[jonnycsd]

The OT founda great video. I recently saw this one and think it does an even better job of laying out the pitfalls of a nationalized health system . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdx_2cuPgQQ

[jonnycsd]

[quote=afx114]Also, if France, Canada, England, Japan, etc ration healthcare so bad, how do you explain the fact that they have by far a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US? The higher life-expectancy is even better for those over age 60 in those countries. Must be all that rationing I guess?[/quote]

Anyone got any data on how much quality of medical care contributes to national averages for longevity? Non medical care factors that may influence this number include diet, physical fitness, genetics, lifestyle, wealth, obesity, etc. Given that one of the leading causes of death in America is car accidents it may be that the very high miles driven per year is pulling our numbers down a little. AFX411s argument does not take any of this into consideration.

Bottom line: AFX114 needs to present some data supporting the implied connection between longevity and quality of medical care. My hypothesis is that in an apples to apples comparison of medical care the USA would trump any other nation.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=afx114]Also, if France, Canada, England, Japan, etc ration healthcare so bad, how do you explain the fact that they have by far a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US? The higher life-expectancy is even better for those over age 60 in those countries. Must be all that rationing I guess?[/quote]

Anyone got any data on how much quality of medical care contributes to national averages for longevity? Non medical care factors that may influence this number include diet, physical fitness, genetics, lifestyle, wealth, obesity, etc. Given that one of the leading causes of death in America is car accidents it may be that the very high miles driven per year is pulling our numbers down a little. AFX411s argument does not take any of this into consideration.

Bottom line: AFX114 needs to present some data supporting the implied connection between longevity and quality of medical care. My hypothesis is that in an apples to apples comparison of medical care the USA would trump any other nation.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=afx114]Also, if France, Canada, England, Japan, etc ration healthcare so bad, how do you explain the fact that they have by far a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US? The higher life-expectancy is even better for those over age 60 in those countries. Must be all that rationing I guess?[/quote]

Anyone got any data on how much quality of medical care contributes to national averages for longevity? Non medical care factors that may influence this number include diet, physical fitness, genetics, lifestyle, wealth, obesity, etc. Given that one of the leading causes of death in America is car accidents it may be that the very high miles driven per year is pulling our numbers down a little. AFX411s argument does not take any of this into consideration.

Bottom line: AFX114 needs to present some data supporting the implied connection between longevity and quality of medical care. My hypothesis is that in an apples to apples comparison of medical care the USA would trump any other nation.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=afx114]Also, if France, Canada, England, Japan, etc ration healthcare so bad, how do you explain the fact that they have by far a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US? The higher life-expectancy is even better for those over age 60 in those countries. Must be all that rationing I guess?[/quote]

Anyone got any data on how much quality of medical care contributes to national averages for longevity? Non medical care factors that may influence this number include diet, physical fitness, genetics, lifestyle, wealth, obesity, etc. Given that one of the leading causes of death in America is car accidents it may be that the very high miles driven per year is pulling our numbers down a little. AFX411s argument does not take any of this into consideration.

Bottom line: AFX114 needs to present some data supporting the implied connection between longevity and quality of medical care. My hypothesis is that in an apples to apples comparison of medical care the USA would trump any other nation.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=afx114]Also, if France, Canada, England, Japan, etc ration healthcare so bad, how do you explain the fact that they have by far a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US? The higher life-expectancy is even better for those over age 60 in those countries. Must be all that rationing I guess?[/quote]

Anyone got any data on how much quality of medical care contributes to national averages for longevity? Non medical care factors that may influence this number include diet, physical fitness, genetics, lifestyle, wealth, obesity, etc. Given that one of the leading causes of death in America is car accidents it may be that the very high miles driven per year is pulling our numbers down a little. AFX411s argument does not take any of this into consideration.

Bottom line: AFX114 needs to present some data supporting the implied connection between longevity and quality of medical care. My hypothesis is that in an apples to apples comparison of medical care the USA would trump any other nation.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=pri_dk]Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.[/quote]

Agree on the FUBAR nature of Cali state budget.

The link to Kaiser seems to cover only spending at the state level only, and does not include local governemnt, right? Which would exclude property and some sales tax revenue? The analysis posted by the OP (me) combined local and state spending. Does combining the two make sense to you guys?

That analysis says the combined state and local spending went from about $8,500 per person in 1999 to about $12,000 per person in 2009. If correct, it seems we should be getting a TON more in services, but I dont see it. In fact it seems services have declined. I have no data on that, just my perception.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=pri_dk]Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.[/quote]

Agree on the FUBAR nature of Cali state budget.

The link to Kaiser seems to cover only spending at the state level only, and does not include local governemnt, right? Which would exclude property and some sales tax revenue? The analysis posted by the OP (me) combined local and state spending. Does combining the two make sense to you guys?

That analysis says the combined state and local spending went from about $8,500 per person in 1999 to about $12,000 per person in 2009. If correct, it seems we should be getting a TON more in services, but I dont see it. In fact it seems services have declined. I have no data on that, just my perception.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=pri_dk]Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.[/quote]

Agree on the FUBAR nature of Cali state budget.

The link to Kaiser seems to cover only spending at the state level only, and does not include local governemnt, right? Which would exclude property and some sales tax revenue? The analysis posted by the OP (me) combined local and state spending. Does combining the two make sense to you guys?

That analysis says the combined state and local spending went from about $8,500 per person in 1999 to about $12,000 per person in 2009. If correct, it seems we should be getting a TON more in services, but I dont see it. In fact it seems services have declined. I have no data on that, just my perception.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=pri_dk]Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.[/quote]

Agree on the FUBAR nature of Cali state budget.

The link to Kaiser seems to cover only spending at the state level only, and does not include local governemnt, right? Which would exclude property and some sales tax revenue? The analysis posted by the OP (me) combined local and state spending. Does combining the two make sense to you guys?

That analysis says the combined state and local spending went from about $8,500 per person in 1999 to about $12,000 per person in 2009. If correct, it seems we should be getting a TON more in services, but I dont see it. In fact it seems services have declined. I have no data on that, just my perception.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=pri_dk]Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.[/quote]

Agree on the FUBAR nature of Cali state budget.

The link to Kaiser seems to cover only spending at the state level only, and does not include local governemnt, right? Which would exclude property and some sales tax revenue? The analysis posted by the OP (me) combined local and state spending. Does combining the two make sense to you guys?

That analysis says the combined state and local spending went from about $8,500 per person in 1999 to about $12,000 per person in 2009. If correct, it seems we should be getting a TON more in services, but I dont see it. In fact it seems services have declined. I have no data on that, just my perception.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=capeman]Another much much less likely scenario would be rates don’t peak at a reasonable/profitable level (much higher) and the currency collapses. Then money wouldn’t matter anyways in a Mad Max scenario like that. [/quote]

Why do you take it as a given that hyperinflation causes society to collapse? I was in Brazil when they had hyperinflation running 4 digits per year. Interestingly, you could still write checks for payments – and each check written had an interest rate assigned to compensate the seller for the week or so delay it took to clear funds. Within about 6 months, the Brazilian banking industry in cooperation with the government had revamped the process so that most checks cleared funds the same day they were written.

There was no chaos in the street – the busses ran, the markets sold food. It was very tough on the poor but society did not collapse. Now, after twice swapping out the entire currency they seem to have got it under control.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=capeman]Another much much less likely scenario would be rates don’t peak at a reasonable/profitable level (much higher) and the currency collapses. Then money wouldn’t matter anyways in a Mad Max scenario like that. [/quote]

Why do you take it as a given that hyperinflation causes society to collapse? I was in Brazil when they had hyperinflation running 4 digits per year. Interestingly, you could still write checks for payments – and each check written had an interest rate assigned to compensate the seller for the week or so delay it took to clear funds. Within about 6 months, the Brazilian banking industry in cooperation with the government had revamped the process so that most checks cleared funds the same day they were written.

There was no chaos in the street – the busses ran, the markets sold food. It was very tough on the poor but society did not collapse. Now, after twice swapping out the entire currency they seem to have got it under control.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=capeman]Another much much less likely scenario would be rates don’t peak at a reasonable/profitable level (much higher) and the currency collapses. Then money wouldn’t matter anyways in a Mad Max scenario like that. [/quote]

Why do you take it as a given that hyperinflation causes society to collapse? I was in Brazil when they had hyperinflation running 4 digits per year. Interestingly, you could still write checks for payments – and each check written had an interest rate assigned to compensate the seller for the week or so delay it took to clear funds. Within about 6 months, the Brazilian banking industry in cooperation with the government had revamped the process so that most checks cleared funds the same day they were written.

There was no chaos in the street – the busses ran, the markets sold food. It was very tough on the poor but society did not collapse. Now, after twice swapping out the entire currency they seem to have got it under control.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=capeman]Another much much less likely scenario would be rates don’t peak at a reasonable/profitable level (much higher) and the currency collapses. Then money wouldn’t matter anyways in a Mad Max scenario like that. [/quote]

Why do you take it as a given that hyperinflation causes society to collapse? I was in Brazil when they had hyperinflation running 4 digits per year. Interestingly, you could still write checks for payments – and each check written had an interest rate assigned to compensate the seller for the week or so delay it took to clear funds. Within about 6 months, the Brazilian banking industry in cooperation with the government had revamped the process so that most checks cleared funds the same day they were written.

There was no chaos in the street – the busses ran, the markets sold food. It was very tough on the poor but society did not collapse. Now, after twice swapping out the entire currency they seem to have got it under control.

[Author]

Posts