.... so what's the cost of not doing it?

In before bad math

When will our current system reach that simply by costs spiraling upwards?

OlafTheBent: .... so what's the cost of not doing it?

Well, in the end, it's all about reducing the number of deaths per thousand births. So far we've been doing a pretty poor job at that, it still stands around 1:1 over the long term.

The government really needs to get to work fixing this.

OlafTheBent: .... so what's the cost of not doing it?

that can't be figured out--seeing into the future is impossible.

that's not a valid argument in support of it

OlafTheBent: .... so what's the cost of not doing it?

Honestly, we could dramatically increase our standing in stats like infant death and such if we simply stopped counting premature births toward our statistics, like the other countries do.

albo: that can't be figured out--seeing into the future is impossible.

that's not a valid argument in support of it

Got some proof for your supposed invalidation of every single cost projection ever, or are you just blowing smoke out your ass like an active volcano?

albo: that can't be figured out--seeing into the future is impossible.

that's not a valid argument in support of it

The hell it can't.

Surely there's a way to take current costs and project the amount of growth over the period and come up with an estimate.

albo: that can't be figured out--seeing into the future is impossible.

that's not a valid argument in support of it

Interesting take.

I still have yet to hear a healthcare proposal from either side of the aisle that doesn't make my blood boil. Over 50 trillion in projected unfunded liabilities for health care already promised should be... a larger priority for us than it seems to be.

Fark it, it's just money. We'll make our kids and grandkids pay for it. Suckers!

KaponoFor3: Fark it, it's just money. We'll make our kids and grandkids pay for it. Suckers!

Yes, that would be the Bush doctrine.

Interesting take.

specifically, cost as in the cost to society of people not having access affordable health care. that's what we're talking about.

what's the cost of not doing anything about people not having enough warm clothes? what's the cost of people not having enough money to pay for college? what's the cost of people not having affordable access to broadband?

you can use that argument to justify any extension of government, any expenditure in the name of mitigating some nebulous cost to society, either in dollars or impact on people's lives.

congress and the president are doing it now. they do it all the time. this argument brought us the great society welfare state of the 1970s. it brought us CRA and the housing bubble.

why do we still let our politicians use it to sway us?

albo: that can't be figured out--seeing into the future is impossible.

Yup- diseases are pretty random, and who the hell knows what they cost. That's why insurers have such a hard time figuring out what to charge you. It's not like you can train people especially to do such things, you know, and call them something like 'actuaries' or anything like that.

Rev.K: Yes, that would be the Bush doctrine.

Let's hear it for Canadians being more politically aware of America then Americans, eh?

albo: it brought us CRA and the housing bubble.

Bite a dick. The CRA had nothing to do with banks leveraging 50:1 and creating a behemoth derivative market.

Senescent Dawn: Bite a dick.

awesome. you a big fan of waiters with minimansions?

Senescent Dawn: Bite a dick. The CRA had nothing to do with banks leveraging 50:1 and creating a behemoth derivative market.

If they admit that raw greed with increasing deregulation over time caused the current meltdown, then they'd have to go against literally decades of party practices.

Remember, Regean had the Savings and Loans scandal.

albo: what's the cost of not doing anything about people not having enough warm clothes? what's the cost of people not having enough money to pay for college? what's the cost of people not having affordable access to broadband? ...

why do we still let our politicians use it to sway us?

And those damned statisticians! Why are they swaying us with their trends and predictions?

albo: awesome. you a big fan of waiters with minimansions?

Deregulate, Deny, Delegate blame. Pretty slick system, and it nets your buddies lots of cash (thanks to the limitations of liability found in a corporation)

albo: specifically, cost as in the cost to society of people not having access affordable health care. that's what we're talking about.

Yes, and I don't think there's any case to be made that these costs are even remotely trivial. They're huge.

albo: that can't be figured out--seeing into the future is impossible.

that's not a valid argument in support of it

I wasn't using the question to argue (for a change... lol). I was asking because I am relatively ignorant about healthcare costs in the US.

As far as seeing into the future is concerned, If they can figure out what it'll cost with it, they can do the same for without it. Hopefully it's an educated guess at least.

albo: awesome. you a big fan of waiters with minimansions?

Nope. Are you a big fan of banks having so little regulation they pass the risk for their bad mortgages on to other banks and Wall Street investors? Because that's the core of why you started seeing $500,000 stated income loans.

Lessee...

$1.5 trillion / 10 years = $150 billion per year.

For total health coverage of all 310 million of us. That breaks down to less than $500 per person per year.

Doesn't sound too bad to me, especially considering we just flushed $2 TRILLION down the drain in Iraq and another $700 billion on Wall Street, and got pretty much NOTHING in return for either of them.

I have heard a statistic that the US spends more per person on healthcare than most countries with universal healthcare.

Is that BS?... or even close to being accurate?

Senescent Dawn: Nope. Are you a big fan of banks having so little regulation they pass the risk for their bad mortgages on to other banks and Wall Street investors?

Heh - it's not "little regulation" that is the problem. Banks are hugely regulated. The problem is that the regulations are stupid and useless. It's not the quantity of regulation, it is what gets regulated.

OlafTheBent: Is that BS?... or even close to being accurate?

It is neither BS nor inaccurate as far as I know. I would argue that it is only semi-relevant, at least not without also explaining why that cost is there, or what you get for that money, but it isn't inaccurate.

OlafTheBent: I have heard a statistic that the US spends more per person on healthcare than most countries with universal healthcare

In tax dollars alone.

If you add in insurance money, you're paying well over twice as much as us Canucks

OlafTheBent: I have heard a statistic that the US spends more per person on healthcare than most countries with universal healthcare.

Is that BS?... or even close to being accurate?

Let me help you:

OlafTheBent: I have heard a statistic that the US spends more per person on healthcare than most countries with universal healthcare.

It is true, I'm pretty sure. At least a part of this comes from the fact that countries with socialized healthcare dictate prices for medication. They pay more than it costs to manufacture and market (so it ends up being profitable for the pharmaceutical companies), but if you add in research costs (generally about 1 billion dollars per approved medication), it's less. Which means the companies need to recoup research costs in nations where prices aren't fixed. So we effectively subsidize research for the world's medicine.

Bored Horde: In tax dollars alone.

If you add in insurance money, you're paying well over twice as much as us Canucks

No, it's per-capita spending, doesn't matter if it's tax dollars or not. What isn't normally put in those reports though, is the difference in purchasing power that exists between countries. Basically it's like saying that something is more expensive now than it was 20 years ago, by only measuring it against real dollars. You have to even out the purchasing power between currencies to even hope to make anything worthwhile.

OlafTheBent: I have heard a statistic that the US spends more per person on healthcare than most countries with universal healthcare.

we also have more people on universal government health care than most countries--i think it's about 90 million on medicare, medicaid and schip

albo: why do we still let our politicians use it to sway us?

But it's FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!111eleven.

albo: we also have more people on universal government health care than most countries--i think it's about 90 million on medicare, medicaid and schip

Well, for a change, I'll keep my Canadian smugness to myself and offer one thing...

I've done well in my career, but there was a time when bankruptcy and the threat of eviction had me about 2 weeks from homelessness.

When things were at their worst financially, I was thankful that I could go to the Hospital if I ever got really sick or hurt myself, and not worry about paying for it.

I don't know how you guys do it... honestly, and I hope you figure it out to everyone's benefit. You are the most resourceful country I know... I'm sure you'll figure it out... I certainly hope you do anyway.

EatHam: What isn't normally put in those reports though, is the difference in purchasing power that exists between countries.

How do we even know what we are purchasing when we go to the doctor or hospital before the bill comes? The people I have seen are not that forthcoming, when you talk about item by item cost.

It's bullshiat that they can charge $120 for a single pill, or force you to have an x-ray but wont tell you how much it will be.

jonasborg: How do we even know what we are purchasing when we go to the doctor or hospital before the bill comes?

Not that purchase - what I'm talking about is the cost of a regular "basket" of goods.

jonasborg: or force you to have an x-ray

Also, nobody can force you to have an x-ray.

Before 2003, I would have said that $1.5t is way too expensive. Now I see that it has always been affordable.

Sorry, after spending at about the rate of $1.5t per decade for a war that has not gotten us much, I'm not moved by that argument.

EatHam: jonasborg: or force you to have an x-ray

Also, nobody can force you to have an x-ray.

If a doctor is telling you that you need an xray, you probably need an xray.

Anyone who thinks we're not already paying for "Universal Health Care" has a bigger blind spot than a 4' elderly woman with cataracts and a left-eye patch driving a mirrorless semi through a blizzard.

If you have health insurance, you're paying for the uninsured -- about $600 in additional premiums per family per year here in PA.
If you pay taxes, you're paying for the reimbursement of uncompensated care to hospitals that CANNOT turn people away.

If you told me I could pay another $300/year in taxes to insure everyone -- and cut my premium by $500 -- and have an accountable system that encourages preventative care and maintenance I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Right now we're at the mercy of the uninsured person who does one of two things:
1) goes to the ER for the sniffles or "itchy feet" or a tummyache and has to be given a battery of lawsuit-fighting expensive tests turning what would be a $75 office visit (with a $10 co-pay) for an insured person into a $2400 ER visit.
2) ignores a treatable problem "to save money" until it is too late and the result is a $2400 ER visit AND two weeks of ICU @ $10,000 per day.

Bored Horde: If a doctor is telling you that you need an xray, you probably need an xray.

Yes, well, you can still tell the doctor gfy.

That's might make remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 100 years a little more challenging.

Bored Horde: If a doctor is telling you that you need an xray, you probably need an xray.

I'm sure that is more often than not true. However, there has been quite a bit of unneeded procedures called for by doctors. I guess it all comes down to how much you trust your physician.

So it'll cost less than the Iraq war over a decade? Sweet! Where has the outrage been from Republicans about the cost of that little boondoggle?

40yoVirgin: However, there has been quite a bit of unneeded procedures called for by doctors.

That's one of the other reasons that our healthcare is so much more expensive than other countries. Many procedures are not necessary for anything other than a cya by physicians.

My first reaction is "that's all?" It's amazing how small that sounds after paying as much as we are for failed banks. This sounds like a damn good investment in comparison.

Why are the Republicans just now getting pissed about spending that much money when we dropped $3 trillion into a hole in Iraq? Has anyone seen an improvement in their day to day life by dropping that money in Iraq? Because I'm damn sure we'd see an improvement in day to day live with government optional funded health care.

EatHam: That's one of the other reasons that our healthcare is so much more expensive than other countries. Many procedures are not necessary for anything other than a cya by physicians.

It's more expensive, but it saves lives occasionally. That's why it's CYA. Now, whether or not we should do it is another question entirely...

GAT_00: Why are the Republicans just now getting pissed about spending that much money when we dropped $3 trillion into a hole in Iraq? Has anyone seen an improvement in their day to day life by dropping that money in Iraq? Because I'm damn sure we'd see an improvement in day to day live with government optional funded health care.

An interesting question to ponder is: what would Iraq look like if America had dropped 1 trillion dollars (without an invasion) into building up their infrastructure, under the demand that free, fair and open elections be held by 2006?

hillbillypharmacist: It's more expensive, but it saves lives occasionally. That's why it's CYA

What I meant was CYA in case of lawsuits. There's a lot of that.