How much do we spend on Health care, is it enough for single payer?

$10,345 per person: U.S. health care spending reaches new peak | PBS NewsHour
As of July 2016 we were spending over 10 thousand dollars per year for every person in the USA. That is over 3.8 trillion dollars. I would think that if we put all the money together we spend on health care we could set up a single payer system similar to other industrialized nations. Even a two tiered system similar to Medicare with the second tier being a supplement could work.

independentusa said:

$10,345 per person: U.S. health care spending reaches new peak | PBS NewsHour
As of July 2016 we were spending over 10 thousand dollars per year for every person in the USA. That is over 3.8 trillion dollars. I would think that if we put all the money together we spend on health care we could set up a single payer system similar to other industrialized nations. Even a two tiered system similar to Medicare with the second tier being a supplement could work.

Click to expand...

We already have a single payer system. It's called Medicare.

independentusa said:

$10,345 per person: U.S. health care spending reaches new peak | PBS NewsHour
As of July 2016 we were spending over 10 thousand dollars per year for every person in the USA. That is over 3.8 trillion dollars. I would think that if we put all the money together we spend on health care we could set up a single payer system similar to other industrialized nations. Even a two tiered system similar to Medicare with the second tier being a supplement could work.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity I ran the math to answer your question. I used 2015 numbers since they should be fairly accurate.
2015 federal budget spent aprox 1600 billion on medicare/medicade and aprox 43 million people
the math works out to almost 20k per person.
our current population is about 300 million which extrapolates to 6 trillion

Another issue you face is that nobody will suggest everyone pay the same amount of taxes to pay for it. They are going to demand that the top 10% or so of earners finance this added burden and I do not see how they can afford that.

Even if you do find the money for that, medicare is not complete coverage and people will still need supplemental insurance if they want coverage gaps closed.

How would you address these problems?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

trouble13 said:

Out of curiosity I ran the math to answer your question. I used 2015 numbers since they should be fairly accurate. 2015 federal budget spent aprox 1600 billion on medicare/medicade and aprox 43 million people the math works out to almost 20k per person. our current population is about 300 million which extrapolates to 6 trillion Another issue you face is that nobody will suggest everyone pay the same amount of taxes to pay for it. They are going to demand that the top 10% or so of earners finance this added burden and I do not see how they can afford that. Even if you do find the money for that, medicare is not complete coverage and people will still need supplemental insurance if they want coverage gaps closed. How would you address these problems?

Click to expand...

These are not real problems, not sure why you didn't use actual single payer plans and calculation, instead of this clumsy attempt to scare people.

First, your calculation is all kinds of wrong. Single payer is estimated to cost between $1.5 and $2.8T depending on the implementation and calculations. $6T is absurd. You cannot use medicare/aid spending per person, because that data is for people on medicare/aid, which is the segment of the population that consumes most of the nations health care expenses. You're literally estimating that a healthy 8 year old will use as much health care every year as someone who is 70 with a myriad of health problems typical for that age.

Basically none of the problems you mention are real. Single payer would cost less than our current system, be easier for everyone to maintain (employers and individuals), would be guaranteed even if you lose your job, or have a pre-existing condition. It would be paid for in similar ways as it is now, through a combination of government, employer payroll tax, and individual contribution (tax).

The problem with single payer is it may limit health care options for a lot of people, and change the health care industry in ways that they don't like. These are valid concerns, and there are a number of ways to do a hybrid system similar to what we have now, but a lot more streamlined...instead of nine organizations that manage various coverage in government, we could have 1-2 that cover more people, but not full coverage. Australia for example, has a hybrid system that still relies heavily on the private market. But whatever the way, clearly *any other way* would cost the U.S. a lot less.

How expensive would a single-payer system be? | PolitiFact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia

independentusa said:

$10,345 per person: U.S. health care spending reaches new peak | PBS NewsHour
As of July 2016 we were spending over 10 thousand dollars per year for every person in the USA. That is over 3.8 trillion dollars. I would think that if we put all the money together we spend on health care we could set up a single payer system similar to other industrialized nations. Even a two tiered system similar to Medicare with the second tier being a supplement could work.

Click to expand...

Sure. But that is not the problem. The problem is that our government is spending more than our competition that is free riding medical technology developed for the high margin US market.

But you might be right that we could install a minimum coverage single payer system. Oh! We have one. So, where's the beef?

Mach said:

These are not real problems, not sure why you didn't use actual single payer plans and calculation, instead of this clumsy attempt to scare people.

First, your calculation is all kinds of wrong. Single payer is estimated to cost between $1.5 and $2.8T depending on the implementation and calculations. $6T is absurd. You cannot use medicare/aid spending per person, because that data is for people on medicare/aid, which is the segment of the population that consumes most of the nations health care expenses. You're literally estimating that a healthy 8 year old will use as much health care every year as someone who is 70 with a myriad of health problems typical for that age.

Basically none of the problems you mention are real. Single payer would cost less than our current system, be easier for everyone to maintain (employers and individuals), would be guaranteed even if you lose your job, or have a pre-existing condition. It would be paid for in similar ways as it is now, through a combination of government, employer payroll tax, and individual contribution (tax).

The problem with single payer is it may limit health care options for a lot of people, and change the health care industry in ways that they don't like. These are valid concerns, and there are a number of ways to do a hybrid system similar to what we have now, but a lot more streamlined...instead of nine organizations that manage various coverage in government, we could have 1-2 that cover more people, but not full coverage. Australia for example, has a hybrid system that still relies heavily on the private market. But whatever the way, clearly *any other way* would cost the U.S. a lot less.

How expensive would a single-payer system be? | PolitiFact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia

Click to expand...

If I remember the numbers correctly, the US public sector pays only slightly more than those of other wealthy countries. The large difference in total spending is private sector and so could be considered a sort of consumption.

MaggieD said:

We already have a single payer system. It's called Medicare.

Click to expand...

And it's responsible for much of the $10,345 cost.

jimbo said:

And it's responsible for much of the $10,345 cost.

Click to expand...

I don't think $10K per person is an astronomical amount of money. Want to lower it? Let people check out of their own accord. End of life care is astronomical. Tell doctors to stop treating terminal patients who have no quality of life. And tell big pharmacy to stop charging much higher prices for their drugs in the USA than they do around the world.

You do realize that the people on Medicare and Medicaid use the most health care, so on average we would not spend 20 grand per person, but the average which is slightly over 10 grand. . And you have to realize that much of health care is provided by companies. I am on Medicare and pay for a supplement, but many people would not do so, especially the young who are healthy. And with a single payer they could put more pressure on providers to keep health care costs down, including bargaining with the big Pharms. We could save billions now on Medicare if it could bargain for medications like the Vets do. They pay about 40% of the costs for meds than do Medicare because the GOP won't allow such bargaining.

Mach said:

These are not real problems, not sure why you didn't use actual single payer plans and calculation, instead of this clumsy attempt to scare people.

First, your calculation is all kinds of wrong. Single payer is estimated to cost between $1.5 and $2.8T depending on the implementation and calculations. $6T is absurd. You cannot use medicare/aid spending per person, because that data is for people on medicare/aid, which is the segment of the population that consumes most of the nations health care expenses. You're literally estimating that a healthy 8 year old will use as much health care every year as someone who is 70 with a myriad of health problems typical for that age.

Basically none of the problems you mention are real. Single payer would cost less than our current system, be easier for everyone to maintain (employers and individuals), would be guaranteed even if you lose your job, or have a pre-existing condition. It would be paid for in similar ways as it is now, through a combination of government, employer payroll tax, and individual contribution (tax).

The problem with single payer is it may limit health care options for a lot of people, and change the health care industry in ways that they don't like. These are valid concerns, and there are a number of ways to do a hybrid system similar to what we have now, but a lot more streamlined...instead of nine organizations that manage various coverage in government, we could have 1-2 that cover more people, but not full coverage. Australia for example, has a hybrid system that still relies heavily on the private market. But whatever the way, clearly *any other way* would cost the U.S. a lot less.

How expensive would a single-payer system be? | PolitiFact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia

Click to expand...

I dont see the issue with my how I got my numbers which I laid out for you. You putting up new numbers and proclaiming yours are correct without any supporting evidence is not a compelling argument.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

independentusa said:

You do realize that the people on Medicare and Medicaid use the most health care, so on average we would not spend 20 grand per person, but the average which is slightly over 10 grand. . And you have to realize that much of health care is provided by companies. I am on Medicare and pay for a supplement, but many people would not do so, especially the young who are healthy. And with a single payer they could put more pressure on providers to keep health care costs down, including bargaining with the big Pharms. We could save billions now on Medicare if it could bargain for medications like the Vets do. They pay about 40% of the costs for meds than do Medicare because the GOP won't allow such bargaining.

Click to expand...

This is a fair point that I did not account for in my estimation and it may infact lower the per capita cost. How much im not sure. People will also use more services more often if they are not costing them any more money.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

trouble13 said:

I dont see the issue with my how I got my numbers which I laid out for you. You putting up new numbers and proclaiming yours are correct without any supporting evidence is not a compelling argument.

Click to expand...

I told you what the issue was (you claimed someone on medicare has the same spend as a healthy 9 year old) I included links to the data I used, which is the supporting evidence. Since I did everything you say I didn't, I can only point it out, and carry on.

independentusa said:

$10,345 per person: U.S. health care spending reaches new peak | PBS NewsHour
As of July 2016 we were spending over 10 thousand dollars per year for every person in the USA. That is over 3.8 trillion dollars. I would think that if we put all the money together we spend on health care we could set up a single payer system similar to other industrialized nations. Even a two tiered system similar to Medicare with the second tier being a supplement could work.

Click to expand...

You mean one where like Canada, they have fewer MRI Machines in the NATION than the city of Pittsburgh? A system where waits of months to see a specialist are common?
No thank you, I like our system, it needs some work but I, not you, not Joe down the street, not Mike in Cali is forced to pay for my needs, nor is any GOVERNMENT bureaucrat is in charge of my healthcare.

independentusa said:

$10,345 per person: U.S. health care spending reaches new peak | PBS NewsHour
As of July 2016 we were spending over 10 thousand dollars per year for every person in the USA. That is over 3.8 trillion dollars. I would think that if we put all the money together we spend on health care we could set up a single payer system similar to other industrialized nations. Even a two tiered system similar to Medicare with the second tier being a supplement could work.

Click to expand...

To answer your question, from what I've seen, yes, that's enough money to set up single payer. Its more than double what Bernie's team estimated, but is dead-on with what a more conservative estimate was.

In any case, I would personally prefer something in between that and our current system. I don't want to wait months to see a specialist, I don't want "good for the masses" healthcare to be the only game in town. I want a mix of both. I don't know how good Australia's system is, but I understand it's a little of both.

What I'm curious about is why so many dems aren't for that instead of pure single payer.

Renae said:

You mean one where like Canada, they have fewer MRI Machines in the NATION than the city of Pittsburgh? A system where waits of months to see a specialist are common?
No thank you, I like our system, it needs some work but I, not you, not Joe down the street, not Mike in Cali is forced to pay for my needs, nor is any GOVERNMENT bureaucrat is in charge of my healthcare.

Click to expand...

Why haven't Canadians voted for our system if it's so much better? I don't see any mass immigration coming from Canada or other European countries.

Conservatives love badmouthing Canada and Europe's health care system but if it was so bad they would vote to change it to our system. Doesn't that just make sense?

SonOfDaedalus said:

Why haven't Canadians voted for our system if it's so much better? I don't see any mass immigration coming from Canada or other European countries.

Conservatives love badmouthing Canada and Europe's health care system but if it was so bad they would vote to change it to our system. Doesn't that just make sense?

Click to expand...

Nobody likes massive change.

As that post indicates, people in the USA receive better health care than folks in Canada. Perhaps folks in Canada receive better health coverage than folks in the USA.
But the former is more important than the latter.

Athanasius68 said:

Nobody likes massive change.

As that post indicates, people in the USA receive better health care than folks in Canada. Perhaps folks in Canada receive better health coverage than folks in the USA.
But the former is more important than the latter.

Click to expand...

Yes, they might use more health care, but it will be cheaper health care. Instead of having to go to an ER where the cost run over $1,000.00 ore visit, they will go see their doctor where the visit costs less than than $150.00. So even if they go three or four times as much, the system saves money. That is why the ACA has saved us money. I was involved with the health care system for over 40 years and I can tell you that in the end, a single payer system will be cheaper than what we pay now even if we keep the for profit provider system. We especially need to look at the big Pharmacy providers.

Yes, and who is paying for all of those MRI machines, we are. And most are running at less than 50% capacity. SO we have to make up the difference by paying a lot more for the MRI's and facilities get doctors to use the MRI's and other equipment for procedures where a cheaper X-ray would do. Having been part of the health care system for over 40 years I can tell you that there is no competition in health care to bring prices down and keep the system lean. Instead we have a bloated system with way too much high, and I mean high priced equipment either sitting around doing little or over used to help pay for it.

SonOfDaedalus said:

Why haven't Canadians voted for our system if it's so much better? I don't see any mass immigration coming from Canada or other European countries.

Conservatives love badmouthing Canada and Europe's health care system but if it was so bad they would vote to change it to our system. Doesn't that just make sense?

Click to expand...

It's really hard to get people to vote to rid themselves of FREE STUFF. When you're born, raised and told you deserve this free stuff...

Canada's healthcare wait times in 2016 longest-ever recorded: Fraser Institute report | CTV News

A survey by the Fraser Institute found a median wait of 20 weeks for “medically necessary” treatments and procedures in 2016 – the longest-recorded wait time since the think tank began tracking wait times.



Median wait time by province in 2016:
New Brunswick: 38.8 weeks
Nova Scotia: 34. 8
P.E.I: 31.4
Newfoundland and Labrador: 26
British Columbia: 25.2
Alberta: 22.9
Manitoba: 20.6
Quebec: 18.9
Saskatchewan: 16.6
Ontario: 15.6
In terms of specialized treatment, national wait times were longest for neurosurgery (46.9 weeks) and shortest for medical oncology (3.7 weeks).
Neurosurgery: 46.9 weeks
Orthopaedic surgery: 38
Ophthalmology: 28.5
Plastic Surgery: 25.9
Otolaryngology: 22.7
Gynaecology: 18.8
Urology: 16.2
Internal medicine: 12.9
Radiation oncology: 4.1
General surgery: 12.1
Cardiovascular: 8.4
Medical oncology: 3.7

Click to expand...

independentusa said:

Yes, and who is paying for all of those MRI machines, we are. And most are running at less than 50% capacity. SO we have to make up the difference by paying a lot more for the MRI's and facilities get doctors to use the MRI's and other equipment for procedures where a cheaper X-ray would do. Having been part of the health care system for over 40 years I can tell you that there is no competition in health care to bring prices down and keep the system lean. Instead we have a bloated system with way too much high, and I mean high priced equipment either sitting around doing little or over used to help pay for it.

Click to expand...

So the argument is that is better to have long wait times to use scarce equipment than short wait times to use plentiful equipment?

There is a major difference between what a single payer system would be like in the USA and Canada. In the USA the providers system is privately owned while in Canada it is almost all government owned. Huge difference. It would make the likelihood of such waits almost impossible in the USA as the provider systems here would be vying for each patient.

independentusa said:

There is a major difference between what a single payer system would be like in the USA and Canada. In the USA the providers system is privately owned while in Canada it is almost all government owned. Huge difference. It would make the likelihood of such waits almost impossible in the USA as the provider systems here would be vying for each patient.

Click to expand...

But since it would all be single payer, what woukd be the difference? The private providers would need to follow a common set of regs.

No, you have the proper amount of equipment, which is not as little as the Canadian system or as much as in our system. We used to have Regional health care planning which did just that, but Reagan ended that for what he called competition. The only problem is there is no real competition in our health care provider system

You do realize there is a difference between health insurance and health care providers. If we had single payer, the providers would certainly have to adjust, but in the end it would bring down health care costs.