Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

President Obama/Industry Savings Plan to Double Healthcare Costs in Thirteen Years.



May 11, 2009 – Comments (6)

 In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation.

If the Obama/industry plan saves us 1.5% of that increase annually, we will be left with 5.4% annual increases. In 13 years your familys healthcare will double from todays $14000, to tomorrows $28,204. It means next year your healthcare savings will cost you $775.00 more.

According to the Physicians for a National Health Program, savings from H.R.676 would lower the  2008 cost of healthcare in the United States $350,000,000,000 from $7195. per capita to $5962, the savings from which could insure every American at no additional costs.

According to this report from the Mckinsey Institute the waste in for profit healthcare is $450,000,000,000. It also says we are not sicker.

I have three models below for Single payer healthcare, and there are more. The free marketeers are welcome to offer their model of a private system. President Obama was on television today offering a public/private hybrid plan that will increase your costs by $775, and pay UNH CEO Stephen Hemsley at least $9.5 million dollars. By comparison Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services earns $193,000 and a Government plan would have a similar payscale.

In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.

Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.

Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

The full report is here.

6 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 11, 2009 at 3:11 PM, devoish (66.87) wrote:

I forgot, the Capitol Switchboard to call your Congressman/woman is 202 224-3121

Seventyfive of them already support H.R.676.

Insist upon nothing less.

Report this comment
#2) On May 11, 2009 at 5:17 PM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

The only way to lower costs is to lower demand or increase supply.  I am sorry there is no other way unless we want to ration, which I doubt works as people will find a way.

People are fooling themselves if they think costs will go down.  One way or another we will be paying.

US population is getting older.  They no longer pay taxes.  They demand health care.  They vote.  Therefore we will pay more.

Report this comment
#3) On May 11, 2009 at 6:37 PM, devoish (66.87) wrote:

I'll take the savings where they exist. Cutting out the insurers, electronic health records, and dropping expensive drugs with no better results than older off patent ones are the easiest places to start.

Keeping the same players in the game is not likely to get better results.

Report this comment
#4) On May 11, 2009 at 6:44 PM, devoish (66.87) wrote:

People are fooling themselves if they think costs will go down

Costs that cannot be conrtrolled such as an aging population are going up. All the more reason to controll the costs we can. The Swedes, French, Canadians and Germans all show we can do a lot better.

Report this comment
#5) On May 12, 2009 at 9:06 AM, wrparks (77.07) wrote:

 Last year the French system was 9 billion in the negative.....

Sweden is undergoing massive cutbacks in the availability of healthcare due to cost controls, as well as other problems......

They also commonly have waiting lists for surgeries.

Hmm, maybe the Canadians or Germans are this utopian system you seem to thing exists?


Maybe there is no solution?  I don't see any of these as a model to emulate.  They are only different ways to fail.  You can argue that the care is more readily available to all in these places, and if that is what is important to you, that's fine.  But that still ignores the rising costs of their systems and the inevitable eventual collapse of them without increases in taxation, which will slow economic growth. 

Our problem is that we have a worst of both worlds mix of public and private healthcare, with the gov't already accounting for a little less than 50% of all healtcare costs.  It's a bastardized system, and like fannie and freddie, it too will fail.

I wholly agree with you that the american system must change, but none of the alternatives you propose seem to be a better long term solution.

Report this comment
#6) On May 13, 2009 at 3:16 PM, devoish (66.87) wrote:

The aging populations, and rising real costs of healthcare cannot be avoided by any of the aging population countries unless you decide that someone doesn't get healthcare.

What sets us apart from the Countries I listed is the stubborn insistence that we should keep the player that makes us pay double.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners