>> Bureaucracy is the inevitable result of attempting to deliver a complex >> array of services in a fair manner. The tax system is the same way. > >This is actually the biggest challenge to healthcare. It's a >massively huge system that includes everyone in the country (one way >or another) - even more people than the tax system. It's very >difficult for any managed system to handle this, but those huge >systems are something free markets tend to deal with better. This is >the same difference between the Soviet planning model and the American >Capitalism. > >In the US, the cost of this system comes out in the markets, though >Healthcare is very VERY far away from an open and free market right >now (and probably should stay that way in many regards). > >Many other post-industrial nations have nationalize healthcare, which >is very inefficient from a cost standpoint, but that's alot less >obvious because the cost is supported by a board base of taxpayers and >rolled up into the total tax rate. > >The difference? The cost of Healthcare in the US is born by the >consumer directly, in other countries it goes through a terribly >inefficient government filter first. The US actually has some pretty >darn low tax rate compared to other countries with national healthcare >programs,
I don't know where you get your numbers for this. Just looking at comparisons between the US and Canadian systems show that on a per person basis, Canada spends far less on medical care than the US. With a single pay system like the Canadian system there's a smaller bureaucracy. Canada's health care costs are 9.9% of GDP, 16.7 % of government revenue is spent on health, and 69.9% of health costs are paid by the government. In contrast the US has the highest health care costs with 15.2% of GDP, highest percentage of government revenue spent on health at 18.5 %, and it has the lowest percentage of health costs paid by government at 44.6%. Here are some other stats on what is spent by other UHS. The health care costs in France are 10.1% of GDP, 14.2% of government revenue spent on health, 76.3% of health costs are paid by the government. England has health care costs that are 8.0% of GDP, 15.8% of Englands revenue is spent on health, while the percentage of health costs paid by the government are 85.7%. Sweden has health care costs which are 9.4% of GDP, 5.8% below the U.S.. It has the lowest percentage of government revenue that is spent on health which is 13.6%, that is 4.9% below the U.S. The highest percentage of health costs that are paid by the government at 85.2%, and 40.6% above the U.S. Japan also has the lowest percentage of health care costs at 7.9% of GDP, that is 7% less than the U.S. The government revenue spent on health is 16.8%,just above Canada and 1% higher than the U.S. The government also pays for 81% of health costs, 36.4% more than the U.S. All citizens of Japan have coverage, free choice of health care providers by patients, a multi-payer, employment-based system of financing. Virtually all are covered without regard to any medical problems they may all ready have or to their actuarial risk of succumbing to illness. Given that all these countries spend far less on health care than the US, that's some pretty good inefficiency. All of these nations btw have a significantly longer life spans that the US btw. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:263006 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
