6 ms·

You absolutely can in real terms. https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2019/12/03/no-means-no-the-high-income-elasticity-of-health-expenditure-does-not-mean-we-a

by rcafdm 7y ago

You absolutely can in real terms. https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2019/12/03/no-means-no-the-high-income-elasticity-of-health-expenditure-does-not-mean-we-are-going-to-starve/ https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2019/12/03/no-means-no-th... Also while I agree that 100% of a GDP is a reasonable approximation of an upper limit in practice, that's not necessarily strictly true either. GDP measures domestic production, not the income available to residents. The income available to residents can certainly be much less than GDP (e.g., Ireland, Luxembourg, etc), so the reverse can be true in principle too.

cma 7y ago
Since healthcare is priced into every salary, I'd expect at least some big portion to come through on non-imported goods (though if it was 2X it wouldn't on its own bring every other thing to 2X).
- rcafdm 7y ago
  I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Obviously, healthcare must be paid for somehow and it’s a fair assumption workers bear most of the incidence. However, the role of real incomes and relative prices are generally under appreciated here.ie. It’s not so much that health benefits are something extra as part of total remuneration (ultimately a reflection of rising productivity elsewhere which frees up spending to be allocated to health and other services)