Healthcare Projected To Cost Near $50 Trillion Over Next Ten Years

[Dragonlady]

I understand the simple concept but the system is much more complicated than that. A standard of care/coverage needs to be set, right? You can’t have people going to the doctor every day for every sniffle free of charge, right? The dynamic totally changes when people no longer have to pay for things. How many more doctors appointments will be made? How will doctors offices handle the increased traffic? What will wait times look like? How will costs be effected? How is abuse identified and prevented?

I would be more concerned about abuses by doctors and health care providers than I would be about patients abusing the system. Yes, you can have people going to the doctor for every sniffle, free of charge. In a system where everyone has equal right to access, patients don't abuse the system. But doctors and clinics can and do.

People don't go to the doctor for every sniffle because it's too much trouble to do so. Making the appointment, taking time off work, sitting around the office with a bunch of sick people. Yes we have shortages of caregivers here, but please remember that the the Medicial Industrial Complex controls the number of people entering medical school, and keeps the number of new doctors artificially low to keep prices high.

Costs will go down. Substantially. I read an article a few years ago written by a doctor who had worked in both Canada and the US and he said that the made more money in the US, but he got to keep more of the money he made in Canada. That was because the government controls reimbursement rates for all procedures in Canada. Reimbursement rates are control by the Provinces, so they're adjusted based on local costs. This doctor said he spent more time with patients and was able to see more patients in Canada, and focus on their care, not on getting pre-approvals with insurance companies. He also didn't need a third party billing company to collect co-pays and bill insurance companies. His receptionist billed the province.

We have no co-pays on doctor visits or hospital care. You can buy a private or semi-private room in hospital, as well as cable TV and computer access, but our program only covers prescriptions for children seniors, and doesn't cover dental, so we have supplemental insurance with co-pays there, through employers.

 

[keepitreal]

Pseudocons scoff at the projected cost of "Medicare For All" being $35 trillion over the next ten years.

However, under our current system, healthcare in America will rack up an astounding $47 trillion over the next ten years!

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...ealthExpendData/Downloads/ForecastSummary.pdf

Health spending is projected to grow 0.8 percentage point faster than Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per year over the 2018-27 period; as a result, the health share of GDP is expected to rise from 17.9 percent in 2017 to 19.4 percent by 2027.

<snip>

National health spending is projected to have grown 4.4 percent in 2018, up from 3.9 percent growth in 2017, and to have reached $3.6 trillion.

<snip>

National health expenditures are projected to grow 4.8 percent in 2019, up from 4.4 percent growth in 2018, and to reach $3.8 trillion.

<snip>

For 2020-27, national health spending growth is projected to average 5.7 percent, from 4.8 percent in 2019, and reach nearly $6.0 trillion by 2027. With nominal GDP growth expected to average 4.6 percent during this period, the health share of GDP is expected to increase to 19.4 percent by 2027, from 17.8 percent in 2019.


Notice the incredibly optimistic projection that GDP will grow an average of 4.6 percent.

Pseudocons scoff at the projected cost of "Medicare For All" being $35 trillion over the next ten years.

However, under our current system, healthcare in America will rack up an astounding $47 trillion over the next ten years!

Omg...how I WISH,
a cloak of invisibility actually existed,
and it was in my possession!

 

[dblack]

Catastrophic policies don't even kick in until you've already spent thousands of dollars on your own care. Half of all Americans live paycheck to paycheck and can't withstand an expected expense of $500, so the idea that they can pay $10,000 for their early cancer care is ludicrous.

And this is where we come face to face with our delusions regarding insurance. Insurance isn't a way go provide health care to people who can't afford it. I'll say it again, insurance isn't a way to provide health care to people who can't afford it.

People who can't afford basic health care have no business wasting money on insurance. They need to either figure out a way to earn more money, or get in line for charity or welfare.

Now, this is compounded by the fact that health care prices are growing beyond reason. And we can address that - without insurance. In fact, minimizing our use of insurance is the first step in restoring some kind of balance to the health care market.

 

[g5000]

Pseudocons scoff at the projected cost of "Medicare For All" being $35 trillion over the next ten years.

However, under our current system, healthcare in America will rack up an astounding $47 trillion over the next ten years!

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...ealthExpendData/Downloads/ForecastSummary.pdf

Health spending is projected to grow 0.8 percentage point faster than Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per year over the 2018-27 period; as a result, the health share of GDP is expected to rise from 17.9 percent in 2017 to 19.4 percent by 2027.

<snip>

National health spending is projected to have grown 4.4 percent in 2018, up from 3.9 percent growth in 2017, and to have reached $3.6 trillion.

<snip>

National health expenditures are projected to grow 4.8 percent in 2019, up from 4.4 percent growth in 2018, and to reach $3.8 trillion.

<snip>

For 2020-27, national health spending growth is projected to average 5.7 percent, from 4.8 percent in 2019, and reach nearly $6.0 trillion by 2027. With nominal GDP growth expected to average 4.6 percent during this period, the health share of GDP is expected to increase to 19.4 percent by 2027, from 17.8 percent in 2019.


Notice the incredibly optimistic projection that GDP will grow an average of 4.6 percent.

Pseudocons scoff at the projected cost of "Medicare For All" being $35 trillion over the next ten years.

However, under our current system, healthcare in America will rack up an astounding $47 trillion over the next ten years!

Omg...how I WISH,
a cloak of invisibility actually existed,
and it was in my possession!

There is a cloak of invisibility around the Trump/GOP health care reform plan.

"You're going to have such great health care at a tiny fraction of the cost, and it's going to be so easy."







Trump's Chumps swallowed that bullshit hook, line, and sinker.



.

 

[Slade3200]

Totally makes sense but the next step is looking at real numbers. Intangibles are great but to actually put a law together and implement a system this big there needs to be a fiscal and feasibility analysis that uses real numbers. Do you agree?

As with any policy, the numbers must be crunched.

Have you taken the time to look for the existence of such analysis?

I have not. I’m listening to the national conversation and ideas from our leaders and I have looked into things they talk about but have yet to see an in depth analysis. I hope somebody has one done and then starts referring to it. Biggest problem that the Left has is speaking to how they pay for their agenda items.

It's very simple. Single payer healthcare is paid for with higher taxes. At the same time, you and your employer have no more annual insurance payments.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I understand the simple concept but the system is much more complicated than that. A standard of care/coverage needs to be set, right? You can’t have people going to the doctor every day for every sniffle free of charge, right? The dynamic totally changes when people no longer have to pay for things. How many more doctors appointments will be made? How will doctors offices handle the increased traffic? What will wait times look like? How will costs be effected? How is abuse identified and prevented?

The VA is a system that is government run, right? It has some great elements and some really bad broken elements. Don’t you think that system should be polished and humming before we scale it up to a national level? Thoughts?

My family member with the catastrophic illness got that way because of bungling by a private sector neurosurgeon. So no one will ever convince me the VA is worse than the private sector.

Even better, the state had "tort reform" which made it impossible to sue the fuckwit doctor.

So...yeah.

As I mentioned earlier, there are not a lot of people who can afford that kind of burden.

Libertarians shitheads think we should all pay our costs out of pocket, with NO insurance. As if everyone can afford the many millions of dollars which have been spent on my family member as a result of the catastrophic illness.

These dipshits believe you should go around with a begging bowl to pay for the costs.

Meanwhile, Trump and the GOP sit with their thumbs up their asses, promising they have an answer in their empty pockets. But not today! We'll have it for you next Tuesday and it will be so easy!


And THAT is why we are going to end up with single payer.

I’m not interested in “every man for himself” plans. We know that’s not realistic or affordable so why even discuss it. The relevant discussion is private insurance vs single payer. It will only happen if it can make financial sense and if the system can support the increased traffic.

We’ve seen crazy wait times for the VA which has lead to death. That’s a problem. Also seem crazy wait times in other socialized systems. It’s a valid concern. Financially we need to understand the costs. Do you agree?

 

[dblack]

Libertarians shitheads think we should all pay our costs out of pocket, with NO insurance. As if everyone can afford the many millions of dollars which have been spent on my family member as a result of the catastrophic illness.

No, you're leaving out important details (on purpose?). This libertarian shithead thinks we should pay for as much of our own health care as we can possibly afford, and use insurance only for those expenses that would actually bankrupt a family.

These dipshits believe you should go around with a begging bowl to pay for the costs.

Nope, we just recognize that insurance is not a sane way to provide welfare. People who can't afford basic health care are poor. They don't need insurance, they need money.

And THAT is why we are going to end up with single payer.

No, we'll get single payer - if it happens - because people are willing to enslave themselves for security.

 

[Andylusion]

Pseudocons scoff at the projected cost of "Medicare For All" being $35 trillion over the next ten years.

However, under our current system, healthcare in America will rack up an astounding $47 trillion over the next ten years!

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...ealthExpendData/Downloads/ForecastSummary.pdf

Health spending is projected to grow 0.8 percentage point faster than Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per year over the 2018-27 period; as a result, the health share of GDP is expected to rise from 17.9 percent in 2017 to 19.4 percent by 2027.

<snip>

National health spending is projected to have grown 4.4 percent in 2018, up from 3.9 percent growth in 2017, and to have reached $3.6 trillion.

<snip>

National health expenditures are projected to grow 4.8 percent in 2019, up from 4.4 percent growth in 2018, and to reach $3.8 trillion.

<snip>

For 2020-27, national health spending growth is projected to average 5.7 percent, from 4.8 percent in 2019, and reach nearly $6.0 trillion by 2027. With nominal GDP growth expected to average 4.6 percent during this period, the health share of GDP is expected to increase to 19.4 percent by 2027, from 17.8 percent in 2019.


Notice the incredibly optimistic projection that GDP will grow an average of 4.6 percent.

I don't see a problem with this.

If you said car spending was going up, you would assume this was good, because more people were getting a car they wanted.

Health care spending is higher, because more people are getting care they want.
How is this bad?

When we complain about Medicare for All, that's not people voluntarily paying for health care they want.

That's people having the gun of Federal Tax pointed at their pay checks, and having their money stolen from them to pay for care they are not getting, that generally speaking isn't nearly as good as the care they pay for.

Not only this, but every single country with gov-care, ends up with problems like Denmark 200% Tax on cars, or France's yellow vest protests.

Do we really want a 50% tax rate on the middle class? Yes or no?

 

[Slade3200]

I agree, but we need to apply those systems to our current environment as far as costs are concerned and see how everything balances out. I don’t see much of the deep dive being taken here, just talking points from our “leaders”

I'll find you a source. Universal preventive care leads to illness being discovered sooner which saves money. And, as G5K said, the administrative costs and the PROFIT TAKING are huge drivers of cost in our current system.

Totally makes sense but the next step is looking at real numbers. Intangibles are great but to actually put a law together and implement a system this big there needs to be a fiscal and feasibility analysis that uses real numbers. Do you agree?

As with any policy, the numbers must be crunched.

Have you taken the time to look for the existence of such analysis?

I have not. I’m listening to the national conversation and ideas from our leaders and I have looked into things they talk about but have yet to see an in depth analysis. I hope somebody has one done and then starts referring to it. Biggest problem that the Left has is speaking to how they pay for their agenda items.

I assure you that analysis has been done. But as any analysis will depend upon projection and supposition, the odds that they will satisfy your needs are low.

The real savings of having everyone covered and cared for can only be realized once it is actually done.

I dont think you are going to pass a bill with that argument. That’s like pitching investors for a business idea and instead of projecting profits you just ask them to trust you and wait till the business is built to realize the value. Nobody is going to invest in that

 

[Billy000]

Govt getting in healthcare caused a sky rocket in cost. Just like everything else the govt touches.
Why cant we get govt out of healthcare completely? Cash prices are cheap and would only get cheaper.
Orrr we could pass an amendment so the govt actually has the power for medicare for all.
I dont see either happening. You rubes love the govt abusing its power.

Quit pretending you have any idea what you are talking about.

Then prove me wrong, faggot

Lol this article proves you wrong.

 

[g5000]

As with any policy, the numbers must be crunched.

Have you taken the time to look for the existence of such analysis?

I have not. I’m listening to the national conversation and ideas from our leaders and I have looked into things they talk about but have yet to see an in depth analysis. I hope somebody has one done and then starts referring to it. Biggest problem that the Left has is speaking to how they pay for their agenda items.

It's very simple. Single payer healthcare is paid for with higher taxes. At the same time, you and your employer have no more annual insurance payments.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I understand the simple concept but the system is much more complicated than that. A standard of care/coverage needs to be set, right? You can’t have people going to the doctor every day for every sniffle free of charge, right? The dynamic totally changes when people no longer have to pay for things. How many more doctors appointments will be made? How will doctors offices handle the increased traffic? What will wait times look like? How will costs be effected? How is abuse identified and prevented?

The VA is a system that is government run, right? It has some great elements and some really bad broken elements. Don’t you think that system should be polished and humming before we scale it up to a national level? Thoughts?

My family member with the catastrophic illness got that way because of bungling by a private sector neurosurgeon. So no one will ever convince me the VA is worse than the private sector.

Even better, the state had "tort reform" which made it impossible to sue the fuckwit doctor.

So...yeah.

As I mentioned earlier, there are not a lot of people who can afford that kind of burden.

Libertarians shitheads think we should all pay our costs out of pocket, with NO insurance. As if everyone can afford the many millions of dollars which have been spent on my family member as a result of the catastrophic illness.

These dipshits believe you should go around with a begging bowl to pay for the costs.

Meanwhile, Trump and the GOP sit with their thumbs up their asses, promising they have an answer in their empty pockets. But not today! We'll have it for you next Tuesday and it will be so easy!


And THAT is why we are going to end up with single payer.

I’m not interested in “every man for himself” plans. We know that’s not realistic or affordable so why even discuss it. The relevant discussion is private insurance vs single payer. It will only happen if it can make financial sense and if the system can support the increased traffic.

As I pointed out way, way back in this topic, the OECD countries which have single payer have much, much lower per capita costs for healthcare.

So the evidence of "financial sense" is right in front of you.

Also, the whole reason I started this topic was to contrast the $50 trillion cost if we do NOTHING, compared to the $35 trillion cost if we go to Medicare For All.

If Trump and the GOP hucksters do not offer something better, then you can whine about feasibility all you like. It will get you nowhere. In fact, it is just a diversion away from holding Trump's feet to the fire.

 

[dblack]

I’m not interested in “every man for himself” plans. We know that’s not realistic or affordable so why even discuss it. The relevant discussion is private insurance vs single payer.

I adamantly disagree. The biggest problem with health care is that we've been abusing insurance for 60 years. We've convinced ourselves it's a club you join to score free health care. It doesn't matter whether the insurance company is owned by a corporation, or the government - it still causes the same problems. Insurance isn't a viable way to finance health care. Period.

 

[Slade3200]

I understand the simple concept but the system is much more complicated than that. A standard of care/coverage needs to be set, right? You can’t have people going to the doctor every day for every sniffle free of charge, right? The dynamic totally changes when people no longer have to pay for things. How many more doctors appointments will be made? How will doctors offices handle the increased traffic? What will wait times look like? How will costs be effected? How is abuse identified and prevented?

I would be more concerned about abuses by doctors and health care providers than I would be about patients abusing the system. Yes, you can have people going to the doctor for every sniffle, free of charge. In a system where everyone has equal right to access, patients don't abuse the system. But doctors and clinics can and do.

People don't go to the doctor for every sniffle because it's too much trouble to do so. Making the appointment, taking time off work, sitting around the office with a bunch of sick people. Yes we have shortages of caregivers here, but please remember that the the Medicial Industrial Complex controls the number of people entering medical school, and keeps the number of new doctors artificially low to keep prices high.

Costs will go down. Substantially. I read an article a few years ago written by a doctor who had worked in both Canada and the US and he said that the made more money in the US, but he got to keep more of the money he made in Canada. That was because the government controls reimbursement rates for all procedures in Canada. Reimbursement rates are control by the Provinces, so they're adjusted based on local costs. This doctor said he spent more time with patients and was able to see more patients in Canada, and focus on their care, not on getting pre-approvals with insurance companies. He also didn't need a third party billing company to collect co-pays and bill insurance companies. His receptionist billed the province.

We have no co-pays on doctor visits or hospital care. You can buy a private or semi-private room in hospital, as well as cable TV and computer access, but our program only covers prescriptions for children seniors, and doesn't cover dental, so we have supplemental insurance with co-pays there, through employers.

A agree that abuse from doctors and clinics and pharma are also big concerns. Regarding your other point, do you think Canada has better medical care than the US?

 

[g5000]

Once again:

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What I think we should do....is NOTHING.
.

And there you have it.

This is exactly why the Democrats will win on healthcare in the long run.

The only solution is a government solution?

BULLSHIT!!!

If that's the case, we need to go to war and Texas can be independent from all you commies!!!

I welcome war. I think that will solve A LOT of health care problems.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The solution to health care in the U.S. is civil war and Texas independence.

.

 

[g5000]

What I think we should do....is NOTHING.
.

And there you have it.

This is exactly why the Democrats will win on healthcare in the long run.

The only solution is a government solution?

BULLSHIT!!!

If that's the case, we need to go to war and Texas can be independent from all you commies!!!

I welcome war. I think that will solve A LOT of health care problems.

.

No, there are many solutions. Unfortunately, the Democrats are the only ones out there offering one.

Trump is offering NOTHING.

And that is why the Democratic answer is inevitable.

Why is this not penetrating your thick skull? Why is this not penetrating any of the skulls of Trump's Rube Herd?

 

[g5000]

The solution to health care in the U.S. is civil war and Texas independence.

.

Ah.

"We have no answer, so we're just gonna start a'shootin!"

 

[Staidhup]

As long as tort reform remains elusive, courts and juries award unprecedented awards to plaintiffs, the expense will continue to escalate due to the fact that malpractice, hospital, clinic, and bio pharmaceutical liability insurance rates will also rise.
Aside from that minor fact I thought Obama care was going to reduce healthcare costs. I guess that portion of the bill wasn’t investigated prior to passing the dam thing.
The fundamental driving force behind escalating individual insurance rates remains tort reform, lack of free open markets, and lobbyists.

 

[g5000]

I don't see a problem with this.

If you said car spending was going up, you would assume this was good, because more people were getting a car they wanted.

Health care spending is higher, because more people are getting care they want.
How is this bad?

Oh wow.

Just...wow.

 

[Brain357]

I understand the simple concept but the system is much more complicated than that. A standard of care/coverage needs to be set, right? You can’t have people going to the doctor every day for every sniffle free of charge, right? The dynamic totally changes when people no longer have to pay for things. How many more doctors appointments will be made? How will doctors offices handle the increased traffic? What will wait times look like? How will costs be effected? How is abuse identified and prevented?

I would be more concerned about abuses by doctors and health care providers than I would be about patients abusing the system. Yes, you can have people going to the doctor for every sniffle, free of charge. In a system where everyone has equal right to access, patients don't abuse the system. But doctors and clinics can and do.

People don't go to the doctor for every sniffle because it's too much trouble to do so. Making the appointment, taking time off work, sitting around the office with a bunch of sick people. Yes we have shortages of caregivers here, but please remember that the the Medicial Industrial Complex controls the number of people entering medical school, and keeps the number of new doctors artificially low to keep prices high.

Costs will go down. Substantially. I read an article a few years ago written by a doctor who had worked in both Canada and the US and he said that the made more money in the US, but he got to keep more of the money he made in Canada. That was because the government controls reimbursement rates for all procedures in Canada. Reimbursement rates are control by the Provinces, so they're adjusted based on local costs. This doctor said he spent more time with patients and was able to see more patients in Canada, and focus on their care, not on getting pre-approvals with insurance companies. He also didn't need a third party billing company to collect co-pays and bill insurance companies. His receptionist billed the province.

We have no co-pays on doctor visits or hospital care. You can buy a private or semi-private room in hospital, as well as cable TV and computer access, but our program only covers prescriptions for children seniors, and doesn't cover dental, so we have supplemental insurance with co-pays there, through employers.

A agree that abuse from doctors and clinics and pharma are also big concerns. Regarding your other point, do you think Canada has better medical care than the US?

People who I know with experience with both prefer Canada.