Family health costs outpace inflation and wage growth

[Engineer]

Not surprising. I think we all knew this, just throwing it out there to show the severity of it all. This is the reason that middle class folks can't get ahead right now and can be buried in debt or bankruptcy with one serious illness (even with insurance).



Click me!

By Tony Pugh, McClatchy Newspapers Tony Pugh, Mcclatchy Newspapers ? Tue Sep 15, 10:00 am ET

WASHINGTON ? The average cost of job-based family health insurance climbed 5 percent to $13,375 in 2009, making this the 10th straight year that health care premiums have increased faster than workers' wages and overall inflation have.

Insurance costs have increased 131 percent since 1999, when a year of family coverage cost about $5,791 , according to the 2009 Employer Health Benefits Survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust .

That supercharged growth rate far outpaces the 38 percent increase in wages and 28 percent growth of inflation over the same period.

The inability of consumers and employers to finance that growth in cost is helping to drive the heated debate over how to revamp the nation's heath care system.

At a time when employers are laying off workers, facing revenue declines and looking for ways to cut costs, health insurance is proving a substantial financial burden.

So they're passing the costs to employees, who're paying higher deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses while often receiving less comprehensive coverage for their money.

Twenty-one percent of firms with insurance coverage reduced benefits or increased employee cost-sharing due to the recession, the survey found. Fifteen percent increased their workers' shares of the monthly premium.

"When health care costs continue to rise so much faster than overall inflation in a bad recession, workers and employers really feel the pain," said Drew Altman , the president and chief executive of the Kaiser Family Foundation .

Employers typically pay about $9,860 of the standard $13,375 family policy, the survey found. Workers pick up the rest, about $3,515 or 27 percent. That's the same share as last year.

The cost of single coverage increased slightly this year, averaging about $4,824 compared to $4,704 last year. Employees pay about 17 percent of the cost, or $779 toward the coverage.

The rising costs mean that a year of family coverage, on average, now costs employers about $15,000 , nearly as much as a year of labor from a full-time minimum wage worker, Altman said.

Consumers also pay more, on average, for family coverage than they'd pay to purchase a gas-sipping Chevrolet Aveo ? about $12,000 ? or to rent a two-bedroom apartment for the nationwide yearly average of $11,136 .

"It just underscores why health insurance is increasingly unaffordable for working people and for employers, especially small employers," Altman said.

About 159 million people have employer-based coverage nationally, but the percentage of companies that provide it is declining, particularly among smaller ones. Only 59 percent of firms with fewer than 200 employees offer coverage in 2009, compared with 62 percent last year. The rate fell from 78 percent to 72 percent among companies with 10 to 24 employees.

Perry Goodwin , who runs the Gaines W. Harrison & Sons hydraulic repair shop in Columbia, S.C. , saw his insurance costs increase 28 percent to 33 percent a year for five straight years. But when it cost him $16,000 a month to insure his 20 employees, Goodwin decided it was time for a change.

So he switched insurance carriers several years ago, and his premiums fell to about $10,000 a month. "But then they shot up another $3,000 (a month) over the period of one year," Goodwin said. "So then I went to another carrier, who got me down to about $11,000 a month."

Goodwin now pays about $10,000 a month, and to keep his costs down he increased his employees' deductible this year to $500 from $250 and cut his coverage for employee dependents in half.

"I could get it cheaper if I wanted it, but you get what you pay for," Goodwin said.

As the debate about health care goes on, Goodwin said he opposes what the Obama administration and Congress have proposed, particularly a government-run public option, which he fears businesses could be asked to subsidize.

"It ain't the government's business," Goodwin said. "They don't need to be running a car company, and they sure don't need to be running health care."

If there's a way to keep costs down without the government getting involved, however, Goodwin said he's all for it.

Dallas Salisbury , the president and chief executive of the Employee Benefits Research Institute , said Goodwin's comments are typical of surveys of business owners, who're mostly Republican or Libertarian and are likely to oppose most forms of government intervention.

Without state or local level regulation, however, Salisbury said insurance companies would withhold coverage from people with pre-existing conditions and try to "cherry pick," or insure only healthy people.

Resolving the cost, coverage and quality issues surrounding the health care debate will always be difficult as long as consumers want access to everything, "but they assume that everybody else is getting a lot of services that they really don't need. That has been, for at least 60 years, the dilemma of modern health care," Salisbury said.

Other key findings from the survey:

? Twenty-two percent of workers now pay at least $1,000 out of their own pocket for single coverage before their insurance kicks in. That's up from 18 percent last year, according to the survey of more than 2,000 public and private employers.

? The average annual deductible for single coverage in an HMO increased to $699 this year from $503 in 2008. For family coverage in an HMO, the average deductible jumped to $1,524 from $1,053 .

( The McClatchy Washington Bureau works in partnership with Kaiser Health News , an editorially independent news service that provides coverage of the nation's health care debate and is part of the Kaiser Family Foundation . The Kaiser foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization that isn't affiliated with Kaiser Permanente , helped conduct this survey.)

 

[charrison]

Until the consumer stops letting a 3rd party be involved in every health care transaction, prices are going to continue to climb. HSAs and similary consumer based plans have been holding costs down as compared to traditional insurance plans.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison
Until the consumer stops letting a 3rd party be involved in every health care transaction, prices are going to continue to climb. HSAs and similary consumer based plans have been holding costs down as compared to traditional insurance plans.

I'm not sure why you spread this stuff. Every transaction STILL has to be processed through your catastrophic insurance company to get credited toward the deductibles and out of pocket maximums and for them to determine your discount. You are not given the price up front.

HSA's are a crock of shit to force the individual to become self insured and off of the company's balance sheet. The only possible way that they keep costs down is because you cannot afford to go to the doctor (oh, and they are much cheaper to the companies, especially those like mine that contribute ZERO to the HSA, should you choose one).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison
Until the consumer stops letting a 3rd party be involved in every health care transaction, prices are going to continue to climb. HSAs and similary consumer based plans have been holding costs down as compared to traditional insurance plans.

I'm not sure why you spread this stuff. Every transaction STILL has to be processed through your catastrophic insurance company to get credited toward the deductibles and out of pocket maximums and for them to determine your discount. You are not given the price up front.

HSA's are a crock of shit to force the individual to become self insured and off of the company's balance sheet. The only possible way that they keep costs down is because you cannot afford to go to the doctor (oh, and they are much cheaper to the companies, especially those like mine that contribute ZERO to the HSA, should you choose one).

Guys like him spread that shit because they profit from it.

It's their corrupt money roll on the line by Obama and the Dems, that's why they will say and do anything to stop it from happening.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: charrison
Until the consumer stops letting a 3rd party be involved in every health care transaction, prices are going to continue to climb. HSAs and similary consumer based plans have been holding costs down as compared to traditional insurance plans.

Health care is a product in demand by consumers, and prices are going up. ,,,,,,hmmmmmmm.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison
Until the consumer stops letting a 3rd party be involved in every health care transaction, prices are going to continue to climb. HSAs and similary consumer based plans have been holding costs down as compared to traditional insurance plans.

I'm not sure why you spread this stuff. Every transaction STILL has to be processed through your catastrophic insurance company to get credited toward the deductibles and out of pocket maximums and for them to determine your discount. You are not given the price up front.

I fully understand that those things still need to be tracked for deductible purposes. That is pretty obvious. But yes you can get prices upfront for many things. About the only time you are not going to get pricing information is when it is an emergency and there is little time to ask questions.

HSA's are a crock of shit to force the individual to become self insured and off of the company's balance sheet. The only possible way that they keep costs down is because you cannot afford to go to the doctor (oh, and they are much cheaper to the companies, especially those like mine that contribute ZERO to the HSA, should you choose one).

And you company is the minority as about 70% of the companies that do have HSAs do contribute to them. And those that have HSAs are holding costs down, without any significantly quality reductions. I dont know why you continue to deny this.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: charrison
Until the consumer stops letting a 3rd party be involved in every health care transaction, prices are going to continue to climb. HSAs and similary consumer based plans have been holding costs down as compared to traditional insurance plans.

Health care is a product in demand by consumers, and prices are going up. ,,,,,,hmmmmmmm.

Consumer are demanding the service and 3rd party is paying the bill. Should it surprise anyone that prices are rising.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: charrison
Until the consumer stops letting a 3rd party be involved in every health care transaction, prices are going to continue to climb. HSAs and similary consumer based plans have been holding costs down as compared to traditional insurance plans.

Health care is a product in demand by consumers, and prices are going up. ,,,,,,hmmmmmmm.

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: charrison
Until the consumer stops letting a 3rd party be involved in every health care transaction, prices are going to continue to climb. HSAs and similary consumer based plans have been holding costs down as compared to traditional insurance plans.

Health care is a product in demand by consumers, and prices are going up. ,,,,,,hmmmmmmm.

Consumer are demanding the service and 3rd party is paying the bill. Should it surprise anyone that prices are rising.

Both your posts point to the heart of the problem

PROFITS OVER LIFE

 

[cubby1223]

And yet health insurance profits are still but a very tiny small percentage of the total cost of health care in this nation.

You've had a lot of time to educate yourselves on all the facts. Come up with something other than your profit remarks.

Hospital, doctor, and medicine costs are a much much much much much larger percentage of the total cost of health care. Why don't we focus our energy on that instead of wasting all our time demonizing insurance companies :roll:

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
And yet health insurance profits are still but a very tiny small percentage of the total cost of health care in this nation.

You've had a lot of time to educate yourselves on all the facts. Come up with something other than your profit remarks.

Hospital, doctor, and medicine costs are a much much much much much larger percentage of the total cost of health care. Why don't we focus our energy on that instead of wasting all our time demonizing insurance companies :roll:

Doctors costs are very minimal in the big picture, don't pin it on them.

Costs for all the services are highly inflated because the insurance companies are always going to try to negotiate DOWN from whatever you tell them it costs.

The cost to keep records and file claims with multiple providers and refile claims and appeal claims greatly drive costs UP as well.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: cubby1223
And yet health insurance profits are still but a very tiny small percentage of the total cost of health care in this nation.

You've had a lot of time to educate yourselves on all the facts. Come up with something other than your profit remarks.

Hospital, doctor, and medicine costs are a much much much much much larger percentage of the total cost of health care. Why don't we focus our energy on that instead of wasting all our time demonizing insurance companies :roll:

Doctors costs are very minimal in the big picture, don't pin it on them.

Costs for all the services are highly inflated because the insurance companies are always going to try to negotiate DOWN from whatever you tell them it costs.

The cost to keep records and file claims with multiple providers and refile claims and appeal claims greatly drive costs UP as well.

And if a doctor is practicing defensive medicine the most expensive tool he may have is his pen which he uses to write treatment and labwork.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: cubby1223
And yet health insurance profits are still but a very tiny small percentage of the total cost of health care in this nation.

You've had a lot of time to educate yourselves on all the facts. Come up with something other than your profit remarks.

Hospital, doctor, and medicine costs are a much much much much much larger percentage of the total cost of health care. Why don't we focus our energy on that instead of wasting all our time demonizing insurance companies :roll:

Doctors costs are very minimal in the big picture, don't pin it on them.

Costs for all the services are highly inflated because the insurance companies are always going to try to negotiate DOWN from whatever you tell them it costs.

The cost to keep records and file claims with multiple providers and refile claims and appeal claims greatly drive costs UP as well.

And if a doctor is practicing defensive medicine the most expensive tool he may have is his pen which he uses to write treatment and labwork.

In the not-so-recent past the GAO and CBO both have stated that savings from tort reform would be minimal, if any.

http://www.factcheck.org/presi...stics_on_costs_of.html

That really isn't the problem.

The problem rests with overpriced services, overpriced insurance, and horrid paperwork, the root cause of which comes backs to our insurance companies.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
And yet health insurance profits are still but a very tiny small percentage of the total cost of health care in this nation.

You've had a lot of time to educate yourselves on all the facts. Come up with something other than your profit remarks.

Hospital, doctor, and medicine costs are a much much much much much larger percentage of the total cost of health care. Why don't we focus our energy on that instead of wasting all our time demonizing insurance companies :roll:

This.

edit: And yes. Its sick how much health care costs now.

 

[Patranus]

Let see, where do I start....

Medicare only pays back 65% to 78% per dollar spent. The costs must be raised on those with private insurance to cover that 35% to 22% so don't forget that the inflation must be adjusted to account for this inherent deficit due to lack of government funding.

This gets compounded and made into a larger issue as the population gets older distributing this deficit over fewer and fewer young people.

 

[First]

Britain, Canada, and France are able to cover everyone with mandated gov't medicine at half the percentage of their GDP that we spend, with the same quality care we get to boot. The solution is pretty obvious.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: First
Britain, Canada, and France are able to cover everyone with mandated gov't medicine at half the percentage of their GDP that we spend, with the same quality care we get to boot. The solution is pretty obvious.

Hey hey hey stop with facts they get in the way of massive profits

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: First
Britain, Canada, and France are able to cover everyone with mandated gov't medicine at half the percentage of their GDP that we spend, with the same quality care we get to boot. The solution is pretty obvious.

How does the populations break down in those countries regarding race and age?

Do those countries have an older or younger overall population?

Do those countries have a more diverse or less diverse population?

Why are the vast majority of state of the art medical procedures coming from the USA?

How can you make the claim that those countries get the "same quality care" when it has been show time and time again that is simply not the case?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: First
Britain, Canada, and France are able to cover everyone with mandated gov't medicine at half the percentage of their GDP that we spend, with the same quality care we get to boot. The solution is pretty obvious.

Hey hey hey stop with facts they get in the way of massive profits

So if the profit margin on health care is only 3%, how can you attribute "massive profits" as being the main proponent of the discrepancy in health care spending?

If 3% is too high of a profit margin, why aren't people in an uproar over the +20% profit margins shown by software companies?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: First
Britain, Canada, and France are able to cover everyone with mandated gov't medicine at half the percentage of their GDP that we spend, with the same quality care we get to boot. The solution is pretty obvious.

How does the populations break down in those countries regarding race and age?

Do those countries have an older or younger overall population?

Do those countries have a more diverse or less diverse country?

Why are the vast majority of state of the art medical procedures coming from the USA?

How can you make the claim that those countries get the "same quality care" when it has been show time and time again that is simply not the case?

Yawn:

http://www.photius.com/ranking...orld_health_ranks.html
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/337/jul21_1/a889
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf

Active debate over health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[8][9] A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.[10] The U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries.[nb 1][11] According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance).[12][13] The same Institute of Medicine report notes that "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." [12] Estimates of the total number of people in the United States who die because of lack of medical care range upwards of nearly 100,000 per year.[14]

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: First
Britain, Canada, and France are able to cover everyone with mandated gov't medicine at half the percentage of their GDP that we spend, with the same quality care we get to boot. The solution is pretty obvious.

How does the populations break down in those countries regarding race and age?

Do those countries have an older or younger overall population?

Do those countries have a more diverse or less diverse country?

Why are the vast majority of state of the art medical procedures coming from the USA?

How can you make the claim that those countries get the "same quality care" when it has been show time and time again that is simply not the case?

Yawn:

http://www.photius.com/ranking...orld_health_ranks.html
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/337/jul21_1/a889
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf

Active debate over health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[8][9] A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.[10] The U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries.[nb 1][11] According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance).[12][13] The same Institute of Medicine report notes that "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." [12] Estimates of the total number of people in the United States who die because of lack of medical care range upwards of nearly 100,000 per year.[14]

Nice to see you copied directly from wikipedia...

Funny, because that paragraph jumps from "medical care" and "health insurance"...which one are you trying to talk about? The WHO uses a category "Fairness of financial contribution", well, that is subject to cultural interpretation and is frankly irrelevant in the United States. The WHO also looks at "Overall Level of Health" which is a personal choice and has nothing to do with health insurance or the delivery of care. Again the WHO looks at "Distribution of Health in the Populations" which measures care from the poor and the rich. American is a capitalist nation, and thus there will be a disparity. This does however not tell weather or not the poor is getting acceptable health care. All of these categories that the WHO weighs heavily, have no bearing on the delivery or quality of care.

Ok, focus now....

How does the populations break down in those countries regarding race and age?
Do those countries have an older or younger overall population?
Do those countries have a more diverse or less diverse population?
Why are the vast majority of state of the art medical procedures coming from the USA?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: First
Britain, Canada, and France are able to cover everyone with mandated gov't medicine at half the percentage of their GDP that we spend, with the same quality care we get to boot. The solution is pretty obvious.

How does the populations break down in those countries regarding race and age?

Do those countries have an older or younger overall population?

Do those countries have a more diverse or less diverse country?

Why are the vast majority of state of the art medical procedures coming from the USA?

How can you make the claim that those countries get the "same quality care" when it has been show time and time again that is simply not the case?

Yawn:

http://www.photius.com/ranking...orld_health_ranks.html
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/337/jul21_1/a889
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf

Active debate over health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[8][9] A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.[10] The U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries.[nb 1][11] According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance).[12][13] The same Institute of Medicine report notes that "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." [12] Estimates of the total number of people in the United States who die because of lack of medical care range upwards of nearly 100,000 per year.[14]

Nice to see you copied directly from wikipedia...

Funny, because that paragraph jumps from "medical care" and "health insurance"...which one are you trying to talk about? The WHO uses a category "Fairness of financial contribution", well, that is subject to cultural interpretation and is frankly irrelevant in the United States. The WHO also looks at "Overall Level of Health" which is a personal choice and has nothing to do with health insurance or the delivery of care. Again the WHO looks at "Distribution of Health in the Populations" which measures care from the poor and the rich. American is a capitalist nation, and thus there will be a disparity. This does however not tell weather or not the poor is getting acceptable health care. All of these categories that the WHO weighs heavily, have no bearing on the delivery or quality of care.

Ok, focus now....

How does the populations break down in those countries regarding race and age?
Do those countries have an older or younger overall population?
Do those countries have a more diverse or less diverse population?
Why are the vast majority of state of the art medical procedures coming from the USA?

All described in the links. Your excuses for the poor and/or non-existent health care for poor people was pretty funny though. Your 4 questions do nothing to address any of that since they are all addressed and controlled for in both studies. Meanwhile your evidence for your argument is, predictably, non-existent.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A large part of why health care increases faster than wages is that people want it to. No, they may say otherwise, but it's true nevertheless. When it comes to their own health people want the best that there is. They drive the state of the art, and the state of the art costs more.

Here's an idea. Offer an insurance program where you can't get the finest treatment. Establish a formulary of the cheapest drugs, and you can't have the more expensive ones unless you pay out of pocket yourself. Want that biotech drug? Nope.

People want the best, and the best costs more.

 

[First]

^ The best costs more, just not $1T more, for essentially slightly better care. A public option, or even single payer, will not change any of that. Medical care is fantastic and high-quality in the U.S. (for those who can get it) because of our unique laws and financial system that allows drug companies and medical industry to innovate. Our health care isn't high quality because we let private insurers deny coverage for pre-existing condition conditions to pad their bottom-lines. That has nothing to do with fantastic medical care, which is born out through entirely different avenues.

 

[0marTheZealot]

What is the point of these healthcare threads?

We have the same people spouting the same bullshit over and over. They continue to lie and distort the facts even after being shown the facts. They continue to harp about the same problems with the same non-sensical solutions. Then the same people come in, debunk their theories and the cycle repeats itself.

At this point, no one is going to change their minds. The detractors are firmly entrenched in their non-logic.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: First
Britain, Canada, and France are able to cover everyone with mandated gov't medicine at half the percentage of their GDP that we spend, with the same quality care we get to boot. The solution is pretty obvious.

Don't talk about fiscal responsibility, conservatives hate that.

And again for those saying margins are low ...... 20% of premiums go to wages, profit and shareholders and that number is climbing. Compare nationalized systems that are around 5% and you can see where some of the waste is.