Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:44 PM Mar 2016

Single Payer is NOT 'more expensive' its LESS, And we already pay 2/3! Here's proof

The Current and Projected Taxpayer Shares of US Health Costs.

David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler.

American Journal of Public Health: March 2016, Vol. 106, No. 3, pp. 449-452.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997


Download PDF

Objectives. We estimated taxpayers’ current and projected share of US health expenditures, including government payments for public employees’ health benefits as well as tax subsidies to private health spending.

Methods. We tabulated official Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services figures on direct government spending for health programs and public employees’ health benefits for 2013, and projected figures through 2024. We calculated the value of tax subsidies for private spending from official federal budget documents and figures for state and local tax collections.

Results. Tax-funded health expenditures totaled $1.877 trillion in 2013 and are projected to increase to $3.642 trillion in 2024. Government’s share of overall health spending was 64.3% of national health expenditures in 2013 and will rise to 67.1% in 2024. Government health expenditures in the United States account for a larger share of gross domestic product (11.2% in 2013) than do total health expenditures in any other nation.

Conclusions. Contrary to public perceptions and official Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates, government funds most health care in the United States. Appreciation of government’s predominant role in health funding might encourage more appropriate and equitable targeting of health expenditures.



Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Single Payer is NOT 'more expensive' its LESS, And we already pay 2/3! Here's proof (Original Post) Baobab Mar 2016 OP
But Hillary followers enjoy paying more! revbones Mar 2016 #1
I do think that some (idiot) people seem to think that if other people have crappier health care Baobab Mar 2016 #3
Know what they call "Cadillac plans" in other developed countries? eridani Mar 2016 #8
And they don't like Bernie promising people "free stuff" Doctor_J Mar 2016 #2
It is, but it's flowing into powerful pockets Hydra Mar 2016 #4
And other countries include really good dental care. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #6
K&R. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #5
K & R SoapBox Mar 2016 #7
Medicare for All, including dental, optical, hearing aids and mental health services. Scuba Mar 2016 #9
 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
1. But Hillary followers enjoy paying more!
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 09:10 PM
Mar 2016

It also must be a status symbol to have expensive insurance when so many don't have any. Must make you feel like upper crust or something.

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
3. I do think that some (idiot) people seem to think that if other people have crappier health care
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:48 PM
Mar 2016

theirs would somehow be better, but the truth is, the bad health care mess we are in is dragging down health care quality in the entire country, for rich and poor as the health insurers and the people who plan government effrorts HAVE TO CODDLE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THE ONLY THINGS THEY CAN DO ALL MAKE IT WORSE AND WORSE.

Literally.

What is the source of this madness? Several things. One is a horrible ideology called "competition policy" and 'ratchet' "standstill" rollback" clauses in secretive trade deals, , another the fact that since employer health plans are largely exempt from prosecutions for criminal denials of care (due to ERISA) IF AND ONLY IF all the health care "legal standard of care" in an area (county, I think) is all pushed down together at the same time, so that is in part what they are trying to do, another thing they are trying to do is prevent class mixing. Efforts are being made to prevent the statistical anomaly of a poor person getting a rich person's health care, which might point out the huge disparities in said care.

How is that being done? by means of a so called Cadillac tax.

unfortunately, what this tax is going to hit hardest are the chronically ill WHO NEED ADEQUATE INSURANCE.

basically, we absolutely cannot win with this Titanic-like health care system.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
8. Know what they call "Cadillac plans" in other developed countries?
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 04:31 AM
Mar 2016

Just plain old "health care."

Can't find my reference, but a study a few years back showed that the bottom income quintile of British had fewer complications from diabetes than the top quintile of Americans. So worse health care for lower income people leads directly to worse health care for the wealthy.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
2. And they don't like Bernie promising people "free stuff"
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:33 PM
Mar 2016

BTW, since we already pay 2-3 times as much per capita as countries that cover every person, womb to tomb, it's hard for me to believe that the money - all of it - isn't already there.

Hydra

(14,459 posts)
4. It is, but it's flowing into powerful pockets
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:59 PM
Mar 2016

The wet dream of profiteers is to control access to vital services and goods: Food, water, housing, medical care, fuel, electricity, etc.

They're well on their way to getting it all.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
9. Medicare for All, including dental, optical, hearing aids and mental health services.
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 10:33 AM
Mar 2016

And yes, we can afford it.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Single Payer is NOT 'more...