Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Info from google ai as fyi. Huge huge difference in how much people actually paid for healthcare out of their pocket in the 1950s vs now. Good and bad.

“1950s
In the 1950s, health insurance was a newer concept, and coverage was less comprehensive:

Overall Coverage: In 1950, insurance covered just 12% of total private consumer health expenditures; this increased to about 33% by 1964.

Surgical Coverage: While surgical benefits were a core part of early plans, along with hospital care, individuals were still responsible for a substantial portion of the bill. In 1955, voluntary insurance benefits covered about 23% of the aggregate personal expenditures for all medical care and health services.

Out-of-Pocket: The majority of healthcare expenses, particularly for physician services outside of surgery and hospitalization, were paid for directly by the patient out-of-pocket. The prevalence of direct payment meant patients were more connected to the actual cost of their care.

Now (2020s)
The modern healthcare landscape is fundamentally different, with insurance covering a much larger share of the total cost:

Overall Coverage: In 2020, out-of-pocket spending represented only about 10% of total health spending, a massive flip from the mid-20th century.

Surgical Coverage: For typical operations, modern employer-sponsored plans might cover 80% to 100% of the negotiated cost after a deductible is met, with patient responsibility limited to deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance.

Out-of-Pocket Maximums: A key difference is the implementation of annual out-of-pocket maximums in most modern plans, which limit a patient’s total financial exposure in a given year, a protection largely absent in earlier, less comprehensive policies


11 posted on 11/12/2025 5:56:38 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: plain talk
You either die or have younger generations/tax payers subsidize you.

Was renal dialysis a real thing for the consumer in the 1950's, lol? Cost up to $100,000 a year out of pocket to keep living. Transplants were hard to come by in the 1950's lol. Lung is about $1.3 million out of pocket, about that for heart too. Liver and kidney up to $500,000 depending were you live. Heart procedures, average $150,000 out of pocket. Tracheotomies about $550,000. Colonoscopy, wasn't around in the 1950's either. Out of pocket cost about $15,000 and that is a preventative procedure. Get cancer, treatments out of pocket can run 7 figures out of pocket (Includes pharms). Multiple med-surg procedures now that did not exists in the 1950's that would have for the sake of argument, adjusted for inflation mind you, would have put you and your family on skid row without insurance or government subsidies. Market forces would have been out of reach due to non-existent profit margins. I havn't even touched on the pharms which are pricey too, mainly due to regs.

Needless to say health care is expensive just using wholesale cost. That knowledge people bust their ass learn, innovate, and practice for leads to expensive labor costs. So in the face of that what would be your fiscal solution that meets demands of the end user (Don't forget, they like private rooms and high ratios for providers to users which cost $$$$)? Please don't give me Utopian "market forces" because that excludes so many variables along with fixed costs to hash out just for starters.

Welcome to the techno age, debt train, and stagnant wages, enjoy the show.
14 posted on 11/12/2025 6:33:05 PM PST by rollo tomasi (Not this world but the next. Faith, justice, humility, hope, and most important, agape.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson