Well, that we agree on at least.
Disinterested third party chiming in : ** swissmtndog ** is correct, IMO (or at least might be correct). He’s saying, if I understand correctly, that since his workforce is made up of relatively young adult in good health (rather than bed-ridden 80 yo with a heart condition), despite an higher cost of medical services (due to what you were pointing at : hospitals recouping losses), the low consumption of these services makes the company-insurance scheme cheaper than paying an equal share of medical expenses in a national health system (that would include bed-ridden 80 yo with a heart condition).
It would be indeed even cheaper for them if hospitals didn’t recoup their losses and rise accordingly their prices, but it’s still cheaper for them than a NHS would be.
Sorry. Once again, I should have read the whole thread, since you understood each other long beore I posted.
Oh, and so as not to leave the OP in the dust, breathing our gaseous fumes, here’s a semi-factual answer to his question:
Suppose that the U.S. paid 10% of GDP for healthcare – which would put it on the high side relative to Western Europe. The cost then would be just under $1.2 trillion. Divide that by 150 million working Americans, and you’d get a figure of about $7800 per employee. That sounds like a lot, relative to swissmtndog’s $4200. But don’t forget – the annual cost of Medicare and Medicaid alone is nearly $4,200 per worker. So subtract that from $7800, and you’d end up with $3600 – pretty palatable, particularly if your employer pays.
Just as a point of pride, I need to point out that I never disputed any of this. My sole point, which swissmtndog seemed to be denying, was that the prices he paid did indeed include some subsidy to the hospitals for the uninsured/underinsured. I did finally get him to agree that that was that case – though I think he underestimates how big a factor it is.
You can apply our situation to nearly everyone who has an insured pool (whether they self pay or not) that is better than the average pool required for NHS. Which is likely the vast majority of workers with insurance. Savings from administrative issues won’t come close to covering the gap. Medicare admin is 2%, company provided insurance admin is comparable. Maybe the doctors share of admin is exhorbitant, let’s say 5x Medicare just to be safe, so say 10%
Even in a fantasy land where you could eliminate all of the admin (and all of the insurance company profits)you wouldn’t save enough to bridge the gap, unless non-admin costs are reduced fairly severely. So the list of people who benefit from the current system vs. UHC include:
the medical services industry
nearly everyone who works and has insurance
most businesses of any size
Each of these groups will have to give up something signficant to get the numbers for UHC to add up, unless the fed government steps in to do what they do best, which is shift costs to the future, like Bush has done with the perscription drug plan, the eventual cost of which will make the SS shortfall look like chump change.
A semi-factual answer wouldn’t start out with a fantasy land assumption…
The pie has grown far to big to get to 10% just by changing to UHC. The mistake made was not going to UHC 40 years ago, in addition to giving corporations the incentive to provide insurance by not taxing benefits the same way they do regular pay.
Whole lotta genie to put back in the bottle.
Is Canada (healthcare at 9.7% of GDP) living in a fantasy land? Is France (9.5% of GDP)? Is Australia (9.7% of GDP)? Why on earth should we think we can’t do this, when other nations can? I’m not saying it doesn’t take a ton of work, and that it’ll happen overnight, but honestly – given that the difference between 10% of GDP and 16% of GDP is $700 billion (or $4700 per worker, assuming there are 150 million of them), isn’t it be reasonable, if not an actual no-brainer, to move in that direction?
Is Canada (healthcare at 9.7% of GDP) living in a fantasy land? Is France (9.5% of GDP)? Is Australia (9.7% of GDP)? Why on earth should we think we can’t do this, when other nations can? I’m not saying it doesn’t take a ton of work, and that it’ll happen overnight, but honestly – given that the difference between 10% of GDP and 16% of GDP is $700 billion (or $4700 per worker, assuming there are 150 million of them), isn’t it reasonable, if not an actual no-brainer, to move in that direction?
The fantasy land is that getting from 16% to 10% just because of going to UHC. Neither Canada, France, Australia have had 40 years of buildup of the current structure. The orignial OP asked if UHC is implemented who much will it cost me. The answer is tomorrow and for quite some time, it will be more. The current risk fragmentation model has created a big chasm between haves and have nots. The number of people who benefit from this system still exceeds the number of people who don’t. If you have insurance, and are on the right side of the risk equation, you are benefiting from the current situation and you will be paying more for awhile. It’s a societal issue, that’s why I think blaming politics is pretty misguided. If the numbers added up the way you would like them, this problem would have been solved by now.
We won’t get to 10%. In fact, I think if we implement UHC, the cost of other countries healthcare (especially Canada) will likely increase, or be subject to more rationing.
http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_08_29_a_hazard.html
This article which was cited in that other thread about the Massachusetts law, does a great job of outlining the problems created by the current system, but I think he buried the lead for a numbers guy like me. The last few paragraphs outlined the creation of the problem, which is insurance being actuarial rather than a complete spread of risk…this created a marketplace in the US where medical costs are cheaper for those who can afford it, than it should have been.
It spurred investment by drug companies, medical entreprenuers and risk arbitraguers to continue to take advantage of this, which makes the chasm between the haves and have nots wider, but because we are so big, we still have plenty of haves, even now, far more than have nots.
If you have insurance now, unless you are on the wrong side of the risk equation (i.e. already sick) you are very likely to pay more, because you are a have. Cutting admin costs and waste won’t nearly be enough. You keep mentioning that I’ve said that the insured doesn’t pay for the uninsured, the truth really is they pay some, but haven’t been paying enough. And haven’t been as soon as the day you had more than one insurance company make profit via risk.
That guy in the article who took the bandage instead of getting his broken bone fixed, you and I will get to pay for that for UHC. I agree that we should. But in the meantime, I am going to take advantage of the current situation.
Just like everyone else.
swissmtndog, where you and I differ is that you see winners and losers in the current system, whereas I only see losers.
Nope, the real difference is that you see very few losers in UHC
The reality is there will be plenty of losers. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.
But suggesting that it will make health care more affordable for most people (i.e. nearly anyone who is insured today) is, at least for the forseeable future, a sheer fantasy.
The OP who will likely be ending up paying more insurance for the same care, or the same amount for less care, may very will consider himself a loser under UHC.
Sorry to bump a thread after so long, but just read this and had to bring it up.
What say you Alessan?
If only it were a mere trillion…Before we are done fucking up, we’ll be lucky to get away for two trill.
(a trillion here, a trillon there, pretty soon you’re talking real money…)