10 ms·

We are way, way above the amount of money health care should cost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.

We are way, way above the amount of money health care should cost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-... So as a matter of priority versus other spending outlays, we're way out of line. Here's per capita GDP: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=per+capita+GDP http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=per+capita+GDP Spitballing from these numbers, it looks like we spend about as much in absolute terms as Switzerland, with everyone else way, way far behind. Here's another interesting graph, since I seem to be on a roll here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/medicare-and-medicaid-are-big/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/medicare-and-med... The degree to which our government is in the red is in no small part a result of the degree to which we're invested in the health care money pit. The amount of money that is going to health care should blow your mind. People go bankrupt every day due to health care expenses, and even if you don't go bankrupt your tax dollars are supporting this nonsense. I was talking to a gentleman the other day who works for a medical hardware company. He said they had a radiation treatment device that costs one hundred million dollars. A tenth of a billion dollars for one machine! "Jeez," I said, "How long does it take to pay off such a thing?" About a year. There is, of course, a debate on how to fix health care. Is there really a debate on whether it's broken?

Groxx 16y ago
Nope, I'm pretty sure everyone agrees it's broken. And just to re-clarify: I'm not claiming we're not paying too much. I agree with everything you've said. Just that $50-100/month is un-doably low regardless of brokenness. I'll be reading through the links, I can always use more detailed info for future debates. Thanks! edit for repliers: before stating that location X has 100 or less per month, how much do your taxes cost for this? That counts too, ya know.
- cwp 16y ago
  No, it's not. I pay $120/month for a family of three, and get pretty good care for it. I know that smug Canadians are a cliche in any discussion of health care, but we are an existence proof that acabal's expectations are totally reasonable.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    How much of that is subsidized by your taxes? That counts towards the final cost. Spreading it out doesn't make it less real. edit: answered for you: >In 2009, the government funded about 70% of Canadians' health care costs. >Per capita expenditure in 2009: 3,895 $227 per month, per person, comes from the government, which gets its funding from your taxes. So you're paying $801/month for that plan (three people). Significantly less than many Americans, there's no debating that, but $120/month isn't anywhere near correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
    - billjings 16y ago
      Two points - one, is that odds are he's not paying $807/mo out of his taxes due to a progressive income tax. He's probably paying a good portion out of his taxes, but not $807/mo. Point two - and this isn't a rebuttal of any kind against your claims, just an observation - that same graph shows that Canada spends a lower portion of government revenue on health care than we do. And we don't even have universal coverage!
      - Vivtek 16y ago
        The takeaway - you're actually paying for what should be your healthcare in your taxes as an American, but you're not actually getting the healthcare, because that would be socialism.
        Groxx 16y ago
        >that would be socialism. That is a massively incorrect statement, which pops up every time government-mandated healthcare debates appear, which I wish to squash ASAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Universal healthcare != socialism. Not even remotely. It's a political mud-slinging attempt to equate healthcare changes with the historical fear of the USSR that seems to have infected far more people than it should even have reached. Yes, fear the Reds, they'll lob bombs at you now that the cold war is over. They've just been waiting. At the absolute closest would be if the government were to run all the healthcare directly (it's not - there are and will be many private healthcare markets), and then it would be a socialist action, not socialism (a socialist government). To make matters worse for this use, any form of taxation can be described as a socialist action. That doesn't make any government that taxes its citizens a socialist government.
- nerfhammer 16y ago
  Check out how much private insurance costs in Australia: http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/dynamic/healthfundlist.aspx http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/dynamic/healthfundlist.aspx Most plans are around A$100/month or less
  - Dylanlacey 16y ago
    Thanks, you saved me from having to do this myself. $70, Basic hospital, extras like dental work and optical ($300 / yr... Two new pairs of glasses, effectively, or the year's supply of contact lenses), private rooms.
  - netcan 16y ago
    Australian private health insurance isn't necessarily a good comparison for two reasons. First, it's a complimentary insurance meaning that it's for extras that people otherwise pay out of pocket or go without like dental, private hospital rooms, etc. It doesn't cover the really expensive unpredictable things like major surgery, cancer treatment. The basics (eg GP visits) and the big expenses are covered by medicare. Second, it is subsidized from both ends. The insurance companies get paid by the commonwealth and the expense is mostly tax deductible. You really can't use the cost to us as a measure of what it costs to run.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - nerfhammer 16y ago
      I also looked at insurance intended for non-Australians living in Australia (not covered at all by national insurance) and found prices to be pretty much the same
      - bodhi 16y ago
        You may or may not know, but non-Australians living in Australia are covered by Medicare (depending on your visa type), so that could explain the similar pricing.
- rhizome 16y ago
  It depends on whether anything is done about the racket going on between insurers, pharma, and healthcare providers. These are the people who blame each other for rising costs and likely a free market mentality is to blame. It's a circular argument in the US, which needs to be broken.
edruk01 16y ago
I'm astounded that something that expensive can find a market. Out of curiosity, do you know what it is ?
- billjings 16y ago
  I don't know specifically, but it is a radiation device for the treatment of cancer. So my word is hearsay in this case - I'll have to get some better information for you. However, if you ran such a machine 30 times a day every day all year, $10k a pop, you'd hit $100m in a year. $10k for a treatment isn't unheard of for cancer treatment.

Groxx 16y ago

Nope, I'm pretty sure everyone agrees it's broken. And just to re-clarify: I'm not claiming we're not paying too much. I agree with everything you've said. Just that $50-100/month is un-doably low regardless of brokenness. I'll be reading through the links, I can always use more detailed info for future debates. Thanks! edit for repliers: before stating that location X has 100 or less per month, how much do your taxes cost for this? That counts too, ya know.

cwp 16y ago
No, it's not. I pay $120/month for a family of three, and get pretty good care for it. I know that smug Canadians are a cliche in any discussion of health care, but we are an existence proof that acabal's expectations are totally reasonable.
- Groxx 16y ago
  How much of that is subsidized by your taxes? That counts towards the final cost. Spreading it out doesn't make it less real. edit: answered for you: >In 2009, the government funded about 70% of Canadians' health care costs. >Per capita expenditure in 2009: 3,895 $227 per month, per person, comes from the government, which gets its funding from your taxes. So you're paying $801/month for that plan (three people). Significantly less than many Americans, there's no debating that, but $120/month isn't anywhere near correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
  - billjings 16y ago
    Two points - one, is that odds are he's not paying $807/mo out of his taxes due to a progressive income tax. He's probably paying a good portion out of his taxes, but not $807/mo. Point two - and this isn't a rebuttal of any kind against your claims, just an observation - that same graph shows that Canada spends a lower portion of government revenue on health care than we do. And we don't even have universal coverage!
    - Vivtek 16y ago
      The takeaway - you're actually paying for what should be your healthcare in your taxes as an American, but you're not actually getting the healthcare, because that would be socialism.
      - Groxx 16y ago
        >that would be socialism. That is a massively incorrect statement, which pops up every time government-mandated healthcare debates appear, which I wish to squash ASAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Universal healthcare != socialism. Not even remotely. It's a political mud-slinging attempt to equate healthcare changes with the historical fear of the USSR that seems to have infected far more people than it should even have reached. Yes, fear the Reds, they'll lob bombs at you now that the cold war is over. They've just been waiting. At the absolute closest would be if the government were to run all the healthcare directly (it's not - there are and will be many private healthcare markets), and then it would be a socialist action, not socialism (a socialist government). To make matters worse for this use, any form of taxation can be described as a socialist action. That doesn't make any government that taxes its citizens a socialist government.
nerfhammer 16y ago
Check out how much private insurance costs in Australia: http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/dynamic/healthfundlist.aspx http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/dynamic/healthfundlist.aspx Most plans are around A$100/month or less
- Dylanlacey 16y ago
  Thanks, you saved me from having to do this myself. $70, Basic hospital, extras like dental work and optical ($300 / yr... Two new pairs of glasses, effectively, or the year's supply of contact lenses), private rooms.
- netcan 16y ago
  Australian private health insurance isn't necessarily a good comparison for two reasons. First, it's a complimentary insurance meaning that it's for extras that people otherwise pay out of pocket or go without like dental, private hospital rooms, etc. It doesn't cover the really expensive unpredictable things like major surgery, cancer treatment. The basics (eg GP visits) and the big expenses are covered by medicare. Second, it is subsidized from both ends. The insurance companies get paid by the commonwealth and the expense is mostly tax deductible. You really can't use the cost to us as a measure of what it costs to run.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - nerfhammer 16y ago
    I also looked at insurance intended for non-Australians living in Australia (not covered at all by national insurance) and found prices to be pretty much the same
    - bodhi 16y ago
      You may or may not know, but non-Australians living in Australia are covered by Medicare (depending on your visa type), so that could explain the similar pricing.
rhizome 16y ago
It depends on whether anything is done about the racket going on between insurers, pharma, and healthcare providers. These are the people who blame each other for rising costs and likely a free market mentality is to blame. It's a circular argument in the US, which needs to be broken.

edruk01 16y ago

I'm astounded that something that expensive can find a market. Out of curiosity, do you know what it is ?

billjings 16y ago
I don't know specifically, but it is a radiation device for the treatment of cancer. So my word is hearsay in this case - I'll have to get some better information for you. However, if you ran such a machine 30 times a day every day all year, $10k a pop, you'd hit $100m in a year. $10k for a treatment isn't unheard of for cancer treatment.