Well now since no Delta=ii squared/time or some such more elegant or real mathematical statement was present, I assumed it was, ah, not a literal thingy. But more of a fanciful process.

What can I say, I like jounce!

“Needless to say, none of these are in any kind of standards, yet. We just made them up on usenet.“

What adds insult to injury is the union pension funds DO have a chance at solvency –it is in a healthy and confident stock market –which is being sickened & crippled by the unethical political manipulation known as democratic party health care reform.

a self-licking ice cream cone only it’s manure not ice cream.

beats anything i ever saw for dumbass –for preferring anything –even failed scam after grandiose failed scam –to a plain old runs-on-automatic free market.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Bastiat.html

@90 Starling – Thank you for the link to Arthur Young – fascinating stuff

Honestly, this is one of the things that drives me nuts about the Health Care debate when the “EEEVIIIILLLLL Drug Companies” are demonized. Why, these fat-cat so-and-so BigPharma executives are getting filthy rich by, by, by

[sottovoice]

saving people’s lives!

</sottovoice]

The abysmal injustice of it all, that someone makes money by letting people live longer, healthier, more fullfilling lives.

Fer crisssakes, Merck ought to just rebrand what they do as art and have their execs rape a few 13-year olds in LA. Then it would be okay.

Just more evidence of the complete disconnect from reality that the Left-O-sphere has nothing but contempt for those who really, really do better the human condition, but is willing to excuse the most inexcusable behavior from those who make frivolous luxuries of mediocre quality.

What is wrong with these people? Nothing William Techumseh Sherman couldn’t fix, I suspect.

Americans spend more on health care because they can afford it.

Around 1900 30% of the family budget went for food. Today it is under 10%. Are we starving? No. Even the poor people are fat in America.

So where did that extra 20% (of a much expanded family income) go? Health care. Almost 1 for 1.

====

Many things in America are much lower cost than elsewhere. Which is why we can afford so much for health care. The big drive for national health care is for one reason only. Union pension plans with medical benefits are unsustainable.

To cover the scam of government making up the difference “single payer” is mooted.

It is worth noting that “too big to fail”, at least as the phrase is mostly used in the U.S., doesn’t literally mean “so big that its failure is actually impossible” – it means “so big that the polity doesn’t dare allow it to fail”, out of fear of precisely the sort of catastrophic consequences you mentioned. Indeed, it seems to me that the Left’s very M.O. for obtaining, and especially for holding onto, political power is to make itself “too big to fail” in that latter, perceptual sense.

“Because our government is mandated (sic)to throw more money at “health care.”

Perhaps you misunderstand the question because your answer doesn’t suffice. If government mandates raise the price of healthcare as a percentage of GDP — as you assert — then why do nations with more nationalized systems cost their nations less? See the links I provided.

Mongoose @ #131: “Seriously, an OCED Study? Come on. I said “politically neutral” studies. You might as well as offer official EU numbers. Cost per GDP alone does not cut it either.”

I’m certainly willing to look at any contradictory figures you provide of healthcare as a percentage of GDP. Pick a source, maybe even the CIA World Fact Book:

http://www.orthocuban.com/2009/08/healthcare-and-the-cia-world-factbook/

*And what do you mean, by saying we cannot establish relative performance levels? Of course we can. More to the point, if you cannot do this, then your figures are meaningless.*

Well, let me expand on that a bit. The US does an exemplary job in treating prostrate and breast cancers, the best in the world. Japan does a better job in treating rectal and colon cancers. Germany and France outperform America in treating heart disease, but then Americans *are* more obese. How would you compare treatment for these various ailments? One could argue that greater specificity is needed, or that you could aggregate them in life expectancy rates. In which case, many countries with universal coverage are doing better than the US: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Mongoose, do you have any other method you’d like to offer to better establish performance comparisons?

Wretchard @ 134: *Captive insurance markets, doctor’s monopolies, and tort law are some that come to mind. In which case the solution isn’t to replace on uncompetitive system with another.*

Perhaps, but then, in order to make the such a system more competitive you run into Teddy Roosevelt’s paradox. TR ran as a firm opponent of socialists, and derided them all his life, but in office he grew to realize that fair competition among cooperations requires monitoring and regulation. Hence, trust-busting. The libertarian ideal of competition leading to innovation and lower costs requires government regulation — regulation to ensure that oligopolies, monopolies and cartels don’t form to stifle competition; precisely the sort of pathologies you list. Wretchard, are you arguing for more government intervention?

*The second thing is that the US system provides a lot products at the margin then a socialized system. And it is these products at the margin which comprise a large percentage of the costs.*

The question is what these marginal products are and whether they’re being overused. Certainly the US press is able to find many incidents of unscrupulous doctors, hospitals and technicians overusing diagnostics:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/24/eveningnews/main5337931.shtml

*In fact, President Obama’s health care “reforms” are intended to address these issues, but only superficially. For example, the “public option” is touted as a way to create competition and thereby lower the costs. But it really doesn’t, nor does it for example, answer the tort reform problem.*

I don’t follow this first assertion. Could you please elaborate? It’s a tenet of conservative faith and analysis that not only would the public option provide competition but ***unfair*** competition. See the Heritage Foundation:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/healthcare/bg2311.cfm

*Essentially the argument you put forward is a false choice between a private system that isn’t competitive and a government system that has no intention of ever being competitive. The right solution is to reform the health system by making it competitive and providing government health care where there is total market failure, no different from welfare.*

Interesting, in that so many of the defenders of the American healtcare insists that it is truly competitive, just look to some of the comments in this thread. If it isn’t, what should be done to “reform” it as you suggest? In this assertion that we’ve never had a truly competitive system, you arrive at the great Marxist justification: it will work, it’s just never been tried. And as to “providing government health care where there is total market failure, no different from welfare,” I agree with you, though I suspect many BCers will be unhappy with your formulation. The question that remains is what constitutes “total market failure.”

*And regarding Europe, see the New Scientist paper (and that can hardly be called a right wing source) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327271.800-population-europes-problems-will-grow-as-it-shrinks.html, which argues that not only is Europe possibly unsustainably economically, it may also be unsustainable environmentally.*

Intersting, but then a demographically challenged Europe would be **less** likely to adapt an American style system that costs more, yes? From the NYTimes article you cited, we learn the current temperment of European conservatives when it comes to such Americanized proposals:

**When Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Germany’s Angela Merkel condemn the excesses of the “Anglo-Saxon model” of capitalism while praising the protective power of the state, they are using Socialist ideas that have become mainstream, he said.**