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

[22lcidw]

SCIENTIST: An extinction level event comet is headed toward earth.

BOOTNEY: You want us all to die!

Actually after CNN and MSNBC reports the extinction level event comet for a minute they would go back to bashing Trump, his administration and his voters on a 24 hour per day loop. The world will be destroyed and you will still hear the final words from those media people... Trum......

 

[g5000]

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

And there you have it.

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

 

[g5000]

SCIENTIST: An extinction level event comet is headed toward earth.

BOOTNEY: You want us all to die!

Actually after CNN and MSNBC reports the extinction level event comet for a minute they would go back to bashing Trump, his administration and his voters on a 24 hour per day loop. The world will be destroyed and you will still hear the final words from those media people... Trum......

TRUMP: I will reveal my solution to the comet after the 2020 election. And it will be so easy!

 

[whitehall]

Is that good news or bad news to the left? Bad news I guess or they would have brought it up during the Obama administration. Everything costs too much if a republican is in the W.H.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Both the VA and Medicare score higher in customer satisfaction than private insurance.

I guess they can't ask the guys who died waiting for the VA to treat them.

No, but you can ask some veterans. I've always received excellent care at VAs.

How do I ask the ones who died waiting to be treated?

Well, they didn't get treated, so they're not technically "customers". So who cares about THEIR satisfaction level?

Now there's a great slogan: "All the people we didn't kill are really happy with out service!"

Those people are just really happy they got service before they kicked the bucket.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Are we back to that lame old trope of, "If someone else doesn't pay for it, no one ever gets it!"

Because catastrophic policies usually cover routine screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies, they're frequently accompanied by an HSA that can take care of regular care, and routine checkups would be cheap if the presence of third-party payers wasn't jacking up the prices.

 

[Dragonlady]

......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.

Are we back to that lame old trope of, "If someone else doesn't pay for it, no one ever gets it!"

Because catastrophic policies usually cover routine screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies, they're frequently accompanied by an HSA that can take care of regular care, and routine checkups would be cheap if the presence of third-party payers wasn't jacking up the prices.

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

 

[g5000]

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.

Are we back to that lame old trope of, "If someone else doesn't pay for it, no one ever gets it!"

Because catastrophic policies usually cover routine screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies, they're frequently accompanied by an HSA that can take care of regular care, and routine checkups would be cheap if the presence of third-party payers wasn't jacking up the prices.

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

Yep. I have a family member who has a catastrophic illness. Even with excellent insurance, I have shelled out the equivalent of the cost of a used car in co-pays and deductibles, EVERY YEAR, for a long time now.

There are very, very few Americans who can afford to do that.

 

[Slade3200]

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

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

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

As with any policy, the numbers must be crunched.

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

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

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

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

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

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

 

[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.

I understand the simple concept but the system is much more complicated than that. A standard of care/coverage needs to be set, right? You can’t have people going to the doctor every day for every sniffle free of charge, right? The dynamic totally changes when people no longer have to pay for things. How many more doctors appointments will be made? How will doctors offices handle the increased traffic? What will wait times look like. How will costs be effected? The VA is a system that is government run, right? It has some great elements and some really bad broken elements. Don’t you think that system should be polished and humming before we scale it up to a national level? Thoughts?

You seem to be under the impression that people can take time off from work to run to the doctor every time they get a sniffle.

I think this meme is total bullshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Here's the big disadvantate: It's a government run monopoly. When have monopolies ever been cheap, especially when the government runs them? Government is the main reason healthcare is so expensive now. Government mandates, government regulations and government programs that don't shop by price all drive the cost up.

Look at the healthcare of other countries. Much cheaper than ours.

How many are paying for 25 million illegals

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It's a high-deductible insurance plan, which effectively means that you pay-out-of-pocket for things that don't require long and/or expensive treatments, but if a catastrophe like an extended hospital stay or a life-threatening illness crop up - which would cost far more than the deductible - then the insurance takes over. They are usually accompanied by a Health Savings Account, into which pre-tax funds are deposited which can then be spent on things like co-pays and less-expensive care needs (which still apply toward your annual deductible) and even prescriptions. Depending on the plan, they may also pay for things like cancer screenings.

 

[g5000]

If people get insurance so they can get immunization shots and annual checkups, they will be in better health. Better health means lower costs in the long run.

If you are poor and uninsured, the only time you will go to the doctor is when you are on death's door, and then you are a massive drain on the system.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yes, only conservatives have unhealthy lifestyle choices.

In case you're wondering, I stopped dignifying your bullshit by reading it at this point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Are we back to that lame old trope of, "If someone else doesn't pay for it, no one ever gets it!"

Because catastrophic policies usually cover routine screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies, they're frequently accompanied by an HSA that can take care of regular care, and routine checkups would be cheap if the presence of third-party payers wasn't jacking up the prices.

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

Another "your country is THIS way, and I know more about it because my media tells me what to think, and you just live there!" post. Do you ever get even remotely embarrassed by this?

Could explain. Not going to, since OUR country is none of YOUR frigging business, and no one cares what you tell yourself to justify being a useless ward of your state.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

It's a high-deductible insurance plan, which effectively means that you pay-out-of-pocket for things that don't require long and/or expensive treatments, but if a catastrophe like an extended hospital stay or a life-threatening illness crop up - which would cost far more than the deductible - then the insurance takes over. They are usually accompanied by a Health Savings Account, into which pre-tax funds are deposited which can then be spent on things like co-pays and less-expensive care needs (which still apply toward your annual deductible) and even prescriptions. Depending on the plan, they may also pay for things like cancer screenings.

That's what the Bronze plans started out as.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

Are we back to that lame old trope of, "If someone else doesn't pay for it, no one ever gets it!"

Because catastrophic policies usually cover routine screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies, they're frequently accompanied by an HSA that can take care of regular care, and routine checkups would be cheap if the presence of third-party payers wasn't jacking up the prices.

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

You're full of shit. The Bronze plans cover wellness at 100%

 

[Slade3200]

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

As with any policy, the numbers must be crunched.

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

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

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

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I understand the simple concept but the system is much more complicated than that. A standard of care/coverage needs to be set, right? You can’t have people going to the doctor every day for every sniffle free of charge, right? The dynamic totally changes when people no longer have to pay for things. How many more doctors appointments will be made? How will doctors offices handle the increased traffic? What will wait times look like. How will costs be effected? The VA is a system that is government run, right? It has some great elements and some really bad broken elements. Don’t you think that system should be polished and humming before we scale it up to a national level? Thoughts?

You seem to be under the impression that people can take time off from work to run to the doctor every time they get a sniffle.

I think this meme is total bullshit.

I think the amount of people going to the doctor will dramatically increase, dont you?

 

[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.

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

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

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

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

So...yeah.

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

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

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

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


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

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

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

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