The Incidental Economist:
… If there is one thing I would love for all Americans to have in mind when evaluating politicians’ pronouncements about what we have done or should do with respect to government health spending it is this graph of projected federal revenue and spending as a percent of GDP, from the CBO:
Jon, That chart says it all. Does it make sense to spend more on “being healthy,” so as to spend less on healthcare? Nobody is really talking about the real determinants of health: nontoxic environments, vigorous exercise, calorie restriction, genetic analysis (strictly voluntary and secretive right now, due to health insurance concerns), economic participation and choice, quality relationships, positive mental health, etc. Could we increase government revenue without increasing taxes while holding the population stable or letting it decline? Those are the tough but interesting questions. Would the populace elect a politician who did what is needed, rather than what is expedient? Are there historical precedents? How about tort reform and freeing health care workers from ridiculous liability claims, etc.? Where to begin? Where to stop????
What jumps out at me is that nearly every other developed country manages to do a better job of healthcare, as measured by outcomes, while spending substantially less than we do—in some cases roughly half as much.