Iriemon:
No, I don't know how much of GDP is for the heatlh industry. How much?
Surprising... That you wouldn't know, that is.
Thanks, I think.
Record Share Of Economy Spent on Health Care
By Marc Kaufman and Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 10, 2006; Page A01
Rising health care costs, already threatening many basic industries, now consume 16 percent of the nation's economic output -- the highest proportion ever, the government said yesterday in its latest calculation.
The nation's health care bill continued to grow substantially faster than inflation and wages, increasing by almost 8 percent in 2004, the most recent year with near-final numbers.
Record Share Of Economy Spent on Health Care - washingtonpost.com
USA Spent $2.2 Trillion, 16.2% of GDP, on Health Care in 2007
Health spending in the United States grew 6.1 percent in 2007, to $2.2 trillion or $7,421 per person.
For comparison the total GDP per person in China is $6,100. This continues the trend of health care spending taking an every increasing portion of the economic output (the economy grew by 4.8 percent in 2007). This brings health care spending to 16.2% of GDP (which is yet another, in a string of record high percentages of GDP spent on health care). In 2003 the total health care spending was 15.3 of GDP.
http://investing.curiouscatblog.net...2-trillion-162-of-gdp-on-health-care-in-2007/
This document is also available as a printable .pdf file.
Health Insurance Costs
Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care
Introduction
By several measures, health care spending continues to rise at a rapid rate and forcing businesses and families to cut back on operations and household expenses respectively.
In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).
NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs
Thanks. What's the point? I certainly agree our health care system is fucked up. That was a reason I supported Obama because he at least promised to try to change it instead of staying the same course that has got us to this point.
The point(s):
1.) Health care (public health administration, to be precise) is my profession, so I know a little bit about how the system got fucked up, and I also have a pretty good handle on what it would take to fix it. Politicians can promise all they want; it's what they do to get elected. However, politicians (including Presidents) do not have the answers to everything, despite all the nice words you hear from them (on any subject).
2.) Obama and McCain, AND other candidates not in the 2-party system, promised to try to change the fucked up system -- they simply had different ideas about how to do that (which they presumably got from someone who DID know something about the subject). IMO, however, none of them can/will fix it -- and that means, since Obama is now in charge of trying to do so, Obama can't/won't fix it because he's still going at it with a "bandaid approach". There is no real reform.
3.) Reform is what is required in order to lower the cost ratio to the GDP, and it's conceivable that it could be done. You know, you can't build a new house on an old foundation. The analogy applies here.
Seems to me the most cost effective system would be to provide government hospitals (single payor?) and clinics to provide basic health care to all, and let those who think it is worth it pay for private insurance and health care.
But I'd be interested in your thoughts as an insider.