What's that work out to per capita? And how does, say, Ontario compare? (For that matter, what's the per capita US govt. spending on the VA, and per capita private spending (personal and employer-paid) for health care in the US that's not handled by Medicaid and VA?)
Based on what I've heard so far (note sampling bias: a bunch of what I know comes from friends in ON) something close to the Canadian model seems most appealling, but if the numbers you have lying around pertain to the UK, they're still interesting data. I'd just find the data more meaningful for purposes of comparison if the apples and oranges were labelled as such so we'd be able to tell what we're comparing.
(Ifwhen I decide to get really seriously into understanding this topic in depth, I'll need to go STFW for life expectancy data, infant mortality, degree of disparity of QoL and life expectancy betwen poor and wealthy citizens in various countries, and underlying environmental factors affecting both health problems needing treatment and cost of providing treatment (e.g. remote areas not connected to anywhere else by roads vs. urban centers where a lot of high-tech resources can be assembled and get steady -- thus economical -- use by a large local population). Right now I mostly just know that we're not handling health care as well as we ought and that some other places have found ways to do it better.)
Well, for a comparison, the NHS in the UK covers about ~60million people for 40 Billion dollars a year. Medicare and Medicaid combined spend better than 500 Billion dollars a year, cover fewer people and less care. If you assume that Medicare and Medicaid cover 10% of the population, and their coverage is acceptable, we'd only have to spend 4 Trillion dollars a year. For comparison the total income of the Federal government in 2006 or 2007 (probably 2006) was 2.1 Trillion. Getting the idea yet, or do I need an even bigger cluehammer?
See, if you'd stated it in per capita terms to begin with we could've saved a step here, and probably reduced the peevishness as well. So okay, the UK NHS model doesn't look like it would scale well to the US. How about the Canadian model? (There is, of course, the question of whether the costs scale linearly or not, but since that can cut both ways and I currently lack the economics background to figure out which way it bends if it bends, I'll accept an assumption of linear scaling for a first-look comparison.)
While I am utterly convinced that Something Needs To Be Done, I'm not advocating a foolhardy rush to Just Do Anything. At the same time, I remain very hopeful that there is at least one Right Answer.
The big fear I have is that the insurance industry (and the number of jobs it represents) will have enough political clout to be an obstacle to fruitful change, and may take advantage of a Just Do Anything mindset to push through changes that do make things worse. But I do not think that outcome is a foregone conclusion, nor that attempts to fix the problem are inherently doomed for other reasons, nor that it is just or wise or safe to Do Nothing and leave the current setup in place intact and unmodified.
So far you've only convincingly demonstrated that we could possibly do worse (which I already knew), not that we can do no better.
Medicare alone covers 40 million people (that's more than 13%). Also it only covers the elderly, the disabled, and people with End-Stage Renal Disease. In other words, the most expensive 13% of the population, maybe by an order of magnitude.
Maybe you should put that cluehammer back before you hurt yourself.
Well, if you want to be picky about math let me be a little more careful about my numbers. 295b + 250b = 545b 545b / 13 = 41.9b 41.9b * 100b = 4190b Lets cut this in half to account for other factors. 2 Trillion. A "meer" 95% of the federal budget.
I'm not being picky about the math. You're assuming that young, healthy Americans will have exactly the same medical expenses that the old or disabled ones currently on Medicare do. And that's simply not true.
(no subject)
Based on what I've heard so far (note sampling bias: a bunch of what I know comes from friends in ON) something close to the Canadian model seems most appealling, but if the numbers you have lying around pertain to the UK, they're still interesting data. I'd just find the data more meaningful for purposes of comparison if the apples and oranges were labelled as such so we'd be able to tell what we're comparing.
(Ifwhen I decide to get really seriously into understanding this topic in depth, I'll need to go STFW for life expectancy data, infant mortality, degree of disparity of QoL and life expectancy betwen poor and wealthy citizens in various countries, and underlying environmental factors affecting both health problems needing treatment and cost of providing treatment (e.g. remote areas not connected to anywhere else by roads vs. urban centers where a lot of high-tech resources can be assembled and get steady -- thus economical -- use by a large local population). Right now I mostly just know that we're not handling health care as well as we ought and that some other places have found ways to do it better.)
(no subject)
Getting the idea yet, or do I need an even bigger cluehammer?
(no subject)
While I am utterly convinced that Something Needs To Be Done, I'm not advocating a foolhardy rush to Just Do Anything. At the same time, I remain very hopeful that there is at least one Right Answer.
The big fear I have is that the insurance industry (and the number of jobs it represents) will have enough political clout to be an obstacle to fruitful change, and may take advantage of a Just Do Anything mindset to push through changes that do make things worse. But I do not think that outcome is a foregone conclusion, nor that attempts to fix the problem are inherently doomed for other reasons, nor that it is just or wise or safe to Do Nothing and leave the current setup in place intact and unmodified.
So far you've only convincingly demonstrated that we could possibly do worse (which I already knew), not that we can do no better.
(no subject)
Medicare alone covers 40 million people (that's more than 13%). Also it only covers the elderly, the disabled, and people with End-Stage Renal Disease. In other words, the most expensive 13% of the population, maybe by an order of magnitude.
Maybe you should put that cluehammer back before you hurt yourself.
(no subject)
295b + 250b = 545b
545b / 13 = 41.9b
41.9b * 100b = 4190b
Lets cut this in half to account for other factors.
2 Trillion. A "meer" 95% of the federal budget.
(no subject)