The Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) has come out with a report pegging U.S. health care costs at $8160 per person this year. The costs are estimated to rise to $13,100 by 2018, which would represent 20% of the entire economy. (link)
The number of uninsured has risen to an estimated 48 million, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The Census Bureau has the entire population of the USA at 305,884,318.
Doing some quick math, if we had universal health care coverage, it would cost $2,496,016,034,880 this year. Let's just call it $2.5 trillion. By 2018, it would cost an estimated $4 trillion.
To help put this in perspective, the entire federal revenue for 2008 was just over $2.5 trillion. This is the problem President Obama faces going forward with a health care plan. If he nationalized health care right now, it would nearly double the size of the federal government, and would require taxation to more than double to pay for government services (to make up health care costs + current deficits).
So, with all due respect to Michael Moore's simple-minded movie Sicko, there is clearly no such thing as "free" health care. Not even close.
"Health care costs are crushing middle class families and the small businesses that fuel job growth in this country," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin. "President Obama believes that if we're going to get our economy back on track, we have to act quickly to address this pressing issue."
The White House is definitely correct about that. The question is what to do about it. President Obama is supposed to talk about health care on television tonight. Everybody should watch and listen. This is a HUGE issue, and the solutions offered by Obama will have an enormous impact on our economic futures. I heard an Obama spokesperson say that addressing the health care problem is addressing the entitlement problem. That could be correct (depending on Obama's solution), because the lion's share of the $55 trillion in unfunded entitlement liability is the cost of Medicare.
I just wanted to provide a little background information to frame the scope of the coming health care debate. I'll be back on this issue again later, after Obama's speech.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Ya' know….I've never heard anyone talk about "free" health care. No one.
Universal health care…yeah….but not free.
The solution to health care is staring us in the face….and that's why conservative monied powers will never recognize it.
Single payer, not-for-profit, government controlled health care…..is the answer. That's why it will never be allowed.
It's fine for steel, car, rubber, you-name-it, manufacturing workers to lose everything….jobs, health care, pensions, hope….but it's just too much to tell health insurance companies to eff-off. We protect the very people who cause our most severe domestic problems.
Thanks for the facts. I never knew that the problem was so vast. I've always had insurance through an employer or just plain no insurance while I was a student.
One point, Reverend, mostly because I didn't really understand what you were getting at with that last paragraph. A government controlled health care system that would provide for citizens regardless of ability to pay would be paid for by taxpayers like me. And people who don't pay much (if any) taxes, like those on welfare or social security would be provided health care free of charge. So, whether you like it or not, 'free' does enter the equation.
Since I am a Christian, I would love to see the day where no one had to go without basic medical care because they couldn't afford it. My only problem with the concept at all is how is this country going to afford an extra expense when we can't pay for the expenses we already have?
Th US govt turns to gold almost everything it touches. Who can possibly do things more efficiently than them? Makes perfect sense to me. I mean look at how well our tax system works, ah, I mean look at how well Social Security is doing, uh, er, I mean look at how good Medicaid works, er, well you know these guys are just looking out for us…trust me.
You scared me there for a second with your first sentence, Christopher, but…..exactly.
Rev,
You say you never heard anyone talk about free health care. I don't believe you. Did you see Moore's movie ?
As I said in my post, we must do something about health care. It's become quite a problem, but the solution isn't as simple as you think it is. When you say "not-for-profit" health care, what does that mean ? Does it mean doctors have their fees dictated by government ? Hospitals too ? Do you not see how that could have very negative consequences, resulting in far fewer doctors and less health care resources ? Just because we nationalize health care doesn't mean the costs go away, and it would also mean government was determining which medical procedures were allowable, rather than doctors doing so.
To everyone:
I must apologize. I heard from several "reliable" sources that Obama was going to lay out the basics of his health care plan during last night's speech. Obviously, he didn't do that at all, so there's no new information to discuss.
These "reliable" sources must think Obama saying "health care should be reformed" is a plan. It isn't. Very disappointing. If Obama's speech had been cut to only substantive matters, it would have been five minutes long instead of forty five minutes long.
Tory,
How we're going to pay for universal health care is my main concern also. Everyone wants all our people to have medical care. That goes without saying, but health care costs are rising out of control. We've heard nothing substantial from our government yet about how to control it. Instead, they all, including Obama, just state the problem. It's kind of insulting, really. We KNOW the problem. What we want to hear are some realistic solutions.
I said this…
"It's fine for steel, car, rubber, you-name-it, manufacturing workers to lose everything….jobs, health care, pensions, hope….but it's just too much to tell health insurance companies to eff-off. We protect the very people who cause our most severe domestic problems."
The point was that health insurer's no longer serve a purpose other than parasitical. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The white collar paper and money shuffling boyz in health care didn't give a damn about the loss of manufacturing jobs to Mexico, and now China…..I don't give a damn about them now that they are being recognized as part of the problem.
"Not for profit"…means that layers of blood-sucking advertisers, CEO exuberant pay, dividend payments to already-rich effers, and profits of health insurance company fatties…..should be eliminated. Stripped away. That has nothing to do with paying doctors.
Additionally….I've spoken to dentists and doctors who say that socilaization of health care won't make a bit of difference to them.
In the past arguments, it has always been about saving the profits of a handful of rich people who don't contribute anything to health care except a higher cost. The time has come to change all that.
I must be talking to different doctors than you. The ones I talk to tell me they lose money on Medicare/Medicaid (the socialized part of our medical system with dictated prices), and to make up the difference they charge higher rates to everyone else, which is reflected in our soaring costs and insurance rates.
We also have millions of persons working in the insurance industry, many of whom would be out of work with socialized medicine.
And with socialized medicine, the demand for health care would go WAY up, offsetting any savings, and in my mind, leading to health care shortages, and probably rationing, as happens in Canada and England.
But in spite of all that, my mind is not completely closed to the idea of nationalization. The existing problem is serious, so I'd consider all options. We have to change the direction we're on, or those future entitlements are going to sink us.
We may wind up agreeing on this topic.
That would make two……with my agreement with you about wasteful spending.
We at least agree that the health care status quo can't remain.
I bet we have a basic agreement on many issues. It's just that we usually talk about the ones on which we don't.