Max: > >In the U.S., if we universalized a system where health > >care was "free," we would see greater increases in the > >share of GDP devoted to health care. This ought to > >raise a concern about whether the foregone output might > >have been more worthwhile.... > >Socialists have to ration too. > > > >mbs Brad: > ... I vaguely remember seeing estimates of "medically > unnecessary and inappropriate" medical care in the U.S. today that > amounted to a quarter of total spending... In the mid 1990s there were several interesting radical poli-econ arguments about the basis for massive increases in healthcare costs/GDP. O'Connor did a great paper that partly attributed cost increases to quality increases and longevity; Navarro argued also I think correctly that the massive overburdening of health administrative systems during the 1990s coincided with the fragmentation/diversification of private care and the growing role of admin-intensive insurance companies/HMOs. I would add that there was dramatic overaccumulation of capital, in a very classical marxian sense, in the private US health system. So Max, wouldn't universal health services a) increase health costs/GDP due to the O'Connor argument (assuming it made folks live longer and gave better quality), but b) reduce it (via single-payer finance/admin savings) due to the Navarro argument, and reduce costs if it allowed a rational (not managed-care type) shakeout of the excess capacity that capitalist healthcare has generated? Patrick Bond email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * phone: 2711-614-8088 home: 51 Somerset Road, Kensington 2094 South Africa work: University of the Witwatersrand Graduate School of Public and Development Management PO Box 601, Wits 2050, South Africa email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 2711-488-5917 * fax: 2711-484-2729
