This is either misleading or just confused. India funds roughly 25% of health care costs through the government, and has lower employment costs, yet you imply that if we were to incrementally approach their health-care system, the difference in employment costs would widen.
Edit: incidentally I agree with your point that IBM's issue is as simple as lower employment costs, but I'd suggest it's lower because Indians have a lower overall cost of living and lower standard of living, and the best students generally want to move to a country where they aren't climbing over mountains of trash and starving people all the time. I think we ought to let more of them do so, but in the meantime, of course companies are going to move to where the cheaper resources are.
They do indeed have a lower cost of living, roughly 1/5 of an Americans, and almost 1/8th of a British person.
When Indians all expect to have 13000BTU air conditioners in their houses, all expect to have luxury SUV's, high-speed broadband with $2,000 laptops and $4,000 desktops and maybe a few cheaper ones for the kids (if they don't play video games) and maybe a few games consoles (because all kids play some sort of video games), and don't forget the $600 cell phones with $3000 contracts . . .
Of course their cost of living is cheaper, people there actually walk to their work. I've never seen a person in economic problems walk to their work in a western country, despite it saving them almost two hours wages a day.
Surely you cannot fail to have noticed how much Americans currently spend on health care, and how moving from private industry to state industry consistently increases the amount spent (at least in the US!)? Now, a case could be made that health care is an exception, largely because it's so heavily regulated already as to be effectively a poorly-run state industry with private profits. However, taking any other country's efficient or well-run government program and trying to build one like it in the US is probably doomed to failure. The US government has very bad incentives for "efficient" and "well-run".
I don't think you get to just make assertions like that without any facts.
Medicare, which is already a government-run health insurance plan, and one whose customers are so satisfied they are militantly protective of it, has lower administrative costs than private insurance companies:
I don't have specific data on Medicare, but you aren't exactly arguing against what I said, I notice. One would expect the beneficiaries of a government program to be militantly protective of it, and the less efficient, the more so -- no one hires lobbyists to reduce money or services they're getting.
I am if you read the link, which is actually a good survey of what turns out to be a somewhat complicated question, due to the differing populations served. I don't think it's fully settled, but I think the assertion "Medicare has lower administrative costs that private insurance" has a much better shot at surviving than the negative of that assertion.
The government is unbeatably efficient at writing checks. I don't know where you get this notion that somehow the government would be an inefficient purveyor of health insurance. It simply isn't true.
> I don't think it's fully settled, but I think the assertion "Medicare has lower administrative costs that private insurance" has a much better shot at surviving than the negative of that assertion.
It doesn't matter whether that assertion is true. It's almost a dumb a question as wondering about whose check writing costs are lower. (I've never seen someone wonder about that wrt defense spending.) The closest relevant question is whether govt healthcare is more effective. The folks currently covered by US govt paid healthcare aren't being covered for less and aren't having better outcomes than the folks covered by the private system. (I'm ignoring horrorshows like the Indian Health Service. They'd almost be better off if we gave them blankets infected with diseases and cases of whiskey.)
Then there's the "fairness" question. I know several folks who pay a lot of taxes who are "heavy" and/or old. On what basis are you planning to deny them govt funded healthcare?
On the other end of the scale, your choice to subsidize an activity does not obligate the recipients of that subsidy to minimize your costs.
You're drifting far, far away from the issue that was raised at the beginning of this thread. tjic asserted, I believe as an article of ideological faith, not based on any facts or evidence, that the proposed medical insurance bills in Congress would raise overall employment costs in the U.S. That assertion is what I took issue with, because I hate to see people blindly voting up stuff they agree with without thinking about it. Nothing else.
In any case, I don't think your "closest relevant question" is well-formed. For one thing, no one is proposing "govt [sic] healthcare". For another, though what you write is frustratingly vague, it looks like you're proposing to compare outcomes between those 65 and over who are covered by Medicare with those who are young and healthy and covered through their employers -- obviously the populations are going to have very different outcomes.
> the proposed medical insurance bills in Congress would raise overall employment costs in the U.S. That assertion is what I took issue with
Your response was to claim that the govt could write checks cheaply. It's fair to point out that that response isn't relevant to the question.
> For one thing, no one is proposing "govt [sic] healthcare".
Sure they are - that's what the "govt option" is.
We have experience with lots of experience with "govt healthcare" in the US outside of Medicare and the VA. We have the Indian Health Service. We have the various state programs. and so on.
Besides, proponents of ObamaCare can't honestly ignore Medicare. They're fond of saying "we can save 30%". Since the elderly get 70% of today's spending, getting close to 30% savings means that Obamacare must reduce the cost of Medicare or it has to cut all other healthcare spending to near 0.
I'm actually all for letting Obama experiment on folks who get healthcare from govt funding (both actual govt programs and govt employees who get private healthcare). If you include federal, state, and local, that's about as many people as are currently in the private system
I think that he should have free rein to do whatever he thinks will work with those folks and the amount of money that we're spending on them today. However, in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, the per-person budget should be cut by 5%. Since that's less than 20% and he's promising 30%, that's a slam dunk, and he can even use the savings to bring more people into the program.
If he's right, folks on this govt plan will be healthier and so on and the savings will be too big to ignore. If he's wrong, govt employees and the like will revolt.
The government is unbeatably efficient at writing checks.
I think we have different ideas about what economic efficiency entails. I'm not sure that "efficiency" at wasting money is a good thing, nor is it usually what is meant in the context of providing services. (I have not yet had an opportunity to read your link, however, so perhaps this is answered in it).
Take a look at the VA health care system: it's best in class on almost every imaginable metric, including cost. Totally government run. It's time to realise that governmental organizations can be just as efficient or inefficient as private ones. Name me a government organization as badly managed as GM!
Let's see... providing a product that no-one really wants, completely ineffective bureaucracy built on conflicting fiefdoms, incapable of an original thought, blind to the objective reality of their policy/product failures...
The British government is a disaster at efficiency, the French system is outright appalling and has one of the best health care systems in the world. By this progression, if the US had universal health care you would pay a penny and live forever.
Edit: incidentally I agree with your point that IBM's issue is as simple as lower employment costs, but I'd suggest it's lower because Indians have a lower overall cost of living and lower standard of living, and the best students generally want to move to a country where they aren't climbing over mountains of trash and starving people all the time. I think we ought to let more of them do so, but in the meantime, of course companies are going to move to where the cheaper resources are.