Replies to post #365588 on Zeev's Turnips Patch-No Politics (ZEEV)

[denmo83]

Zeev_Hed...

At what price do you like ELN?

TIA.

[newguy2005]

Zeev, thanks a lot for your recommendation on TLM and TBL as core issues before. At this point, what do you think can still be considered as core issues? Or is this the time there are really no such thing as core issues anymore if the market is about to decline in a major way?

[phill]

Zeev, re: "we now spend 15% of GDP on health care, we just cannot go much higher than that."

I'm curious about this pair of assertions, to wit: 1) from whence this statistic comes? You're not the first I've seen use it in debate, but I have no idea what it really indicates. (see also: #msg-5622231 to learn that federal CPI calculation uses 6% "weight" for "medical" v. 42% "weight" for "housing"), and...
2) What matter if the 15% figure is true? After all, health care is a primary guarantor of both life and life quality, as much or more so than, for example, housing. Further, like housing, medical care is not easily "off-shored", thus providing for an implicit increase in its relative cost compared with the costs of products more easily imported, but with the side benefit of maintaining a relatively high wage standard for the wage earners who provide it. Why is 15% a problem? Why not 18%, or 21%? Being healthy would still be half the price of being well-housed.

I think the real complaint about US health care costs is not the absolute dollar figure or fraction of GDP it requires, but rather (and here I realize I'm approaching the political <g>) the appalling inefficiencies and disparities with which our health care is delivered.

btw, for a surprising discussion of the best of the US health care delivery system, see this article:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html

regards,

phill

[See Shasta]

Zeev, drug companies portray themselves as being a cost effective health care provider -- for example preventing more expensive procedures. Not sure if this is true or not, but it seems plausible to me. So if we are going to try to bring down the health care costs from the 15% number you cite, then pharma appears to be the answer (outside of good ol' preventative care).