From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Economic effects of election results
Date: 9 Sep 92 01:16:48 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep8.115811.4087@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.030110.7228@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>mzwick@vitro.com (Morris J. Zwick) writes:
>>>
>>>I would think that any nationalized health care would cause them (and
>>>private insurers) to plummet. The nationalization of medicine will, in
>>>the short term, reduce or inhibit prices by government fiat (price
>>>controls). In the long term, this will mean less private investment 
>>>in medical technology, therefore reducing the gains made by medical
>>>science (medical R&D is EXPENSIVE).
>
>>It depends how it's done, as opposed to any Sovietic scare-scenarioes
>>that are popular around these parts.  In Canada, France and Germany,
>>in the richer half of the G7 along with the U.S., our biggest question
>>was how to reconcile the non-market and the market aspects of health
>>coverage so we started and ended with just basic health insurance 
>
>I don't really think the U.S. is ready for a total nationalized health
>care program.  At the present time about half of the expenditures for
>health care are paid for with government funds (Medicare and Medicaid
>primarily as well as most of the research).  A bulk of the remainder is
>paid for by employer's, with a small percentage privately purchased by
>individuals.  

   The breakdown of the $666 billion spent in the U.S. on healthcare in
1990 is as follows:

Private health insurance- 33%
Out-of-pocket- 20%
Medicare- 17%
Medicaid- 11%
Other Government programs- 14%
Other private- 5%

>The major group that is not covered is the working poor
>who aren't covered at work and don't have enough funds left over to
>purchase insurance.

  Quite a few working middle-class people are starting to slip through
the cracks as well, and that number is rising.

>Considering that medicare and medicaid pay enormous amounts of health care
>(about $300 billion annually), some cuts in the expensive things they
>provide could easily provide some basic necessities for the people who
>aren't now covered ($100 billion annually would buy the uninsured what the
>average insured person now receives).
>
>To go to a nationalized insurance that wouldn't cut benefits would  take
>$100 billion annually from someone--either welfare, senior citizens, or
>health-care providers--and none of these are likely to give up without
>a massive fight.  One of the problems presently is that a major part of
>health care goes to people in the last year of their life.  Putting a 
>dying cancer or heart patient on millions of dollars of equipment for a
>few months is what's taking the big dollars in health care (now 12% of 
>our GNP).

  There are a lot of problems with our health-care; I don't think you can
just single out money spent on terminally-ill patients.  Take the $817 
projected health care budget this year- $163 billion will go to administrative 
costs alone- about 20%.  It is a real complex problem, so I'll follow up 
further discussion in other pertinent groups.

  Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: misc.invest