Lamar, "We have a better idea."

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What difference does the size of the population make when considering the per capita cost of the health care system? Take the EU and you have a population of more than 320 million and their per capita cost on health care is half that of the US. Don't like that? Take the portion of the GDP absorbed by the health care system and there isn't a developed country to be found that has it's health care system suck up 17% of it's GDP. Not one. You can slice it any way you want and you'll still end up with this basic fact: The US health care system is the most inefficient in the developed world.

I define efficiency by quality, not cost... you can't argue the quality of care here and the timely manner that you get it in.

If the EU were all part of the same-system you might have an argument by combining them, even then though healthcare is 17% of our GDP because it's a huge business.

If you look at the money there is to be made in health care, then yeah... It's also the fastest growing industry in the country as well right now. There's actually a shortage of nurses/assistants out there and they are trying to push people to go into the medical field.

If you look at things like Heart Monitors and other medical equipment, most of that is made right here in the USA which is sold all over the world.

The Health Care industry isn't just about "health care" it's about the 'industry' revolving around health care.

As I've said though, the problem isn't insurance, it's cost and always has been cost.

The fact of the matter is, we always want the newest and best technologies in our hospitals and we always want the newest equipment possible as well in doctors offices and we thrive on that..... Now as far as a cost analysis goes, that's not always the smartest move in the world to keep cost down. You can't expect that brand new 60" plasma to sell for less than $2000, just as you can't expect the newest medical device to sell for less than $15,000.... Well you can expect it, but it won't happen...

Take a look at 'cost' in your industry and the way things are done and you'll find your problem.

The problem being and I've said this before is the FDA/Government regulations. The minute they think something is better/more efficient, they mandate that everyone use the better/more efficient item instead of actually maybe making use of what's been working for awhile until the costs of the newer equipment can come down...

Granted, that's just a piece of the pie... there's plenty of other factors.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

First, no government takeover of the healthcare system is proposed. Secondly, that's actually sad seeing that medicare bureacracy (overhead) is somewhere in the 2%-3% range while PHI bureaucracy (overhead) is in the 20%-30% range. In other words, if we're looking to reduce bureaucracy, taking PHI out of the system would go a very ong way.

Not only that, but the per enrollee cost increases have been lower in the Medicare system - which doesn't get to cherry-pick it's enrollee population - than in the PHI system - which does to an extend get to cherry-pick. That shows that Medicare - while certainly not free of problems - still manages cost better than PHI.

Next.

I am curious where you found that data. Third party billing is always clerically intensive, whether you are collecting from a private insurer, or a local, state, or federally managed plan.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I am curious where you found that data. Third party billing is always clerically intensive, whether you are collecting from a private insurer, or a local, state, or federally managed plan.

I'd say its rather accurate probably to an extent, especially when you consider Medicare and Medicaid can be based in one-central location and a company like BCBS has to have offices in each individual state that it's in... It makes perfect sense for a private insurer to have a larger overhead, unless they are strictly operating in one state/area.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'd say its rather accurate probably to an extent, especially when you consider Medicare and Medicaid can be based in one-central location and a company like BCBS has to have offices in each individual state that it's in... It makes perfect sense for a private insurer to have a larger overhead, unless they are strictly operating in one state/area.

I am thinking the other way: The paperwork burden on the provider.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I define efficiency by quality, not cost... you can't argue the quality of care here and the timely manner that you get it in.

Of course you can argue the quality of care and the timely manner in which you get it - this is the main concern for those that can't get it because they cannot afford to access it. What good is a health care system that leaves one out of eight behind? It might work for the majority of the population - and it might work well for them - but it doesn't work at all for a significant portion of the population. If you don't have access to the system, then it matters little how good a result it can produce.

If the EU were all part of the same-system you might have an argument by combining them...

How so? It's not like the federal government here has a national monopoly on the health care system - the states do play a significant role in it. As such, the EU population is not only larger than the US population, it is also concentrated into much larger sub-segements than the US population. So, the comparison still holds even though in a manner of comparing per capita cost, it really matters little whether you have 60, 80 or 300 million people in the pot.