Posted by Jay Livingston
It always seemed to me that the loud and vitriolic opposition to health care reform wasn’t really about health care. (My earlier post on this is here.) I found it hard to believe that so many people were so rapturously pleased with the current system and its direction and so angrily opposed to any changes. I had only two explanations based on rationality:
- Most people had no way to compare the current US system with the less expensive and often better health care in other countries
- People who got health care via their jobs could not see the true costs of those plans.
(Click on the chart for a larger view.)
A huge increase in prices, and people rallying in the streets NOT to change it? As Carroll says, the true costs of this increase are not easy to see.employees actually pay the full cost of premiums (including the “employer” share) in the form of slower wage growth. Nevertheless, few workers understand this. The perception is that only the employee share is paid by workers. But that’s gone up too, so perception and truth align. Employees are paying more.
2 comments:
Jay,
Wonder how you calculate costs.Most people had no way to compare the current US system with the less expensive and often better health care in other countries
Since the individual tax burden is higher in most other countries -- subsidizing health care costs, is it an accurate statement to say that health care is less expensive in other countries?
Hi Bob,
If you look at total healthcare expenditures, either as a percent of GDP or as per capita dollars, the US comes out way ahead of most OECD countries. You can go here and download a spreadhseet with the data. In 2008, for example, the US per capita was about $7500. Next highest was Norway, a third less at $5000. France was $3700. As a percent of GDP, those three were, respectively 16.0, 8.5, and 11.2.
Post a Comment