It’s jean as in “jahn” … and thanks for the good points. I still think there’s room to make health care and insurance more affordable by removing horrid incentives and getting back to consumer pricing. Yes, the GDP stats are no doubt overblown — but that doesn’t mean costs aren’t going up faster than they should in a more rational system.

Beware the stats; they’re spun. We spend more on breast implants teeth-bleaching, and other cosmetics than other countries, so you could spin it the other way “We’re rich enough to spend more than anybody else.” Also, of the 50 million, many millions of them are young, healthy, prosperous, and merely betting that it’s cheaper to pay for the doc visits than to buy insurance. I know I spent VERY little on health between age 20 and 40. Another 12 million of them are illegal aliens, and another 6-8 million are eligible for free programs they haven’t signed up for. The true number of “unjustly” uninsured is probably less than half the figure bandied about (and I’m not going to argue about “unjustly”, I’m using the term very loosely).

Not that our system is totally fantastic, or the Swiss isn’t somehow better, just this little quibble about low-hanging stats used for campaign slogans.

That’s gotta be two-thirds of the system’s savings, right there.

Someone else commented on how insane malpractice insurance rates are. He’s right. A good friend of mine is an E.R. doc, and he once showed me the numbers on what he would have to pay for malpractice insurance if he was buying it on his own. (As it is, the hospital he was working for covered the insurance). I think it was something like five figures — it was certainly crazy.

And now John Edwards, who used to sue doctors and hospitals for malpractice, is talking about the high price of medical care in America. Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?

The bureaucratic, regulatory and liability mess needs to fixed to start with. Rather than people being forced into a government health insurance scheme, let’s see the doctors have government malpractice insurance so, like their Swiss confreres, they don’t have to worry / pay for that.

Let’s see standardization for all insurance claims reporting so that dealing with health insurance isn’t as much of a professional expertise as tax law (another topic for another day)

What does all this have in common, and why won’t it be done? These types of reforms would impact the lawyers! And, since so many of our pols are lawyers, this will be next on their agenda behind tort reform…which is right behind a snowy hell…which is right behind the porcine air force.

Of that 15-16%, about half is spent by govt (govt employees, medicare, and state equivs), to cover a little less than half of the population. Let’s call it 7% and 50%.

Hitting the single-payer advocates’ target of 10% GNP to cover 100% of the population means doubling the number of people covered for less than 50% more money. I don’t see how.

Clearly that can’t happen unless govt healthcare spending becomes significantly more effective, the quality of care goes down, or the “other” half don’t get as much money spent on them.

If “becomes significantly more effective” is the answer, why not prove that point by making the relevant changes now? At the same time, let’s open up the govt system to voluntary participation (at marginal cost). If govt healthcare really is/becomes more cost effective, lots of folks (and companies) will chose it.

What? Govt healthcare can’t be fixed without giving it a monopoly? How can that be?

If he doesn’t mean the women would be required to have mammograms when he says the women would be required to have mammograms, perhaps there will be a new book on the Edwards Dyslexicon. Yes, he will be forced to stand down from those kind of remarks and say, “oh that’s not what I meant”. But if he’s such a smart policy nerd, we can’t blame that kind of comment on his being a country stumble-bum. I think he means it. The other option (always possible) is that he was misquoted.

Barry,
I doubt Edwards would require regular mammograms. I think he means that he would require insurance companies to offer regular mammograms as a benefit. If not, that would be a real non-starter.

I’m with you on him being no FDR. By all accounts he’s a bit of a lightweight, and he clearly squandered his single term in the Senate trying to position himself for higher office instead of working his butt off and showing how a Democrat can win reelection to the Senate in the South. What I admire him for is putting together a good policy package for 2008 and delivering it with passion. The messanger remains flawed, but the message is pretty damn good, from my perspective.

I don’t get your comment on his lifestyle. He’s your typical successful nouveau riche guy with a lot of disposable income. Such people are naturally going to consume more. If you’re a communist, you have a problem with this. If you’re a liberal or social democrat (the term I prefer), you don’t. The proper social democratic attitude towards the rich is to collect their taxes and wish them well.

Popeye’s reference to Stossel’s article puts the headline number in a better perspective. Price controls, government run and other manipulated systems all end of costing consumers more whether it comes in the form of sacrifice of innovation, longer waiting times to receive care, and lower quality care among other things. Sometimes the cost is death. The people who push those systems ignore those costs.

The primary thing required to fix the problem is to make healthcare consumer driven. Once consumers can determine price and quality, more informed choices can be made (and full disclosure of costs is part of it). Doctor and hospital performance needs to be known. HSAs are a part of it. So is tort reform. Dealing with illegals is another issue. Patent protection and the cost of getting new medications to market is critical. Higher costs for risky lifestyle choices (e.g. smoking) needs to be employed.

Just remember that people who really need care come to the US to get it if they can. We are the innovators and lead the world in drug discovery and development despite the many headwinds.

The answer needs to maintain those benefits while sorting out the issues of access and cost. The government will never do that. The goal of the politicians who promote socialized medicine is not public health. It is to create public dependency on government in order to entrench themselves in power. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Do you? I’d rather trust market forces.

He quoted WHO numbers, I believe. According to these numbers, 45 million people in the US have no medical insurance.

37% of these (16.7 million) live in households making more than $50,000 a year, and 19% (8.6 million) make more than $75,000 a year. Health insurance is available for people at these income levels; they simply choose to spend their money on other things.

20% of the uninsured (9 million) are not citizens. I have trouble with the concept that I should be taxed to provide health insurance for this group.
Besides, the absence of health insurance does not any more mean they don’t get care – check out your own local ER waiting room – than the absence of auto insurance keeps them from driving.

33% (15 million) eligible but not enrolled for existing government programs, which leaves 4.3 million truly uninsured or uninsurable (1.4% of the population).

Do these numbers make a strong argument for the “socialization” of 1/7 of the economy? Or more importantly, will the “45 million uninsured” meme be sufficient to bring it about?