True story about wait times in U.S.

[Bern80]

Circa 45 million uninsured is according to you a 'relatively small problem'?

Allow me to muster a bitter laugh ...

The 45 million number has been debunked several times over now. Uninsured is not the same as unable to pay. You either have your head in the sand or are just plain dishonest.

Uninsured and unable to pay are both uninsured. Some can pay but are unable to get insurance. The difference is moot.

The difference is everything. It's the left padding their stats dishonestly to make a case. If I'm well off enough to cover my medical expenses w/o insurance or just plain opt to not have it, do you really think it honest to count me in a group of people you are attempting to use as evidence of a crisis?

 

[veritas]

The 45 million number has been debunked several times over now. Uninsured is not the same as unable to pay. You either have your head in the sand or are just plain dishonest.

Uninsured and unable to pay are both uninsured. Some can pay but are unable to get insurance. The difference is moot.

The difference is everything. It's the left padding their stats dishonestly to make a case. If I'm well off enough to cover my medical expenses w/o insurance or just plain opt to not have it, do you really think it honest to count me in a group of people you are attempting to use as evidence of a crisis?

There aren't enough people like you to skew the overall stats within the margin of error.

 

[Neser Boha]

The 45 million number has been debunked several times over now. Uninsured is not the same as unable to pay. You either have your head in the sand or are just plain dishonest.

Uninsured and unable to pay are both uninsured. Some can pay but are unable to get insurance. The difference is moot.

The difference is everything. It's the left padding their stats dishonestly to make a case. If I'm well off enough to cover my medical expenses w/o insurance or just plain opt to not have it, do you really think it honest to count me in a group of people you are attempting to use as evidence of a crisis?

I wonder how many are in that situation ... let me guess ... a handful.

If you have any other figures - such as how many people don't have insurance because of pre-existing conditions, how many don't have insurance because they're unable to pay, and how many don't have one just because they like to pay inflated individual prices every-time their kid gets a flu or a strep-throat.... I'll gladly see them.

In the meantime, the dishonesty is on your side as you obviously don't care as much about what doesn't concern you - you're insured, so the fact millions are uninsured seems as a minor problem to you.

 

[paperview]

It shouldn't surprise you veritas. I find that most of the right wing nut cases who vote against all social programs are either on social security disability, VA disability or plain criminals who work construction under the table and never pay any taxes.

Yet they rant and rave against any social program and worse yet vote Republican. Kinda of like biting your nose off to spite your face.

When you ask a few of these people in person. ( which I have gotten to do while working the campaign trail) ask them in person: Sir or madame you just told me your on social security disability yet you plan to vote Republican? You do know that most republicans have said they would like to end social security and medicare and medicaid all together. .................... They will look at you and with a straight face say : oh they don't mean me. They mean the bums that don't deserve it.

LOL.................... These kind of people seem to live in a world where reality and facts touch them very little.

That is why I say to hell with them. After 8 years of that horrific Bush the country should have learned to ignore these people. Onward and upward and we need to keep registering voters every election. Until we finally can call that Republican , conservative , libertarian batch so marginal they are just a faint memory of our past.

Damn what a good post.

I know some of these folks too. Living off the government dole, sitting on their fat ass all day, pounding their fingers on the internet 24/7 -- yet screaming about how people are lazy (read: Dems, not THEM of course! lol) and sucking off the government teet.

And they vote republican. Makes not a whit of sense, except to say they are some of the biggest hypocrites known to man.

 

[paperview]

The 45 million number has been debunked several times over now. Uninsured is not the same as unable to pay. You either have your head in the sand or are just plain dishonest.

Uninsured and unable to pay are both uninsured. Some can pay but are unable to get insurance. The difference is moot.

The difference is everything. It's the left padding their stats dishonestly to make a case. If I'm well off enough to cover my medical expenses w/o insurance or just plain opt to not have it, do you really think it honest to count me in a group of people you are attempting to use as evidence of a crisis?

How many people can afford to go without at least catastrophic coverage?

Are some of these moneyed people so short sited they think they are immune to a slip and fall that cracks their back, or a heart attack or sudden stroke that whips them soundly to a tune of hundreds of thousands?

 

[Valerie]

Had to share this having just got off the phone trying to schedule an appointment. I, like most, am not opposed to reforming the system. But doing so can't be addressed without addressing the need for a greater supply of doctors.

My personal example: My medical condition requires me to have yearly check ups from about 4 different specialists. I called to today to schedule appointments for 2, hopefully by some miracle on the same day so i don't have to take extra time off of work, The first is requiring me to see him so that before he will refill my prescription. Minor problem. I can't see him for TWO MONTHS. It gets better. The second specialist is not available for 4 MONTHS. This is something that needs to be resolved.

The problem with the plans on the table is that it is attempting to address this issue of cost, which does need to be addressed. But it doesn't focus at all on access. Two concepts that the left can't seem to differentiate between. It's basic econ folks. If all you address is reducing cost, demand goes up. That will exacerbate the issue of actual access not improve it. I wonder how long I would have to wait under Obamacare.

My suggestion won't help with your current situation, but this year when you're leaving your appointment, make an appointment for next year before you leave the office. Also, don't wait until a prescriptions runs out to call for a refill. Thinking ahead will help.

 

[xsited1]

I have a question

If you have cancer and need chemo treatments but can't afford it and have no insurance, can you still get the treatments? And if so, how?

Yes. If you have no insurance, that means you are poor and qualify for Medicaid. However, if owning a big screen TV and an expensive new car is more important than buying health insurance, you're probably too stupid to live in a relatively free country and should consider moving.

 

[strollingbones]

What you experienced has been a problem for at least a decade in the US.

Long waits to get into to see most doctors.

Why would you be equating something that has long been a problem with president Obama or healthcare reform? Would be the first question I would ask.

Secondly a small amount of money was put in the stimulus bill ( AKA recovery act) to provide scholarships for doctors and medical personnel.

Thirdly that is part of the medical health reform bill being proposed now to provide tuition breaks to people willing to become doctors, nurses and medical professionals.

The problem is right there. A SMALL amount of money to tackle what needs to be tackled first while a relatively small problem has been given crisis status (the uninsurred)

Are you saying that if you had to wait a bit longer to see a doctor because everybody in the nation had medical care that you would prefer to deny millions of people health care so you wouldn't have to wait?

If so that paints a pretty clear picture of your morality.

The answer in the form of of a question; what good is coverage without sufficient access?

what good is coverage that wont pay? there are many problems with the health care in this country. people can have good insurance and still end up broke from co payments...or denial of payment.

true story: friend of mine goes to have blood drawn....the hospital was simply to draw the blood and ship it to duke for testing....hospital a runs the tests..then ships to duke...friend is not being billed 180 dollars for drawing blood and test they WERE NOT suppose to run.
Insurance is refusing to pay but 40 dollars on hospital a's bill...so she is stuck with 140 dollars for a test she didnt want them to run.

her two bouts with cancer have ran her over a million dollars in co payments...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So you have universal healthcare but don't want the rest of us to have it???

That really sucks, on so many levels.

I actually pay for private insurance...but our program has the GOVT pay for people to get on PRIVATE plans. So its not the same as HR3200 where its putting people on GOVT plans instead.

Thats the very thing i've been saying to do instead of HR3200, and I know you know this as you've quoted me saying it in another thread (or maybe it was someone else but you were posting there).

So where's your beef?

 

[auditor0007]

The 45 million number has been debunked several times over now. Uninsured is not the same as unable to pay. You either have your head in the sand or are just plain dishonest.

Uninsured and unable to pay are both uninsured. Some can pay but are unable to get insurance. The difference is moot.

The difference is everything. It's the left padding their stats dishonestly to make a case. If I'm well off enough to cover my medical expenses w/o insurance or just plain opt to not have it, do you really think it honest to count me in a group of people you are attempting to use as evidence of a crisis?

The problem is that the vast majority of people who tell us they choose not to have health insurance could never pay for their own treatment if they became seriously sick. And for anyone who is truly wealthy, not carrying a catastrophic plan is not an option by choice. Anyone who has significant assest will do whatever they can to protect those assets. If you are a millionaire, would you really risk losing it all by not purchasing insurance?

My girlfriend has quite a bit of money, over a million. She works a fairly low paying job just so that she has insurance because she would never want to lose her life savings due to illness. It's not that she needs the job, but she wants the insurance.

 

[auditor0007]

I have a question

If you have cancer and need chemo treatments but can't afford it and have no insurance, can you still get the treatments? And if so, how?

Yes. If you have no insurance, that means you are poor and qualify for Medicaid. However, if owning a big screen TV and an expensive new car is more important than buying health insurance, you're probably too stupid to live in a relatively free country and should consider moving.

Let's do some math here. A married couple who both work in lower paying jobs earn $50,000 per year. They have two children. During their working years, they will earn $2.25 million. They are not poor and definitely do not qualify for Medicaid. Now, the cost for healthcare for this family, over their entire lifetime will come to $1.25 million based on the total cost of $7900 per year per person. So, this family will need to spend over half of their lifetime earnings on healthcare.

These are the real numbers, and they are scary because there are a great many people out there who fall in this category. Even if you up their annual earnings to $60,000 per year, they will still pay over 46% of their lifetime earnings toward healthcare. Medicaid is great for those who are dirt poor, but that really isn't that many people. Those are the people who are on welfare, not the working poor. And the numbers of the working poor are growing. We are slowly becoming a country of haves and have nots as the middle class is being squeezed more and more.

 

[American Horse]

Let's do some math here. A married couple who both work in lower paying jobs earn $50,000 per year. They have two children. During their working years, they will earn $2.25 million. They are not poor and definitely do not qualify for Medicaid. Now, the cost for healthcare for this family, over their entire lifetime will come to $1.25 million based on the total cost of $7900 per year per person. So, this family will need to spend over half of their lifetime earnings on healthcare.

These are the real numbers, and they are scary because there are a great many people out there who fall in this category. Even if you up their annual earnings to $60,000 per year, they will still pay over 46% of their lifetime earnings toward healthcare. Medicaid is great for those who are dirt poor, but that really isn't that many people. Those are the people who are on welfare, not the working poor. And the numbers of the working poor are growing. We are slowly becoming a country of haves and have nots as the middle class is being squeezed more and more.

These are baseless assumptions.

If you are entitled to your own math I'm entitled to mine: Let me use a real life example. Five years ago a 63 year old man – not a preferred customer for health insurance by any means, because of advanced age – by competitive shopping, could get an excellent health insurance policy with a $1,000 deductible for $120. per month. That’s $1,440 per year plus the 1,000 deductible which together equal $2,440 per year. using that high (63 year old man) figure for example and just multiplying it by 2 adults for 47 years (65 at years at age of Medicare, minus 18 years being their age of maturity) and two children for 18 years (or up to the age of maturity) we come up with $229,360 for the two parents and $87,840 for the two children with a combined total equaling $317,200 for their entire period of needing health care and insurance, during which the "family" would be responsible for those costs up to the age of going on Medicare. This combined amount in my looslely based figures is only 25% of your loosely based figures.

In reality this family like many families will go years without any significant medical costs, or they would likely incur costs that would be less than the deductible I used which was $4,000 per year for the family.

It should also be taken into account that a child can be added to an adult’s insurance policy for much less than doubling that cost which I did, and that in the beginning, if that adult had acquired their insurance at the earliest possible age, at age 18, their rates should be much less than for an adult male, aged 63 in 2004.

BTW your $50,000 for two adults working would fit fairly accurately the state of my 63 year old man's residence and in which he purchased his health insurance policy.

 

[wvpeach]

It shouldn't surprise you veritas. I find that most of the right wing nut cases who vote against all social programs are either on social security disability, VA disability or plain criminals who work construction under the table and never pay any taxes.

Yet they rant and rave against any social program and worse yet vote Republican. Kinda of like biting your nose off to spite your face.

When you ask a few of these people in person. ( which I have gotten to do while working the campaign trail) ask them in person: Sir or madame you just told me your on social security disability yet you plan to vote Republican? You do know that most republicans have said they would like to end social security and medicare and medicaid all together. .................... They will look at you and with a straight face say : oh they don't mean me. They mean the bums that don't deserve it.

LOL.................... These kind of people seem to live in a world where reality and facts touch them very little.

That is why I say to hell with them. After 8 years of that horrific Bush the country should have learned to ignore these people. Onward and upward and we need to keep registering voters every election. Until we finally can call that Republican , conservative , libertarian batch so marginal they are just a faint memory of our past.

Damn what a good post.

I know some of these folks too. Living off the government dole, sitting on their fat ass all day, pounding their fingers on the internet 24/7 -- yet screaming about how people are lazy (read: Dems, not THEM of course! lol) and sucking off the government teet.

And they vote republican. Makes not a whit of sense, except to say they are some of the biggest hypocrites known to man.

Hypocritical really doesn't seem to be their main problem. Although that they are.
I'd have to call such people simply stupid. Lacking in logic and reasoning skills to say the least.

 

[wvpeach]

What you experienced has been a problem for at least a decade in the US.

Long waits to get into to see most doctors.

Why would you be equating something that has long been a problem with president Obama or healthcare reform? Would be the first question I would ask.

Secondly a small amount of money was put in the stimulus bill ( AKA recovery act) to provide scholarships for doctors and medical personnel.

Thirdly that is part of the medical health reform bill being proposed now to provide tuition breaks to people willing to become doctors, nurses and medical professionals.

The problem is right there. A SMALL amount of money to tackle what needs to be tackled first while a relatively small problem has been given crisis status (the uninsurred)

Are you saying that if you had to wait a bit longer to see a doctor because everybody in the nation had medical care that you would prefer to deny millions of people health care so you wouldn't have to wait?

If so that paints a pretty clear picture of your morality.

The answer in the form of of a question; what good is coverage without sufficient access?

what good is coverage that wont pay? there are many problems with the health care in this country. people can have good insurance and still end up broke from co payments...or denial of payment.

true story: friend of mine goes to have blood drawn....the hospital was simply to draw the blood and ship it to duke for testing....hospital a runs the tests..then ships to duke...friend is not being billed 180 dollars for drawing blood and test they WERE NOT suppose to run.
Insurance is refusing to pay but 40 dollars on hospital a's bill...so she is stuck with 140 dollars for a test she didnt want them to run.

her two bouts with cancer have ran her over a million dollars in co payments...

Doesn't work that way with the government programs.
My father who never smoked a day in his life has lung and colon cancer. Two surgeries . loads of hospital bills well over 400K during the surgeries. 72 years old. On medicare naturally was a teamster and retired military but the VA preferred he had that serious of a operation at a civilian hospital that did more of them.

1 year of Chemo and radiation after the surgeries and not a bill one that medicare didn't pay.

If dad gets a bill from a doc or hospital he just call's them and ask's them to accept his medicare and they do. ....................... Simple as that.

Works that way for every old person I know on medicare.

And by the way my father, my father in law, and my daughter all Veterans love their VA medical care.

Just in case it goes over the head of some of you right wingers VA and medicare are government ran healthcare programs.

 

[paperview]

Let's do some math here. A married couple who both work in lower paying jobs earn $50,000 per year. They have two children. During their working years, they will earn $2.25 million. They are not poor and definitely do not qualify for Medicaid. Now, the cost for healthcare for this family, over their entire lifetime will come to $1.25 million based on the total cost of $7900 per year per person. So, this family will need to spend over half of their lifetime earnings on healthcare.

These are the real numbers, and they are scary because there are a great many people out there who fall in this category. Even if you up their annual earnings to $60,000 per year, they will still pay over 46% of their lifetime earnings toward healthcare. Medicaid is great for those who are dirt poor, but that really isn't that many people. Those are the people who are on welfare, not the working poor. And the numbers of the working poor are growing. We are slowly becoming a country of haves and have nots as the middle class is being squeezed more and more.

These are baseless assumptions.

If you are entitled to your own math I'm entitled to mine: Let me use a real life example. Five years ago a 63 year old man – not a preferred customer for health insurance by any means, because of advanced age – by competitive shopping, could get an excellent health insurance policy with a $1,000 deductible for $120. per month. That’s $1,440 per year plus the 1,000 deductible which together equal $2,440 per year. using that high (63 year old man) figure for example and just multiplying it by 2 adults for 47 years (65 at years at age of Medicare, minus 18 years being their age of maturity) and two children for 18 years (or up to the age of maturity) we come up with $229,360 for the two parents and $87,840 for the two children with a combined total equaling $317,200 for their entire period of needing health care and insurance, during which the "family" would be responsible for those costs up to the age of going on Medicare. This combined amount in my looslely based figures is only 25% of your loosely based figures.

In reality this family like many families will go years without any significant medical costs, or they would likely incur costs that would be less than the deductible I used which was $4,000 per year for the family.

It should also be taken into account that a child can be added to an adult’s insurance policy for much less than doubling that cost which I did, and that in the beginning, if that adult had acquired their insurance at the earliest possible age, at age 18, their rates should be much less than for an adult male, aged 63 in 2004.

BTW your $50,000 for two adults working would fit fairly accurately the state of my 63 year old man's residence and in which he purchased his health insurance policy.

Where in the hell do you get 120 a month for a 63 year old man with a 1000. ded.??

Your figures are bullshit.

 

[AllieBaba]

I have a question

If you have cancer and need chemo treatments but can't afford it and have no insurance, can you still get the treatments? And if so, how?

Yes, you can. The hospitals bill you. Or you qualify for medicaid, disability and/or medicare.

People who don't have insurance in this country don't have it because they CHOOSE not to. I was without insurance when I was working as a reporter. BECAUSE I CHOSE NOT TO HAVE IT. The cost was astronomical and I took my chances that I wouldn't be spending anywhere near that amount in medical bills per month. And I was right.

But anyone who is sick can get into a doctor, even if they have to go to an ER to do it.

What you DON'T want to be stuck with are dental issues. Good luck finding a non-sadistic asshole dentist who will take HMO patients...and who will get them in at anything more than 6 week intervals. Including patients who have abcesses or need root canals or have broken teeth. Those are the people who are ending up in the hospitals with life-threatening infections, because the bastard dentists won't book them according to their problem, and piddle around when they do see them and have them come back in 6 weeks to piddle around some more without ever actually fixing the real problem. Then finally, they just pull the teeth.

And people think this will improve with national health care. WRONG. It will get worse. More people, doctors getting paid less, combined with fewer doctors because we allow foreigners to fill up our medical schools (and those doctors then go overseas).

 

[xsited1]

I have a question

If you have cancer and need chemo treatments but can't afford it and have no insurance, can you still get the treatments? And if so, how?

Yes. If you have no insurance, that means you are poor and qualify for Medicaid. However, if owning a big screen TV and an expensive new car is more important than buying health insurance, you're probably too stupid to live in a relatively free country and should consider moving.

Let's do some math here. A married couple who both work in lower paying jobs earn $50,000 per year. They have two children. During their working years, they will earn $2.25 million. They are not poor and definitely do not qualify for Medicaid. Now, the cost for healthcare for this family, over their entire lifetime will come to $1.25 million based on the total cost of $7900 per year per person. So, this family will need to spend over half of their lifetime earnings on healthcare.

These are the real numbers, and they are scary because there are a great many people out there who fall in this category. Even if you up their annual earnings to $60,000 per year, they will still pay over 46% of their lifetime earnings toward healthcare. Medicaid is great for those who are dirt poor, but that really isn't that many people. Those are the people who are on welfare, not the working poor. And the numbers of the working poor are growing. We are slowly becoming a country of haves and have nots as the middle class is being squeezed more and more.

Where did you get $7900 per year per person? We pay only a fraction of that.

 

[auditor0007]

Let's do some math here. A married couple who both work in lower paying jobs earn $50,000 per year. They have two children. During their working years, they will earn $2.25 million. They are not poor and definitely do not qualify for Medicaid. Now, the cost for healthcare for this family, over their entire lifetime will come to $1.25 million based on the total cost of $7900 per year per person. So, this family will need to spend over half of their lifetime earnings on healthcare.

These are the real numbers, and they are scary because there are a great many people out there who fall in this category. Even if you up their annual earnings to $60,000 per year, they will still pay over 46% of their lifetime earnings toward healthcare. Medicaid is great for those who are dirt poor, but that really isn't that many people. Those are the people who are on welfare, not the working poor. And the numbers of the working poor are growing. We are slowly becoming a country of haves and have nots as the middle class is being squeezed more and more.

These are baseless assumptions.

If you are entitled to your own math I'm entitled to mine: Let me use a real life example. Five years ago a 63 year old man – not a preferred customer for health insurance by any means, because of advanced age – by competitive shopping, could get an excellent health insurance policy with a $1,000 deductible for $120. per month. That’s $1,440 per year plus the 1,000 deductible which together equal $2,440 per year. using that high (63 year old man) figure for example and just multiplying it by 2 adults for 47 years (65 at years at age of Medicare, minus 18 years being their age of maturity) and two children for 18 years (or up to the age of maturity) we come up with $229,360 for the two parents and $87,840 for the two children with a combined total equaling $317,200 for their entire period of needing health care and insurance, during which the "family" would be responsible for those costs up to the age of going on Medicare. This combined amount in my looslely based figures is only 25% of your loosely based figures.

In reality this family like many families will go years without any significant medical costs, or they would likely incur costs that would be less than the deductible I used which was $4,000 per year for the family.

It should also be taken into account that a child can be added to an adult’s insurance policy for much less than doubling that cost which I did, and that in the beginning, if that adult had acquired their insurance at the earliest possible age, at age 18, their rates should be much less than for an adult male, aged 63 in 2004.

BTW your $50,000 for two adults working would fit fairly accurately the state of my 63 year old man's residence and in which he purchased his health insurance policy.

Yes, some people may be able to find good deals. I used the average we pay per person for all healthcare in the US. Those numbers are fact, not anecdotal. But if you want to use some anecdotal numbers, let's use mine. I'm 46 and lost my insurance because I moved out of the coverage area from my old policy. So now, I can buy one of two guaranteed issue policies. The cheapest one costs $855 per month and comes with a $2500 deductible. Since I need medical treatment, I will pay the full $2500 deductible and then some. So my yearly cost is a little over $13,000 per year. Next, we need to add the 2.8% that I pay toward Medicare. That comes to approximately another $1000 per year bringing me to $14,000 per year. Last of all, I need coverage for my kids. They come cheap at just a bit over $1000 per year each. So that brings me to $16,000 per year. Currently, I'm earning around $40,000 per year, so I would be spending 40% if my gross earnings on heathcare.

Those are real numbers. Of course, as I get older, the premiums will continue to increase. If I was 56 instead of 46, then my monthly premium would be $1335 per month. Again, those are real numbers.

Now, getting back to your numbers. For where you live, you might be right. The private policy I purchased five years ago when I was healthy cost me about $175 per month with a $1000 deductible. However, I was not 63; I was 41, so your numbers seem to be a bit low. And believe me, I looked for the least expensive policy possible. Now, although that policy cost me $175 five years ago, when I moved last year, I was paying $330 per month. So in five years, my premium went up 89%; it almost doubled.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So you have universal healthcare but don't want the rest of us to have it???

That really sucks, on so many levels.

It shouldn't surprise you veritas. I find that most of the right wing nut cases who vote against all social programs are either on social security disability, VA disability or plain criminals who work construction under the table and never pay any taxes.

Yet they rant and rave against any social program and worse yet vote Republican. Kinda of like biting your nose off to spite your face.

When you ask a few of these people in person. ( which I have gotten to do while working the campaign trail) ask them in person: Sir or madame you just told me your on social security disability yet you plan to vote Republican? You do know that most republicans have said they would like to end social security and medicare and medicaid all together. .................... They will look at you and with a straight face say : oh they don't mean me. They mean the bums that don't deserve it.

LOL.................... These kind of people seem to live in a world where reality and facts touch them very little.

That is why I say to hell with them. After 8 years of that horrific Bush the country should have learned to ignore these people. Onward and upward and we need to keep registering voters every election. Until we finally can call that Republican , conservative , libertarian batch so marginal they are just a faint memory of our past.

I actually pay for private insurance...but our program has the GOVT pay for people to get on PRIVATE plans. So its not the same as HR3200 where its putting people on GOVT plans instead.

Thats the very thing i've been saying to do instead of HR3200, and I know you know this as you've quoted me saying it in another thread (or maybe it was someone else but you were posting there).

So where's your beef?

 

[auditor0007]

Yes. If you have no insurance, that means you are poor and qualify for Medicaid. However, if owning a big screen TV and an expensive new car is more important than buying health insurance, you're probably too stupid to live in a relatively free country and should consider moving.

Let's do some math here. A married couple who both work in lower paying jobs earn $50,000 per year. They have two children. During their working years, they will earn $2.25 million. They are not poor and definitely do not qualify for Medicaid. Now, the cost for healthcare for this family, over their entire lifetime will come to $1.25 million based on the total cost of $7900 per year per person. So, this family will need to spend over half of their lifetime earnings on healthcare.

These are the real numbers, and they are scary because there are a great many people out there who fall in this category. Even if you up their annual earnings to $60,000 per year, they will still pay over 46% of their lifetime earnings toward healthcare. Medicaid is great for those who are dirt poor, but that really isn't that many people. Those are the people who are on welfare, not the working poor. And the numbers of the working poor are growing. We are slowly becoming a country of haves and have nots as the middle class is being squeezed more and more.

Where did you get $7900 per year per person? We pay only a fraction of that.

This is the average amount spent per person per year in the US currently. You didn't know that? We are currently spending $2.4 trillion on healthcare per year. Divide that by 305 million people and you get $7900 per person per year. This includes all spending on healthcare, insurance premiums, all government programs, and out of pocket expenses. Not everyone pays that much, but that means some are paying much more. And yes, the wealthy pay more than anyone because they help fund Medicare. Someone earning $1 million per year will pay $28,000 per year just to Medicare if those are wages earned.

The biggest question we should be asking ourselve is whether $7900 per year is too much. Does it make sense? Shouldn't we be able to bring that number down some? And where is that number headed? Under the current system, it is estimated to double in the next ten years. By 2020, that number will double to $16,000 per year. Do you think national income is going to double in that time also? The path we are on is unsustainable, and until everyone wakes up and actually wants to find some solutions, nothing is going to change. None of the current proposals addresses rising costs in an effective manner. And because of this, the system is going to collapse.