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

[LoneLaugher]

No, the $35 trillion is the total cost. Medicare For All would replace all current costs.

How is that possible? Medicare for all would theoretically mean millions more people would be going to the doctor so overall costs would dramatically go up. What is going to balance that out?

THIS is the question that anyone attempting to understand how health care costs work must endeavor to answer honestly.

There are fine examples worldwide.

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?

 

[LoneLaugher]

QUESTION--------> Why would ANYBODY who has employer supplied healthcare go along with is?

Because even for people who have employer sponsored health insurance, their costs are getting higher and higher. Premiums, co-pays, and deductibles are getting out of reach.

......and the fact that employer "sponsored" insurance ties you to a job. Many can't afford to change jobs.

Exactly.

That is one of the big advantages of single payer: Portability.

Man, I have posted dozens and dozens of times about how we need to be able to buy our health insurance the same way we buy our car, home and life insurance instead of being hostage to whatever our employer offers us.

But both parties want you to be a hostage.

I agree, I’ve never liked the employer based plans. Locks people in and makes mobility so much more complicated. There has to be a smarter way to do group plans

The better ways is to return to insurance that covers only catastrophic expenses. That was actually beginning to happen before ACA nipped it in the bud.

That would be stupid for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that "catastrophic expenses" can be avoided if people can afford to get preventive care.

Your take on this is lacking serious thought.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Because even for people who have employer sponsored health insurance, their costs are getting higher and higher. Premiums, co-pays, and deductibles are getting out of reach.

......and the fact that employer "sponsored" insurance ties you to a job. Many can't afford to change jobs.

Exactly.

That is one of the big advantages of single payer: Portability.

Man, I have posted dozens and dozens of times about how we need to be able to buy our health insurance the same way we buy our car, home and life insurance instead of being hostage to whatever our employer offers us.

But both parties want you to be a hostage.

I agree, I’ve never liked the employer based plans. Locks people in and makes mobility so much more complicated. There has to be a smarter way to do group plans

The better ways is to return to insurance that covers only catastrophic expenses. That was actually beginning to happen before ACA nipped it in the bud.

I think catastrophic would be a good addition to ACA. It would allow for cheaper plans. I think many of the older catastrophic plans screwed a lot of people over by not covering a lot of things and leaving people bankrupt. Is that right?

How do you define catastrophic?

 

[dblack]

The better ways is to return to insurance that covers only catastrophic expenses. That was actually beginning to happen before ACA nipped it in the bud.

That would be stupid for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that "catastrophic expenses" can be avoided if people can afford to get preventive care.

Your take on this is lacking serious thought.

Yeah. The "stupid" part is that it would cut out the middleman (insurance companies) from most health care transactions.

While I think employer provided health care has been a disaster - particular the "group insurance" scam - it can be done sanely. Before ACA, I worked for a forward-thinking company that changed to a relatively sane solution for health care benefits. We switched to high-deductible insurance ($5000/$8000). This radically reduced premiums. The savings was deposited into an HSA in the name of each employee. Over the course of a year, this more than made up for the deductible, and, after the deductible was covered the HSA would continue to grow. The important detail here is that the money in the HSA was the employee's to keep.

In effect, this meant most of my dealings with doctors were paid out-of-pocket. Or rather out of the HSA, but from the doctor's perspective it made no difference. Most of the doctor's I dealt with were happy to work this way - many even offering discounts for the cash payment. The most important difference though, was in the way it affected my attitude as a health care consumer. I actually started asking about prices up front. Given two options for treatment, price actually did factor into my decision. If treatment 'A' was 90% effective and cost $100, and treatment 'B' was 95% effective but cost $500, I would often choose the cheaper alternative. If a given treatment proposal seemed expensive, I'd ask if there were cheaper alternatives. If I'd been "covered" by a traditional, low-deductible insurance plan, I'd have had no reason to look for a bargain. I'd have happily chosen the more expensive option every time.

 

[debbiedowner]

......and the fact that employer "sponsored" insurance ties you to a job. Many can't afford to change jobs.

Exactly.

That is one of the big advantages of single payer: Portability.

Man, I have posted dozens and dozens of times about how we need to be able to buy our health insurance the same way we buy our car, home and life insurance instead of being hostage to whatever our employer offers us.

But both parties want you to be a hostage.

I agree, I’ve never liked the employer based plans. Locks people in and makes mobility so much more complicated. There has to be a smarter way to do group plans

The better ways is to return to insurance that covers only catastrophic expenses. That was actually beginning to happen before ACA nipped it in the bud.

I think catastrophic would be a good addition to ACA. It would allow for cheaper plans. I think many of the older catastrophic plans screwed a lot of people over by not covering a lot of things and leaving people bankrupt. Is that right?

How do you define catastrophic?

I'd also like to know how they define catastrophic plans because it's thrown out so many times in discussions.

 

[debbiedowner]

The better ways is to return to insurance that covers only catastrophic expenses. That was actually beginning to happen before ACA nipped it in the bud.

That would be stupid for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that "catastrophic expenses" can be avoided if people can afford to get preventive care.

Your take on this is lacking serious thought.

Yeah. The "stupid" part is that it would cut out the middleman (insurance companies) for most health care transactions.

While I think employer provided health care has been a disaster - particular the "group insurance" scam - it can be done sanely. Before ACA, I worked for a forward-thinking company that changed to a relatively sane solution for health care benefits. We switched to high-deductible insurance ($5000/$8000). This radically reduced premiums. The savings was deposited into an HSA in the name of each employee. Over the course of a year, this more than made up for the deductible, and, after the deductible was covered the HSA would continue to grow. The important detail here is that the money in the HSA was the employee's to keep.

In effect, this meant most of my dealings with doctors were paid out-of-pocket. Or rather out of the HSA, but from the doctor's perspective it made no difference. Most of the doctor's I dealt with were happy to work this way - many even offering discounts for the cash payment. The most important difference though, was in the way it affected my attitude as a health care consumer. I actually started asking about prices up front. Given two options for treatment, price actually did factor into my decision. If treatment 'A' was 90% effective and cost $100, and treatment 'B' was 95% effective but cost $500, I would often choose the cheaper alternative. If a given treatment proposal seemed expensive, I'd ask if there were cheaper alternatives. If I'd been "covered" by a traditional, low-deductible insurance plan, I'd have had no reason to look for a bargain. I'd have happily chosen the more expensive option every time.

If your doctor offered discounts for cash payments he did not file a claim with the insurance company therefore nothing going towards your deductible. What you were really paying is the contracted amount between the doc and insurance company. But it was a discount.

Employer group HSA plans have always let the employee keep what money is in the HSA account, part of the law.

$5000/$8000 is not a catastrophic plan.

 

[dblack]

The better ways is to return to insurance that covers only catastrophic expenses. That was actually beginning to happen before ACA nipped it in the bud.

That would be stupid for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that "catastrophic expenses" can be avoided if people can afford to get preventive care.

Your take on this is lacking serious thought.

Yeah. The "stupid" part is that it would cut out the middleman (insurance companies) for most health care transactions.

While I think employer provided health care has been a disaster - particular the "group insurance" scam - it can be done sanely. Before ACA, I worked for a forward-thinking company that changed to a relatively sane solution for health care benefits. We switched to high-deductible insurance ($5000/$8000). This radically reduced premiums. The savings was deposited into an HSA in the name of each employee. Over the course of a year, this more than made up for the deductible, and, after the deductible was covered the HSA would continue to grow. The important detail here is that the money in the HSA was the employee's to keep.

In effect, this meant most of my dealings with doctors were paid out-of-pocket. Or rather out of the HSA, but from the doctor's perspective it made no difference. Most of the doctor's I dealt with were happy to work this way - many even offering discounts for the cash payment. The most important difference though, was in the way it affected my attitude as a health care consumer. I actually started asking about prices up front. Given two options for treatment, price actually did factor into my decision. If treatment 'A' was 90% effective and cost $100, and treatment 'B' was 95% effective but cost $500, I would often choose the cheaper alternative. If a given treatment proposal seemed expensive, I'd ask if there were cheaper alternatives. If I'd been "covered" by a traditional, low-deductible insurance plan, I'd have had no reason to look for a bargain. I'd have happily chosen the more expensive option every time.

If your doctor offered discounts for cash payments he did not file a claim with the insurance company therefore nothing going towards your deductible. I suspect they told you it was discount.

Well, the discount was offered after the quoted price. I was probably getting whatever discount the insurance company was getting. Or maybe the doctor was simply claiming he'd charge the higher price to appease the insurance company. In any case, it was much easier and clear cut dealing in cash.

$5000/$8000 is not a catastrophic plan.

I don't really care what you call it. The point is that these kinds of plans restore sane consumer motivations. As it is, there's exactly no reason for health care consumers to save money on health care expenses, because they're not paying the bills.

 

[Slade3200]

......and the fact that employer "sponsored" insurance ties you to a job. Many can't afford to change jobs.

Exactly.

That is one of the big advantages of single payer: Portability.

Man, I have posted dozens and dozens of times about how we need to be able to buy our health insurance the same way we buy our car, home and life insurance instead of being hostage to whatever our employer offers us.

But both parties want you to be a hostage.

I agree, I’ve never liked the employer based plans. Locks people in and makes mobility so much more complicated. There has to be a smarter way to do group plans

The better ways is to return to insurance that covers only catastrophic expenses. That was actually beginning to happen before ACA nipped it in the bud.

I think catastrophic would be a good addition to ACA. It would allow for cheaper plans. I think many of the older catastrophic plans screwed a lot of people over by not covering a lot of things and leaving people bankrupt. Is that right?

How do you define catastrophic?

Emergency and or life threatening

 

[Slade3200]

How is that possible? Medicare for all would theoretically mean millions more people would be going to the doctor so overall costs would dramatically go up. What is going to balance that out?

THIS is the question that anyone attempting to understand how health care costs work must endeavor to answer honestly.

There are fine examples worldwide.

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.

 

[g5000]

THIS is the question that anyone attempting to understand how health care costs work must endeavor to answer honestly.

There are fine examples worldwide.

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.

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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

What's your plan?

.

 

[dblack]

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.

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.

No, it's worse. It culls our options down to one and puts government in charge of it. It's not THAT much worse, but it's not better. And we desperately need better.

 

[g5000]

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.

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.

No, it's worse. It culls our options down to one and puts government in charge of it. It's not THAT much worse, but it's not better. And we desperately need better.

Gee, if only the Republicans puked up something better in the past six decades...

Sadly, they haven't. Instead, Trump and they have been massively hoaxing the Rube Herd into believing they have something in their empty pockets.

So single payer is inevitable.

 

[miketx]

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.

Sorry, i just dont have that much. Can you tell another lie using less money?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gee, if only the Republicans puked up something better in the past six decades...

Sadly, they haven't. Instead, Trump and they have been massively hoaxing the Rube Herd into believing they have something in their empty pockets.

So single payer is inevitable.

So, you want single payer?

.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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 read a report/study that indicated that if we could get people to stop smoking (conservatives)
and stop eating fatty foods (conservatives)
and stop REFUSING to exercise (conservatives)

heart disease, diabetes, lung problems. cancers, leg and knee problems would practically disappear and health care costs would plummet!

but cons are irresponsible and want YOUR money for doctors and medicine when they become OBESE and develop all those health problems.....

I don't care that they smoke.
I care that I have to pay for the consequences.

 

[g5000]

POL: Our country has an ailment. Our cure is to tax you more and have the government take care of the problem.

HUCKSTER: Their plan sucks! It's soshlism! Hitler! Hitler!

POL: The American people are suffering. We need the government to fix it.

HUCKSTER: If you elect me, I will fix it with magic! And it will be so easy! I have the cure right here in my pocket!

POL: We cannot wait any longer for a solution. We need to act now.

HUCKSTER: Soshlism! Hitler! Disaster!

POL: So what is YOUR plan, huckster?

HUCKSTER: My cure to the problem is to call you Hitler and soshlists!

 

[g5000]

Gee, if only the Republicans puked up something better in the past six decades...

Sadly, they haven't. Instead, Trump and they have been massively hoaxing the Rube Herd into believing they have something in their empty pockets.

So single payer is inevitable.

So, you want single payer?

.

Nope. I made that very clear on page one. See post 20.

However, I am a realist. And the reality is that the GOP and Trump have NOTHING. They have been massively hoaxing the Rube Herd.

So single payer is inevitable.

 

[gipper]

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.

All thanks to a corrupt government on the take.

 

[dblack]

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.

No, it's worse. It culls our options down to one and puts government in charge of it. It's not THAT much worse, but it's not better. And we desperately need better.

Gee, if only the Republicans puked up something better in the past six decades...

Sadly, they haven't. Instead, Trump and they have been massively hoaxing the Rube Herd into believing they have something in their empty pockets.

So single payer is inevitable.

I always wonder what you're up to with these threads. You keep saying you're not in favor of socializing health care, but you seem to have no interest at all in taking steps to avoid it. It sounds like you're actually a fan of single payer and you're just gloating.

I get wanting to rub the Republicans noses in it. They've fucked up, over and over again. I've never felt like they were trustworthy defenders of free markets, and they've proven me right. But I still don't get your angle here. Are you trying to provoke them into proposing something better? What gives?