One out of every five dollars in our economy.
$13,710 for every man, woman and child.
Nine years away.
Your taxes WILL go up, even if we do nothing in the way of reform.
This is as close to statistical certainty as it gets.
----------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/govt-health-ta...--------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's health care tab is on track to hit $4.6 trillion in 2020, accounting for about $1 of every $5 in the economy, government number crunchers estimate in a report out Thursday.
How much is that? Including government and private money, health care spending in 2020 will average $13,710 for every man, woman and child, says Medicare's Office of the Actuary.
By comparison, U.S. health care spending this year is projected to top $2.7 trillion, or about $8,650 per capita, roughly $1 of $6 in the economy. Most of that spending is for care for the sickest people.
The report from Medicare economists and statisticians is an annual barometer of a trend that many experts say is unsustainable but doesn't seem to be slowing down. A political compromise over the nation's debt and deficits might succeed in tapping the brakes on health care, but polarized lawmakers have been unable to deliver a deal.
The analysis found that President Barack Obama's health care overhaul would only be a modest contributor to growing costs, even though an additional 30 million people who would be otherwise uninsured stand to gain coverage.
The main reasons that health care spending keeps growing faster than the economy are the high cost of medical innovations and an aging society that consumes increasing levels of service.
Many of the newly insured people under the health care law will be younger and healthier. As a result, they are expected to use more doctor visits and prescription drugs and relatively less of pricey hospital care. Health care spending will jump by 8 percent in 2014, when the law's coverage expansion kicks in. But over the 2010-2020 period covered by the estimate, the average yearly growth in health care spending will be only 0.1 percentage point higher than without Obama's overhaul.
Part of the reason for that optimistic prognosis is that cuts and cost controls in the health care law start to bite down late in the decade. However, the same nonpartisan Medicare experts who produced Thursday's estimate have previously questioned whether that austerity will be politically sustainable if hospitals and other providers start going out of business as a result. The actuary's office is responsible for long-range cost estimates.
The report found that health care spending in 2010 grew at a historically low rate of 3.9 percent, partly because of the sluggish economy. That will change as the economy shakes off the lingering effects of the recession.
Government, already the dominant player because of Medicare and Medicaid, will become even more important. By 2020, federal, state and local government health care spending will account for just under half the total tab, up from 45 percent currently. As the health care law's coverage expansion takes effect, "health care financing is anticipated to further shift toward governments," the report said.
Estimates from previous years had projected that the government share would already be at the 50 percent mark, but the actuary's office changed its method for making the complex calculations. Under the previous approach, some private payments such as worker's compensation insurance had been counted in the government column. Technical accuracy — not political pressure — was behind that change, said Stephen Heffler, one of the experts who work on the estimates.
Separately, another new report finds that the United States continues to spend far more on health care than other economically developed countries. The study by the Commonwealth Fund found that U.S. health care spending per person in 2008 was more than double the median — or midpoint— for other leading economies. Although survival rates for some cancers were higher in the U.S., the report found that quality of care overall was not markedly better.
The Medicare actuary's estimates for health care spending are published in the journal Health Affairs
Many who rail against socialised medicine complain about "rationed health care" and "death panels".
We have rationing in this country, by ability to pay.
We already have a socialisation of the costs, through all sorts of free-market cost shifting. It hides the true costs, as they get buried in increased prices for everything we buy, and services we pay for.
We are going to be faced with some tough calls, as in how much to pay. The alternative will be horror stories of neglected elderly, some of which are starting to emerge already.
It will get MUCH worse, and the only realistic solution I see is a single payor health care system, with the government acting as a giant insurance company. Otherwise I think costs are going to spiral out of control.
I would rather have the costs out front and in the open through direct taxes, than through a thousand little cuts of added costs to everything we buy. Both are less than perfect solutions, but a central clearinghouse for the risks benefits from an economy of scale that tens of thousands of insurance companies, HMO's and hospital systems can't hope to match.
The direct taxes will allow us to address systemic problems because they are much easier to track, and provide feedback for.
My two cents.
The sick-care division of the UCA vampire-squid is sucking wealth out of citizenry.
There's no way to stop it.
Just slowing it down will cause the sick-care industry to find other ways to screw us, just like swipe fees lost by banks will be recouped in fees and billing "errors" elsewhere.
There really is nothing to be done. Abandon Hope, All Ye Lower 95%.
But but the Democrats passed their healthcare overhaul and fixed everything.
no, they didn't go nearly far enough to fix everything.
A good start, but too many half-assed solutions, like always, because of GOP foot stomping.
You Lie
UCA blocked all the major reforms that would have "bent the cost curve down", while ensuring themselves 40M taxpayer-subsidized clients.
what was blocked?
hardcore public option for everybody.
killing Medicare Advantage
killing the Repug rule blocking the Feds from negotiating volume prices from BigPharma and device mfrs.
killing the tax expenditure of employer health plan benefits.
etc, etc.
Uh, anyone think this is a GOOD thing?
Can't pin that one on the GOP. They weren't involved in writing the bill and none of them voted for it. The bill we got is a 100% democratic creation.
I'm not a fan of ACA but what was in place before wasn't anything to write home about either, tbh.
The saddest part is that this was a great opportunity to actually do some radical change (i.e.:single payor) and it was wasted. Then again, that vote demonstrated just how much of the same GOP and democrats are.
If you really want to tackle the problem of rising healthcare costs, find an answer to these two questions.
1. What are we going to do about a system where everyone gets treated, but not everyone is paying for it? (answer needs to include how we're going to handle illegals)
2. What are we going to do about an American population that is both A) aging and B) prefers to rely on the healthcare system to protect them from the consequences of living unhealthy lifestyles as opposed to actually changing their lifestyles?
As for single payor, given the mess that our single payor system for seniors called medicare is, why should anyone expect a single payor system for everyone to be anything other than an even bigger mess? All a single payor system does is shift the costs of those who can't afford coverage from the insured to the taxpayers, filtered through what can only be an incredibly inefficient federal bureaucracy. For all the faults our current system has, I don't see how we come out ahead.
That's what's already happening, only it filters through an apparently incredibly efficient bureaucracies of public and private health care providers and insurance companies.All a single payor system does is shift the costs of those who can't afford coverage from the insured to the taxpayers, filtered through what can only be an incredibly inefficient federal bureaucracy.
"Can't pin that one on the GOP"
You Lie
Barry and Dems made concession after concession after concession for the Repugs to weaken the reform and enrich the UCA, and still the Repugs didn't vote for it.
Same for TARP. Repugs started it under dupbay, and then voted against it under Barry, so they could tell their ignorant base that they were against it, when in fact TARP was a Repug idea that Pres McLiar and his Treasury would have done the same bailout.
If healthcare is too expensive we ought to get around, at some point, to actually talking about the COST of healthcare, and not just how we are going to pay the price.
Most other countries have solved this most basic of issues with a big, strong, government hand: Price controls on what healthcare providers can charge.
Doctors in Germany, for instance, make essentially the same income as German school teachers. (Just got back from there)
Germans are covered by private insurance (also heavily regulated).
Does anyone think doctors and teachers should earn the same pay?
Germans, apparently.
We're already shifting the burden to the taxpayers in a major way. 1 in 10 americans don't have a job, and no coverage. They get sick the same. The elderly, who use the system the most for obvious reasons are already dumped by private insurance to the government. Add to that the undo ented and those that think they're too smart and don't need insurance, but have an accident or get sick just the same. The reality here is that we're already shouldering a lot. Might aswell pick up the rest, have Medicare control pricing with suppliers, like most other government-run services, raise some taxes if you have to, and provide the service.
If you don't want to go that far, then use a hybrid system (which I stated is my favorite). Have the government run some clinics and hospitals that provide 'basic' care (which is the basically the bulk of care), and let private insurance provide a supplemental service for the high end stuff, or concierge type of service, for the people that can afford it.
And you're spot on. The difference here is that a lot of these countries view healthcare as an investment in the country (a sort of right to basic care for a better society), so they tell providers that they're in this not just for the buck, but you're also going to have to give up some dough for the benefit of the entire country. In a way, that's the reason the comparison with teachers is more than just apt. Granted, it's a mentality that will probably not work well with some people here.
Implement that here and watch med school enrollment plummet.
That's ok. There's plenty of indian doctors willing to come over.
Why are there still Germans applying to medical school?
Or Americans willing to be teachers?
, let's just continue down the road of scorched Earth economic policies laid out by progressives. There are already symptoms of that cancer showing up in europe.
Right. I'm sure that's exactly how it went down.
Democrats: "We want you to vote for our healthcare bill."
Republicans: "No ing way."
Democrats: "What if we gave you all these concessions?"
Republicans: " you."
Democrats, huddled in a room amongst themselves: "Even though we don't need the Republicans in order to get a bill passed, is everyone okay if we just make a bunch of concessions to Republicans?"
Republicans, open door: "Go find a death panel you ing socialists!"
Democrats, once again among themselves: "Great idea, we definitely need to make concessions to the republicans."
Bill passes, with no republicans voting for it.
Democrats: "Crap. This bill sucks. This is all the Republicans fault."
Without Googling some bag's blog, what specific symptoms are showing up in the health care system in Germany?
Depends on which part of Europe. Some countries are doing well (i.e.: Germany). A little closer to home, how bout them Canadians? How are their faring with their healthcare costs? You would think they're swimming in debt... you know, like the US?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
