Re: Re: Atlas shrugged

[Gar Lipow <lipowg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And the misallocation here is not too much being spent on health care,
but health care being paid for in an inefficient way (via private
insurers). Total adminstration costs both in hospitals and the net
insurance premium are at least 30% vs. between 5% and 15% in nations
that have single payer care.

Supporting statistics:
In 1994 (the latest year we have info for) administration ran around 26%
of hospitalization costs.
New England Journal of Medicine - March 13 97 - vol 336, 11
online:  http://www.nejm.org/content/1997/0336/0011/0769.asp

In 1999 net insurance premium (premiums collected by insurance companies
plus government vs. that paid out was just under 6%
(Health care finance administration):
http://www.hcfa.gov/stats/nhe-oact/tables/t3.htm		

				
Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> When analysts speak of a fiscal catastrophe some
> 50 years hence, what they are actually referring
> to, strictly in terms of scale, is a public sector
> analagous to the Euro social-democracies -- spending
> in the neighborhood of 40 percent.
>
> The bulk of this, again in terms of debatable
> scenarios, is not from Social Security but Medicare.
> The bulk of the Medicare run-up is not from more old
> people, but from trends in the use of resources in
> the health care sector.
>
> Health care spending came in way lower than projected
> between about 1995-2000, which is a factor in the improved
> projections.  Consequently, the method for projecting
> such spending was revised to show faster increases.
> Science marches on.
>
> If the projections prove right, the shortcoming in
> the public sector from a social point of view would not
> be in its size, but in the share of resources devoted to
> health care, as opposed to an allocation more balanced
> towards a variety of purposes.  In other words, it would
> be a failure to construct a rational and fair system of
> rationing.
>
> mbs
>
> Gar Lipow wrote:
>
> >Also there is one other point. In the U.S, anyway the increase in the
> >ratio of seniors to others is projected to occur alongside a drop in the
> >ratio of children to population -- so that the total "dependency" ratio
> >is projected to be a only a tiny bit higher than at present...
>
> If you calculate the number of nonworkers per worker, even the rather
> dire official Social Security calculations show only a minor rise, to
> levels well below those of the 1950s and 1960s.
>
> Doug