SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Road Walker who wrote (24518)8/16/2012 10:49:01 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 42652
 
Typical leftwing pablum:

Virtually every economist knows that just maintaining Medicare and Medicaid benefits will require raising taxes on the middle class.
Or, virtually every economist knows that the current system is not sustainable and the only possible solution is to use financial incentives to match costs with sustainable taxation.

Nobody respectable denies that government mandates artificially raise the costs of whatever they touch. So since the problem is out of control costs why would any sane person suggest the solution is to increase to costs further? That is insane.

The rest of the story is so full of false claims and accusations about the costs of allowing people to keep what is theirs that it is not even worth addressing. As usual the ultimate trump card in their tenuous argument is fear: "No wonder we can’t afford to keep more children alive."

Nobody expects anything of value to emanate from that badly devalued rag.



To: Road Walker who wrote (24518)8/16/2012 12:03:53 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 42652
 
Unfortunately the aversion isn't strong enough, or there are other political forces that can overcome it.

It has the highest poverty

Different standards for poverty.

Measuring relative poverty. In absolute purchasing power parity terms the bottom ten percent or twenty percent in the US compare well to the bottom 10% in Europe.

Also groups in the US do as well or better than their Europen counterparts.

For example -

"A Scandinavian economist once stated to Milton Friedman: "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either." Indeed, the poverty rate for Americans with Swedish ancestry is only 6.7%, half the U.S average. Economists Geranda Notten and Chris de Neubourg have calculated the poverty rate in Sweden using the American poverty threshold, finding it to be an identical 6.7%.

In 1950, before the high-tax welfare state, Swedes lived 2.6 years longer than Americans. Today the difference is 2.7 years."

While I agree with the thrust of Brook's article, he neglects one figure.

"These cultural phenomena do not disappear when Swedes cross the Atlantic to the supposedly inferior “cowboy” country. On the contrary, they appear to bloom fully. The 4.4 million Americans with Swedish origins are considerably richer than the average American. If Americans with Swedish ancestry would form their own country their per capita GDP would be $56,900, more than $10,000 above the earnings of the average American.

The old Sweden, in contrast, has not done as well in economic terms. In 1960 taxation stood at 30 percent of GDP, roughly where the US is today. As taxes rose, economic growth decreased, with Sweden dropping from being the 4th richest country in 1970 to being the 12th richest in 2008. Swedish GDP per capita is now $36,600, far below the $45,500 of the US, and even further behind the $56,900 of Swedes in America."

Swedes are a very competent people. Under the American free-market system, they earn about 50% more than they do in Swede. Despite the fact that the Swedish system is geared towards reducing poverty and income inequality, they manage only the same poverty rate, and much lower average income.

newgeography.com

super-economy.blogspot.com

The graph is income per capita in Sweden and the U.S (for Americans with Swedish ancestry) for 10 income groups, based on official Swedish statistics and census data. I define you as American with Swedish ancestry if the main ancestry group is Swedish. Americans with Swedish ancestry have a 55.8% advantage in income compared to people in Sweden; very close to the figures I estimated using similar underlying numbers and a somewhat different methodology (is a good sign).

The results of the comparison is striking.



Swedes under the American small-government system beat Swedes in the Swedish welfare system for almost 90% of the income distribution. Among the first 10th percentile the Swedes in Sweden do better. By the 15th percentile or so the Swedes in the U.S have caught up, and vastly outperform Swedes in Sweden for the rest of the income distribution.

super-economy.blogspot.com

and the highest infant mortality

Measured differently in different countries.

We provide among the least generous unemployment benefits in the industrial world.

Here Porter gets it right. He accurately present the facts. But not having extremely long unemployment benefits is a good thing not a bad thing.

Not long ago one of the most educated countries in the world, the United States is slipping behind.

To the extent this is true look to the lack of efficiency and performance from our public education system, not lack of funds. Funds have about doubled in real per student terms every twenty years and we haven't much to show for it.

Also there is some doubt that it is true, at least to the extent that is often claimed.
See super-economy.blogspot.com

we can’t afford the policies needed to improve our record.

Many of the policies that Porter would seem to recommend would do little to improve the record, except the record in terms of what measures are taken, rather than the results. An example of that is counting length of unemployment benefits as part of the record, as an end rather than a means. When considered as a means it would have a negative effect on a number of things in the real record, like unemployment rates, GDP per capita, and median income.

Virtually every economist knows that just maintaining Medicare and Medicaid benefits will require raising taxes on the middle class.

No plausible tax increase will cover unreformed programs. Programs reformed to contain cost growth would not necessarily require tax increases. And since the problems here are long term, tax increases, which have a negative effect on economic growth and such the tax base, probably can't contribute much anyway.



To: Road Walker who wrote (24518)8/16/2012 7:40:29 PM
From: Brian Sullivan3 Recommendations  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 42652
 
Why the Doctor Can't See You

The demand for health care under ObamaCare will increase dramatically. The supply of physicians won't. Get ready for a two-tier system of medical care.


By JOHN C. GOODMAN

Are you having trouble finding a doctor who will see you? If not, give it another year and a half. A doctor shortage is on its way.

Most provisions of the Obama health law kick in on Jan. 1, 2014. Within the decade after that, an additional 30 million people are expected to acquire health plans—and if the economic studies are correct, they will try to double their use of the health-care system.

Meanwhile, the administration never seems to tire of reminding seniors that they are entitled to a free annual checkup. Its new campaign is focused on women. Thanks to health reform, they are being told, they will have access to free breast and pelvic exams and even free contraceptives. Once ObamaCare fully takes effect, all of us will be entitled to a long list of preventive services—with no deductible or copayment.

Here is the problem: The health-care system can't possibly deliver on the huge increase in demand for primary-care services. The original ObamaCare bill actually had a line item for increased doctor training. But this provision was zeroed out before passage, probably to keep down the cost of health reform. The result will be gridlock.

Take preventive care. ObamaCare says that health insurance must cover the tests and procedures recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. What would that involve? In the American Journal of Public Health (2003), scholars at Duke University calculated that arranging for and counseling patients about all those screenings would require 1,773 hours of the average primary-care physician's time each year, or 7.4 hours per working day.

And all of this time is time spent searching for problems and talking about the search. If the screenings turn up a real problem, there will have to be more testing and more counseling. Bottom line: To meet the promise of free preventive care nationwide, every family doctor in America would have to work full-time delivering it, leaving no time for all the other things they need to do.

When demand exceeds supply in a normal market, the price rises until it reaches a market-clearing level. But in this country, as in other developed nations, Americans do not primarily pay for care with their own money. They pay with time.

How long does it take you on the phone to make an appointment to see a doctor? How many days do you have to wait before she can see you? How long does it take to get to the doctor's office? Once there, how long do you have to wait before being seen? These are all non-price barriers to care, and there is substantial evidence that they are more important in deterring care than the fee the doctor charges, even for low-income patients.

For example, the average wait to see a new family doctor in this country is just under three weeks, according to a 2009 survey by medical consultancy Merritt Hawkins. But in Boston, Mass.—which enacted a law under Gov. Mitt Romney that established near-universal coverage—the wait is about two months.

When people cannot find a primary-care physician who will see them in a reasonable length of time, all too often they go to hospital emergency rooms. Yet a 2007 study of California in the Annals of Emergency Medicine showed that up to 20% of the patients who entered an emergency room left without ever seeing a doctor, because they got tired of waiting. Be prepared for that situation to get worse.

When demand exceeds supply, doctors have a great deal of flexibility about who they see and when they see them. Not surprisingly, they tend to see those patients first who pay the highest fees. A New York Times survey of dermatologists in 2008 for example, found an extensive two-tiered system. For patients in need of services covered by Medicare, the typical wait to see a doctor was two or three weeks, and the appointments were made by answering machine.

However, for Botox and other treatments not covered by Medicare (and for which patients pay the market price out of pocket), appointments to see those same doctors were often available on the same day, and they were made by live receptionists.

As physicians increasingly have to allocate their time, patients in plans that pay below-market prices will likely wait longest. Those patients will be the elderly and the disabled on Medicare, low-income families on Medicaid, and (if the Massachusetts model is followed) people with subsidized insurance acquired in ObamaCare's newly created health insurance exchanges.

Their wait will only become longer as more and more Americans turn to concierge medicine for their care. Although the model differs from region to region and doctor to doctor, concierge medicine basically means that patients pay doctors to be their agents, rather than the agents of third-party-payers such as insurance companies or government bureaucracies.

For a fee of roughly $1,500 to $2,000, for example, a Medicare patient can form a new relationship with a doctor. This usually includes same day or next-day appointments. It also usually means that patients can talk with their physicians by telephone and email. The physician helps the patient obtain tests, make appointments with specialists and in other ways negotiate an increasingly bureaucratic health-care system.

Here is the problem. A typical primary-care physician has about 2,500 patients (according to a 2009 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), but when he opens a concierge practice, he'll typically take about 500 patients with him (according to MDVIP, the largest organization of concierge doctors): That's about all he can handle, given the extra time and attention those patients are going to expect. But the 2,000 patients left behind now must find another physician. So in general, as concierge care grows, the strain on the rest of the system will become greater.

I predict that in the next several years concierge medicine will grow rapidly, and every senior who can afford one will have a concierge doctor. A lot of non-seniors will as well. We will quickly evolve into a two-tiered health-care system, with those who can afford it getting more care and better care.

In the meantime, the most vulnerable populations will have less access to care than they had before ObamaCare became law.

Mr. Goodman is president of the National Center for Policy Analysis and the author of "Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis" (Independent Institute, 2012).

online.wsj.com