The #1 Waster of Healthcare Dollars and How to Stop It

American Thinker ^ | 26 Sep, 2025 | Deane Waldman

[MtnClimber]

Waste, fraud, abuse and inefficient government bureaucrats,

[MtnClimber]

Of the $4.8 trillion, more than half, that’s right, at least $2.4 trillion, went to pay the federal BURRDEN — Bureaucracy, Unnecessary Rules and Regulations, Directives, Enforcement, and Noncompliance activities. Our own government denied Americans more than two trillion dollars’ worth of patient care to pay...itself.

[fruser1]

Health is not the actual point of this type of socialist program.

The point is to pay government employees a lavish combination of salary and benefits. You also need to pay for the buildings and any other infrastructure to support a workplace.

Also, the larger the budget is, the easier it is to hide any diversions of cash to friends.

[Openurmind]

#1 receiver of all Federal income tax dollar awards? California Healthcare...

Top three over military and government expenses:

HEALTH CARE SERVICES, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JE73CDQUAPA7 796528263 $112,483,416,409
RNYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH F863WQVMZSK7 806781340 $76,558,419,987
RHEALTH & HUMAN SVC COMMN TX G6JLG3FANUA9 806781373 $39,867,961,194

Fourth biggest receiver?

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP ZFN2JJXBLZT3 834951691 $36,412,049,144 (BlackRock)

https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient

[hal ogen]

So much corruption..so little time.

[Openurmind]

Nice of Lockheed to let us keep some for healthcare first isn’t it?

[Presbyterian Reporter]

“””This is on top of already unaffordable family spending with the average American family expending $32,066 on healthcare in 2024 according to Milliman Medical Index.””””

---

Since I am covered by Medicare, I am out of the loop as to what health insurance costs these days.

Is the $32,066 on healthcare accurate based on what FReepers younger than age 65 are spending?

It seems high since those people under age 65 do not usually have that many medical problems.

[eyeamok]

If every last public employee in this country was required to enroll in Obamacare for their Primary health Care at their Own Expense. It would be fixed overnight.

[Gen.Blather]

My first doctor in the ‘60’s told me that when he started it was expected a doctor would spend some of his time working for free in a charity hospital. He ticked off the charity hospitals he’d worked at. Then, he said, the government forced the charity hospitals out of existence. As an outgrowth of that he pointed out my window to where the older doctors parked vs the new ones. The older doctors drove older cars like Mustangs and Cougars. The new doctors drove all foreign makes. He said medicine had gone in schools from a calling to what he derisively called “Pre money” instead of premed.

[Openurmind]

They are talking about insurance premium costs, not occurred healthcare output.

Yes, they are outrageous... More than a mortgage payment for a family with kids.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

The the government-funded (directly or indirectly) "bureaucrat class" in their many "committees" costs a bundle. As it is their "daily bread," they are the avid supporters of government.

Translating in the lingo from the USSR:

The government-funded (directly or indirectly) "apparatchiks" in their many "soviets" costs a bundle. As it is their "daily bread," they are the avid supporters of government.

"Public employee unions" are not unions, but "cells" in the grand scheme. Burdens on the private sector are indeed burdens.

"Bureaucracy, Unnecessary Rules and Regulations, Directives, Enforcement, and Noncompliance activities."

Re-read that with the perspective of a central-planned economy and stat apparatus. It is "apparatchiks" and "soviets."

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

Thanks for the link. Pretty outrageous, isn't it.

And all the while, our investigating, hard-hitting media is --- ABSENT.

[George from New England]

Media sucks in ad revenue like crazy ... No honest criticism

[ConservativeMind]

Interesting insight.

Thank you.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

“””Media sucks in ad revenue like crazy ... No honest criticism”””

---

I watch a little of FOX NEWS and I estimate that between Big Pharma hawking their latest prescription drug and other companies hawking their non-prescription drugs, that those advertisers represent about 50% of FOX NEWS revenue.

So that is a main reason media rarely says anything critical about drugs and healthcare costs.

[silent majority rising]

It seems about right even with Medicare. My wife and I have been Medicare for years and our out of pocket insurance is close to $10,000 per year with supplemental insurance and Medicare. One drug, Eloquis, is $500 per month until the deductible is met. It is highway robbery for sure.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- "Media sucks in ad revenue like crazy ... No honest criticism"

I think you most correct in this. To that point, this forum is filled with skeptics who read between the lines and glean many bits of info which media so often intends to obscure or "miss." Some links Freepers have posted of which I was not aware are most valuable.

Best wishes.

[Openurmind]

They are not absent, BlackRock owns them too...

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- "They are not absent, BlackRock owns them too..."

I had an interesting chat with a neighbor, quite a skeptic as am I. He observed that, as a "fund," BlackRock was actually very susceptible when a "run" on their contractual holdings were to be made.

Mostly we both have real estate, cash and no debt, but my bride and I have positions in to smaller "funds," which are coming to term. We will cash out, and apply the money to some remodeling on two houses. So those funds will be smaller thereby.

Were a panic to occur and cause some runs, most people think of bank runs. But my neighbor and I imagine that there will be "funds" runs as well. When a fund cannot disgorge capital in a timely manner, we might well see the game of leverage.

This, with a mind to Butler's text "War is a Racket," in which he mentions later in the small book all the little people who needed to sell their "bonds" at a loss, while larger entities were able to buy at a discount and hold to maturity. Who lost? Who loses? The little guys generally.

We still hold to "zero debt," "cash is king" and trust but verify whenever possible to do so.

I can imagine a time when BlackRock, State Street and others will not be able to generate "cash" enough when smaller entities want to "cash out." This has already been seen, in some smaller funds games.

Best wishes.