I found the chart titled "National Health Expenditures per Capita, 1960-2010" which showed the "NHE as a Share of GDP" to be more informative showing heath care spending to have grown from 5.2% of the GDP in 1960 to 17.9% in 2010, more than tripling. Essentially, we see that Health Care spending is growing each and every year, and becoming a major component of both the budget and the GDP. I'm curious, is that what you intended to point out?
Yes of course. That is the reason why both the Republicans and the Democrats said that sonething had to be done about the cost of healthcare prior to Obamacare which clearly did not solve the problem. And Trumpcare isn't going to solve it either. And that chart is on my second link. Am still trying to find an updated chart.
Yes, if the ACA (Obamacare) is working as it was promoted, we should see the cost of Health Care becoming less a percentage of the GDP.
Nothing in Obamacare eould even pretend to reduce the percentage of the GDP going to healthcare. Same basically with Trumpcare although reducing access to healthcare insurance to poorer people could lower total spending somewhat although the effect, except for the individuals involved would be minimal. To really reach the Republican goal all gov't assistance would need to be eliminated making good healthcare basically only available to the wealthy.
When government produces what we use as money, defines as rights the acquisition of things well beyond the means of a growing number of the population and assumes responsibility to collectively distribute a great many things beyond the means of a growing number of the population it has no effect at all in reducing the cost but a great effect on inflation as government spends beyond the means of its tax revenues. As a result the middle class is shrinking while the wealthiest become wealthier, and the poorest are kept at bay by increasingly costly redistribution.
Healthcare systems in other developed countries put the lie to your statement. Not only are their systems less costly but they deliver better results.
Of all the developed countries, which one would you claim to be the best example in providing less costly and better results?
Well less costly is just about every single developed country and better results depends on the metric chosen. We rate very poorly in average lifespan, child mortality and many others. You can do the research it is very readily available. For cost do a quick Google search of percent of GDP spent on healthcare, if my recollection is correct we are about 17% which is the highest of any developed country. For outcomes there are many good sites.
Don't think it was actually promoted as reducing total healthcare spending. It was supposed to reduce individual costs which it did not do. There might have been some vague wish that universal insurance coupled with preventative care could reduce total spending but since universal insurance and preventative care never happened that remains to be demonstrated.
Maybe we should cap our spending to what those other countries spend relative to their GDP for a start, and then look to see how they provide better care at a lower cost and emulate that as well.
The reality is that some get more at no personal cost, others get more at less personal cost, while still others get less/more/same at a greater personal cost.
Yes, that's true, but normally people have had a choice to insure themselves or accept the risk and cost of any loss they may incur.
Assuming you're referring to looking at how the costs are made/kept lower I would agree, which is why I feel Obamacare should simply be repealed NOT replaced, and government should look to see how the consumer cost of health care can be reduced, not subsidized by government spending.
Like I said. It would be smarter to have an actual plan before repealing the ACA. And the cost is not just the consumer cost but the total cost which is the sum of consumer cost and government cost. And that gov't cost includes among other things the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.
Except of course that when a person without insurance has a major medical problem and cannot actually pay for the required care the cost is not incurred by the individual alone.
The ACA should never have been passed to begin with, therefore should be repealed and any eventual replacement should focus only on making health care more affordable to consumers and NGO's to assist those who lack the means to acquire their needs. Yes, that's correct, the total cost is is the sum of Federal, State, and local government spending along with charitable and individual consumer spending. Note also that Medicare like Social Security is primarily an entitlement to those based on their participation in funding those programs.
If not by the individual alone, it should NOT be government but self imposed charitable giving providing any assistance.
That is fine if America is willing to have people dying in the streets from preventable/curable causes. Otherwise the hospitals, emergency rooms, and doctors will probably continue to help people who cannot pay and the bill will be paid tor by either the taxpayer or the consumer of medical care whose costs will go up to pay for those who can't pay for themselves.
Making healthcare more aftordable sounds good except that neither the Republicans or the Democrats have been able to figure out how unless of course we do what many other developed countries have done which is some type of modified single payer system combined with government restriction on what the system will and will not pay for. And then of course those who are complaining loudest about costs will start crying about death panels. The simplist solution in my opinion is a law stating that every American is entitled to exactly the same quality of healthcare as the members of Congress and the President. Bet those idiots in Washington would get together and figure out a solution real quick.
Total charatable hiving in the US is anout 390 billion which includes the following categories The nine categories are religion; education; human services; giving to foundations; health; public-society benefit; arts, culture and humanities; international affairs; and environment and animals. That isn't going to even begin to cover healthcare for those who cannot currently afford it, so I think the NGO route can not be considered as a plausable option.
I grew up before government became deeply monetarily involved in health care provision, and don't recall people dying on the streets. I'm sure hospitals, emergency rooms, doctors, AND charitable organizations as well as individual people would continue to provide assistance and help people who cannot pay, allowing more reasoned and rational decisions on what care to provide based on what society is willing to spend. Perhaps if people found they might have to depend on other people instead of government it might result in a much more peaceful Nation?
