an apple to a hand grenade.

The private sector includes lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers who reap huge benefits win or lose in healthcare lawsuits. Want to reduce healthcare? Look into the percentage of healthcare that has nothing to do with care and everything to do with greed.

It's not a far fetched comparison, just because one is a need and one is a want doesn't' mean that both don't involve price gouging for reason to keep up facilities. Most hospitals go bankrupt, fact.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by yellowcard]

Originally posted by Gorman91
380 Billion on medicare/medicaid, 8 trillion on prescription drugs, and 39 trillion on liabilities is plenty enough spent. If they want more, find ways to cut their own costs. Don't ask for more money to waste.

I think everyone that has posted so far is misinterpreting the article, the article doesn't propose waste, it is suggesting that there is a social optimum of health care spending and we might not have reached that level...and that could very well be behind the rise in costs, that doesn't mean that costs (for certain procedures etc) can't be shifted, lowered, etc...it only suggests that as health care spending increases so may economic welfare. It's not exactly Econ 101, but in my studies of economics it is a more advanced concept, I majored in Econ, not that my major gives me authority on the subject...I'm just saying that in upper division economics classes such ideas are discussed.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by yellowcard]

Doesn't most of that money we spend on healthcare get recycled back into the economy via paychecks, taxes, and investments?

At least that is what I understand the article to be saying.

So how is bad for the economy if we are keeping most of the money in the US?

or am I reading the article wrong?

reply to post by yellowcard


I agree. But to find this optimum, waste and corruption an bureaucratic BS must be eliminated first. Then the figure will lower, allowing expansion.

this is a rather hard hitting thread, very groovy.

but im gonna have to throw out the fact that lawyers aren't going any were. if this encourages people to go to the doctor more often, live longer and reproduce more. then theres going to be a even greater boom for the need of new lawyers to fill the demand.

why? cuz "stuff" happens. some ones gonna die when it could have been prevented. a lawyer will draft a form making the deceased ineligible to sue for malpractice. another lawyer will be hired to attack the document and soon enough two teams of the leaching bastards will spend god knows how long bantering in a legal dispute.

thats justice. thats what we want. that expensive asprin helps alleviate that unfortunate necessity. but you could also say "that expensive asprin is for pussys!" and bite your thumb.

but im just gonna cut my rant short. this tax funded health care stuff is just a big bandaid on a mortal wound that is are public education. district segregated public school is a far bigger problem and a lot harder to fix. its also a cause of most of are nations serious health issues.

for a quick example: stretching. a well rounded stretching routine with proper diet can eliminate most back and joint issues in later life. but most schools have little or no program to teach proper stretching in physical education classes.

the end result? these ignorant kids will grow up, fall apart and rely on this ungainly state health care to put em back together with no lesson learned. in the end its the masses that will suffer.

but to drive it home, if people faced the fact they should have gone to the doctor and budget for health care 10 years ago. they could have nipped a small problem at the onset rather then letting it balloon in to a far more costly problem today. but whats that? you want me to pay for your pain killers... ill do that when theres equal education opportunity. so thats never.

so much for cutting my rant short. well, the noise is when we as a collective mass start caring about serious problems and not just what politicians "decide" to make a hot topic of, we as a country will start to heal. so thats also never.

to quote "wag the dog": "your playing with your life now."



XP

I read some articles by economists that said we would have to have national healthcare to actually make medicaid more affordbale. I think it would also benefit and keep SS too but I can't remember now.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by nixie_nox]

Originally posted by yellowcard

Originally posted by badgerprints
Going to a movie compared to healthcare is like comparing an apple to a hand grenade.

The private sector includes lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers who reap huge benefits win or lose in healthcare lawsuits. Want to reduce healthcare? Look into the percentage of healthcare that has nothing to do with care and everything to do with greed.

It's not a far fetched comparison, just because one is a need and one is a want doesn't' mean that both don't involve price gouging for reason to keep up facilities. Most hospitals go bankrupt, fact.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by yellowcard]

Well, the difference is that it is YOUR choice to buy a coke, whether at the store or theater. In the hospital, you have no choice. They think you need an aspirin, or whatever, you get it, whether your really need it or not.

I think one reason they do it is because they can! Most folks don't REALLY look at their bills, then call the dr. or hospital and ask about a charge they don't understand. My mom was charged $15 for a TOOTHBRUSH, $150 for one of those vomit tubs, and $25 for a box of freaking kleenex. They didn't callthem toothbrushes, kleenex or vomit tubs on the bills. Can't remember the terms they used, something that left the impression that it is some kind of a test or something. My mom didn't remember those particular tests, so she called and asked them about it and was transferred to several people before she ever got a straight answer.

Alot of times it is just out and out FRAUD!