Obamacare's Robin Hood Scheme and the Socioeconomics of Health

Townhall.com ^ | February 9, 2016 | Devon Herrick

[proxy_user]

The doctors do pay a considerable amount for liability insurance.

Nevertheless, when they have paid their office rent and their liability insurance and their staff, they still have an income that is more than twice that of doctors in Europe.

[ConservativeWarrior]

We also have much better care than that of Europe. :)

I’m fine with medical salaries. It’s a free market, people earn what their worth and the market will bear.

The only artificially inflated salaries I’ve seen are within unions and government.

[proxy_user]

But look at our medical spending, and our total income:

Medical spending: $3 trillion
Total wages and salaries: $7 trillion
Total GDP: $15 trillion

Do you really think that rational consumers would chose to spend 20% of all income, or 3/7 of all the wages and salaries, on medical care? That doesn’t leave much for other things like food, clothing, housing, etc.

It is obvious that costs are out of control, and need to be cut.

[ConservativeWarrior]

I think we are spending too much on the elderly and terminally ill, actually.

50 years ago people died in their late 60s and 70s. Cancer, heart disease, whatever. Now there are so many treatments and plans for keeping people alive an extra 5 years, and they are extremely expensive treatments. Extended hospice. Surgery on the extremely old.

I’ve met several elderly people who have prescriptions which cost many times their annual salary when they were at the peak of their productivity. Now they’re retired and most of the treatment is free or paid by medicare.

It’s not a sustainable model. We aren’t meant to live that long, and just because we can extend someone’s life by 5 years doesn’t mean we should.

And I’m happy to check out at 65 or 70. Who wants to stick around while their body rots away and they lose their independence? Who wants to be an emotional and financial burden to their family? Not me.