Our health care system has delivered the most successful results in the history of man. In 1900, the average life expectancy in the U.S. was 47 years. That has increased to well above 70 years. That achievement was not free.
Other countries allow the government to control health care. Inevitably, this has resulted in poor service and denial of access to care. I know numerous people from Canada and Europe who travel to the U.S. for needed medical procedures paid for out of their own pocket rather than get them performed at home in a less skilled fashion or not at all (because the government won't let them).
You are also changing the subject. Health care costs are not the sole or even the primary reason that California's total expenditures (including general fund and all other funds) went from $100.2 Billion to $154.7 Billion in five years (and $100.2B to $166.8 Billion in the first four years). What percentage of California's total budget in all categories is for health care? And why shouldn't California react to changes in health care costs the way all businesses do, by changing its priorities and making cuts elsewhere?
And if you are going to single out (without any citation to anything that substantiates the number you pulled out of the air or its impact on the budget overall) health care as an aggravating factor in the Davis-led spending orgy, then perhaps you ought to also identify factors which ought to have led spending to decrease. Things like interest rates, which are lower now than they were in 1998, and thus ought to have caused California's short-term borrowing costs to decrease. Or how about supplying computer equipment for state employees? The cost of a basic, functional business PC now is substantially less than it was in 1998. Shouldn't the State of California be able, therefore, to supply its employees with such equipment at a significantly lower cost than it could five years ago? Or maybe there are so many additional employees and so much waste in the spending decision tree that it costs more? I haven't looked that one up, so I will leave that open as a possibility but not claim it as a fact.
And finally, there is this, which is a fact: I adjusted the 1998 spending figures for overall inflation as defined by the consumer price index. Health care costs are not only in the consumer price index as a factor, they are the largest factor in that index other than housing. So if health care costs really went up by 15 percent per year average (which did not happen according to any figures I have seen anywhere -- and you didn't supply any such figures I noticed), that would already be reflected in the adjustments I made in my original post outlining the solution.
If you have any further specifics to offer, of course, I will be happy to consider and discuss them. |
