Romney Outlines Health Care Plan Using the Consumer Model

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Poor states are going to need some money from some place to care for their impecunious uninsured sicks.  That's the bottom line Mitt.

I don't see why that is necessarily the case. The poorest state in the US(Mississippi) has a GDP per capita comparable to that of South Korea and Israel, which both manage to fund their healthcare without any outside assistance.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Poor states are going to need some money from some place to care for their impecunious uninsured sicks.  That's the bottom line Mitt.

I don't see why that is necessarily the case. The poorest state in the US(Mississippi) has a GDP per capita comparable to that of South Korea and Israel, which both manage to fund their healthcare without any outside assistance.

Somehow I don't think that would translate well to the States. There are just so many variables in play. For example, to start off, Mississippi is full of sedentary fats.

Sure, it would be harder for Mississippi. But hardly impossible.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Making the medical insurance industry more competitive is the central theme of the Pub vision on medical care (e.g. national markets and so forth). However, I really don't agree with the premise that it isn't competitive. Maybe at the margins it can be made more competitive, but that is not the reason costs are soaring. They are soaring due to medical technology, and mandates, including Obamacare, forcing insurance companies to undercharge olds, offer more coverage, and so forth. Some study just came out that insurance premiums have gone up 4% just due to the Obamacare mandates, much to the shock of the analyst who crunched the numbers for it when it was put together.

There is one constant to medical services and subsidies:  the actual costs over time will be far higher than the government tells you or projects that they will be - way more.

Those are all factors, but they hardly explain the vast variation in costs(from 16% of GDP in America, to ~12% in various single payer countries, to 8% in UK, to 4% in Singapore.). Quite frankly the explanation is price controls. See here: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/france-and-us-health-care-twins-separated-at-birth/254033/

or here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/high-health-care-costs-its-all-in-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story_2.html

As for Singapore's remarkable 4%... Singapore is distinguished by collective bargaining(on a national level) for all medical imports, hugely underpaid and overworked doctors, and a combination of public and highly regulated private hospitals focused on cutting all fat out of hospital expenditure while giving patients a cost incentive to reduce their consumption of healthcare.

Given Singapore's impressive lifespan it doesn't seem to actually have much adverse consequences on peoples health.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

How will the government make healthcare -- or indeed any human endeavor ever before seen in history -- more efficient and less expensive?  Examples please.

See my post above yours. Of particular note is the Singaporean example. It's certainly quite subjective whether you would consider it more "efficient", but it's a mathematical fact that it's less costly.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

How will the government make healthcare -- or indeed any human endeavor ever before seen in history -- more efficient and less expensive?  Examples please.

See my post above yours. Of particular note is the Singaporean example. It's certainly quite subjective whether you would consider it more "efficient", but it's a mathematical fact that it's less costly.

I think you're confusing "less costly" with "less pricey".  Let's see if I can give an example.

We'll take all of your figures as true:  The U.S. spends 16% of GNP on healthcare while other countries spend 12% or 8% or 4%.  These facts tell us exactly zero about the cost of healthcare in the various countries.  Why?  Because they assume demand is exactly the same in all countries -- which we know it is not.  It is like saying:

Bob's car needs $30 for a gasoline fill-up
Jack's car needs $45 for a gasoline fill-up
Mary's car needs $70 for a gasoline fill-up
Jill's car needs $105 for a gasoline fill-up...

...and then concluding that gasoline is more costly where Jill is.  What if Bob's car is a sub-compact, Jack's is a midsize, Mary's is an SUV, and Jill's is a full-size pick-up truck?  Then not only may the gasoline per unit cost the same but Jill's could actually be cheaper, right?

Demand affects the price of every kind of good and service, not excluding healthcare.  Americans spend more on healthcare because they demand more.

All of this is of course entirely true. In fact reducing demand for healthcare has been a cornerstone of Singapore's state policy for reducing health expenditure- they've done that primarily through heavy co-payments for public funded healthcare(with private sector also mandated to make heavy use of them), thus giving consumers a strong incentive to restrain their consumption. Also by making medical treatment a thoroughly unpleasant experience(overworked and underpaid doctors, long waiting times, public hospitals that make hospitals here in Australia look downright pleasant).*

But I don't think you can reasonably say that lower demand explains all of it. Singapore has lower public health expenditures(3.3%) then the most comparable nation, Hong Kong(6%). Hong Kong happens to have a fairly strict cost control regime as well. All other developed countries have higher health expenditures then Hong Kong. So consider that... Singapore has half the expenditures of its closest competitor.

*You might of course say that this is too high a price to pay for reduced healthcare expenditure. I don't necessarily disagree, and I'm not specifically advocating the Singaporean system. Just observing the fact that the government can potentially reduce health expenditure through cost controls and other measures... in fact America is unique in that it doesn't do so.