Since I don't have more accurate figures than anyone
else on % GDP or whatever, I am not trying to reply to
those questions [Erik or Dan might have a better grip
on these]-
> "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> Regardless of the actual figures, as a matter of
> effective governance,
> what do you think of these expenditures?
I think that in the US, enough is not spent on
preventive care, and consequently far too much on
'salvage' and emergent care. I have no idea WRT the
UK.
> ....you [USA] speak of `tax relief', a term
> that uses the same
> language as that used by people who speak of a
> medicine to relieve an
> upset stomach -- what do you think of US and UK
> payments? Do you
> figure that tax relief is more important than
> illness relief when
> hospitals run out of private and charity funds and
> therefore cannot
> offer their services in emergency rooms?
I'm obviously biased toward being able to provide
services; and as somebody pointed out previously, tax
credits and medical IRAs aren't that helpful to the
very poor, as they have so little liquid cash that
they are not able to fund their medical insurance
regardless.
> (Obviously, the question is not quite topical, since
> the US is living
> under a `borrow and spend' administration who are
> borrowing now and
> putting tax payments onto the future. Whether you
> describe taxes as
> the metaphorical equivalent of an illness or of dues
> to a country club, you or someone's descendents
> are going to pay them.
<grimace>
Not just in dollars, but in ill health as well (here I
am also thinking of frex the degradation of the Clean
Air and Clean Water standards, as environmental
pollution increases cardio-respiratory disease).
> (In topical terms, the question revolves around
> whether you think that
> money borrowed by a government `crowds out private
> investment' or
> whether you think that such money provides a `good
> return on public
> investment'. That is to say, since it is happening
> regardless of your
> tax metaphor, do you figure the UK method of paying
> for drugs for the
> elderly is better or worse than the current
> administration's method of
> doing so? Which method `crowds out private
> investment less' or
> `provides a better return on public investment'?
An economist I am not, but WRT the US drug industry --
their profit margin is among the largest (~18% IIRC
from prior posts), with a larger share spent on
advertising than R&D (~30% vs. ~16%?), so I do not
think that this administration's Medicare drug payment
plan will be sustainable over the long term. Others
have posted about which research $ (pharm company vs.
gov't/NIH vs. universities) result in new as opposed
to 'me too' drugs.
Gary D noted:
"A huge portion of the US economy (and political
donations) is based on the insurance companies, HMO's,
hospitals, pharmacies and drug companies who would not
benefit from reducing health costs through a radical
change in the system."
Debbi
who probably takes ~ 2 Aleve (naproxen), 2
antihistamines, and ~10 aspirins/month (the latter,
when I remember to take it, as preventive, not for
actual headache etc.) [The antihistamines are not
evenly distributed through the year, with March->May
being high-use months, and winter months without any.]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
