It takes 3000 to count to 100billion

1.8trillion is 1800billion

18x3

54000 years. 

But if your gonna include the "Trillion" word while counting. 

It would take SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER.

The main problem I see with health insurance is that you can be perfectly healthy but have to pay way more than you should because you have a bunch of obese, diabetics, etc.. that you are grouped in with. I know they want to pool everyone together to "reduce" costs but there simply needs to be way more discounts for the ones that are actually healthy. Good health insurance shouldn't cost more than 50-80 dollars per month for someone that is almost of perfect health. Right now I can only find shit plans for around 120+ a month. Why would I want to waste 120+ a month on a shitty plan (little coverage, high deductible, etc..)?  This is why I don't have health insurance.  I have dental and vision though because I actually see a benefit in having those plans (about 7 a week for dental and less than 2 for vision)

Hmm, the point of my post was to address to both of you that percentage of GDP is not at a historical high (to the other guy), and that rates do not correlate to revenues (to you).

Obviously, there are strong arguments for whether taxes lead to growth or not, as with all things economic. Problem is that there's hardly any evidence for any claim, because there's a million other variables which could have influenced the outcome.

For me, however, taxes are a moral problem, not an economic one. Personally, I'd like to see income taxes completely zeroed, outlawed, and constitutionally banned. I do, however, see deficits and unfunded liabilities as an even bigger moral problem, and an economic one... so I wouldn't call for an immediate end to the income tax, just a gradual reduction as the books are balanced. I'd like to see the reduction come from the bottom, though, rather than the top (as its the bottom that's hit hardest by taxes, deficits, and unfunded liabilities).

Here's the problem though: the health insurance company has no idea that you're perfectly healthy, that's why they group you together.

Have you looked into whether you can get a medical savings account? This might prove a far better option in the long term, and having to put up with the shitty insurance while you shore up your savings account. MSAs/HSAs (same thing, just replace "Medical" with "Health") are probably the best way of dealing with healthcare, with a small/cheap insurance plan that just deals with massive emergencies (sudden heart failure, really expensive cancer treatment, that kind of thing).

Unfortunately, the insurance industry has done everything they can to make HSAs look as bad as possible - by getting tax breaks for those who use insurance,  creating legal complications, etc. This is why I hate it when people claim the failing of the American health system is that it's private and free market... it really isn't, it's crony capitalism.

I always thought negative towards those health savings plan.  I came down with appendicitis a few years back with no health insurance.  Hospital wrote it off as tax break (heavily I might add considering it was either 20k or 30k (prob 20k) bill for one night stay in hospital).  I've already told this story numerous times but basically my parents helped me pay out of pocket for the MRI, anesthesia, surgery, and pathology .  That was around 3k or so out of pocket (surgeon cut a break (charged a little over 1k) for paying it in full and that my mom was a nurse with the same hospital network).  So the hospital billed the government 20k for giving me pain killers and checking up on me every so often considering I already paid for the rest out of pocket.  That right there is a scam.  I could have basically gone home after the surgery with pain killers and been fine.  Anyways, I got side tracked with that story...

I wanted to say if I had a health savings account then it could have been used up then but who knows if I would have had the money to cover the bs charges the hospital throws in...  I hardly ever get sick and if I do I tough it out.  Maybe if I was about to die I'd take a prescription pill but I don't need any of that crap on a daily basis.  If you charge 5-10 dollars per aspirin in a US hospital then someone has to be making some serious cheese.  That is easier profit than selling crack or heroin.

Well, like I said, you need to look into it. I understand some states do have some favourable laws towards HSAs which make them more beneficial (I think Utah's one of them... going by what Huntsman said in a debate a few months back).

Most of what you said is exactly my point about the crony capitalism. That sort of situation would not happen in a free market, not at those price levels.

Actually we spend less on drugs as far as a percentage of healthcare costs when compaired to the OCED average.  It like healthcare are actually very small contributors to the problem.  What we pay doctors is above average though... that to is about average percentage wise.  As other OCED nations, so a bigger problem but still not near the biggest.

One issue is that well... american's want the best... and because it's a capitlist soceity, essentially hospitals need to get the best equipment.

If an MRI has a .5% chance of finding head trauma better the hospital needs it.    The US is a heavy adopter of new medical technologies. 

Versus something like socialized programs, where they can place new technology in relativly few hospitals and hold it out only to specific groups, or heck, not even adopt it for years.  Since there is little to no competition.

Also, interesting story... New Zealand where you are from, actually pays a higher percentage of medical treatments "Out of Pocket" then the US does... as do most OCED countries with socialized systems.  Something that's... strange, to say the least no?

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

^ @ kasz - I'm confused as to why you say that a socialised healthcare system does not have competition. Every single name at the two links below is competing to provide the best healthcare in a single state in Australia (population around 7 million iirc)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Australia
http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/candidates_and_parties/registered_political_parties/list_of_registered_parties

A) Fighting over a monopoly isn't exactly the same thing.

B) It's one issue out of DOZENS their "customers" require.

A) True, it is slightly different, a public system has the happiness of the majority as its number one priority and economic matters (breaking even, profiting or costing less) as a secondary concern, whereas Capitalism prioritises profit above other things. These slight similarities lead to slightly different effects, but there is still fierce competition in both systems to provide the best possible services. The only time that problems actually arise, is when socialism is combined with totalitarianism - in a single party state, such as the USSR, there is no longer competition.

B) I don't see how a holistic approach to running a country can be considered worse than running each sector with complete disregard for the rest of the country. Lets consider a scenario where a factory owner can increase output by $x at the expense of emitting significant amounts of a chemical, which will cause health problems to the general population equal to $2x. A free market (no goverment intervention) capitalist would suggest that the factory owner should go ahead with the output increase.
The owner of a hospital has a chance to install some high tech machinery, which costs $1.25 * x and will eliminate health problems in the population by 1.75 * x. The capitalist hospital owner would go ahead with it.

The net effect of these two decisions, in the capitalists case, would be a decrease in useful factory output by 0.25x and an increase in the cost associated with health problems by 0.25x.

Total profit = -0.5x

For a socialist situation, the government would correctly identify that, due to the interaction between factory output and health, this particular factory upgrade would not be worth it. If they could find some other way to increase output, then they would still go ahead with the hospital improvement, as it has a net profit.

Capitalism is inherently flawed, because of selfishness. (Note, I am not saying Socialism is perfect, please do not respond as if I did say this.) In some situations, socialism will produce better results, in some, capitalism will. I gave you a(n obviously cherry picked) example of where socialism will produce better results.

In conclusion, I don't think either pure capitalism or pure socialism are sensible. In the case of something vital (health, education water, electricity), I think that governments generally do better at providing these services - a company can alienate significant numbers of poor people without it impacting on their bottom line. democratic governments cannot do so, and must therefore provide a minimum standard to everyone. Many systems allow for private competition with the government - We have private schools and healthcare systems in Australia and they cater to the people that are willing to spend the extra money.
Whereas other things, production of consumer goods, food etc are generally best done by private companies only. The one thing I will add is that even here, I do not advocate complete free market capitalism. I believe in government regulations such as the requirement that food companies provide nutritional information. I disapprove of other forms of government regulation in these markets, such as the Australian governments bizarre decision to prop up a stupid and unsustainable rice growing industry in a country that is mostly desert.

Wow, that was a long response. If you got to this point, well done :)