7 ms·

He is comparing prices by putting it into 2013 dollars. It has nothing to do with availability. You can take a car, computer, or any other good that has a price

by noahc 14y ago

He is comparing prices by putting it into 2013 dollars. It has nothing to do with availability. You can take a car, computer, or any other good that has a price and easily convert it back to 1865 or 1900 or whatever dollars and this helps understand the cost of things relative to today. This makes your two middle paragraphs irrelevant. If you want to just look at cancer here is a place to start: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/economic-impact-of-cancer http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/economic-impact-of... Much of the health care costs in America are generated by major medical issues. I've recently seen a number released by my insurance provider that said that 7% of those who use them for insurance generate 90% of the claims by dollar amount. The thing is, no one knows when they will be in the 7%.

jbooth 14y ago
Comparing medicine in 1900 and 1970 is just silly, full stop. Regarding everything about 'government' vs 'free market'.. do you feel like you're in a free market healthcare system in America? I sure don't. I feel like I have no idea what's going on with medicine and the only difference between my insurance bureaucracy and a government bureaucracy is that the insurance company is actively trying to fuck me rather than just passively doing it. I'm not saying big government bureaucracies are great -- they're terrible. Yet every other industrialized country's disaster of a bureaucracy is miles better than our private-public system. They have the same cost issues and also have cost inflation, but it's less inflation on a lower cost.
cdavid 14y ago
The cost of cancer/dialysis/diabete is quite relevant since those things are inherently expensive today, and you won't be able to pay it from your pocket unless you are in the top few % income wise. Regarding the 7 % costing 90 %, it does not surprise me much (the figure I heard in France was something like 10 % costing 60 %, but I don't pretend for their accuracy). You need to take into account that the 7 % are not uniformly distributed (age being an obvious factor). Also, in France at least, there is no such thing as Medicare/medicaid, so the mandatory health insurance costs can't easily be compared. Regarding the prince thing: I don't understand the argument of putting things from year X in year Y in 2013 dollars for things that did not exist at that period X. If we discover in 50 years a definite cure against say cancer, getting the price in today's USD is meaningless (how much would someone like S. Jobs be willing to have paid for it ? Much more than anything related to inflation).
- noahc 14y ago
  It's an attempt to measure relative affordability, part of this is that humans are unable to take a value such as an average inflation rate of 3.4% and work backwards over 20 years. I'm not sure how useful that number is, however, I'm pointing out that it doesn't add to the invalidity of his argument.

by noahc 14y ago

jbooth 14y ago

Comparing medicine in 1900 and 1970 is just silly, full stop. Regarding everything about 'government' vs 'free market'.. do you feel like you're in a free market healthcare system in America? I sure don't. I feel like I have no idea what's going on with medicine and the only difference between my insurance bureaucracy and a government bureaucracy is that the insurance company is actively trying to fuck me rather than just passively doing it. I'm not saying big government bureaucracies are great -- they're terrible. Yet every other industrialized country's disaster of a bureaucracy is miles better than our private-public system. They have the same cost issues and also have cost inflation, but it's less inflation on a lower cost.

cdavid 14y ago

The cost of cancer/dialysis/diabete is quite relevant since those things are inherently expensive today, and you won't be able to pay it from your pocket unless you are in the top few % income wise. Regarding the 7 % costing 90 %, it does not surprise me much (the figure I heard in France was something like 10 % costing 60 %, but I don't pretend for their accuracy). You need to take into account that the 7 % are not uniformly distributed (age being an obvious factor). Also, in France at least, there is no such thing as Medicare/medicaid, so the mandatory health insurance costs can't easily be compared. Regarding the prince thing: I don't understand the argument of putting things from year X in year Y in 2013 dollars for things that did not exist at that period X. If we discover in 50 years a definite cure against say cancer, getting the price in today's USD is meaningless (how much would someone like S. Jobs be willing to have paid for it ? Much more than anything related to inflation).

noahc 14y ago
It's an attempt to measure relative affordability, part of this is that humans are unable to take a value such as an average inflation rate of 3.4% and work backwards over 20 years. I'm not sure how useful that number is, however, I'm pointing out that it doesn't add to the invalidity of his argument.