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

[BluesLegend]

How would Medicare for all save $1 without government rationing healthcare? Any savings from private insurance profits would go up in smoke due to government incompetence, bloat, and lack of accountability. Do you have any clue the ungodly amount of existing Medicare/Medicaid FRAUD that government already can't manage?

Although we hear plenty about fraud and abuse in Medicare - which is a legitimate area of concern - the program is dramatically more efficient than private insurance. Medicare spent just 1.4 percent of every dollar on administrative overhead, even including money spent to fight fraud and abuse, compared with 25 percent overhead in private plans, according to Richard Kaplan, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law who specializes in elder law matters.

This makes private insurance a bigger fraud.

Oh please, the fraud was over $200 billion a year and that was a few years ago. I wouldn't hire the incompetent government to mow my damn lawn.

Lets make a deal shall we. Medicare for all BUT government can't go anywhere near the program. They can't touch the money, they can't regulate it, staff it, nothing. The people will manage the program. Deal? I guarantee you not one damn Dem in congress would vote for it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

What is the point of even responding to such a silly, bombastic OP? Excuse me, but I need to go clean and lube my multiple rocket launcher.

 

[bripat9643]

Some dupe is going to come along and say that we need to repeal Obamacare to relieve the skyrocketing costs of healthcare.

Of course, the dupe's propagandists depend on the dupe having a memory of a goldfish and not remembering how fast healthcare costs were skyrocketing long before anyone even heard of Barack HUSSEIN Obama:

2 month long wait for heart surgery, here we come!
Hope you dilapidated old ***** can survive!

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.

If you read the article, it says most of the increase comes from Medicare and Medicaid - government healthcare, in other words.

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.

Wait.

So you're saying that Bernie's Country Wrecking "Medicare for All" will cost $18,000,000,000,000 LESS over 10 years than the current system?

Is that what you're saying?

BTW, only "men" who wear pussyhats block me. True Story

I would like ALL of you to look at the graph that G5000 has in post 2. Take a close look at it!

Now then, ask yourself one VERY IMPORTANT question--------------> WHEN was Medicare created?

ANSWER----------->1965!

Why didn't the G-man have a graph that went back to 1950? 1940? 1930?

ANSWER-----------> Because the cost of healthcare skyrocketed as soon as the GOVERNMENT got involved.

Doubt me?

OK, lets try another test--------------->lets have Gman or some other person, put a graph here, or in a new thread about the cost of higher education-) Look at the line, and then, and then, and then, what happens to that line, as soon as the government gets involved-) It goes STRAIGHT UP, just like healthcare.

These people are trying to MANIPULATE you, they really are. The government CAUSED prices to rise by their non free market INTERFERENCE. Now their solution is--------> MORE INTERFERENCE by the government! It should be way LESS interference by the government!

why not offer some evidence of your own, show us the cost of healthcare in the 40s and the 50s.

Notice the steep incline starting in 1960.

 

[dudmuck]

How would Medicare for all save $1 without government rationing healthcare? Any savings from private insurance profits would go up in smoke due to government incompetence, bloat, and lack of accountability. Do you have any clue the ungodly amount of existing Medicare/Medicaid FRAUD that government already can't manage?

Although we hear plenty about fraud and abuse in Medicare - which is a legitimate area of concern - the program is dramatically more efficient than private insurance. Medicare spent just 1.4 percent of every dollar on administrative overhead, even including money spent to fight fraud and abuse, compared with 25 percent overhead in private plans, according to Richard Kaplan, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law who specializes in elder law matters.

This makes private insurance a bigger fraud.

Oh please, the fraud was over $200 billion a year and that was a few years ago. I wouldn't hire the incompetent government to mow my damn lawn.

Lets make a deal shall we. Medicare for all BUT government can't go anywhere near the program. They can't touch the money, they can't regulate it, staff it, nothing. The people will manage the program. Deal? I guarantee you not one damn Dem in congress would vote for it.

The fraud has gone way down, much less than private overhead.

 

[bripat9643]

Speculation supported by nothing.

 

[Dana7360]

It’s crazy how much is spent on healthcare but good to understand as it is a much needed service. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the cost estimations for Medicare for all an additional 35 trillion over 10 years on top of current costs?

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

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

Lower administrative costs. Every doctor's office has to employ several people to work out the bazillions of billing codes for each insurer for each procedure.

"Single payer" makes things more streamlined.

Plus there is no need for a big insurance company to make a profit. No executives and stock holders who expect high earnings. When the greed is taken out, things cost less.

If those who want to be doctors didn't come out of school with over 100 thousand dollars in debt things could cost less.

Medicaid also has uniform coverage. The ACA has minimum standards but when it's ruled unconstitutional those standards will be gone. What is covered for one person isn't covered for another person. It will depend on your employer if that's how you get your insurance or if you buy privately how much you can afford which probably won't be able to cover much of anything so the premiums are a waste of money. Some people who have an employer who will offer decent coverage will be able to have decent care. Those who don't have that won't have decent care. We're back to medical costs being the leading cause of bankruptcy. Back to 45 thousand people dying unnecessary early deaths each year again. People losing their homes and way of life. People getting divorced so that they can qualify for medicaid. Everyone's medical costs skyrocketing at a much faster pace.

Right now we have some very minimum protections but it's not good enough. What about those who have paid into the system for decades then lose their insurance? For something as common as divorce? It's not fair if one has used the other spouses insurance for decades to all of a sudden lose all they have invested in that insurance just because they got divorced.

If they want to kick people off insurance for "preexisting conditions" but not offer any alternative, that's not fair. If they want to take those people out of the private insurance pool then they should be obligated to offer a public option, medicare or medicaid, and not leave that person just high and dry after paying into the system for decades.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

It’s crazy how much is spent on healthcare but good to understand as it is a much needed service. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the cost estimations for Medicare for all an additional 35 trillion over 10 years on top of current costs?

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

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

Lower administrative costs. Every doctor's office has to employ several people to work out the bazillions of billing codes for each insurer for each procedure.

"Single payer" makes things more streamlined.

Plus there is no need for a big insurance company to make a profit. No executives and stock holders who expect high earnings. When the greed is taken out, things cost less.

If those who want to be doctors didn't come out of school with over 100 thousand dollars in debt things could cost less.

Medicaid also has uniform coverage. The ACA has minimum standards but when it's ruled unconstitutional those standards will be gone. What is covered for one person isn't covered for another person. It will depend on your employer if that's how you get your insurance or if you buy privately how much you can afford which probably won't be able to cover much of anything so the premiums are a waste of money. Some people who have an employer who will offer decent coverage will be able to have decent care. Those who don't have that won't have decent care. We're back to medical costs being the leading cause of bankruptcy. Back to 45 thousand people dying unnecessary early deaths again. People losing their homes and way of life. People getting divorced so that they can qualify for medicaid. Everyone's medical costs skyrocketing at a much faster pace.

Right now we have some very minimum protections but it's not good enough. What about those who have paid into the system for decades then lose their insurance? For something as common as divorce? It's not fair if one has used the other spouses insurance for decades to all of a sudden lose all they have invested in that insurance just because they got divorced.

If they want to kick people off insurance for "preexisting conditions" but not offer any alternative, that's not fair. If they want to take those people out of the private insurance pool then they should be obligated to offer a public option, medicare or medicaid, and not leave that person just high and dry after paying into the system for decades.

Yeah, right, no CEO and no profit - just a bunch of fat lazy bureaucrats who will do virtually no work and pull down a six figure salary. The bureaucrats will multiple and the service will decrease. Do you have any idea how quickly costs can shoot up when there's no incentive to contain them?

 

[bripat9643]

It’s crazy how much is spent on healthcare but good to understand as it is a much needed service. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the cost estimations for Medicare for all an additional 35 trillion over 10 years on top of current costs?

If you take insurance companies out of the equation, you reduce the healthcare costs by 20% automatically. That's the percentage insurance takes off the top. Move to single payer, and the largest department in the hospital won't be the billing department, since there won't be thousands of private companies to bill, all with difference co-pays, and paperwork. Doctors won't have to hire third party billing and collection companies. Americans spend more than 30% of their health care dollars on administration. Single payer countries pay less than 10% on administration.

You have to be a ******* moron to believe government can produce a service cheaper than the private sector.

 

[bripat9643]

It’s crazy how much is spent on healthcare but good to understand as it is a much needed service. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the cost estimations for Medicare for all an additional 35 trillion over 10 years on top of current costs?

If you take insurance companies out of the equation, you reduce the healthcare costs by 20% automatically. That's the percentage insurance takes off the top. Move to single payer, and the largest department in the hospital won't be the billing department, since there won't be thousands of private companies to bill, all with difference co-pays, and paperwork. Doctors won't have to hire third party billing and collection companies. Americans spend more than 30% of their health care dollars on administration. Single payer countries pay less than 10% on administration.

Wanna know how I know you're an ass?

"If you take insurance companies out of the equation, you reduce the healthcare costs by 20% automatically. That's the percentage insurance takes off the top. "

What do they pay for with that 20 cents on the dollar?

Another way you can tell is that insurance companies only make a profit of about 5%.

 

[bripat9643]

The VA isn’t a joke, my sister n law works for the one in Minneapolis and it is one of the best hospitals I’ve ever been in. They are rockstars out there. But in other areas there are major problems.

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!"

 

[Brain357]

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.

 

[dblack]

Lower administrative costs. Every doctor's office has to employ several people to work out the bazillions of billing codes for each insurer for each procedure.

Riiight. There's a faint whiff of trickle-down in that claim. The administrative overhead is a drag, to be sure, but it's mostly a fixed cost. It's hardly the biggest factor driving health care inflation. Whatever savings is realized certainly won't be enough of a savings to cover increased usage. If government takes over insurance aka "Single Payer", the only way to prevent exploding costs will be to do the same thing that insurance companies do - look for every excuse they can to deny a claim. The only difference will be that there's only one insurance company, and you can't fire them.

Now, that's assuming Single Payer is radically different than the current implementation of Medicare - which actually just farms us out to the same insurance companies who are ******* us now. If we're just talking about expanding Medicare to cover everyone, that will simply make the existing feeding trough much, much larger. The insurance companies will continue to profit, but from taxes rather than premiums.

 

[Dana7360]

There was a time when healthcare was not a business. Whether privately run or government run that is what it is today. And there are quality issues as some doctors are not that good.

What time was this?

It was before Reagan reformed health care and deregulated insurance companies and exempted them from anti trust laws.

Before Reagan most health care insurance companies were non profit. They were smaller with many more of them. They were not exempt from anti trust laws. Health care insurance was more regulated and left the medical decisions up to the doctor and patient. Not the insurance company.

Most hospitals were pubic or non profit. Deregulation changed that too. Profit became more important than the patient care.

Most people did have coverage so there weren't unpaid bills. People didn't have to rely on the ER and walk away from medical bills to "cost shift" it on to everyone else. Reagan brought that to America. He called it "cost shifting." Those who couldn't pay their bill don't and it's paid by everyone else through higher costs for health care and insurance.

 

[Slade3200]

It’s crazy how much is spent on healthcare but good to understand as it is a much needed service. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the cost estimations for Medicare for all an additional 35 trillion over 10 years on top of current costs?

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

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

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

There are fine examples worldwide.

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

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

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

 

[Slade3200]

Slade3200 , here is an article which has some detail regarding the cost savings we could expect with Medicare for all.

I don't know the source well....it looks like a Bernie supporting publication. I think you'll find it of interest, anyway.

Medicare for All Is Even Better Than You Thought

Thank you. I’ll dig in tonight when I get some quiet time

 

[Slade3200]

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

But both parties want you to be a hostage.

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

 

[Slade3200]

It’s crazy how much is spent on healthcare but good to understand as it is a much needed service. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the cost estimations for Medicare for all an additional 35 trillion over 10 years on top of current costs?

If you take insurance companies out of the equation, you reduce the healthcare costs by 20% automatically. That's the percentage insurance takes off the top. Move to single payer, and the largest department in the hospital won't be the billing department, since there won't be thousands of private companies to bill, all with difference co-pays, and paperwork. Doctors won't have to hire third party billing and collection companies. Americans spend more than 30% of their health care dollars on administration. Single payer countries pay less than 10% on administration.

Is that how Medicare, Medicaid and the VA operate? Are they experiencing 20-30% lower costs than private insurance?

 

[dblack]

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

But both parties want you to be a hostage.

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

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

 

[Slade3200]

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

But both parties want you to be a hostage.

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

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

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?