Government programs will account for >50% of U.S. health-care costs next year

[Balt]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703575004575043490639289022.html

For the first time, government programs next year will account for more than half of all U.S. health-care spending, federal actuaries predict, as the weak economy sends more people into Medicaid and slows growth of private insurance.

The figures show how federal and state spending is taking a bigger role while Congress hesitates over a health-care overhaul.

Government health programs are a growing burden on the federal budget, which is running annual deficits of more than $1 trillion, and rising health costs continue to batter private industry.

By 2020, according to the new projections, about one in five dollars spent in the U.S. will go to health care, a proportion far beyond any other industrialized nation.

That's just a snippet, the whole article should be read. Of course the recession and high unemployment are big contributors, but the trend has been moving in that direction for a longer period of time.

It is interesting to see the near panic that has resulted from proposed health care legislation when one considers these projections. We're already in it up to our necks.

 

[Patranus]

And the problem is the insurance industry

The only reason this is an "issue" is because the Democrats made promises (social programs) they cannot keep.

 

[woolfe9999]

No, the issue is that Medicare covers the sickest portion of the population, and healthcare costs are rising way out of pace with inflation, particularly costs associated with treating chronic diseases, which the elderly tend to have. If you are so intent on blaming democrats for that, then tell me which sitting republicans right now have the political courage to actually cut Medicare benefits at the expense of votes among the senior population who have a high turnout rate. Which ones?

- wolf

 

[PokerGuy]

Seeing the scope of that disaster, why would anyone not want to put add all the private health processes under government controls as well? oh...wait.

 

[dullard]

Remember that article mentions DIRECT costs only. Once you include health care cost deductions for businesses and individuals, government already spends well over 60% of the health care dollars.

In other words, we ALREADY have goverment spending the majority of health care dollars.

We have all the costs of universal health care without any of the benefits. Yet, people don't want it changed.

 

[PokerGuy]

Remember that article mentions DIRECT costs only. Once you include health care cost deductions for businesses and individuals, government already spends well over 60% of the health care dollars.

In other words, we ALREADY have goverment spending the majority of health care dollars.

We have all the costs of universal health care without any of the benefits. Yet, people don't want it changed.

No, we don't have all the costs of universal health care. You have to factor in the extreme overhead costs of having the government administer something, creating another insanely large government agency to "manage" this stuff. By the time it's all set and done, it will probably cost twice as much as the current mess.

 

[shadow9d9]

We cover the most expensive population(old) so the insurances could make profit on the rest.

Grow a brain.

Put this in politics.

 

[drebo]

Remember that article mentions DIRECT costs only. Once you include health care cost deductions for businesses and individuals, government already spends well over 60% of the health care dollars.

In other words, we ALREADY have goverment spending the majority of health care dollars.

We have all the costs of universal health care without any of the benefits. Yet, people don't want it changed.

No, people DO want it changed: they want the government's grubby little hands out of it. Entirely.

 

[dullard]

By the time it's all set and done, it will probably cost twice as much as the current mess.

It must be wonderful to be able to randomly make up data and then believe it. That ability would make my world so much better.

 

[Vic]

Remember that article mentions DIRECT costs only. Once you include health care cost deductions for businesses and individuals, government already spends well over 60% of the health care dollars.

In other words, we ALREADY have goverment spending the majority of health care dollars.

We have all the costs of universal health care without any of the benefits. Yet, people don't want it changed.

Yep, what this demonstrates is that societal problems and their costs can't just be swept under the rug. I don't agree that UHC is the solution to this problem, but ignoring the problem, as we have been doing and as the Republicans say we should continue doing, will only result in our ending up with UHC by default.

It must be wonderful to be able to randomly make up data and then believe it. That ability would make my world so much better.

Heh. The internet is such a wonderful fantasy place for so many people.

 

[Vic]

No, people DO want it changed: they want the government's grubby little hands out of it. Entirely.

If 'people' really did want this, then politicians would pass the legislation to make it happen. In the real world, however, grandma wants her medicare, she's 'people' too, and she votes.

 

[drebo]

If 'people' really did want this, then politicians would pass the legislation to make it happen. In the real world, however, grandma wants her medicare, she's 'people' too, and she votes.

No, politicians on both sides will do whatever it takes to keep their jobs, even if that includes dissolving the republic.

The number of party-line voters in this country make the issues largely irrelevant. However, we are starting to see that change (MA, anyone?), and we will see what the "public" wants the gov't to do regarding health care in November. Or, if you don't want to wait until then, look at some of the approval polls.

The Federal government has no constitutional obligation or right to interfere with health care.

 

[dullard]

Yep, what this demonstrates is that societal problems and their costs can't just be swept under the rug. I don't agree that UHC is the solution to this problem, but ignoring the problem, as we have been doing and as the Republicans say we should continue doing, will only result in our ending up with UHC by default.

I've made my UHC views known around here. Get businesses' grubby little hands out of it. I'm sorry but the biggest decision regarding my health should NOT be made by my companies incompetant managers and HR negotiators. The biggest decision should be made by my doctor and I. The current system is a total and complete disaster.

You are correct though. If we do nothing, then by default, we'll have goverment sponsored UHC through medicare/medicaid as businesses stop providing health care and insurance companies stop providing individual coverage. The republican's "no" attitude will ultimately end up giving democrats full government control of health care spending.

But, of course, I'd rather take an active role in getting UHC by choice than getting UHC by neglect (ie not voting on an issue). It is really, really easy. Provide a income tax credit equal to the cost of a high deductible individual health care insurance plan (assuming the person bought the plan). That is the entire extent of goverment interference (ie no goverment waste costs predicted by PokerGuy). Businesses are out of it entirely. Medicare and Medicaid are ended since they are redundant. Since it is a tax credit, only legal US citizens who file (now simplified) income tax forms get coverage.

Result: UHC for American citizens, decisions made ONLY by doctors and individuals, government is hands off, medicare/medicaid ended, taxes simplifed. Sounds like a democrat AND republican wet dream. And it'll work.

 

[dullard]

The Federal government has no constitutional obligation or right to interfere with health care.

"Article I, Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
..."


It can be very easy to put health insurance being bought from large nationwide companies into either the regulating commerce or the providing general welfare categories. Saying that there is no right is being very close minded on interpretations of the constitution.

 

[Craig234]

No, we don't have all the costs of universal health care. You have to factor in the extreme overhead costs of having the government administer something, creating another insanely large government agency to "manage" this stuff. By the time it's all set and done, it will probably cost twice as much as the current mess.

Instead of parroting rigt-wing myths, why don't you try to put up any credible facts to back them up?

I notice you don't have any. Show us the same care costs more from the government than from the private insurance industry (even while some reports involve private insurance denying 20% of claims).

You parrot about all these mass inefficiences of the government, out of ignorance. Ever check the costs compared to other countries' government-run programs?

 

[ElFenix]

the .gov already spends as much per person as any of the "UHC" systems in western europe. and then we spend more on top of that and can't manage to cover everyone.

 

[Robor]

the .gov already spends as much per person as any of the "UHC" systems in western europe. and then we spend more on top of that and can't manage to cover everyone.

Queue the 'but they aren't as good in survival rates of this or that' parrots. :biggrin:

 

[ElFenix]

Queue the 'but they aren't as good in survival rates of this or that' parrots. :biggrin:

medical outcomes are an important measure and i don't know what's funny about that.

 

[drebo]

"Article I, Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
..."


It can be very easy to put health insurance being bought from large nationwide companies into either the regulating commerce or the providing general welfare categories. Saying that there is no right is being very close minded on interpretations of the constitution.

Wrong. It's interpreting the Constitution as it was MEANT to be interpreted: as it was written, litterally.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the biggest complaints about health insurance right now is that they do not operate beyond state boarders. That to me, right there, is acknowledgement that the Commerce Clause does not apply. Of course, if you losely interpret the Constitution, it's easy to make the Commerce Clause applicable to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. Hell, I can make it applicable to taking a bus to get across town if I want to.

That said, it is not the government's job to TAKE CARE of the populace. It is the government's job to make sure that no one else impinges on the rights of the populace to take care of themselves. That is what the quoted portion of the Constitution says.

 

[Robor]

medical outcomes are an important measure and i don't know what's funny about that.

Yes, they are an important measure but only when you look at them as a whole - not when hand picking specific points to mislead.

 

[drebo]

I've made my UHC views known around here. Get businesses' grubby little hands out of it. I'm sorry but the biggest decision regarding my health should NOT be made by my companies incompetant managers and HR negotiators. The biggest decision should be made by my doctor and I. The current system is a total and complete disaster.

You are correct though. If we do nothing, then by default, we'll have goverment sponsored UHC through medicare/medicaid as businesses stop providing health care and insurance companies stop providing individual coverage. The republican's "no" attitude will ultimately end up giving democrats full government control of health care spending.

But, of course, I'd rather take an active role in getting UHC by choice than getting UHC by neglect (ie not voting on an issue). It is really, really easy. Provide a income tax credit equal to the cost of a high deductible individual health care insurance plan (assuming the person bought the plan). That is the entire extent of goverment interference (ie no goverment waste costs predicted by PokerGuy). Businesses are out of it entirely. Medicare and Medicaid are ended since they are redundant. Since it is a tax credit, only legal US citizens who file (now simplified) income tax forms get coverage.

Result: UHC for American citizens, decisions made ONLY by doctors and individuals, government is hands off, medicare/medicaid ended, taxes simplifed. Sounds like a democrat AND republican wet dream. And it'll work.

Business do NOT determine your coverage, anymore. They used to, when large businesses paid their employees health care benefits from private trusts. This is no longer the case.

The only thing the business does now is subsidise the cost of your health insurance costs as part of your compensation. Most business will also provide you with additional pay if you decline their health insurance.

Enough with all this bullshit FUD you're spewing. It's simply not true.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

We cover the most expensive population(old) so the insurances could make profit on the rest.

Grow a brain.

Put this in politics.

Exactly! Private insurance figured out long ago that the retired and elderly were not profitable so they dumped them on the taxpayer.

In my 30+yr working career I have seen the number of employers who provide or offer insurance to their retiree's drop from around 50% to almost 0% today.

But it's not only the elderly that have been dumped on the taxpayers dime by the heroic protectors of free market capitalism, but also the sick, disabled and underemployed.

The founding principle of insurance "pooled risk" has been totally subverted to feed ever increasing profits. When the pooled income could no longer support the desired profit levels AND the cost of care for the sickest in the pool, they just throw the sickest out of the pool.

 

[drebo]

Exactly! Private insurance figured out long ago that the retired and elderly were not profitable so they dumped them on the taxpayer.

In my 30+yr working career I have seen the number of employers who provide or offer insurance to their retiree's drop from around 50% to almost 0% today.

But it's not only the elderly that have been dumped on the taxpayers dime by the heroic protectors of free market capitalism, but also the sick, disabled and underemployed.

I think you have cause and effect reversed on this one...not that I have any delusions about you realizing that you are wrong and that the big, bad, ol' insurance companies aren't out to fuck over the private citizen.

The "dumping" of the elderly on the government was CAUSED by the government (Medicare/Medicaid). Medicare/Medicaid wasn't caused by insurance companies.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I think you have cause and effect reversed on this one...not that I have any delusions about you realizing that you are wrong and that the big, bad, ol' insurance companies aren't out to fuck over the private citizen.

(Medicare/Medicaid). Medicare/Medicaid wasn't caused by insurance companies.

Well, the niave and stupid will be that way until they choose otherwize.


And please explain how the government caused private insurance and employers to not cover retirees and the elderly, I know you righties blame everything on the guboment. But this explanation should be especially entertaining.

"The "dumping" of the elderly on the government was CAUSED by the government" ROFL, that ranks right up their with "Poor people are poor because they choose to be"

Your right wing talking points should be served up with a picture of grandma serving some apple pie with some twangy banjo music in the background.

 

[dullard]

The only thing the business does now is subsidise the cost of your health insurance costs as part of your compensation. Most business will also provide you with additional pay if you decline their health insurance.

Care to back up that with any logic or facts?

Businesses (if they cover health care at all), generally give you a narrow choice of insurance plans. Bingo, you are already limited significantly in what insurance you can get and what it will cover. If your employer doesn't choose plans that cover your conditions, and you can't get independant coverage because of your conditions, you have nothing.