Posted on 09/05/2009 6:13:32 AM PDT by RDasher
I was thinking about what the cost of Universal Health Care would be if Obama got his way. Analyzing Medicare might provide some answers. There are about 40 million people on Medicare. The Medicare budget is $420 billion, or about $10,500 per recipient. Persons on Medicare pay about $97 a month in premiums taken from their Social Security checks. The net Medicare budget is then $420 billion - $46 billion (from premiums) = $374 billion in Medicare taxes.
In 2006 there were 138 million people who filed income tax. They each paid 2.9 percent of their earned income (1.45 x 2) for Medicare tax. $374 billion / 138 million = $2700 per tax filer for Medicare taxes.
Now if health care were expanded to cover everyone the 40 million being covered would expand to 306 million. The health care sector represents about $2.5 trillion dollars per year. $2.5 trillion divided by 306 million = $8169 / person, or $18,115 per tax filer. To pay for that the health care tax would increase from 2.9 percent to 19.4 percent, on all income, not adjusted income like income tax.
Ignoring the fact that health care is not a Constitutional right, it would also be very expensive. On top of the health care tax of 19.4 percent add in your income tax, and other taxes it would become quite oppressive indeed.
Senator Barbara Boxer recently said that the evil health care insurance companies had profits of $80 billion. That in a sector that is $2.5 trillion in size, means that those evil insurance companies profit margin was about 3 percent. It appears that the insurance companies are not really the problem. Maybe the problem lies elsewhere.
It will “cost” some amount of freedom, and you will have to pay out some amount of your persuit of happiness thru health care.
The idea that we do not have "Universal Health Care " is wrong. Not a fact.
And we knw what those emergency room visits cost.
The problem is that the so called uninsured are exploited by the system to advance costs to levels which are punative to the system. The system needs to be freed up so that there is copetition between the institutions to provide the services, Health care , professional licensing shoould not be state - centric. It should be national. Then costs would go down quite quickly, with the de -establishent of Insurance Monopolies in each state. HR 3200 is a social control bill which violates IRS and Social Security privacy, opening up citizen private data to federal agencies and HMOs so they can decide what one pays based on income rather than medical services rendered,so we can "solve" the problem of the uninsured. We have uninsured, but we have de facto universal health care.
A SUMMARY OF THE 2009 ANNUAL REPORTS Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees
I agree, but I was trying to put a dollar cost on it, and it appears that it would not be possible without huge tax increases.
The liberty loss would be immeasurable really. I shutter to think of it.
If any legislation can be slowed down such that nothing passes in 2009, then 2010 as an election year comes into play, and Congress will not likely push something that voters will remember in a bad way before the election.
I will massage the calculations. But it doesn’t change appreciably the fact that huge tax increases would be required to have universal coverage. I was merely pointing out that there is no free lunch. It appears that the funding or Medicare is much worse than I thought it was.
Actually, last year is the first year that the HI trust fund had to start cashing in T-Bills (IOUs) to support the program, something that SS starts doing in 2016. The HI Trust will be exhausted in 2017 "after which the percentage of scheduled benefits payable from tax income would decline from 81 percent in 2017 to about 50 percent in 2035 and 30 percent in 2080."
The reason why the politicians are so exercised about healthcare is that the chickens are coming home to roost very soon. The entitlement programs are consuming the federal budget more and more leaving less and less money for so-called discretionary items, including defense. This country is headed towards a fiscal train wreck, mainly due to a failure in political leadership that lacked the courage to tell the American people that we couldn't afford these programs.
When you decrease the numbers of workers paying into the ponzi scheme and increasing the number of those receiving payments, the scheme quickly falls apart.
No matter how you choose to word the concept, “free health care” is not an inalienable right. No one has the right to force anyone to work for “free”. It's already a travesty that I'm forced to fork over half of the fruits of my labor to be doled out as those “all knowing and benevolent” idiots see fit.
Massive tax increases will be needed just to continue Medicare.
The reason why the politicians want universal coverage is to get additional revenue. They want to include more people in the healthcare pool, most of whom are young and are not as big a drain on the system as the elderly. These additional people will help kick the can down the road by reducing insurance premiums (at least that is the theory) and allow the government to reduce Medicare reimbursement rates to save money. Right now, nine out of ten Medicare recipients haver supplementary private insurance to cover what Medicare does not.
And then there is Medicaid, which has about 60 million recipients. HR 3200 will increase the number of people enrolled in Medicare. The costs of this almost $350 billion a year program are split between the federal and state governments. Close to 25% of all states' budgets are now spent on Medicaid. 37% of all births in this country are funded through Medicaid. There are 7 million people who now are receiving both Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of whom are old and poor. Those 7 million consume 40% of all Medicaid costs. The only way that the government or anyone can control costs is to ration care for the elderly. It is why Obama is talking about taking $500 billion from Medicare and getting rid of the Medicare Part C program.
In 1950 there were 16 workers for every retiree; today there are 3.3; and by 2030 there will be two. And as mentioned, by 2030, one in five Americans will be 65 or older or twice the number today. The US is in deep doo doo and Obama has made matters far worse by doubling our national debt in just 5 years.
Like every other government program, it will confiscate the most money for itself that it can and deliver the least that it can. And it will be threatening us from the get-go that it will end unless we vote it more money.
And it will be riddled with corruption and unaccountability.
The object is to create another “kitty”....just like SS, Medicare, Medicaid.....to be robbed each year to pay for “stuff”.
Obama sees the youth of this country as a vast untapped resource for $$. His plans are for them to pay into a Government insurance system that they don’t need (most of the youth really only need catastrophic coverage) which equates to free money for the Government to redirect to social programs as they do now with Social Security.
We need to go back to the inception of Medicare when the Dems were projecting costs of the program.
The actual cost has been multiplied by several units of magnitude.
Does anyone have these figures?
That is good point. Perhaps the answer is for the government to reimburse the hospitals. Hospital then would not have to recover their costs from other people's insurance.
OUR FREEDOM!
OUR SOVEREIGNTY!
OUR WAY OF LIFE!
vaudine
Once Medicare was in place, everything people wanted/demanded was given by Congress (buying the oldies vote). Is it not ludicrous that Medicare will buy an electric chair for wheelchair people --a new one every five years? Many of these people could pay for one if they wanted; many could walk, if they wanted.
Is it not a bit much that Medicare will pay for prescriptions that are not life saving and may even be harmful--statins, about 16 bil per year.
We have all heard Medicare spends most of its budget in the last year or so of life. That is because it pays for nursing home and rehab. for oldies and the homes use CYA controls, rushing people to the hospital over and over. Most won't make a DNR decision for loved ones, even when the case is hopeless--i.e. 94 yr. old with stroke, coma, congestive heart failure. It is not only very expensive, but abusive to keep transporting, testing, resusitating a 90 year old who cannot recover, but they keep on doing it.
I abhor the Obama plan for death panels; however, drs. and families do need to face realities and make end of life plans that are realistic.
Four years ago, I buried my favorite aunt, age 95, who died from stroke. As per her wishes, I did not allow any life prolonging efforts--only what was needed for her comfort. This year, I buried my mother, age 93, a stroke victim, with massive brain damage. After they determined her brain waves were almost flat, I had them unhook the oxygen and IV which might have given her 2 or 3 weeks more, lying unconscious in a bed. Difficult decisions, but ones that had previously been discussed and agreed upon.
People really do need to get realistic and make Living Wills--again, NOT at a mandated, govt. controlled meeting.
So--1st--tort reform and 2d. waste reform. 3d. Stop paying for any and everything--maybe even have levels of Medicare ins. instead of one size fits all. 4th Let/make EVERYONE pay something for what they get. Most can.
vaudine
Once Medicare was in place, everything people wanted/demanded was given by Congress (buying the oldies vote). Is it not ludicrous that Medicare will buy an electric chair for wheelchair people --a new one every five years? Many of these people could pay for one if they wanted; many could walk, if they wanted.
Is it not a bit much that Medicare will pay for prescriptions that are not life saving and may even be harmful--statins, about 16 bil per year.
We have all heard Medicare spends most of its budget in the last year or so of life. That is because it pays for nursing home and rehab. for oldies and the homes use CYA controls, rushing people to the hospital over and over. Most won't make a DNR decision for loved ones, even when the case is hopeless--i.e. 94 yr. old with stroke, coma, congestive heart failure. It is not only very expensive, but abusive to keep transporting, testing, resusitating a 90 year old who cannot recover, but they keep on doing it.
I abhor the Obama plan for death panels; however, drs. and families do need to face realities and make end of life plans that are realistic.
Four years ago, I buried my favorite aunt, age 95, who died from stroke. As per her wishes, I did not allow any life prolonging efforts--only what was needed for her comfort. This year, I buried my mother, age 93, a stroke victim, with massive brain damage. After they determined her brain waves were almost flat, I had them unhook the oxygen and IV which might have given her 2 or 3 weeks more, lying unconscious in a bed. Difficult decisions, but ones that had previously been discussed and agreed upon.
People really do need to get realistic and make Living Wills--again, NOT at a mandated, govt. controlled meeting.
So--1st--tort reform and 2d. waste reform. 3d. Stop paying for any and everything--maybe even have levels of Medicare ins. instead of one size fits all. 4th Let/make EVERYONE pay something for what they get. Most can.
vaudine
Excellent post, Vaudine. I too am an "oldie" and agree with most of what you have proposed.
Is it not a bit much that Medicare will pay for prescriptions that are not life saving and may even be harmful--statins, about 16 bil per year.
I am one of the few who rebel against the physicians' practice of handing out prescriptions by the dozens. My deceased mother was one who was not happy unless she had a new RX every time she saw the doctor, and was on dozens of pills daily. They were giving her a new one to counter the side effects of the old one! She spent her days fretting over her physical condition, even though in her eighties she was in fine shape except for some reduced mobility.
And, in spite of all the doctors and pills, she indeed passed away at 88, as we all will.....die!
I marvel at how the American mindset has become "we are meant to live forever if we just eat right, exercise, and take advantage of all the wonders of modern medicine". And now, the marvelous ObamaMessiah is promising that the "gummint" will fulfill that fantasy for us....all we need along with the docs and pills is to just obey!
My husband had 4 by passes Jan 09, and is on nothing but blood thinner. The cardiologist is chewing his nails, but fact is, the meds all make him weak and dizzy and bottom his blood pressure out. Upside is that people like my husband with low normal blood pressure tend to live longer. If it were your mother or mine, they would take the 3 or 4 prescribed drugs if it killed them.
Most people just will not take responsibility for their bodies and their lives--always looking for someone to take care of them, like O's sycophants.
vaudine
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.