The Problem with Health Care in the US is....

[GGT]

Which wars are costing us trillions a year?

Costs of our Iraq "intervention" extrapolated to more than $3 Trillion, counting veteran care that would last for decades. And that was before we started the wind-down. I don't think it was calculated from Operation Desert Storm (1990) onward, even though it should have been. Add Afghanistan, and now Libya, and you tell us what these WARS are costing us.

Notice I didn't say trillions per year, professor Loki. But in principle, explain to the American public tax payer why it's better to spend so much more off shore, than it is to invest in our own country and its people. If we're supposed to be this huge superpower and global cop, how can we do that while starving our own citizens?

In the event of an emergency, apply your own oxygen mask before attempting to help others.

[Loki]

Yes, we are indeed starving our citizens by having the government spend nearly 40% of the national income, with only a sixth of that going on defense.

[GGT]

Yes, we are indeed starving our citizens by having the government spend nearly 40% of the national income, with only a sixth of that going on defense.

1/6 of our GDP comes from healthcare services, it's one of our top sectors for revenue. The same sector that is currently under great heat for cost reductions, because it costs too much. At least there's an obvious reward for spending 1/6 of our resources for the care and welfare of our own citizens. Using the same amount of money to fund rebels or dictators in north Africa or the middle east.... not so much.

[Loki]

1/6 of our GDP comes from healthcare services, it's one of our top sectors for revenue. The same sector that is currently under great heat for cost reductions, because it costs too much. At least there's an obvious reward for spending 1/6 of our resources for the care and welfare of our own citizens. Using the same amount of money to fund rebels or dictators in north Africa or the middle east.... not so much.

Are you going to make up numbers as you go along? 18% of all government spending goes on healthcare. That's about $1.2 trillion (including state/local governments). By comparison, our entire foreign aid budget is about $50 billion a year. The largest recipients - Israel, Egypt, and Columbia - get a combined $5 billion a year (Iraq and Afghanistan get another $16 billion a year, but that's temporary). So if we got rid of all of our foreign aid, we'd be able to account for half of one year's increase in healthcare costs. What are we going to cut to get the extra $70 billion next year? And an extra $200 billion the year after that?

[GGT]

Are you going to make up numbers as you go along? 18% of all government spending goes on healthcare. That's about $1.2 trillion (including state/local governments). By comparison, our entire foreign aid budget is about $50 billion a year. The largest recipients - Israel, Egypt, and Columbia - get a combined $5 billion a year (Iraq and Afghanistan get another $16 billion a year, but that's temporary). So if we got rid of all of our foreign aid, we'd be able to account for half of one year's increase in healthcare costs. What are we going to cut to get the extra $70 billion next year? And an extra $200 billion the year after that?

What point are you trying to make? That foreign aid PLUS military spending is just a drop in the bucket? What kool-aid are you drinking?

Our most expensive endeavors are Medicare, Medicaid, SS and Military spending. (Plus paying interest on our debts.) I don't even need to post a citation for that, we all know that's true. We also know that when it comes to revenue, we either have to mine it or make it. My point is that the US would do better to spend less on 3 wars, than spending more on our own population. I don't think it behooves us to become more of a debtor nation, in exchange for being the world's police.

[EyeKhan]

The cost is already too high and rising too fast AND, if the government isn't spending too much on it, it soon will be. The first option is a fairly predictable consequence of the second option. The ever-increasing cost of health-care was the problem, and still is a massive part of the problem, but the more some people *of which you are one of the foremost advocates on here* push for universal coverage *which SOMEONE has to pay for* the more the significant size of government expenditures in that area becomes a problem in its own right.

I support universal coverage, no question about it. Everyone should have access to the health care system, especially preventative health care.

Also, I am all for addressing the currently too high and still rising costs of health care. However, I don't regard increased rationing of health care services as a solution to that rising cost. It is one solution to the budget problem, but that's all.

[Loki]

What point are you trying to make? That foreign aid PLUS military spending is just a drop in the bucket? What kool-aid are you drinking?

Our most expensive endeavors are Medicare, Medicaid, SS and Military spending. (Plus paying interest on our debts.) I don't even need to post a citation for that, we all know that's true. We also know that when it comes to revenue, we either have to mine it or make it. My point is that the US would do better to spend less on 3 wars, than spending more on our own population. I don't think it behooves us to become more of a debtor nation, in exchange for being the world's police.

And my point is that even if you got rid of all military spending and foreign aid, we'd find ourselves in the same position we are in now within a decade if we don't find a way to control the growth of healthcare costs.

[EyeKhan]

And my point is that even if you got rid of all military spending and foreign aid, we'd find ourselves in the same position we are in now within a decade if we don't find a way to control the growth of healthcare costs.

Which sort of gets to the point of the thread OP. Is it reasonable or helpful in any way to cut what the government is going to spend for poor and old people to have health insurance as the solution to this problem in light of the fact that the real problem with health care spending is that the cost is too high already and is rising too fast? This helps the Federal budget but the effect will almost certainly be cutting health care access for poor and old people. That's fine if uninsured poor and old people doesn't bother you.

[Nessus]

Loki doesn't understand Chaloobi, or much of anything else. But some day Loki will be out of school and into real life.

Heavens forbid, I hear it can be unpleasant outside ivory tower academia, brrr!

[EyeKhan]

Heavens forbid, I hear it can be unpleasant outside ivory tower academia, brrr!

Its bad in some ways, good in others, like anything else in life.

[Loki]

Which sort of gets to the point of the thread OP. Is it reasonable or helpful in any way to cut what the government is going to spend for poor and old people to have health insurance as the solution to this problem in light of the fact that the real problem with health care spending is that the cost is too high already and is rising too fast? This helps the Federal budget but the effect will almost certainly be cutting health care access for poor and old people. That's fine if uninsured poor and old people doesn't bother you.

The alternative is going bankrupt. Is that what you want?

[Nessus]

The alternative is going bankrupt. Is that what you want?

Citation needed

[Loki]

Citation needed

Cost of healthcare is going up by about 10% a year. That number would go up even more if the number of people covered by government plans goes up. Revenues go up ~3% a year. Now use some arithmetic.

[Nessus]

No single part of the budget exist in a vacuum

[Loki]

No single part of the budget exist in a vacuum

I don't see the relevance of that. Either we slow down the growth of healthcare spending or we increase revenues. The latter isn't a viable solution (particularly over the long run). The former requires fundamental changes to how the government provides and pays for healthcare. Increasing the amount of people who receive government healthcare does nothing other than exacerbate this problem.

[Nessus]

*shrug* Gamma lasers fit the narrative of one side of the spending stream, healthcare didn't, and doesn't. Gamma lasers or health care per se are largely irrelevant so long as the battle is waged on the level of the narrative rather than what you beseech us to call reality.

[Loki]

Ok, give me a general solution to this problem. How do you stop healthcare costs from growing 10% a year while having the government cover more people?

[Aimless]

why should we play your dirty game instead of the game that really matters ie. the game where we kill off gamma laser spending. how much are you getting from your militay investments anyway??

[EyeKhan]

Either we slow down the growth of healthcare spending or we increase revenues.

The growth of healthcare cost is not just due to increasing the number of people receiving the ration. Even without a net add of covered people the cost would still rise too fast. To address this the latest idea is too reduce those covered as the cost rises. So as time goes by fewer and fewer get coverage. This is not a solution, it is an acceptance of failure. The only solutions to this predicament are those that aim to control the spending by controlling the costs, ideally to the point that everyone can receive a healthcare ration. Once the cost growth is controlled, then an increase in revenue can help reach that universal coverage goal. But simply cutting the budget for Medicare and Medicaid and walking away is utter failure.

[Loki]

And yet everything you've proposed would only increase the costs.

[EyeKhan]

Loki goes for the bait and switch. He makes a completely irrelevant statement calculated to incite a defensive response in order to divert the discussion (battle of wits in his mind) away from the post he cannot counter directly for the simple fact it is true. No, Loki is not good with discussion, only with attack, parry, riposte. Pointless indeed.

[LittleFuzzy]

To address this the latest idea is too reduce those covered as the cost rises. So as time goes by fewer and fewer get coverage. This is not a solution, it is an acceptance of failure.

You mean it's a de facto acknowledgement that expanding coverage first, making the cost issues worse and harder to resolve, rather than trying to contain and reduce costs and only then looking at who still needs coverage, was a shitty, stupid idea? Go figure.

[Nessus]

Ok, give me a general solution to this problem.

Can it be a final one instead

[EyeKhan]

You mean it's a de facto acknowledgement that expanding coverage first, making the cost issues worse and harder to resolve, rather than trying to contain and reduce costs and only then looking at who still needs coverage, was a shitty, stupid idea? Go figure.

Taking Loki lessons lately? Why not put your remarks as what YOU mean instead of the "clever" trick of the faux interpretation of what I mean?

[GGT]

And yet everything you've proposed would only increase the costs.

Unlike the proposals you've made?

[LittleFuzzy]

Taking Loki lessons lately? Why not put your remarks as what YOU mean instead of the "clever" trick of the faux interpretation of what I mean?

If it was a clever faux interpretation I'd have creatively edited your quotation. You take "you mean" far too literally *and maliciously so* The expanded coverage you want is fiscally impossible without other massive changes we simply aren't going to see from Congress. Furthermore, you KNOW Congress isn't going to make those changes. So the Republicans *surprise surprise* are trying to shift back to a position free of this huge fiscal liability. That reversion may give us a chance to approach the healthcare problem in a way that might actually work. It's entirely possible the GOP will still refuse to address it, but take it as an opportunity for you and the Dems to do it again, only this time doing it right. I understand your heart bleeds for the people who may fall through the cracks in the meantime. Sometimes that happens. Not liking it doesn't keep the "desirable" alternative from putting the cart before the horse, particularly in a divided and contentious political atmosphere *where you can't be sure your efforts will stick at all, which behooves you to try and approach things in as "sticky" a way as you can get, to try and get the most sustained benefit possible out of the situation*

[EyeKhan]

Thank you for the more straight forward answer. Me and the Dems? I had no input in the health care law. If I had, it would have been non-profit single payer universal coverage and doctors would all be paid on salary instead of fee for service. You think the GOP will embrace the opportunity to do that right? Hardly. Not a prayer. The current GOP just wants to shrink the scope of what the government does and believes the private sector can step in and do all these functions better and make a profit doing it. I think that's ludicrous and maybe they do too. Ultimately for the hard core conservative idealogues, if the private sector can't do it better, it doesn't matter. If they have to choose between the government sucking up money and doing a poor job and the private sector sucking up money and doing a poor job, they prefer the private sector. But nobody in the GOP appears to be thinking about the possiblity that we could have a health care sytsem that was efficient and cost effective. The starting premise seems to be this can't ever work right so lets cut our expenditures before its too late. This plan to just cut the Medicare and Medicaid budget without any attempt to control health care costs is essentially a declaration of failure.

[Aimless]

Wait, just how many extra people were we talking about covering? And how much more money?

[EyeKhan]

Everyone needs to be covered. Just like we need the military to protect everyone from external threats and the criminal justice system to enforce the law to protect everyone, we need a health care system to protect everyone. If it doesn't, then it doesn't work. And how much more money? I dunno. A godawful lot is wasted right now in various ways.

[Dreadnaught]

Since when did free insulin become a legal right?

The cost would be immense and unaffordable.