Obamacare Now Estimated to Cost $2.6 Trillion in First Decade

Quote from Radeck : actually, i know very well what to make of it...it is a piece of crap! using PPP to compare high-cost of living countries to the US will produce a chart that looks like that, which is why fact twisters from the left use it. Give me a chart that uses ACTUAL exchange rates so we can see a realistic comparison. This is an apples and oranges chart. This chart uses PPP to equalize the price of goods compare, eg twisting exchange rates to make $8 a gallon gasoline in these western European countries equal a $3 gallon in the US...ie it artificially makes their costs look lower than they actually are, and the US's higher than they actually are. Use real exchange rates, and all those western european countries will look much closer to the US, if not higher. As for the less-expensive places like eastern europe, south america, and turkey, those are small population countries, with low quality medical care, that cares for the basic health issues and illnesses, using basic technology not the expensive hi-tech stuff we use in the west. Also they do not care for the old age population as well, most of them just stay in bed at home, looked after by their families until they die an earlier death than if they were in the west, where technology and medical care can keep them alive much longer, although at a much higher cost, as old-age-illnesses consume the highest costs.

I suspect you're not very familiar with the health industry in this country. Cost for even the smallest item (eg bandage, needle) is jawdropping due to itemizing/tracking and overall insurance paperwork overhead is immense. This is before even venturing into overselling services, etc. The "efficiency" of private services is laughable to anyone who's seen the inside.

ooohhhh the silence is broken!

Quote from agent00f : I suspect you're not very familiar with the health industry in this country. Cost for even the smallest item (eg bandage, needle) is jawdropping due to itemizing/tracking and overall insurance paperwork overhead is immense. This is before even venturing into overselling services, etc. The "efficiency" of private services is laughable to anyone who's seen the inside.

and why do you assume this is the fault of the healthcare system?

Why do you ignore the effect of government interference and runaway regulation and micromanagement that CAUSES the need for said paperwork?

Why to you ignore the cause of government acts such as EMTALA that forces providers to spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sometimes millions, to provide care for illegal aliens and others who take advantage of the system, forcing providers to overcharge those who do pay or who do have insurance to make up for it, otherwise they go out of business? Without EMTALA, aliens would go back to their countries for care, and those taking advantage of the system would overnight become more responsible and buy their own insurance. But when they know they will get care, why buy insurance? and Obamacare is going to make this MUCH worse by banning exclusions for pre-existing conditions and mandating immediate coverage. That alone is gong to bankrupt insurers, or force them to jack rates sky-high to make up for the costs. If you think Obamacare is going to lower costs, you are naive.

Why do you ignore the hordes of lawyers who drive up costs for providers, drive up their insurance costs, drive up the need for 'defensive medicine' where doctors do unnecessary tests so they dont get sued? All those costs for the providers are passed along to the end-user: the patient and their insurer or the government that pays for it.

Why do you ignore the naturally higher costs of cutting-edge high technology and R&D that can heal and treat conditions that were previously untreatable? Those dont come cheap, and it is expected for costs to be passed along...if you dont want the latest high tech procedure, don't have it done...just like a new iPad costs more than an old one, new medical tech costs more than old or obsolete ones.

If you cap what providers can charge through artificial price controls, all you will do is remove the incentive to create and invent new drugs and techniques and procedures. Sure you will have price controls, but you will have low supply, and deaths from otherwise treatable diseases if researchers could be confident of being able to recoup their costs and make a profit....price control always fail...they have failed every time every where they were tried, even here in the US . e.g. the 70's gas lines were CAUSED by price controls, not supply shortages..there was supply, but it was expensive, and when Carter mandated that gas can only be sold at a set price that was lower than their costs, the decided to just not refine and sell it. Price controls will do the same thing to medical technology.

hmm i guess this is what happens when radeck cant just regurgitate a conservative blog..

shh nobody tell radeck that gas is actually the same price in most western nations its just an issue of government taxation..



OECD arent retards, so they adust for this in their 3000 item basket of goods

http://www.oecd.org/document/5/0,..._1,00.html

2. How PPPs are calculated?

Quote : The calculation is undertaken in three stages. The first stage is at the product level, where price relatives are calculated for individual goods and services. A simple example would be a litre of Coca-Cola. If it costs 2.3 euros in France and 2.00$ in the United States then the PPP for Coca-Cola between France and the USA is 2.3/2.00, or 1.15. This means that for every dollar spent on a litre of Coca-Cola in the USA, 1.15 euros would have to be spent in France to obtain the same quantity and quality - or, in other words, the same volume - of Coca-Cola. The second stage is at the product group level, where the price relatives calculated for the products in the group are averaged to obtain unweighted PPPs for the group. Coca-cola is for example included in the product group “Softdrinks and Concentrates”. And the third stage is at the aggregation levels, where the PPPs for the product groups covered by the aggregation level are weighted and averaged to obtain weighted PPPs for the aggregation level up to GDP (in our example, aggregated levels are Non-alcoholic beverages, Food…). The weights used to aggregate the PPPs in the third stage are the expenditures on the product groups as established in the national accounts. You will find detailed information on the calculation in the “EUROSTAT-OECD Methodological manual on purchasing power parities (PPPs)”, Chapter 7, at www.oecd.org/std/ppp/manual.

4. What are the products included in the basket of goods and services used for the calculation of PPPs and how many are they?

Quote : The basket of goods and services priced for the PPP exercise is a sample of all goods and services covered by GDP. The final product list covers around 3,000 consumer goods and services, 30 occupations in government, 200 types of equipment goods and about 15 construction projects. The large number of products is to enable countries to identify goods and services which are representative of their domestic expenditures.

Exchange rates are not at all a good indicator of the price of something. The dollar has taken a nose dive yet companies like VW auto group cant just jack up their prices accordingly in the US, a jetta has not ballooned in expense because prices dont work like that. Likewise, a company like coca cola doesnt adjust the price of their soda everytime the exchange rate for the dollar drops or rises in relation to the euro.

In 2008 (when that chart was made), the euro, GBP, and AUD were worth way more than the dollar, so it is no indicator of spending, americans spent the same amount of money on clothes, food, and services for that year, yet they would have had a huge advantage because forex markets say so.

Basically PPP is the only way to compare the prices of services and goods because it doesnt rely on the elastic forex market. Kaiser family foundation uses it, yet its not good enough for radeck!

As for the rest of your inane rant, thats nice that you typed all those words for a comparison i never made, unless youre seriously insinuating that Switzerland, canada, netherlands, austria, ireland, germany, France, denmark, sweden, australia, united kingdom, finland, japan, new zealand, and korea are all third world countries... all aboard the WTF crazy train.

Quote from Radeck : and why do you assume this is the fault of the healthcare system? Why do you ignore the effect of government interference and runaway regulation and micromanagement that CAUSES the need for said paperwork?

The reason is because I have some familiarly with the subject instead of only being informed by the rantings of similarly uninformed talkers on fox news. The need to micromanage for insurance itemization happens irrespective of the gubermint and is simply an inherent function of health as profit motive (ironically) instead of care.

Quote : Why to you ignore the cause of government acts such as EMTALA that forces providers to spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sometimes millions, to provide care for illegal aliens and others who take advantage of the system, forcing providers to overcharge those who do pay or who do have insurance to make up for it, otherwise they go out of business? Without EMTALA, aliens would go back to their countries for care, and those taking advantage of the system would overnight become more responsible and buy their own insurance. But when they know they will get care, why buy insurance? and Obamacare is going to make this MUCH worse by banning exclusions for pre-existing conditions and mandating immediate coverage. That alone is gong to bankrupt insurers, or force them to jack rates sky-high to make up for the costs. If you think Obamacare is going to lower costs, you are naive.

While it must be comforting to have such a convenient scapegoat for all perceived problems, illegal aliens are a drop in the bucket compared to the endemic problems in the system as a whole.

Quote : Why do you ignore the hordes of lawyers who drive up costs for providers, drive up their insurance costs, drive up the need for 'defensive medicine' where doctors do unnecessary tests so they dont get sued? All those costs for the providers are passed along to the end-user: the patient and their insurer or the government that pays for it.

Indeed, why do we not pass government regulation to forbid these types of suits?

Quote : Why do you ignore the naturally higher costs of cutting-edge high technology and R&D that can heal and treat conditions that were previously untreatable? Those dont come cheap, and it is expected for costs to be passed along...if you dont want the latest high tech procedure, don't have it done...just like a new iPad costs more than an old one, new medical tech costs more than old or obsolete ones.

High cost treatments are rarely more effective in most areas of medicine (some forms of cancer the exception). In general preventative medicine across the board is a FAR better value proposition. Since I'm generally a fan of value and effectiveness, I propose more of the latter instead of more easily marketable former. What about you?

Quote : If you cap what providers can charge through artificial price controls, all you will do is remove the incentive to create and invent new drugs and techniques and procedures. Sure you will have price controls, but you will have low supply, and deaths from otherwise treatable diseases if researchers could be confident of being able to recoup their costs and make a profit....price control always fail...they have failed every time every where they were tried, even here in the US . e.g. the 70's gas lines were CAUSED by price controls, not supply shortages..there was supply, but it was expensive, and when Carter mandated that gas can only be sold at a set price that was lower than their costs, the decided to just not refine and sell it. Price controls will do the same thing to medical technology.

That's funny because Japan has one of the pervasive and highest quality levels of healthcare anywhere and they have extremely stringent price controls (too low IMO). Must be illusory or at least heresy since it doesn't fit in with free market religious doctrine.

edit: It's also worth noting that the more fundamental bio/chem research tends to be funded by the gubermint whereas your precious private sector researchers are often told to keep busy creating boutique drug for newly marketed problems.

Quote from Gotchaforce : hmm i guess this is what happens when radeck cant just regurgitate a conservative blog..

Quote from agent00f : The reason is because I have some familiarly with the subject instead of only being informed by the rantings of similarly uninformed talkers on fox news.

Watch out guys, might hurt if you land on someone when falling off the high horse...

Quote from agent00f : Because it is in reality in every modern western nation on earth.

Every modern western nation doesn't have near the population the US has. Nor do they have comparative health situations for their respective citizens.

Quote from paperboy05 : Watch out guys, might hurt if you land on someone when falling off the high horse...

It's generally important to understand some level of details in a subject before making claims about it. Personal belief or repeating talking points is insufficient to establishing meaningful assertions.

Quote : Every modern western nation doesn't have near the population the US has. Nor do they have comparative health situations for their respective citizens.

I'm not sure how you think the former matters given we're talking per capita values and not aggregates, nor assume why one of the wealthiest nations on earth necessarily has abnormally sick inhabitants.

Quote from agent00f : It's generally important to understand some level of details in a subject before making claims about it. Personal belief or repeating talking points is insufficient to establishing meaningful assertions.

I agree. Cut the Fox news BS assertions until you are certain they are correct.

Quote : I'm not sure how you think the former matters given we're talking per capita values and not aggregates

Of course it still matters when dealing with total costs.

Quote : nor assume why one of the wealthiest nations on earth necessarily has abnormally sick inhabitants.

So do you think the US's drug use, combined with unhealthy habits and obesity trends have anything to do with health care costs in the country?

Quote from paperboy05 : I agree. Cut the Fox news BS assertions until you are certain they are correct.

While I agree Fox news is pretty BS, I've never held any certainty they're correct. In fact, these two seem to be contradictory statements.

Quote : Of course it still matters when dealing with total costs.

We're not comparing total costs but rather a total subdivided into the number of people, thus deriving a per person cost. This is done so a comparison can be made. If anything, a higher population is a benefit for greater base to amortized costs over.

Quote : So do you think the US's drug use, combined with unhealthy habits and obesity trends have anything to do with health care costs in the country?

Other first world countries also deal with drug use.

Also, fat people tend to die sooner which tends to reduce the high costs associated with old age.

Quote from agent00f : While I agree Fox news is pretty BS, I've never held any certainty they're correct. In fact, these two seem to be contradictory statements.

You misunderstood my post. "Quit the Fox News BS assertions ("The reason is because I have some familiarly with the subject instead of only being informed by the rantings of similarly uninformed talkers on fox news") until you are certain they (the quoted assertion) are correct." IOW, don't post crap about someone disagreeing with you being informed only by Fox News and that they are inherently incorrect because of that. It's the lamest fallacy around here.

Quote : We're not comparing total costs but rather a total subdivided into the number of people, thus deriving a per person cost. This is done so a comparison can be made. If anything, a higher population is a benefit for greater base to amortized costs over.

And if a finite amount of resources are to be used on a larger base of demand, those prices are going to be higher regardless of how they are measured.

Quote : Other first world countries also deal with drug use.

Not in relation to the other unhealthy aspects of the US.

Quote : Also, fat people tend to die sooner which tends to reduce the high costs associated with old age.

And there is still a high demand for our health industry based on the habits of the overweight and obese.

It's simply not as easy as merely comparing two nations' health care costs per capita and extrapolating that one nation would be better off mimicking another. There are far too many variables to account for.

Quote from paperboy05 : Watch out guys, might hurt if you land on someone when falling off the high horse...

I love when people make themselves sound stupid/or arrogant by ranting about Foxnews or rightwing talking points. I think they truly believe they have information that no one else has and thus are superior to the rest of us Fox News and Rush Limbaugh devotees (of which I would say there are, in reality, very few on this Forum). It's pretty pathetic and just shreds any credibility they may have had. It just makes them sound bitter and angry.

Quote from Gotchaforce : The fantastic part is we already spend the same amount of public money as the rest of the western world, then we double it with private spending and still have poorer health than basically any western nation on this graph I post this graph a lot, conservatives never know what to make of it. The silence is deafening as they say. Like you said, its an issue of they believe being #1 in health care spending is a good thing ("The #1 spot is not always desirable even if always accompanies by shouts of U S A. ")

the problem with this graph and your post is that you seem to think that since we spend the most, our healthcare system should produce better outcomes..... but unfortunately its not that simple. first off, it totally ignores that fact that we have a sicker populace. We are fatter, exercise less, do more drugs, and smoke more cigs than every other country in the world. I have posted this link [npr.org] a number of times and convenienty libs ignore it. I wonder WHY they would ignore proof that the number one reason people in our nation die young is poor lifestyle choices??? i guess cause it does not fit with the lib agenda.

Quote from paperboy05 : You misunderstood my post. "Quit the Fox News BS assertions ("The reason is because I have some familiarly with the subject instead of only being informed by the rantings of similarly uninformed talkers on fox news") until you are certain they (the quoted assertion) are correct." IOW, don't post crap about someone disagreeing with you being informed only by Fox News and that they are inherently incorrect because of that. It's the lamest fallacy around here.

It's pretty evident he had zero expertise in this area other than a couple trite talking points. It's worth noting you couldn't seem to identify this, either.

Quote : And if a finite amount of resources are to be used on a larger base of demand, those prices are going to be higher regardless of how they are measured.

Well it's a good thing each country isn't given the same finite amount of resources.

Quote : Not in relation to the other unhealthy aspects of the US.

Sure, I suppose an overabundance of dumb people makes for an extraordinary burden.

Quote : And there is still a high demand for our health industry based on the habits of the overweight and obese. It's simply not as easy as merely comparing two nations' health care costs per capita and extrapolating that one nation would be better off mimicking another. There are far too many variables to account for.

Of course, when the data fails ideology then obviously the problem is too difficult to solve. Not exactly surprising from someone probably enamored with austrian econ.

Quote from andyfico : I love when people make themselves sound stupid/or arrogant by ranting about Foxnews or rightwing talking points. I think they truly believe they have information that no one else has and thus are superior to the rest of us Fox News and Rush Limbaugh devotees (of which I would say there are, in reality, very few on this Forum). It's pretty pathetic and just shreds any credibility they may have had. It just makes them sound bitter and angry.

While no one really likes to admit parroting propaganda, consider exhibit A:

Quote from paperboy05 : Not in relation to the other unhealthy aspects of the US. And there is still a high demand for our health industry based on the habits of the overweight and obese. It's simply not as easy as merely comparing two nations' health care costs per capita and extrapolating that one nation would be better off mimicking another. There are far too many variables to account for.

Quote from SigX : the problem with this graph and your post is that you seem to think that since we spend the most, our healthcare system should produce better outcomes..... but unfortunately its not that simple. first off, it totally ignores that fact that we have a sicker populace. We are fatter, exercise less, do more drugs, and smoke more cigs than every other country in the world. I have posted this link [npr.org] a number of times and convenienty libs ignore it. I wonder WHY they would ignore proof that the number one reason people in our nation die young is poor lifestyle choices??? i guess cause it does not fit with the lib agenda.

Quote from paperboy05 : So do you think the US's drug use, combined with unhealthy habits and obesity trends have anything to do with health care costs in the country?