Obamacare is the law of the land

Yeah, the $134/month plus $15/month is just the personal side of Medicare. In addition the government is spending about $550 Billion a year for about 55 Million recipients, which is $10K a year.

That $800/month/person is for people over 65. For the average American it would probably be about half that, plus the Part B and Part B that scottagibson mentions. So, the total cost of Medicare for All would probably be in the $550/person range (which is a bit less than the $600/person total cost of our current system due to the lower prices in the Medicare Fee Schedule).

And if those figures sound SO FUCKING HIGH, that is correct. That is the actual cost of health care in our country, b/c we have allowed inelastic demand and an insane obsession with the market to inflate health care at double or triple the inflation rate for over 4 decades.

American health care is absurdly expensive but due to our ridiculous system most people only have sporadic exposure to that.

Again, think of Medicare: $550 Billion/year, plus another $50 Billion for Medicare Advantage, for 55 Million people is roughly $11K/person/year. AND on top of that the part B and part D premiums are another $150/month (call it $2K per year) plus co-pays. The total cost of Medicare per person for the over-65 folks is in the aggregate ballpark of $13K to $14K per year. No BS.

Keep in mind, the total cost of health care for the whole country is $3.2 Trillion, which is $10K each for a population of 320 Million.

If you you look at the non Medicare share you are looking at something like $2.4 trillion for 270 million people which is about $8,900 per person per year, or what $750/person/month? THAT is what our stupid system is costing us, and as individuals we see only a fraction of that in most cases. That is why all of the incremental efforts to fix health care keep getting squeezed: the prices are too damn high.

If the costs are to be borne by non-retired enrollees and not subsidized by taxes on high-income people, that premium is a total nonstarter. Imagine telling a household of 4 people that their health insurance will cost them $2000 per month.

Germany, for example, charges people something on the order of 15% of income, which for a typical American household would work out to about $8000 per year to cover everyone in the household.

Well, their health care DOES cost that much now, (actually more like $3,000 per month) but some of that is born by employers, some by government (depending on the family) and the rest deductibles and co-pays.

You could probably do a Medicare for All system with a payroll tax of 3% on employees, 5% on employers, and an 8% income tax bump on incomes over $200K/year. That would leave the co-pays and donut hole craziness in place.

A true Medicare for All with no co-pays, deductibles or donut holes would probably require a 4/6/8 type tax: 4% payroll on employees, 6% payroll on employers, and 8% income tax on incomes over $200K.

Keep in mind the average family already pays more than 4% in co-pays and deductibles and the average employer already pays more than 6% in health premiums. But that’s the ballpark of what we are talking about.

Bernie had an 8/8/8 plan at one point IIRC, but his 8% on high earners didn’t kick in til higher. My 4/6/8 plan is a bit more liberal than the Bern, is IMO the most doable plan.

There is an alternative to Medicare for All, of course, which is Medicare-buy-in. The total costs are similar (TAANSTAFL) but it’s less of a slap to the face in terms of up front sticker shock.

No, not really. The typically family probably doesn’t incur anything like that cost. It’s the atypical family that does.

Well, 4% would be something like $2000 per year for the median household, to cover everyone in the household. That works, and it’s nothing like $800 per month per person. Yes, I know the costs are being borne by the wealthy and employers, but that’s the point.

And, I don’t think it’s necessary to eliminate co-pays or deductibles, as long as they’re reasonable.

A medicare patient with depression costs the government $4000 extra a year.

This is a reason the medicare HMOs are doing lots of auditing - not because they are trying to catch cheating doctors oh no. They are trying to look through your notes and upcode diagnosis you may have “missed”. They complain of fatigue, ohhhh hey let’s add depression so the government pays us an extra $4000* a year.

It’s third-parties that are auditing the records on behalf of the insurance companies, for the most part.

The plan gets paid extra for not exceeding the expected costs of say, a diabetic patient. So it is to their interest to find the least-sick “diabetic” patients around.

It is all bullshit.

Supposedly, electronic records gives them even more money. They really really want people to use electronic records because they can claim more “efficiency” bonuses from the government.

Scott: I am a healthy 40ish year old and I cost $700 a month in insurance. i am not paying for my coverage. I am paying for all the sick people who get cancer and stuff. That’s what happens, that is the entirrrrreeee concept of insurance. Averaged out, yes, it is ~$800 a month a person. Healthy people pay for sick people. You are better off being healthy than being sick. There are arguably good societal benefits for simple, cheap treatment for young, productive adults. Like… a course of antibiotics for an STD.

A stent costs 40k. An angiogram costs 10k. Diabetes cost say… $16752 according to the American Diabetes Association. That’s 9.4% of the US population… I think by the time someone dies in the USA about 25% get diabetes.

And you’re in a world of hurt when you get caught with the provider’s note not supporting the diagnosis you decided to tack on…

Would not be the first time. I know Wellcare keeps getting caught doing stuff like adding visits/things that the patient did NOT do. The insurance company got paid a percentage of all medicaid use for patients, so they kept adding stuff in.

Healthfirst got caught fradulently signing patients onto their insurance, going door-to-door (which you are not supposed to do). Spitzer (the prostitute-scandal DA/Governor from New York) did that case long ago actually.

I have noticed it’s mostly the regional plans that are doing this - not Aetna, United, Cigna, BCBS… the reputable ones are staying far away.

This is a point worth emphasizing. I did electronic process automation for several years of my consulting career (across various industries). Putting a process in the digital realm does not make it work better. It makes it work faster and probably with less human intervention, but to actually improve the outcomes the process itself has to change. With a process that is set up to milk as much money as possible from patients/insurance/government, making it electronic will make that process faster but not make a difference in the money milking.

Sharpe’s right. We spent on a $10,000-$10,600 for medical care per person. It is not seen by the average family because employers are typically forking out $800-$1,200/month to cover their employee and their family. But the average family is paying it for one of reason wage growth is static is employer have seen near double digit increase in health care cost for most of the last 25 years.

Nor are government program any better, government spending on Social Security is over 11K, VA nearly 13K and Medicaid is “bargain” at 8K. All figure approximate and I don’t believe they include the copays by the person.

I’ve been reading about the Amazon, Berkshire, JP Morgan Health Care initiative. The new CEO is a data driven doctor, who seems like the exact right type of guy to the job. I don’t envy the guy, having Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, and Jamie Dimon as your boss would be intimidating as hell. They are talking eliminating the middle man in the medical care (certainly something Amazon has figured how to do, and Buffett’s insurance operations also.).

The depressing thing was the are looking at 15-20% cost reduction, now don’t get me wrong saving $1,500-$2,000 in medical cost would be awesome but that would still leaving us pay $8K/year compared much of the rest of the world at $5-$6k

If in theory you can have a single-payer, you can put price pressure as well as limit expensive procedures.

Whether that’s possible politically… well… How about we get there when we get there :)

My personal favorite idea at the moment is a Medicare-buy-in-with-price-reform plan with automatic enrollment and increased subsidies, paid for by phasing in equal treatment of investment income (capital gains) so it’s taxed at the same rates as earned income (yes, we currently tax people a higher percentage for money they earn by working than for money made by investing.) The idea is this:

First, create a public option insurance company called something like Medicare Exchange or Open Medicare. The key to this public option is that it is linked to Medicare in two ways: it has access to the Medicare Fee Schedule and to the network of Medicare providers. Since this public option insurance company has that fee schedule, which is on average somewhat lower than private insurance fee schedules, it can charge a somewhat lower premium than other insurance. Since the public option insurance company also has access to Medicare’s network, it can provide treatment everywhere in the US. So this will be an attractive insurance option on the exchanges, available to everyone.

Second, open up the exchanges to employers, allowing employers to buy plans off the exchanges, including the Medicare Buy In option. Many employers will do this due to the lower premiums. Between it’s likely success with both individuals and employers, the Medicare Buy In will get bigger, with even more bargaining power.

Third, we tighten up the Medicare fee schedule, allowing Medicare to negotiate harder on drugs and on all treatment generally. Between the current size of Medicare and the increasing market share of Medicare Buy In, we should be able to hold prices to the rate of inflation. Over time, this will bring medical prices “down” by a relative 2% to 3% per year (relative to the current cost curve).

Fourth, once Medicare Buy In is well established and has plenty of treatment access and sufficient admin staff to handle it, we automatically enroll every uninsured person in this plan, and charge them the appropriate premium (same as everybody else). They have the option of choosing a non-Medicare plan if they want, but I suspect the Medicare Buy In will out-compete the alternatives.

Fifth, we subsidize those with incomes below a certain level, on a sliding scale with no sharp cutoffs, using the money from the equalization of capital gains taxation. Right now, capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than earned income, and the differential is in the ballpark of $100 billion/year revenue we would be getting if capital gains and income from work were equally taxed. The average premium for people below 65 in the Medicare Buy In will be in the $6K to $7K / year range, so $100 billion gives us a full subsidy for roughly 15 million people, or a half subsidy for 30 million, If we use a sliding scale, plus automatic enrollment to make those who can afford pay a premium, we can get all 30 million uninsured into the system.

Over time, I believe the Medicare Buy In / public option insurance company (I’m using those terms for the same thing b/c I couldn’t think of a catchy name) will out-compete private insurance both with employers and on the exchanges such that it will be come a system that’s not all that far from single payer. Germany has a “compulsory health insurance” system with multi-payer universal coverage and IIRC about 85% of Germans use the public option with the remaining 15% using private options. I would expect our system to be somewhere in that ballpark after a few years of transition.

From there, if we want to transition to a full on single payer, the disruption will not be that great. Or, if a “universal multipayer with hefty subsidies and price reform” system is working well, we can stick with that.

The advantages of this plan is that it’s not very disruptive: it allows people getting insurance through employers to continue and is also likely to save both individuals and employers money over projected costs. You could call this overall plan “phased in single-payer-adjacent”.

There are no overt disadvantages that I can see, with the exception of two unfortunately powerful lobbies: medical providers and health insurance companies. The net result of this system will be to reduce the future cost curve of health prices down to the rate of inflation, which is going to cost health care providers a projected 2% to 3% per year of inflated pricing. In theory the better angels of my nature hope that the health care industry understands the current runaway pricing is unsustainable and that a system like this will provide them long term stability without unexpected price or patient changes (like the current ever-changing medical provider network problem). However, I’m fairly certain that the better angels of my nature are smoking fat ganja spliffs and the health care industry will fight like this is Thermopylae. If so, so be it. It’s a fight worth having IMO. Health care insurance is going to oppose this full stop b/c the last thing they want is a non-profit competitor with access to the Medicare Fee Schedule and Medicare network. It would reduce their market share by a huge percentage or maybe even make them extinct. Again, this is a fight worth having.

The devil is in the details and this type of plan is not the only good plan, but this is my current favorite. (Note this is not a specific entity or politician plan; it’s my own kludge of several proposals from liberal think tanks and Dem politicians, but it’s within the range of variation of the numerous Medicare Buy In plans out there.)

Anyway, something like that is IMO the best way forward, both economically and politically.

@sharpe for President! Or health care czar, more appropriately.

This was literally my reaction.

Somebody at work the other day was saying something about “we could pretty much re-enact the whole Bolshevik Revolution!” I immediately called “not czar!” I stand by my decision.

Here are three related things on healthcare that I appeared recently.

Here is Bernie talking about a recent study on M4A costs. Not shockingly, he overlooks any negative stuff in the report.

Megan McCardle’s take on the report.

Finally here is the actual report. I didn’t read it really carefully, but several things stood it first of all.
He makes a good case that numbers (that Bernie sites how this will save money) are best case, and actual number will be worse because there is going to be a huge fight over Medicare reimbursement rates. Same thing is true about a reduction in administrative cost, probably some reduction but likely the reduction in cost is higher than we will see in real life.

Plus we have no clue how we are going to solve the problem of higher use. Right now only 12% of medical care cost are paid out of pocket vs 40% for dental coverage and consequently you see lots of people going to the doctor unnecessarily and not very many doing the same with dentist.

We have to find some way to ration medical care, or create a disincentive for people to abuse it. It is a Megan says all about making hard choices which isn’t something this is country is good at it.

That said, Sharpe’s plan has some merit.

Isn’t McArdle the sentient haircut with the Ivy League degree who chose to debase her obvious intellect to the Fox News #brand and should be shunned even harder than the rest of the collaborators?

Could be I’m thinking of someone else. In that case, apologies.

Also, dealing with fucking healthcare is a neverending series of hard choices. Fuck’s sake. We could do that, or we could condemn the sick and elderly to debtor’s prison. Hey, then we could put them to work in the Louisiana governor’s mansion! Save some bucks on the hired help. Efficiency!

Well, averages are deceptive. We do spend $10k per capita as a country but most families don’t incur $10k per family member per year or anywhere near that amount. The average is heavily skewed by a few very high-cost families.

And, as a former corporate executive, I can tell you with certainty that we never once paid an employer contribution anywhere close to $800 per month for an employee’s health care coverage. At most, we were paying something on the order of $300 for family coverage. That would have been in 2015. It’s probably a bit more now, but it’s not $800.

There are legitimate critiques of almost any proposed change to the health care system, but you have to also consider the context that we currently have a health care system that, compared to other developed countries, produces only average results, costs twice as much, leaves many people uncovered or undercovered, and perhaps most significantly is getting closer and closer to the “back half of the chess board” point of unsustainability in terms of price.

So, compared to the status quo, there are many plans which would IMO be an overall improvement.

I feel very strongly that doing nothing will both continue a lot of unnecessary suffering (particularly financial/bankruptcy suffering), and will also lead to disaster, a budget crunch on both government and private employers that will be severe.

Strollen has already outlined some elements of his own preferred type of plan which is a combo of some ideas from Singapore, Switzerland, other Euro nations, and a bit of ACA. His plan is OK IMO, but IMO is both too incremental and also does not adequately address the uninsured. It would probably be an improvement over the pre-ACA system and probably more or less comparable to ACA if the GOP wasn’t trying to strangle ACA. My problem with Strollen’s plan is that although it is IMO a weaker reform than what I contemplate, it has no greater chance of passage in the current political climate, perhaps less.

Pretty much any plan of mandatory insurance, subsidized insurance, medical price reform etc., is going to be attacked by the GOP as “socialized medicine” and with the GOP in power, they can block it completely. My type of plan would receive the same opposition, although using the “Medicare” political brand might give it a bit more possibility of passage, even though it is a more liberal plan. (As an aside that is a good example of how the hard right’s lack of nuance can be used against them: since they consider even incrementally liberal policies to be SOCIALISM!!!, why stop with incremental policies? If you are going to be called a socialist no matter what you propose, may as well go far enough to make major change.)

The boy who cried socialism

My employer (a state government) pays $1639.80/mo for my family coverage (same for all 40,000 employees). I pay $215.16/mo. I changed positions this year, previous employer (government of a different state) was ~$1200/400. Prior to that I was a [edit: federal] contractor (org had about 1100 employees I think) … I think I recall my COBRA payment (had I elected to continue coverage) as ~$1100 after family premiums of ~$300, but I’d have to dig for records to substantiate that.

$800-1200/mo seems completely in line with what my employers have told me they’re paying.

My memory must be way wrong, then.