News The US has the best health care in the world?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Health
AI Thread Summary
The discussion critiques the U.S. healthcare system, emphasizing its inefficiencies and the prioritization of profit over patient care. Personal anecdotes illustrate serious flaws, such as inadequate medical equipment and poor communication among healthcare staff, leading to distressing patient experiences. The conversation challenges the notion that the U.S. has the best healthcare, arguing that it often fails to provide timely and effective treatment, especially for those without adequate insurance. There is skepticism about government-run healthcare, with concerns that it may not resolve existing issues and could introduce new inefficiencies. Overall, the sentiment is that significant improvements are necessary for the healthcare system to genuinely serve the needs of patients.
  • #601
Hurkyl said:
The right answer is quite probably "we don't". Evo already pointed out one of the ways that the distribution of taxes is complicated, and that was only the tip of the iceberg of the difficulties in making this kind of estimation.

There are surely people in this world who could do the calculation -- but you and I are not those people.

I agree taxes are complicated. I don't know how to make the specific calculation. But this discussion is about health care reform. Accordingly, I made the only comparison that is relevant to me. I'm an "average Joe taxpayer". I want to know how much my family will ultimately need to pay in future taxes as a result of HR3200. I don't consider this someone else's problem.

Let's put this into it's proper context - starting with the overall current deficit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/21/official-obama-increase-year-deficit-trillion/

Obama Administration to Increase 10-Year Deficit Estimate to $9 Trillion
The 2010-2019 cumulative deficit projection replaces the administration's previous estimate of $7.108 trillion

This estimate doesn't yet include the cost of "health care reform" - which the CBO estimates at $1.042 trillion additional.

As far as I know, every US taxpayer ultimately owns a share of this debt - am I wrong? Aren't we all subject to taxes? Like it or not, this is our problem.

The responsible solution is to deal with the specific problems of health care costs now (starting with social security, medicare, and medicaid "reform") - not make the program larger, throw more money at it, and pass the problem on to future generations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #602
:smile::smile::smile:

"Who Will Pay for It?"

Everyone asks.. no one has an answers.

"Tax the 'Rich'", Some Say...
"It Doesn't Matter", Some Say...
"Pay For It? We Have to Pay for Stuff?" Some Say...

One thing I can guarantee is that with fiscal deficits hitting $10+ Trillion MORE projected into the next decade, someone will pay for it. (and it will be US, the average American who will be paying drastically higher prices for everything we buy)
 
  • #603
Hurkyl said:
The right answer is quite probably "we don't". Evo already pointed out one of the ways that the distribution of taxes is complicated, and that was only the tip of the iceberg of the difficulties in making this kind of estimation.

There are surely people in this world who could do the calculation -- but you and I are not those people.

Can we agree on this - given the CBO estimate of $1.042 trillion in deficit spending for health care reform and approximately 112 million households in the US, the minimum cost of HR3200 for each household (that actually pays taxes) over time will be $1.042 trillion/112 million = $9,303 - then after subtracting the allocation from each household that doesn't pay taxes, the cost will be re-distributed accordingly to the households that do pay taxes?

Is this a correct assumption?
 
  • #604
bleedblue1234 said:
:smile::smile::smile:

"Who Will Pay for It?"

Everyone asks.. no one has an answers.

"Tax the 'Rich'", Some Say...
"It Doesn't Matter", Some Say...
"Pay For It? We Have to Pay for Stuff?" Some Say...

One thing I can guarantee is that with fiscal deficits hitting $10+ Trillion MORE projected into the next decade, someone will pay for it. (and it will be US, the average American who will be paying drastically higher prices for everything we buy)

We will certainly pay for it if we don't do something. The fallacy is the notion that we have a choice.
 
  • #605
WhoWee said:
As far as I know, every US taxpayer ultimately owns a share of this debt - am I wrong? Aren't we all subject to taxes? Like it or not, this is our problem.

You can't look at this in isolation. If we can return to a healty GDP, we can better afford the debt. If we don't return to a healthy GDP, we are hosed anyway. This is why issues like health care are directly connected to issues like a dwindling US manufacturing base.

Also consider that, for example, by eliminating oil imports, we easily could pay for universal health care; and even more so because oil imports deplete wealth by taking the money out of the domestic economy. Health care circulates wealth within the domestic economy. So while the costs associated with health care are real, so are the benefits of the big picture. We need to redirect the course of the nation. Health care reform is just a part of the equation.
 
  • #606
It is certainly true that we don't have a choice if we want to revive our economy. Health-care costs are rising too fast, and that money is enriching middlemen that obstruct the system instead of contributing to it. It is very easy for someone young and healthy to say "I've got my health insurance, and everybody else should have to get their own." This attitude ignores the fact that too many people can't afford health insurance and many more couldn't get coverage at any cost due to pre-existing conditions. It also blithely ignores the sad fact that if the currently-healthy young person develops a serious condition (kidney failure, one of the many hard-to-treat cancers, etc), and the insurance company doesn't drop them outright, the soaring cost of treatment will cause them to hit their lifetime cap very quickly, and continued treatment will eat up their savings and other assets, including perhaps their home. I certainly don't want to leave my wife facing her retirement penniless just because I couldn't get adequate insurance coverage. There is no reason that citizens of the US should have to turn over all their assets to the health-care providers just because they get sick. They should be able to provide for their loved ones without driving them into poverty. The current system is heartless and terribly regressive.
 
  • #607
National Health Care Spending

National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 2018, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.4 trillion—more than double 2007 spending.1

National health expenditures are expected to increase faster than the growth in GDP: between 2008 and 2018, the average increase in national health expenditures is expected to be 6.2 percent per year, while the GDP is expected to increase only 4.1 percent per year. 1

In just three years, the Medicare and Medicaid programs will account for 50 percent of all national health spending. 1

Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that will grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time. 2

According to one study, of the $2.1 trillion the U.S. spent on health care in 2006, nearly $650 billion was above what we would expect to spend based on the level of U.S. wealth versus other nations. These additional costs are attributable to $436 billion outpatient care and another $186 billion of spending related to high administrative costs. 3...
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #608
Certainly something should be done about health care in the US. I don't understand why iut must cost us over a trillion.

One thing that seams like a no brainer is providing medicine at realistic prices. In cuba an inhaler cost about 5 US cents, and in the states up to 120 US dollars. That 2400% more. I can find no other explanation why this should be the case except that someone knows they can make a 2400% profit. Solving this issue won't happen because their is too much pressure from drug dealers who are making a killing.

Another thing that doesn't make sense is this issue of pre-existing conditions and the system in which turning you down for care is the first attempted action when you need care. It wouldn't be hard for congress to regulate this, yet it goes on and on.

Why can't we fix these things one at a time and spend next to nothing?

Lastly, I want to clear something up that confuses me about Obama's health care plan.

They say it is a government option to compete. Do you have to pay into it to get the option, or is it a "free" option with the cost reflected only in the deficit?
 
  • #609
Obama said you have to buy into the government option.
 
  • #610
Hmmm, I wonder if you had insurance through your employer and decided you wanted the gov't plan instead, if your employer would be required to increase your salary by a % of the amount they were contributing to your health insurance costs? :approve:
 
  • #611
BoomBoom said:
Hmmm, I wonder if you had insurance through your employer and decided you wanted the gov't plan instead, if your employer would be required to increase your salary by a % of the amount they were contributing to your health insurance costs? :approve:

lol

You probably would get a raise. That was one of Obama's main points. He was saying the reason you haven't noticed an increase in salary is because your health care cost is eating it up. You'd receive a down grade in your health care service if you opted for the public option though.
 
  • #612
Wax said:
You probably would get a raise. That was one of Obama's main points. He was saying the reason you haven't noticed an increase in salary is because your health care cost is eating it up. You'd receive a down grade in your health care service if you opted for the public option though.

The plan I have through my employer is really splendid and I pay no premiums at all, but I hardly ever use it. The amount of $$ they put up for my healthcare is probably nearly as much as my salary. If there were a public plan available, I'd rather all that $$ go to support the general healthcare costs of all, than have it go to lining the pockets of rich insurance bigwigs.

...so even if the plan wasn't as good (which it wouldn't be), it would still be better IMO. :smile:
 
  • #613
Ivan Seeking said:
You can't look at this in isolation. If we can return to a healty GDP, we can better afford the debt. If we don't return to a healthy GDP, we are hosed anyway. This is why issues like health care are directly connected to issues like a dwindling US manufacturing base.

Also consider that, for example, by eliminating oil imports, we easily could pay for universal health care; and even more so because oil imports deplete wealth by taking the money out of the domestic economy. Health care circulates wealth within the domestic economy. So while the costs associated with health care are real, so are the benefits of the big picture. We need to redirect the course of the nation. Health care reform is just a part of the equation.

I don't have as much confidence in a fast recovery as you Ivan.

As for oil imports. Domestic drilling is unpopular/discouraged. We're being told to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to build wind mills and invest in solar.

Then we hear reports President Obama may be assisting a prominent campaign supporter/investor in Petrobras, a Brazillian company, to drill offshore? I don't know if this is accurate or not - I haven't read the original WSJ article that all of the stories reference - most reports say $2 billion - this says up to $10 billion.

http://iplextra.indiatimes.com/article/0emQh1ye2nbuQ?q=Barack+Obama
Obama Helps Soros Drill Oil In Brazil

"The U.S. government is prepared to provide up to $10 billion in loans to finance the development of massive hydrocarbon reserves off Brazil’s coast, a Brazilian official said Wednesday. "

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-helps-soros-drill-oil-in-brazil
I don't see a clear policy from the White House regarding oil.

No, I think we do need to isolate health care spending, put it under the microscope and fix it before it gets any worse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #615
WhoWee said:
I don't have as much confidence in a fast recovery as you Ivan.

We have no choice. We have to pay in regards to health care whether we do something or not. And we have to turn this ALL around. If we don't, it won't matter what we do about health care.

As for oil imports. Domestic drilling is unpopular/discouraged. We're being told to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to build wind mills and invest in solar.

Biodiesel from algae is the ticket. And now Exxon, Shell, and DARPA agree. DARPA even thinks it can make diesel fuel for $3 a gallon in war zones and eliminate the need to ship in the fuel! [that even wows me, and I've been pushing this for three years now!] Obama is already focused on alternative fuels to help get us out of this mess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/business/energy-environment/14fuel.html
http://green.autoblog.com/2007/12/12/shell-oil-to-grow-biofuels-from-marine-algae/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...powered-soldiers-in-the-pipeline-1766017.html
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211274

As for the oil, the potential for large reserves in the coastal waters of Brazil probably motivates exploration for the sake of national security. But while the Fox Newspaper [WSJ is owned by Murdoch, much to the dismay of those who built the paper] takes cheap shots, in the grand tradition of infotainment, it makes no attempt to explain the decision or provide any context.

The only reason we haven't exploited US coastal reserves, along with many many acres already open to drilling here in the US, is that the price of the oil from those reserves is too high. As soon as the price of oil justified offshore drilling, we saw movement in that direction. Heck, we even saw people in Texas putting oil rigs in their back yards! As soon as the price fell, you heard nothing. With the prices rising, it becomes an issue again. If the oil companies could be competitive at the current price of crude, the demand for offshore drilling would be relentless. As for arctic reserves, it would barely amount to a trickle compared to the entire supply. The only thing tempting about the arctic oil reserves are the billions of profit to be made; that is unless you get excited about a minor bump on a curve.
 
Last edited:
  • #616
Sorry, that was a pretty severe diversion, but the point is that we can't solve any of these problems in isolation. We have to look at the entire picture; beginning with the cost of health care if we do nothing. It is a pretty dismal picture. Obama says he wants a plan that is revenue-neutral. Others say that isn't possible. Maybe it isn't possible, but its not like we don't have other ways of paying for it. With some good planning and a clear national vision, we can come out of this stronger than ever. That is why many people like me voted for Obama: He is looking at the big picture.
 
  • #617
Ivan Seeking said:
Sorry, that was a pretty severe diversion, but the point is that we can't solve any of these problems in isolation. We have to look at the entire picture; beginning with the cost of health care if we do nothing. It is a pretty dismal picture. Obama says he wants a plan that is revenue-neutral. Others say that isn't possible. Maybe it isn't possible, but its not like we don't have other ways of paying for it. With some good planning and a clear national vision, we can come out of this stronger than ever. That is why many people like me voted for Obama: He is looking at the big picture.

I too agree that we need to look at the big picture. My concern is that as a tax payer, I fully comprehend that my household share of the national debt exceeds my total personal debt. I'm not "netting" or subtracting assets from my liabilities - this is a debt to debt comparison.
 
  • #618
Ivan Seeking said:
But while the Fox Newspaper [WSJ is owned by Murdoch, much to the dismay of those who built the paper] takes cheap shots, in the grand tradition of infotainment, it makes no attempt to explain the decision or provide any context.

By the way, Bloomberg also reported. They just didn't point out Mr. Soros investment.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aogq9sBiBhYo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #619
Bloomberg has several interesting stories on health care today.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=specialreport

Special Report

The Health Care Debate

Obama, Democrats Consider Bypassing Republicans on Health Care Legislation President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, unable to reach a deal with Republicans in health care, are considering alternatives to a bipartisan bill, Senator Charles Schumer said.

Biden Announces U.S. Grants to Increase Use of Electronic Medical Records Vice President Joe Biden announced almost $1.2 billion in grants to help health-care providers convert to electronic medical records, during a stop in Chicago.

Town Hall Turmoil Leads to Trauma for Obama's Health-Care Overhaul Effort There was Ed Hairston, again. In the front row of the convention hall and angry, he tried to tell Representative Vic Snyder what was wrong with President Barack Obama’s health-care plan.

McClellan Says Health Debate Should Focus on Care System, Not Insurance The Obama administration’s decision to focus on the insurance industry in its bid to revamp the U.S. health-care system misses the point, said Mark McClellan, former head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Obama Campaign Ad Firms Now Reaping Cash to Pitch Health-Care Overhaul Two firms that received $343.3 million to handle advertising for Barack Obama’s White House run last year have profited from his top priority as president by taking on his push for health-care overhaul.

Town Hall Crowd Shoots Health Reform Message and Messenger: Caroline Baum Members of Congress have gone home for the August recess, and a relaxing vacation it isn’t.

Democrats Can't Repeat Health-Care Failure: Commentary by Albert R. Hunt Bill Kristol, a powerhouse policy guru for Republicans, often has a tin ear for politics. A week before last year’s presidential election he predicted John McCain would “win huge.” In May, he said President Barack Obama had decided to nominate Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm to the Supreme Court, and he’s been a cheerleader for Sarah Palin.

Armey Leaves Law Firm Over Role in Rallying Health-Care Overhaul Opponents Former House Majority Leader Richard Armey is leaving his job as a consultant for the DLA Piper law firm amid questions about his role in rallying opposition to President Barack Obama’s drive to remake the U.S. health-care system.

House Committees Approve Health-Care Overhaul With Tax on the Wealthiest Two House committees approved a plan for the biggest overhaul of the U.S. health-care system in four decades today, including a surtax of as much as 5.4 percent on the nation’s wealthiest households to pay for it.

Mr. Market Chokes on Obama-Style Health Care: Commentary by Caroline Baum Health care is different. It’s ill- suited to market mechanisms because it deals with matters of life and death.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #620
Hurkyl said:
There are surely people in this world who could do the calculation -- but you and I are not those people.
I take it back -- the calculation is impossible even in principle.

There are essentially two cases (that aren't exclusive)
(1) Funding for health care comes from juggling the budget. This means there is no added monetary cost to the taxpayers, but some other government services get reduced funding

(2) Funding comes from raising taxes. Who pays extra (and how much) is completely arbitrary -- taxes can be raised in whatever fashion the government wants.
 
  • #621
Hurkyl said:
I take it back -- the calculation is impossible even in principle.

There are essentially two cases (that aren't exclusive)
(1) Funding for health care comes from juggling the budget. This means there is no added monetary cost to the taxpayers, but some other government services get reduced funding

(2) Funding comes from raising taxes. Who pays extra (and how much) is completely arbitrary -- taxes can be raised in whatever fashion the government wants.

That is my point - the Government will have to raise taxes to pay for HR3200 - nobody really knows how much. Middle class Americans are going bankrupt over $13,000 in medical expenses - how much will they be able to pay in extra taxes?

If the plan is to make the wealthy pay the entire amount - there's a childrens tale about eating a "golden goose" that might be applicable.
 
  • #622
Evo said:
The tax rate is rather bogus, the rich don't pay 35% tax, unless they're crazy, they have deductions and tax shelters, so their adjusted tax is actually less than a much poorer person that can't claim deductions.
You know this statement is false. This is not the first time you've made this absurd and provably false claim. Here's real data from the CBO (2005):

Total Federal taxes paid as a percentage of total income. These are Effective tax rates of total income, not marginal tax rates after deductions, and includes SS taxes:

Top 20%...25.5%
Second 20%...17.4%
Middle 20%...14.2%
Fourth 20%...9.9%
Bottom 20%...4.3%

These numbers also include the employer paid portion of SS taxes as paid by the employee instead. The numbers are even more progressive for the income tax alone, even negative rates for the lowest two groups, reflecting refundable tax credits.

CBO has a lot more data, with more details at:

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8...TaxRates.shtml
 
  • #623
wildman said:
I have lived in a Third World country and yes without the nanny government people just die and infectious disease runs wild. It is not fear mongering. It is my experience.
So you experienced people "wishing for the uninsured to just die", then. OK. I guess it's not hatespeech if that's your experience. :rolleyes:

As far as third world countries, it's not the lack of a nanny state that keeps them down, just the opposite. Oppressive government is keeping them down, just because they're so against free enterprise they restrict it at the expense of the people.
 
  • #624
Hurkyl said:
I would like to remind people that taking government expenditures and averaging them evenly across all households is not a useful statistic (unless you are being intentionally deceptive), since the "average joe" is going to pay far less than that.
Only on the surface. In reality "average joes" and poor people pay the actual price of government spending in the form of inflation, reduced GDP growth, reduction in decent jobs, etc.

Sure the rich pay a lot, but who cares? The resulting price paid by the rest of us is far more costly.
 
  • #625
Hurkyl said:
...
There are essentially two cases (that aren't exclusive)
(1) Funding for health care comes from juggling the budget. This means there is no added monetary cost to the taxpayers, but some other government services get reduced funding

(2) Funding comes from raising taxes. Who pays extra (and how much) is completely arbitrary -- taxes can be raised in whatever fashion the government wants.
or, for the short term, (3) Borrow or print the money
 
  • #626
mheslep said:
or, for the short term, (3) Borrow or print the money
Not a good idea to do too much of that. Much of the US debt is being held by foreigners, and if they see their holdings being diluted, they will pull back. That would bring calls on a lot of debt in a short time, making things even worse. I was disappointed in Bernanke's re-appointment today because he has followed Greenspan's policy of keeping money cheap for the financial gamblers on Wall Street, to the detriment of hard-working Americans who have saved all their lives and can get no interest on their savings. As a life-long fiscal conservative, I am disgusted by the Fed's pandering to gamblers while dumping people who have saved.

Health care must be reformed, but it is such a huge prize that every creep is trying to swing it their way so that they can make fortunes off whatever leverage they might be able to apply. We cannot afford to let the people who allowed this situation to develop be allowed to direct the "recovery" because their vested interests are demonstrably NOT for the public good.
 
  • #627
People are in a hissy fit over the projected deficits the US is going to run into over the next ten years, but let's not forget where a large chunk of it is coming from (the 2001-2003 tax cuts). Just how much are the tax cuts costing the US government?

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2004/0919useconomics_gale.aspx

· Making the tax cuts permanent would generate large, backloaded revenue losses over the next 10 years. Combined with a minimal but necessary fix to the government's Alternative Minimum Tax, making the tax cuts permanent would reduce federal revenues by almost $1.8 trillion over 10 years — and that's in addition to the $1.7 trillion of revenue losses already locked into law. By 2014, the annual revenue loss would amount to $400 billion, or 2 percent of gross domestic product — almost the size of this year's federal budget deficit.

07chart.533.gif


http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/14/nation/na-outlook14

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021701848.htmlYou can take the sources with a grain of salt, but one thing is clear. The tax cuts are costing a hell of a lot of money. Maybe they should just let them expire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #628
turbo-1 said:
Not a good idea to do too much of that. Much of the US debt is being held by foreigners, and if they see their holdings being diluted, they will pull back. That would bring calls on a lot of debt in a short time, making things even worse.

Last year the interest on our debt was $452 billion - that's $8,692,307,692.30 per week?

This is a Chinese perspective.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/americas/2009/07/15/216272/U.S.-budget.htm

"... The Treasury Department said Monday that the deficit in June totaled US$94.3 billion, pushing the total since the budget year started in October to US$1.09 trillion. The administration forecasts that the deficit for the entire year will hit US$1.84 trillion in October.

Government spending is on the rise to address the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and an unemployment rate that has climbed to 9.5 percent.

Congress already approved a US$700 billion financial bailout for banks, automakers and other sectors, and a US$787 billion economic stimulus package to try to jump-start a recovery. Outlays through the first nine months of this budget year total US$2.67 trillion, up 20.5 percent from the same period a year ago.

There is growing talk among some Obama administration officials that a second round of stimulus may eventually be necessary.

That has many Republicans and deficit hawks worried that the U.S. could be setting itself up for more financial pain down the road if interest rates and inflation surge. They also are raising alarms about additional spending the administration is proposing, including its plan to reform health care.

President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have said the U.S. is committed to bringing down the deficits once the economy and financial sector recover. The Obama administration has set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.

In the meantime, the U.S. debt now stands at US$11.5 trillion. Interest payments on the debt cost US$452 billion last year — the largest federal spending category after Medicare-Medicaid, Social Security and defense.

The overall debt is now slightly more than 80 percent of the annual output of the entire U.S. economy, as measured by the gross domestic product. During World War II, it briefly rose to 120 percent of GDP.

The debt is largely financed by the sale of Treasury bonds and bills."

The cost of HR3200 is expected to add about 10% to this total.
 
  • #629
gravenewworld said:
People are in a hissy fit over the projected deficits the US is going to run into over the next ten years, but let's not forget where a large chunk of it is coming from (the 2001-2003 tax cuts). Just how much are the tax cuts costing the US government?

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2004/0919useconomics_gale.aspx



07chart.533.gif


http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/14/nation/na-outlook14

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021701848.html


You can take the sources with a grain of salt, but one thing is clear. The tax cuts are costing a hell of a lot of money. Maybe they should just let them expire.

Has anyone adjusted for the loss of revenue/earnings as a result of the recession?

Many of the tax incentives will go unused (if profits are reduced). An example is wage credits - $9 billion went unclaimed last year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #630
gravenewworld said:
People are in a hissy fit over the projected deficits the US is going to run into over the next ten years, but let's not forget where a large chunk of it is coming from (the 2001-2003 tax cuts). Just how much are the tax cuts costing the US government?

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2004/0919useconomics_gale.aspx



07chart.533.gif


http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/14/nation/na-outlook14

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021701848.html


You can take the sources with a grain of salt, but one thing is clear. The tax cuts are costing a hell of a lot of money. Maybe they should just let them expire.

By the way, it appears you articles all pre-date the recent Congressional/Obama spending spree. What do these graphs look like with all of Obama's additional $Trillions?.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #631
gravenewworld said:
You can take the sources with a grain of salt, but one thing is clear. The tax cuts are costing a hell of a lot of money. Maybe they should just let them expire.
CBO predictions purposefully use "static" modeling for their projections instead of "dynamic" modeling. Static modeling underestimates tax revenues at lower tax rates by ignoring the effect of different tax rates on the tax base. This is way off topic, but actual revenues after tax cuts historically greatly exceed CBO projections, even greatly exceeding the revenues actually collected by the previous higher tax rates.

Of course those advocating higher taxes will insist on preferring CBO projections to actual historical data, even after the actual data shows the projections to be way off. Some even still try to convince people that the deficits of the 1980's were caused by tax cuts, despite the fact that actual tax revenues doubled during the 1980's.
 
  • #632
gravenewworld said:
People are in a hissy fit over the projected deficits the US is going to run into over the next ten years, but let's not forget where a large chunk of it is coming from (the 2001-2003 tax cuts). Just how much are the tax cuts costing the US government?


You can take the sources with a grain of salt, but one thing is clear. The tax cuts are costing a hell of a lot of money. Maybe they should just let them expire.
They are expiring on the top brackets, in fact effective rates will be increased above the existing levels prior to the '01-'03 tax cuts per the latest budget law. The http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/business/economy/26deficit.html?hp" people are in a hissy fit about includes the higher taxes. The predicted red section of the chart above - due to Bush tax cuts - will never happen under current law.
CBO Budget Aug '09 Update said:
...That approach includes the assumption that various changes in tax law enacted since 2001 expire as scheduled, by the end of December 2010, causing a rise in revenues thereafter...
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9706/09-08-Update.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #633
I've been reading through the "pilot programs" of HR3200. Has anyone found an estimate of how many jobs will be created to oversee this program or Government administrative costs in conjunction with this Bill?
 
  • #634
I think some people should be fired at Social Security.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stimulus-checks-not-boosting-apf-2542694170.html?x=0&.v=2

"3,900 stimulus checks went to prison inmates
Government sent 3,900 economic stimulus checks to prison inmates -- 2,200 got to keep them

* By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer
* On Wednesday August 26, 2009, 9:28 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government sent about 3,900 economic stimulus payments of $250 each this spring to people who were in no position to use the money to help stimulate the economy: prison inmates.

...About $425,000 was incorrectly sent to inmates."

This is just one more example of Government waste. A private insurance company would never put up with this level of incompetence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #635
That works out to what... 0.003% error rate? For the most part, I would be rather content with that level of government incompetence.
 
  • #636
Hurkyl said:
That works out to what... 0.003% error rate? For the most part, I would be rather content with that level of government incompetence.

Look at it another way, assume there are 4 employees who earn $100,000 each that are responsible for "oversight" of this program. The mistake is greater than their cumulative annual salaries.

What other occupation would permit this level of performance? Can you imagine a manager at WalMarts explaining they "misplaced" a $100,000 bank deposit?

I have to wonder if any of the people involved this time had oversight the last time when dead people received checks?

There's nothing funny about this - Government is too big and spending is too free.

I heard an interview earlier that provided some interesting details about PORK in the health care Bill. I'm looking in HR3200 for the $1 billion allocated for walking trails, jungle gyms, etc. I'll post when I find it.
 
  • #637
Health Reform Fact and Fiction
As Congress considers multiple versions of health reform, misunderstanding and falsehoods have crept into the national debate. Ray Suarez separates fact from fiction
http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2009/08/27/20090827_healthcare.mp3

Again it is stated that there are currently five plans working their way through Congress. Sunday, on Meet the Press, I believe, it was stated that there are six Republican plans alone, all things considered. I would assume that there are popular plans making the rounds, and other plans that don't have much of a following.
 
  • #638
I was thinking about the length of the HR3200 document today - 1,000+ pages.

By comparison, the brokers field guide for United Health Care/Golden Rule including underwriting guidelines with 2 blank pages for notes is only 40 pages total.

The typical brochure outlining all of the details of a comprehensive health insurance plan along with state mandates is typically 20 to 30 pages total.

The State of Ohio revised code pertaining to health insurance is 86 pages long - other states are similar. By the way, Ohio is working on a plan to insure 100,000 additional people with stimulus funds.

The first step in reform should be to standardize coverage mandates across all 50 states. This would eliminate the need for 49 compliance departments at every insurance provider. It would also reduce staffing requirements at all 50 state departments of insurance.

More importantly, it would simplify reform.
 
Last edited:
  • #639
Regarding the PBS "Fact and Fiction" piece on the subject of abortion in the health bills:

President Obama said:
...You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true...

FactCheck.org said:
Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?
Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans. ...
http://factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/
 
  • #640
The lies and dirty tricks keep coming. On the heels of the "death panels", a GOP push-poll suggests that a Democratic-designed health care system could examine voter-registration records and selectively deny health care to Republicans. Sick!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090828/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_scare;_ylt=AsVgr0Lyk6sNKzsss7krNF2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFla3FrMzZrBHBvcwM4NwRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3BvbGl0aWNzBHNsawNnb3BoaW50c2RlbXM-
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #641
turbo-1 said:
The lies and dirty tricks keep coming. On the heels of the "death panels", a GOP push-poll suggests that a Democratic-designed health care system could examine voter-registration records and selectively deny health care to Republicans. Sick!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090828/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_scare;_ylt=AsVgr0Lyk6sNKzsss7krNF2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFla3FrMzZrBHBvcwM4NwRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3BvbGl0aWNzBHNsawNnb3BoaW50c2RlbXM-

I think "selective care" a complete over-reach, but the prospect of long term enforcement by the IRS doesn't exactly inspire me either.

As I've posted before, we need to remove politics from this process. We also need fix the problems we have (current Government programs and standardization of insurance mandates in all 50 states is a good place to begin) before creating new problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #642
WhoWee said:
The first step in reform should be to standardize coverage mandates across all 50 states. This would eliminate the need for 49 compliance departments at every insurance provider.
Just eliminate the state level regulations on insurance that serve to protect the big insurance companies from competition. This is where the federal government could actually use the interstate commerce clause for its intended purpose, instead of as a corrupt excuse for unrelated agendas.

Claiming that more regulation is needed to fix the problems caused by current regulation is preposterous. It's no coincidence that the most regulated consumer product in the country is the one everyone has a problem with.

The problems cited against private insurance companies are problems that would be impossible in a competitive free market. Insurance companies would have to satisfy consumers or be put out of business by their competitors.

True reform would start by eliminating the regulatory barriers to entry into the insurance market by competitors.
 
  • #643
Al68 said:
Just eliminate the state level regulations on insurance that serve to protect the big insurance companies from competition. This is where the federal government could actually use the interstate commerce clause for its intended purpose, instead of as a corrupt excuse for unrelated agendas.
Great comment.
 
  • #644
Al68 said:
Just eliminate the state level regulations on insurance that serve to protect the big insurance companies from competition. This is where the federal government could actually use the interstate commerce clause for its intended purpose, instead of as a corrupt excuse for unrelated agendas.

Claiming that more regulation is needed to fix the problems caused by current regulation is preposterous. It's no coincidence that the most regulated consumer product in the country is the one everyone has a problem with.

The problems cited against private insurance companies are problems that would be impossible in a competitive free market. Insurance companies would have to satisfy consumers or be put out of business by their competitors.

True reform would start by eliminating the regulatory barriers to entry into the insurance market by competitors.

I'm not sure what you were responding to, I said "As I've posted before, we need to remove politics from this process. We also need fix the problems we have (current Government programs and standardization of insurance mandates in all 50 states is a good place to begin) before creating new problems."

I want to standardize coverage requirements across all 50 states. This means level the playing field for all insurance companies to meet a single set of requirements, versus 50 different sets of requirements. The problem now is over-regulation.
 
  • #645
WhoWee said:
I'm not sure what you were responding to, I said "As I've posted before, we need to remove politics from this process. We also need fix the problems we have (current Government programs and standardization of insurance mandates in all 50 states is a good place to begin) before creating new problems."

I want to standardize coverage requirements across all 50 states. This means level the playing field for all insurance companies to meet a single set of requirements, versus 50 different sets of requirements. The problem now is over-regulation.
I was referring to the 50 different sets of regulations. And I have no problem with any government defining different standards, as long as private insurance companies are free to offer "standard" plans, non-standard plans, or both as needed to meet consumer demand.

We know what happens to crappy companies that offer crappy products/services in a competitive free market. They don't get to stay in business and convince people to blame the "system" and make new laws further protecting them from competition.
 
  • #646
Al68 said:
I was referring to the 50 different sets of regulations. And I have no problem with any government defining different standards, as long as private insurance companies are free to offer "standard" plans, non-standard plans, or both as needed to meet consumer demand.

We know what happens to crappy companies that offer crappy products/services in a competitive free market. They don't get to stay in business and convince people to blame the "system" and make new laws further protecting them from competition.

I think we're in agreement. Currently, each state sets it's own standards. Most of the mandates are reasonable and expected - some are not.

This link will provide insight into the complexity of the situation. Take your time and read through the charts.

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2009.pdf

"Why Is the Number of Mandates Growing? Elected representatives find it difficult to oppose any legislation that promises
enhanced care to potentially motivated voters. The sponsors of mandates know this fact of political life. As a result, government
interference in and control of the health care system is steadily increasing. So too is the cost of health insurance.
By the late 1960s, state legislatures had passed only a handful of mandated benefits; today, the Council for Affordable Health
Insurance (CAHI) has identified 2,133 mandated benefits and providers. And more are on their way.
How do state legislators justify their actions? One way is to deny a mandate is a mandate. For example, legislators may claim
that requiring health insurance to cover a type of provider — such as a chiropractor, podiatrist, midwife or naturopath — is
not a mandate because they aren’t requiring insurance to pay for a particular therapy. But that’s a distinction without a difference;
if insurance is required to cover the provider, it must pay for the service provided.
 
  • #647
WhoWee said:
I think we're in agreement. Currently, each state sets it's own standards. Most of the mandates are reasonable and expected - some are not.
I wouldn't call any mandate reasonable that restricts the freedom of people to decide for themselves what type of coverage to buy.

I have no problem with insurance that covers midwives, wart removal, pedicures, or anything else. It's outlawing the policies that don't meet the "mandates" that I oppose.

And I agree that over-regulation is the main problem. Just imagine what insurance companies would be like if they had to satisfy consumers to stay in business, like they would have to if over-regulation wasn't keeping competition away.

It amazes me that politicians would actually suggest that the solution to a partial monopoly caused by government regulation is more regulation to create a more complete monopoly.
 
  • #648
This is an informative piece for anyone serious about the topic of health care reform.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareProgramRatesStats/Downloads/MedicareMedicaidSummaries2008.pdf

Costs have been increasing.

"Health spending in the United States has grown rapidly over the past few decades. From $27.5 billion in 1960, it grew to $912.6 billion in 1993, increasing at an average rate of 11.2 percent annually. This strong growth boosted health care’s role in the overall economy, with health expenditures rising from 5.2 percent to 13.7 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) between 1960 and 1993."

"National health expenditures are projected to reach $4.3 trillion in 2017, up from $2.1 trillion in 2006. After increasing 6.7 percent in 2006, NHE growth is projected to remain steady at 6.7 percent in 2007 and 6.6 percent in 2008. From 2006 through 2017, health care spending is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 6.7 percent, roughly 1.9 percentage points faster than the expected rate of GDP growth. As a percentage of GDP, national health spending is expected to reach 19.5 percent by 2017, up from 16.0 percent in 2006."

When the term "rationing of care" is used - this is ONE of the meanings -> $0 benefit for skilled nursing facility after 100 days.

"For hospital care covered under Part A, a fee-for-service beneficiary’s payment share includes a one-time deductible amount at the beginning of each benefit period ($1,068 in 2009). This deductible covers the beneficiary’s part of the first 60 days of each spell of inpatient hospital care. If continued inpatient care is needed beyond the 60 days, additional coinsurance payments ($267 per day in 2009) are required through the 90th day of a benefit period. Each Part A beneficiary also has a “lifetime reserve” of 60 additional hospital days that may be used when the covered days within a benefit period have been exhausted. Lifetime reserve days may be used only once, and coinsurance payments ($534 per day in 2009) are required.

For skilled nursing care covered under Part A, Medicare fully covers the first 20 days in a benefit period. But for days 21-100, a copayment ($133.50 per day in 2009) is required from the beneficiary. After 100 days per benefit period, Medicare pays nothing for SNF care. Home health care has no deductible or coinsurance payment by the beneficiary. In any Part A service, the beneficiary is responsible for fees to cover the first 3 pints or units of non-replaced blood per calendar year. The beneficiary has the option of paying the fee or of having the blood replaced."

We often hear that people who most need coverage are not covered. However, there were 56 million people covered under Medicaid in 2007 and 51% (28.7 million) were children.

"As with all health insurance programs, most Medicaid beneficiaries incur relatively small average expenditures per person each year, and a relatively small proportion incurs very large costs. Moreover, the average cost varies substantially by type of beneficiary. National data for 2005, for example, indicate that Medicaid payments for services for 28.7 million children, who constituted 51 percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries, averaged about $1,667 per child. Similarly, for 13.7 million adults, who comprised 24 percent of beneficiaries, payments averaged about $2,475 per person. However, other groups had much larger per-person expenditures. Medicaid payments for services for 4.9 million aged, who constituted 9 percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries, averaged about $13,675 per person; for 9.1 million disabled, who comprised 16 percent of beneficiaries, payments averaged about $13,846 per person. When expenditures for these high- and lower-cost beneficiaries are combined, the 2005 payments to health care vendors for 56.3 million Medicaid beneficiaries averaged $4,859 per person.
Long-term care is an important provision of Medicaid that will be increasingly utilized as our nation’s population ages. The Medicaid program paid for over 41 percent of the total cost of care for persons using nursing facility or home health services in 2005. National data for 2005 show that Medicaid payments for nursing facility services (excluding ICFs/MR) totaled $44.7 billion for more than 1.7 million beneficiaries of these services—an average expenditure of $26,234 per nursing home beneficiary. The national data also show that Medicaid payments for home health services totaled $5.4 billion for 24
1.2 million beneficiaries—an average expenditure of $4,510 per home health care beneficiary. With the percentage of our population who are elderly or disabled increasing faster than that of the younger groups, the need for long-term care is expected to increase.
Another significant development in Medicaid is the growth in managed care as an alternative service delivery concept different from the traditional fee-for-service system. Under managed care systems, HMOs, prepaid health plans (PHPs), or comparable entities agree to provide a specific set of services to Medicaid enrollees, usually in return for a predetermined periodic payment per enrollee. Managed care programs seek to enhance access to quality care in a cost-effective manner. Waivers may provide the States with greater flexibility in the design and implementation of their Medicaid managed care programs. Waiver authority under sections 1915(b) and 1115 of the Social Security Act is an important part of the Medicaid program. Section 1915(b) waivers allow States to develop innovative health care delivery or reimbursement systems. Section 1115 waivers allow statewide health care reform experimental demonstrations to cover uninsured populations and to test new delivery systems without increasing costs. Finally, the BBA provided States a new option to use managed care without a waiver. The number of Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in some form of managed care program is growing rapidly, from 48 percent of enrollees in 1997 to 64 percent in 2007.
More than 56 million persons received health care services through the Medicaid program in FY 2005 (the last year for which beneficiary data are available). In FY 2007, total expenditures for the Medicaid program (Federal and State) were $335.8 billion, including direct payment to providers of $232.6 billion, payments for various premiums (for HMOs, Medicare, etc.) of $67.0 billion, payments to disproportionate share hospitals of $16.1 billion, administrative costs of $17.3 billion, and $2.7 billion for the Vaccines for Children Program. Expenditures under the SCHIP program in FY 2007 were $8.8 billion. With no changes to the program, spending under Medicaid is projected to reach $523 billion by FY 2013. (SCHIP is currently authorized and funded only through March 2009.)"

Again, this is an informative piece and should be reviewed in it's entirety.
 
  • #649
This is the sort of thing that drives me nuts. I was just talking with a contractor doing some work at our house. We ended up discussing health care a bit, and though I know better than to get into it too much with people around here [many die-hard Obama haters] I probe a bit without committing to any particular position wrt solutions.

We were comparing notes on health care as his wife has also been in the business for thirty years. He agrees that the system doesn't work [that health care fails miserably on many levels]. He agrees that the costs are too high. He also agrees that insurance regulations are a nightmare. He hears all of the same complaints from his wife that I hear from mine. So I asked what he thinks we should do.

He said, "I think they [meaning insurance carriers] should all be independent". "But they are now", I replied. He shrugged his shoulders and said something like "well then, I don't know". This just another example of how the "opposition" has people so confused that they have no idea what we have or what they want. He was quick to blame everything on Obama at every turn while having no idea what he was talking about.

At this point I think the Democrats need to abandon concerns about bipartisanship and ram something through. There is no hope for many of these folks [man on the street]. They have been brainwashed by people like Palin, Limbaugh, and Grassley.
 
Last edited:
  • #650
Ivan Seeking said:
At this point I think the Democrats need to abandon concerns about bipartisanship and ram something through. There is no hope for many of these folks [man on the street]. They have been brainwashed by people like Palin, Limbaugh, and Grassley.

I think the reason the Bill is SO complicated is that it causes frustration and the result is your posting - just do something already.

Nobody understands HR3200 and it's not the answer to our health care problems.
 

Similar threads

Replies
38
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
154
Views
21K
Back
Top