|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/22/2013 8:36:55 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Despite the fact that government funded healthcare works quite a bit better in most of the rest of the western world than the system you have set up there has managed to for a very long time?
Did the rest of the Western world start where the US is now? Didn't think so.
I don't know how you feel about your government, Moonhead. I don't see the US Government doing anything, by their own choosing, that doesn't increase their power and influence at the expense of We the People.
I feel that my government (and the last three or four before that) have spent over thirty years doing their best to destroy Aneurin Bevan's masterwork but it still (more or less) functions even now.
What's more interesting about this discussion, though, is your seeming conviction that your own Government is going to innately worse at running a healthcare system than private sector interests, however incompetent, profiteering and unethical the latter group proven themselves historically. I was led to believe that VA worked pretty well until the chickenhawks in the GOP started removing its funding?
Of course it was the GOP that ruined VA care. After all, the GOP is the source of all evil and woe in the US. [8|]
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_brief.php
[image]http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/include/uk_health_100.png[/image]
Government spending is nearly 8% GDP in the UK.
http://cbo.gov/publication/44582quote:
How Has Spending For The Major Health Care Programs Changed Over Time And What Are CBO’s Long-Term Projections Of Spending For Those Programs?
Although spending for health care in the United States has grown more slowly in recent years than it had previously, high and rising levels of such spending continue to pose a challenge not only for the federal government’s two major health insurance programs, Medicare and Medicaid, but also for state and local governments, businesses, and households. Measured as a share of economic output, federal spending for Medicare (net of what are termed offsetting receipts, which mostly consist of premiums paid by beneficiaries) and Medicaid rose from 1.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal year 1985 to 4.6 percent in 2012. Total national spending on health care services and supplies increased from 4.6 percent of GDP in calendar year 1960 to 9.5 percent in 1985 and to 16.4 percent in 2011, the most recent year for which such data are available.
Under CBO’s extended baseline, which generally relies on an assumption that current law remains in place, federal spending on the government’s major health care programs is expected to rise substantially relative to GDP (see the figure below). Specifically, net federal spending for those programs (that is, spending net of offsetting receipts for Medicare) would grow from an estimated 4.6 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2013 to 8.0 percent in 2038; in that year, 4.9 percent of GDP would be devoted to net spending on Medicare and 3.2 percent would be spent on Medicaid, CHIP, and the exchange subsidies. Beyond 2038, CBO projects, federal health care spending would continue to climb relative to GDP but at a slower rate than has been sustained historically.
US Federal expenditures for Medicare and Medicaid/CHIP/exchange subsidies is 4.6% GDP in 2012. That is just Medicare and Medicaid. That isn't VA care. And/i] that is net expenditures, which do not include the amount spent by beneficiaries for that care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
UK GDP 2012: $2.429T
UK Public Health Expenditures: < $194B (8%)
US GDP 2012: $14.991T
US Medicare/Medicaid Net Expenditures: $690B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaidquote:
According to CMS, the Medicaid program provided health care services to more than 46.0 million people in 2001.[16][17] In 2002, Medicaid enrollees numbered 39.9 million Americans, the largest group being children [18] (18.4 million or 46 percent). Some 43 million Americans were enrolled in 2004 (19.7 million of them children) at a total cost of $295 billion. In 2008, Medicaid provided health coverage and services to approximately 49 million low-income children, pregnant women, elderly people, and disabled people. In 2009 Medicaid provided health care for approximately 50.1 million Americans and 62.9 million Americans, or about one of every five persons in the U.S., were enrolled in Medicaid for at least one month.
Medicaid: 50.1M Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)quote:
In 2010, Medicare provided health insurance to 48 million Americans—40 million people age 65 and older and eight million younger people with disabilities. Medicare serves a large population of elderly and disabled individuals. On average, Medicare covers about half (48 percent) of health care costs for enrollees. Medicare enrollees must cover the rest of the cost.
Medicare: 48M Americans.
4.6% GDP covers 98M Americans (ignoring that Medicare only covers about half of total costs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom
UK population: 63.2M
8% of GDP covers 63.2M UK-ers (best I could come up with...lol)
If we make the assumption that US Public Health expenditures for Medicare and Medicaid covers 1/2 US population (it's closer to 31%), and take the assumption that Medicare covers all costs (the citizens covered tend to be a lot more expensive to cover than the general population, so, we'll be spending 9.2% GDP to cover 316M people.
But, that doesn't really add up to reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_Statesquote:
60–65% of healthcare provision and spending comes from programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Veterans Health Administration. Most of the population under 67 is insured by their or a family member's employer, some buy health insurance on their own, and the remainder are uninsured. Health insurance for public sector employees is primarily provided by the government.
60% of 17.9% GDP is 10.7% GDP. So, the US Government is still spending a higher percentage of GDP than the UK, without covering everyone (and remember Medicare only covers about half the costs).
[image]http://www.mybudget360.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/medicare-and-medicaid.png[/image]
Medicare costs are a generous 2/3 of Medicare/Medicaid expenditures, or approximately 3% of GDP. Full coverage from Medicare added to what the Government spending would raise the Federal portion to 13.7%
Even if that covered everything for everyone, we'd still be spending more than the UK. A lot more.
Medicare tends to be the lowest reimbursement rate for procedures, and is itself almost as much as the UK spends. Medicaid is usually the lowest rate compared to Medicare for those services that overlap (Medicare coverage is 87.5% 67+ year olds, while Medicaid covers the poor and uninsured). Together, they are 4.6% (or 7.6% if you consider Medicare only covering half) of GDP. Together, they are almost the same amount the UK spends for all its citizens, for only 1/3 of all Americans being covered.
Where is this incredible savings going to come in? Where is the savings going to come for this demographic? It isn't. Obamacare isn't going to lower the cost of procedures. It might lower overall care spending by reducing the number of procedures necessary (preventive care requires fewer expensive procedures, in general, than rehabilitative care), but that's not addressing the real issue of reducing the cost of procedures.
If the cost of individual procedures was lower, the cost of insurance would be lower, and more people could afford to buy their own insurance. That would be making care affordable.
|
|
|
|
