Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
I know that my open-heart surgery as child would have been way more cost effective in the States.
Because I'd be dead.
|
And a single payer system will magically just erase those costs? Even if they're not directly passed onto the consumer?
We must really live in a utopia.
Either way, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. My argument is that a single payer system isn't always more cost effective.
Lets look at Medicare for example. When it was passed in 1965, Congressional acturaries estimated that it would cost around $3.1 billion in 1970. Actual cost? $6.9 billion. Really cost effective.
House Ways and Means analusts estimated in 1970 that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual cost in 1990? 10x more. Medicare cost a record $110 billion in 1990. Even as it struggled to keep pace with the private market. Really cost effective right there.
Now in 2009, Medicare spending is $314 billion and growing by 10%.
Really cost effective right there.
I wonder who underestimated the costs back then?
Could it have been the Democrats? Who controlled both branches of government at a 2:1 ratio in the House, and 32 more Senate seats?
No, it couldn't have been. The Democrats would NEVER underestimate health care costs.
