The Cost of Free Health Care

Inflation has reduced the price of...{please finish what you appear to be implying}.

 

Here is you repost of Mircea post which is where the second sentence Inwas referring to was posted:


Maybe you can learn to understand the economics behind it:

"As personal income increases, people demand more and better goods and services, including health care. This means that holding other factors constant, as higher personal income increases the quantity and quality of care demanded, overall health care spending increases as well. GDP is a good indicator of the effect of increasing income on health care spending."

Don't see any mention of western nations anywhere.

 

I wasn't implying anything. I was stating that anyone who believes inflation raises the price of everything has no business in a discussion in economics. For a start you can research how the inflation rate is calculated for any given year.

Now if what you meant to say is if the price of something goes up then the proce has inflated that might in some contexts make sense. But then again here is you actual post.



" Inflation results in prices of everything rising."

Just to help you here s the definition of inflation

Inflation Definition | Investopedia
Investopedia › terms › inflation
Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising and, consequently, the purchasing power of currency is falling. Central banks attempt to limit inflation, and avoid deflation, in order to keep the economy running smoothly.

Now if you look up the definition of general you will figure out why your statement is incorrect.

 

The constant devaluation of our currency is what I refer to in my post, and while the Central banks do indeed make adjustments to the money supply and interest rates in an attempt to control the rate of inflation the general level of prices of all goods and services increases less rapidly, but increases none the less.

Our Constitution gave Congress the power to 'coin' money. The Federal Reserve act of 1913 evolved into allowing the 'creation' of money out of thin air.

Advances in the field of medicine have brought about many costly procedures that can save/extend ones life. The cost of some procedures, such as organ transplants can well exceed $1,000,000 and to provide full coverage to everyone means the cost of what is provided free to some has to be paid by others. Should the drunken street bum who never worked a day in his/her life be entitled to a liver or other organ transplant? Why not, if you support 'free' health care? Government could just tax the richest another $10-$100 million or so to cover the costs.

 

Here is MY original post that Mircea responded to;

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=442117&page=9&p=1065946908#post1065946908

Mircea responded to the first sentence bolded in violet above with a DEFLECTION about facilities here in the USA.

I corrected him by referencing the fact I had mentioned that people in other western nations could buy those facilities if they so chose as mentioned in my second sentence bolded in blue above.

You then interjected with your reference to US salaries effectively remaining flat so I pointed out that I was referring to other western nations.

Does that make this any clearer for you?

 

Nope, but a nice try.

 

Thank you for clarifying that it is no longer my problem.

Have a nice day.

 

I can fix this expand Medicaid as the default medical coverage replacing Medicare and the VA system. Beef up payments a bit to providers. Then require by law every licensed medical provider and facility take a certain percentage of Medicaid or not be allowed to practice. Make it conditional to having the licenses and business licenses.

Other insurance would be around if you don't wish to be on Medicaid for the VA we could have Tri-Care with a cost to the service member and family just like other insurance. Elderly could have the same. The rich could have their own options being rich. But the baseline insurance system would be Medicaid would it be great no likely rationing of expensive medications and some other limits would be in place but beggars can't be choosers. Companies who don't have insurance would have to pay something into the Medicaid system say 8% per employee's wages.

 

The average family health insurance premium in the US is $12,000 a year, mostly paid by employers for private insurance. These premiums account for 80% of total health care spending in the US but pay for only half of the health care actually provided. The US government pays for the other half of health care provided in the US with just 20% of the money.

Insurance companies profits are not the biggest cost difference. Huge expenses are incurred by overhead. Massive overhead is incurred by providers to meet the arbitrary demands of myriad insurers. Insurer profits may be small but the costs they impose on the system are enormous, an order of magnitude higher than the overhead costs of other nations with single payer systems.

In the US most people have no idea what their employer pays for their health insurance and do not realize that their employer calculates that in as part of their overall compensation. They think that if the US moved to universal health care it would be a huge tax increase on their pay. What they do not realize is that their employer would be able to raise their pay more than that because their employers spending for employee health care would go to zero.

The average taxpayer in the US pays about 30% of their income in taxes and their employer pays them $12,000 a year less to pay for their private health insurance. In the EU the average taxpayer pays 40% of their income in taxes and that includes totally free health care. Anyone making $100,000 a year or less would be better off in the EU.