So I hear this on CNBC this morning. The US spends about 14%

[WCGreen]

of our GDP on Health Care Matters while the average European Country spends about 8% of their GNP on Health Care.

The question is, how can we continue to compete?

If you Look around the country and see the deteriorating infrastructure, think about soaring Health Care costs, think about how much of our GDP is based on an inefficient system.

Look at our public educations. Same thing.

But the weirdest aspect of this whole debate is how can the GOP still claim to be the fiscally responsible party when they are defending to the death the most inefficient component of GDP?

[Botany]

1. That figure is low ( I think)

Last time I checked it was 17.6% of the GDP.

CIA figure US GDP = 14,330,000 in millions $14,330,000,000,000

US health care costs = 2,522 trillion dollars. I have yet to figure out how much of that is profit.

[WCGreen]

2. Or just pure inefficient use of assets

[NecklyTyler]

8. Like inefficiencies through unnecessary procedures, duplication of infrastructure, waste, and fraud

One example is every obgyn office has an ultrasound machine and the doctor proceeds to prescribe every pregnant woman to have not just one, but several ultrasounds weather they are needed or not. The doctor's offices have the machines just because they can, and they over prescribe the procedure to drive up profits and cover their sorry butts in case of a law suit.

Doctors in private practice have had decades to develop frauds like this, and it has become so common place the public does not even notice

[WCGreen]

9. The public views it as a convenience

I think the office manager looks at the Ultra Sound Machine as a profit center.

[endarkenment]

10. The insurance scam is scraping something like 30% off the top.

But that is 'off the top of health care costs going through the private insurance scam'. I've seen figures such as 300B/yr in profits, which fits in with a 30% surcharge for paper processing.

That does not count profits going to drug and device manufacturers, or to for-profit hospitals and clinics, etc. It is simply the rent extraction performed by the kleptocracy for controlling access to healthcare.

[Xenotime]

3. All the more reason why we need a single payer option.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. The problem is not that we are spending so much more, but that we

are spending so much more and getting so much LESS.

If we were to spend 14% of the GDP and get the quality of care that the European nations get at 8% we would have the best medical care in the world, bar none.

But we spend almost twice as much, while ranking below all those nations in quality.

Health care here is for the rich. You get what you pay for.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Yep. I think that is it exactly.

[kenny blankenship]

5. How will we beat them? The answer may surprise you!

We just need to lower our life expectancy by 5% and then we will have all those costly end-of-life expenses reined in for good. Then what will those snooty Euro-peons have to say? They can't match that. Game over Fabbio!

[snake in the grass]

7. 14%?

That's the price for 'freedumb'!

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

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Latest comparative figures for G7 countries:

From here, for 2007 (published June 2009): http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

Total expenditure:

US: 16.0% (44.9% public)
France 11.0% (79.0% public)
Germany 10.4% (76.9% public)
Canada: 10.1% (70.0% public)
Italy 8.7% (76.5% public)
UK: 8.4% (83.9% public)
Japan: 8.1% (2006) (81.3% public)

[pampango]

12. Great post. It is hard to compete if we are spending 6-10% more on health care

than Europeans and other industrialized countries. Exporters should support national health care as it would be easier to compete with companies that export from other rich countries. Companies competing with imports should support it so they can compete more effectively.

Of course, there are equally compelling moral reasons to provide health care coverage to everyone. :)

[busymom]

13. I think this is all a little misleading...

I support the public option, but not all of the money we spend on healthcare as compared to european countries is necessarily due to inefficiency or waste.

Ever try to get an MRI/PET scan in N. Ireland? There are only a couple of scanners in the entire country. That is cheaper for the system. I'm not making this a value statement. Do we need the # of MRI scanners etc? I don't know.

One of the great thing for DH about working as a doc in Germany was that he basically didn't work weekends. If you got sick...seriously ill on a weekend....good luck. It would never fly in America to become seriously ill on a Friday night, go to the hospital and not be seen by a doctor for days. This is how my Germany FIL died. He was a diabetic with a foot ulcer...that became terribly infected...he went into the hospital, was admitted and wasn't seen until the following Monday. He died of sepsis and his death was seen as simply being related to diabetes. It wasn't that simple though. My mil tried desperately all weekend to have him be seen, cried that he was dying and no one was helping ... and she was right.

Does that happen in America? Yes...but insurance or none, the family would have sued the asses off of the hospital and won. My MIL lives in a country where there is no suing the doctor/hospital over these kinds of things. It's another thing that keeps costs down.

Oh, and we spend something like 60% of our medicare dollars on an individual in the last 6 WEEKS of their life. Why? We can't let people go. I know everyone here is freaking and boohooing over the idea of "death squads" or whatever that bullshit nonsense is, but in Germany and the UK, if grandpa has end stage alzheimer's and cancer, he does not get dialysis, more chemo and the expensive bells and whistles. He is kept comfortable and allowed to die with dignity. I work regularly with family members here ready to sue over extending the misery and suffering of a family member to keep them alive at all costs...costs to the person and the healthcare system.

Like I said...I'm all for a public option, but I warn all of the people clinging to their government healthcare like it is the best thing since buttered bread...be careful what you ask for...and design it carefully by learning from what works and doesn't work for other countries.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. I'd be willing to trade not being able to see a doctor 7 days a week

for not being able to see a doctor 2 days a week.

[busymom]

16. That is misleading too

My brother had no health insurance for many years and can and did get into our public health system at any time at teaching hospitals. He had to wait a little longer for his appointments, but he had good care. One of my good friends got pregnant and had no health insurance and she got excellent prenatal care at the public health clinic.

Also, even if you don't have any health insurance, if you are deathly ill, you will be seen in a regular hospital at 3am...and many specialists (my husband included) will often wave their fees and the hospitals will work with you in regards to pricing if you go to the billing office.

Again...I SUPPORT a public option...it as misleading to suggest that someone without insurance can't see a doctor in an emergency as it is for the other side to suggest the creation of death squads or whatever. My husband treats critically ill patients whom he often sees for the first time in the ICU ... and he comes in for these patients at 3am, without complaint and waves his bill for those w/o insurance...many of his colleagues do the same.

What you just basically advocated though is that you are ok with the idea that trauma surgeons, ob/gyns and specialists don't see anyone on the weekends including you as long as the general public can get care from 9-5 M-F. I think that is pretty freakin' scary. I'm not willing to give up quality of care for anyone...including you....that's why I say we have to plan this out carefully and get it right.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Never mind that public health CARE is not at stake here -

but public health COVERAGE.

Doctors will NOT be employed by the government. Hospitals remain private entities.

The fears you list are apples v oranges.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT TAKING OVER HEALTHCARE.

[DutchLiberal]

14. 51% of the GDP goes to the military.

People should stop saying that "soaring health care costs" are driving the country to bankruptcy. (Although it is true the US is spending far more and gets less, when it comes to health care.)

[Cali_Democrat]

18. I don't think that's accurate even when accounting for the supplemental war bills

Do you have a link?

[DutchLiberal]

19. No, I don't. Trust me, or use the google.

Your choice.

[Kaleva]

20. Here's a link

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-percent-of-gdp-do-countries-spend-on-military.htm

I think the other poster is talking about what percentage of discretionary spending is allotted to the military.

[LiberalAndProud]

21. How many in the "average" European Country are uninsured?

That figure would scew even the 14-8 advantage further, I would think.