Study: 'Medicare for all' projected to cost added $32.6 trillion

a reply to: CriticalStinker

When was the last time you saw a pharmacy that only dispensed drugs? Most of them are either part of a grocery store or a major chain like CVS, who have their fingers in a number of pies. Even if you look at an independent pharmacy they're reliant on compounding and medical supplies.

I worked in pharmacy for a number of years. I'm well aware of how little is made/how much is lost with each script.

So defacto privatized monopolies are good?

Free Market.

No state monopolies.

a reply to: neo96

National Healthcare Expenditure (NHE)

NHE Fact Sheet

Historical NHE, 2016:

NHE grew 4.3% to $3.3 trillion in 2016, or $10,348 per person, and accounted for 17.9% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Medicare spending grew 3.6% to $672.1 billion in 2016, or 20 percent of total NHE.

Medicaid spending grew 3.9% to $565.5 billion in 2016, or 17 percent of total NHE.

Private health insurance spending grew 5.1% to $1,123.4 billion in 2016, or 34 percent of total NHE.

Out of pocket spending grew 3.9% to $352.5 billion in 2016, or 11 percent of total NHE.

Hospital expenditures grew 4.7% to $1,082.5 billion in 2016, slower than the 5.7% growth in 2015.

Physician and clinical services expenditures grew 5.4% to $664.9 billion in 2016, a slower growth than the 5.9% in 2015.

Prescription drug spending increased 1.3% to $328.6 billion in 2016, slower than the 8.9% growth in 2015.

The largest shares of total health spending were sponsored by the federal government (28.3 percent) and the households (28.1 percent).

The private business share of health spending accounted for 19.9 percent of total health care spending, state and local governments accounted for 16.9 percent, and other private revenues accounted for 6.7 percent.

www.cms.gov...

a reply to: Ahabstar

Can you give yourself an applause?

Thank you for that added perspective.

I wish it wasn't the case, especially with how wall street has been behaving in recent years. It really has a gun to our head in terms of options.

a reply to: dfnj2015

you do realize that 3-5% growth is normal in almost every sector yearly right?

My out of pocket expense have skyrocketed! My premium cost doubles every five years. In a year or two healthcare will cost me more than my mortgage. At some point I will have to just stop paying for it. If it's a choice of eating and sleeping versus be able to go to the doctor that's a no brainer decision.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: dfnj2015

you do realize that 3-5% growth is normal in almost every sector yearly right?

No. Please provide me a link so support that lovely factoid you just pulled out of nowhere.

Here's a graph of consumer inflation:

www.quandl.com...

a reply to: dfnj2015

You can thank illegal immigrants and healthcare fraud for that. Who do you think picks up the bill when people go to the hospital and don’t pay?

a reply to: dfnj2015

What you describe is US economic policy. Keep the profit ball rolling no matter what happens in 5-10 years.

Short sighted greed is what is going to cause the next depression and WW III.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
My out of pocket expense have skyrocketed! My premium cost doubles every five years. In a year or two healthcare will cost me more than my mortgage. At some point I will have to just stop paying for it. If it's a choice of eating and sleeping versus be able to go to the doctor that's a no brainer decision.

It's a complicated problem with many facets. It's easy for people to say "make it free", though nothing is free.

It's easy to say, make the government provide for it. So what happens when we decimate a huge private sector? All the jobs lost, all the vacant buildings, all the lost tax revenue will have to be subsidized.

Until someone can show a plan that doesn't involve doubling taxes, I'm not on board. Just because the government does it doesn't mean it will be cheaper. As it stands, 25%~ of income taxes already goes towards health care, and that's with 60% of people providing health care for themselves.

"Look at Canada" doesn't work to explain anything. They are a different country.

That seems a bit silly that 32trillion. That's a number of 106K per person roughly.

There will be a slew of people that will never get sick enough to have that spent on them.

And also the amount of savings the government can get by buying in bulk will be huge. No more $50 dollar tylenols.

I have yet to see anyone on this thread say "make it free".
a reply to: CriticalStinker

It's a complicated problem with many facets. It's easy for people to say "make it free", though nothing is free.

What I see is a demand to have accountability over predatory capitalism. Privatized socialism is bad, real bad. And that is what privatized insurance is.

If HUGE corps are not forced to do the right thing-align costs with the rest of the world, they never will. Is the US population asking too much to have costs aligned with the rest of the world for their 37th ranked quality health care?

a reply to: atsgrounded

Discovery costs money. The rest of the word uses technology and techniques that we develop. It is what it is.

originally posted by: atsgrounded
I have yet to see anyone on this thread say "make it free".
a reply to: CriticalStinker

It's a complicated problem with many facets. It's easy for people to say "make it free", though nothing is free.

What I see is a demand to have accountability over predatory capitalism. Privatized socialism is bad, real bad. And that is what privatized insurance is.

If HUGE corps are not forced to do the right thing-align costs with the rest of the world, they never will. Is the US population asking too much to have costs aligned with the rest of the world for their 37th ranked quality health care?

Just saying we're going to align it doesn't make it so.

The ramifications of the market and increased taxing could make it more expensive.

In the OP I said I would be for it contingent on a few key points.

However, I don't want my taxes to double. I don't think that is asking a lot.

"Other countries do it" is not proof of concept. I've failed to see anyone show how it could be done here.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The Dutch model could work pretty easily here. Granted that's universal healthcare. Not a single payer system.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The Dutch model could work pretty easily here. Granted that's universal healthcare. Not a single payer system.

They have a population of 17 million in a land mass around half the size of Virginia.

They don't have to operate as many facilities as we do. Here is from the wiki about their healthcare system.

The Netherlands has a network of 160 acute primary care centres, open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, making an open clinic within easy reach for most people.[4] Acute primary care is offered by a combination of 121 general practice health centers, that are open outside office hours, and a total of 94 medical emergency units with surgery facilities, of which 90 are at hospital locations, open 24/7. [5] In 71 cases general practice services and emergency rooms are found in one hospital location, bringing the total number of locations where acute care is offered to 160. Analysis by the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment showed that 99.8 percent of the people can be transported to an emergency unit / casualty ward, or a hospital offering emergency obstetrics within 45 minutes in 2015. [6]

Maybe it could work here... Question is, would it be the same price?

originally posted by: grey580
No more $50 dollar tylenols.

Pretty much sums it up. There's no way to extend universal health care when the medical industry makes a killing(pun intended), Big Pharm makes a killing and insurance companies make a killing.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The big thing that makes the Netherlands' healthcare so affordable is that insurance companies have to operate primarily as non-profits.

The thing that drives our healthcare costs so high is that every aspect of healthcare has become a for-profit industry.

If we start charging at cost prices for medical procedures and drugs that will do a lot to drive costs down to reasonable levels. Meanwhile, the insurance companies can still make a profit offering special perks, like a guaranteed room to yourself when you go to the hospital.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

If we start charging at cost prices for medical procedures and drugs that will do a lot to drive costs down to reasonable levels. Meanwhile, the insurance companies can still make a profit offering special perks, like a guaranteed room to yourself when you go to the hospital.

Thank you, this is what I wanted. I said in OP what I think would help be able to transition into a system that could provide for all and not hit the wallets of every American.

Thank you for providing insight on how certain things could fix the system.

a reply to: avgguy

That doesn't really make sense though. Those other countries are still getting those drugs/equipment from the same companies. So why would those companies set their prices lower for other countries?

The big difference here is that we have not only added a middle man that needs to get paid, but that middle man has turned themselves into one of the most profitable industries in the country without really providing a service.