What percent of GDP is spent on healthcare?

[kentuck]

The last figure I had seen was 17.2% of GDP.

But to put that into money terms, that would be $172.00 for every $1000.00 that you earned. That would be $6,880.00 for someone earning only $40,000 per year. That is a lot of money! That is too much to pay for average working people.

Wouldn't it be better to pay 8.5% thru your paycheck deductions to a single payer, much like one pays their FICA taxes for Social Security Insurance? It could be a sister program for Social Security. I don't think many people would complain about paying 17% of their income for Social Security and Healthcare Security? The truth of the matter is that it would be much more effective than anything that could be imagined in the marketplace. Because a profit does not have to be made. The stockholders are the American people themselves.

The ACA is a huge compromise with those that support marketplace solutions. But there is a better way.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. That would make too much sense, plus it would make our labor force competitive again

and it seems that is the last thing our owners want.

[FarCenter]

11. Healthcare is mostly labor cost, so cutting half off costs would cut employment by about 8%

You would put a lot of healthcare employees out on the street.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. cool theory, bro

So you are basically suggesting that our inefficient 2x the norm for-profit healthcare/insurance boondoggle system, a system that delivers mediocre results at twice the cost of other advanced nations, is basically a big jobs program keeping the economy afloat.

I didn't know that.

[FarCenter]

15. About 8.9% of employees are directly involved in care.

29-0000 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations is 5.87% and 31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations is 3.01%.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

But that doesn't include all the other people in medical businesses from receptionists to managers. And it doesn't include people in many of the occupational categories in insurance, finance, law, pharma, health supplies, medical device manufacture and distribution, etc.

Profit margins in healthcare are substantial but by not means outstanding. They don't approach Apple's profit margins.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. So according to your theory 8 of that 8.9% of the workforce got fired

because we cut the for profit insurance boondoggle out of the picture. I don't think that 89% of all people employed in the field are actually working for the insurance industry, but I could be wrong.

As I said: cool theory bro.

[FarCenter]

19. The insurance, pharma, medical device, clerical and admin staff, etc. are above the 8.9%

So direct and indirect workers in health care are probably at least as much as the 18% of workforce extrapolating share of GDP.

So if you cut healthcare costs by half, you cut at least 8% of the 18% of workers related to healthcare.

[kentuck]

20. The healthcare needs are still there?

Cutting healthcare costs does nothing to cut healthcare needs or make less sick people? I cannot understand your reasoning?

[FarCenter]

24. Healthcare needs are not directly related to cost

For example, if someone has cardiovascular disease you can:
- perform bypass surgery (most expensive),
- put in a stent (less expensive) or,
- treat with drugs, diet and exercise (least expensive).

Studies indicate that the last and least expensive option gives about the same results in extending longevity. However, various medical businesses in various locales differ widely in terms of what percent of patients get which option, often on the basis of whether their insurance will pay for it.

[kentuck]

26. And what does that have to do with more people unemployed?

in the healthcare field? Assuming you think profit levels should remain the same or continue to grow at recent rates?

[CreekDog]

27. It's not cutting them by half. Half would be from employee, other half from employer

like Social Security, remember that program, you know the one the OP said his idea would be modeled on.

stop diverting the thread for diversion's sake.

[leftstreet]

2. Commie!

DURec

[Hoyt]

3. That part is not a bad idea. But, wringing the profit out of drugs, providers, device

manufacturing, fraud, etc., is the more difficult part.

[kentuck]

4. Would it be different than it is today??

and how?

[Hoyt]

5. If you want to save costs, it has to be done. Sure it's no different than

today, except you have to make sure that 8.5% covers the cost.

[NoOneMan]

6. A badass single payer with infinite leverage might just have an edge there

[Hoyt]

7. You'd think. But Medicare has only been marginally effective in doing that.

My point is, I dont think most of stakeholders, including patients, are ready to do what is necessary to control expenditures. Not at all against trying, but too many people are out for themselves, rather than what's good for country as a whole.

[NoOneMan]

8. Providers in America are not dealing with just a single payer

Take a look up north.

[Hoyt]

9. Medicare is a big payer, and costs per beneficiary go up every year.

The lobbying of the government to protect interests would just explode.

I am for single payer, but I don't think most folks will accept it any time soon.

[kentuck]

10. America pays about double what every other country pays for healthcare.

And half of 17% would be 8.5%. Sounds about fair to me. Once you cut out the middle man and the yearly inflation, it would most likely run a surplus. But that would be a government-run system, not one including insurance companies and the marketplace. Also, we would have to get over our aversion to the word, "socialist", since it is assumed to be worse in every way by the free-marketeers.

[maced666]

12. 8.5% of paychecks won't support the 50 million with no paychecks

8.5 would barely cover the person paying.
And protecting the uninsured is the goal here.
The 8.5 would realistically be closer to 20% after ensuring care for the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions.

[davekriss]

13. Simply not correct

Read through the information found here: Single-Payer National Health Insurance

31 cents of every premium dollar goes to provider and insurer SG&A and profit for the health insurance middle man. Very wasteful and, judging by what we spend as a nation and the dismal results we get, very inefficient. Cut out the middle man and there is enough left over to provide healthcare for the uninsured (roughly $400 million is extracted by the insurers) without adding a dime to what the already-insured spend today.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. A good idea, but for the math.

How does single payer instantly reduce 17.9% of GDP to 8.5%? Further, how do you spread that 8.5% of SS taxable wages (call it 4-5% of gdp) among the people who don't work? At worst, 15% or so of that 17.9% is spent on actual care after subtracting the inefficiency of insurance.

In this country there are roughly as many people in the workforce as out. Unlike Social Security whose revenues only need to pay for retirees and the disabled, the health care tax receipts would have to cover the above PLUS those kids and those who don't have jobs.

Second, the system you describe is regressive. If you make $220,000 per year, you are only half as financially responsible (as a percentage of your income) for the care of those who don't work.

Single payer healthcare should be paid for via regular income taxes, and because it would require doubling income taxes, it'll give widespread sticker shock.

Hopefully the ACA will suppress the inflation rate enough that the transition to single payer will be less painful.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Oddly enough the math works just fine in every other advanced industrialized democracy.

They must haz different numberz.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. "The math" does, but *this* math doesn't.

to my knowledge, they all use general income taxes to pay for it, not payroll taxes. There is no legitimate reason to exempt unearned income from taxation for healthcare.

[kentuck]

22. What difference would it make??

If you were charged an extra 8.5% (the approximate cost elsewhere in the industrialized world) as an income tax or as a payroll tax? There is no free lunch, even if you have a single-payer.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. How much should Bill Gates pay toward single payer healthcare?

If your answer is $9350, just like the fireman with the four kids next door, then stick with your plan.

[kentuck]

25. I think your plan is flawed.

Last edited Wed Oct 30, 2013, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

In that, you are saying someone worth a billion dollars pay 17% of his income for healthcare? Or even 8.5% of his income? That would be $85,000,000 for each billion of his income. His health insurance on $50 billion would be $425,000,000 dollars? Isn't that a little stiff?

Instead, the better idea would be to raise income taxes separate from health insurance, in my opinion.

An even better idea would be to raise the FICA taxes or Healthcare taxes (premiums) on those making between $113,00 and $400K, or the amount that received the Bush taxcuts but stopped paying FICA taxes at $113,000 per year. In effect, they pay a lower tax rate than those making up to $113,000 at present. I don't think that is fair taxation either.

(edited numbers per correction of DUer)

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. Healthcare currently costs 18% *of GDP*.

The US GDP per capita is right at $50,000, so a family of four's share of GDP is $200,000 so their share of health care expenses is $36,000.

Most families and individuals can't afford that. Even people at the $110,000 level (social security cap) will feel the pinch.

If the income of the 1% is exempted from HC taxation, you'll have to raise the tax rate on the working class much higher than 18% to compensate.

Even in the wildly optimistic scenario that Obamacare and single payer make health care delivery 20% more efficient, that's still 14% of gdp. If you exempt the half of income that is either above the SS cap or unearned from taxation, you're left with a 28% flat tax rate on everyone else.

(also, 8.5% of one billion is $85 million.)

Single payer insurance will require a very high tax rate even if it's spread across everyone, it'll be impossible if it's not.

[kentuck]

29. One thousand millions in a billion dollars.

Ten percent would be 100 million dollars. So you are correct. Sorry. Math is not my strong suit, as you can see.