Discussion on:

Cost of health insurance will surpass income by 2033

There are two big reasons that health care costs are soaring. First of all, we're not buying "insurance", we're paying into a pre-paid health care plan, kind of like a service contract for our bodies, so that we only pay $10-$20 for a doctor visit. We have a "let the insurance pay for it" attifude. Secondly, we ignore lifestyle choices that give us medical conditions that require treatment.

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act isn't really about making health care affordable or more available.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office project $1.7 Trillion over ten years, almost double the $900 Billion quoted by the President and Congress when they passed it. It's estimate the costs will top $2 Trillion by 2022.

The CBO projected that up to 20 Million American will lose health insurance coverage due to the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The CBO expects employers to drop insurance coverage primarily for low-wage earners, and they will, for good economic reasons. My employers spends about $10,000 on my health coverage, way more than the penalty for dropping coverage. Want to increase your company's bottom line? Drop health coverage. This is part of the plan to drive people into government provided health coverage.

...but a "payment plan". But worse than that, they want someone else to pay for that as well. Most people are completely insulated from the real cost of what they consume, and frankly, they don't want to know.

Imagine how expensive your auto insurance would be if the government required the insurance company to pay for your fuel, oil & tires; you'd have very little incentive to drive efficiently.

...to anyone who actually buys their own health care. Mine has been going up consistently for decades, and at a far greater rate over the last several years. While the President promised that my rates would be going down $2500/year 4 years ago, it has instead increased by over 60% in the last 3 years alone. So yes, it's only a matter of time before my premium eclipses my income, which has not increased at nearly such a rate. (I've already forecast the date when it will eclipse my #1 monthly expense, housing)

And as more healthy people find their premiums unaffordable and drop their coverage, the premiums will skyrocket even faster until the entire system collapses. (Which I believe is the real goal of the ironically-named "Affordable Care Act") This will eventually force us into what the Progressives envisioned all along, a "single payer" system like Britain or Canada.

I've always argued that a "single payer" system would be far more advantageous over the massive cluster that the "Affordable Care Act" is. For one thing, without health care to pay for, I can pay off my house. Once my two biggest monthly expenses are disposed of, I can just retire (since the income taxes required to pay for the new system will make working barely worthwhile anyway) and let the people who voted for this morass work to pay for it all like I did all those years.

Actually, you better hope your health stays good after you retire - I'm already there, but still working too- so I get employer mandated coverage available, "Retirement medical coverage" has "PHANTOM Medicare" deducted from any benefit I might have received IF I actually had MEDICARE, and coordinated with the employer program. WHAT A MESS!
I'm sure the "Affordable Care Act" will make it better - NOT!!!!!

The cost of health insurance won't continually increase at any set rate any more than property values supposedly would 10 years ago. It makes absolutely no sense and buying into that mentality is foolish.

My health plan's premium actually went down this year, not by a lot, but it is about 1% lower than it was last year...

Single Payer is the ONLY way to solve this mess with health care. Any other approach is just a rehash of failed policies. When will we realize what every developed country already knows? When will America become a developed country?

We cannot trust corporate America with our health. The only thing worse than a government bureaucracy is a corporate bureaucracy. The government inevitably answers to its people, the corporation only ever to itself.

The government exists to serve the people. Corporations exist to generate a profit. It couldn't be simpler. I'm not saying let's disband all corporations, I'm saying let's just get them out of our health care.

...we can trust the government with our health?

Those who look out only for themselves are any more trustworhy?
Like he said it's more of a lesser of two evils.
Personally my trust is endowed on a very small group.

That's why I think people should be looking out (being responsible) for themselves and making their own decisions instead of relying upon others to do it for them. You can't endow your trust upon a smaller group than that. Allowing either employers or the government to be responsible for your care makes you a slave to one or the other.

Why don't you just move to a 'developed' country and leave us be. Corporate America has been the most trustworthy provider of health care but it should be out of the business because it makes them less competitive with the rest of the 'developed' world.

Your description of government vs. corporation is naive at best. At least businesses must appear to provide a needed product or service to consumers. Government is nothing more than Attorney welfare; of the lawyers, for the lawyers and by the lawyers. What a racket. And who do you think writes those illegible contracts and warranties?

Yes single payer! Same coverage for Obama and the homeless lady I passed awhile ago on the street. No veterans health care system, no medicare, no medicaid, and bring a National ID. Thank you.

It would be helpful to see how the previous 35 years looks like on the same chart. Health benefits were optional for a while and then became part of the expected package of benefits. The employers used to pay 100% of the premiums, back when the cost of insurance was significantly lower than it is today. As health insurance premiums increased, the employers began to offload some of the premium costs to the employees.

The US has one of the best medical technologies in the world but has the worst access to that care than most other countries. The US has several systems of medical access from private inurance to corporate funded insurance to self paid medical coverage to unpaid emergency room care. Hospitals are mandated to accept anyone regardless of their abillity to pay, that lack of pay is hiked up for those who can pay (like $10 per aspirin dose). As premiums rise higher than can be afforded then there would be an increase in the number of uninsured people getting "free" medical care in the emergency rooms which feed back into higher premiums. This is the hidden "tax" we pay to maintain the same level of care we had 10 and 20 years ago.

We can fully expect more spin on HC as is election year and facts get tossed out in favor of 'Do not vote for me,but vote against them" that has ruined USA.
So will ask the BIG question none seem to ever discuss, bit first a bit of background. Rather quietly with little press-media reporting, a huge increase in building/remodels, AKA big money invested in medical facilities, kind of mini "boom" in them last ten years or so. With that fact, we can now ask, WHO IS MAKING the profits off double digit price increase's. Were it any other sevice-goods going up at 10% or so each year, other then oil, papers would be full of data. None anywhere on HC.
Then we must ask, how does Canada and rest of more evolved world do it, again never discussed unless the absurdity of "Canadians rushing to USA for care" blah blah . Note most of those nations have lower total effective tax rates then USA, that reality is often buried along with other truths. We are not getting reality/acts on HC.

Apart from the fact that this is untenable, the article does not provide much in terms of the authors' assumptions. A recent Wall St. Journal article on this subject pointed out that real health care costs are not rising as the authors claim. A short list of health care cost mitigating factors is:
Technology is likely to reduce the cost of diagnostic procedures and treatment. For example, the first MRI machines were so expensive and of limited availability that an MRI was a major diagnostic cost. Newer, cheaper MRI machines using better imaging software have held the cost at or below the cost of 10 years ago. Likewise, robotic surgery is revolutionizing procedures such as arthroplasty.
Lifestyle improvements, such as smoking cessation, have already reduced the per-capita instance of smoking-related illness. As obesity inevitably declines, so will related disease like diabetes, heart disease and weight-related orthopedic problems. Indexing health insurance premiums to lifestyle (as does life insurance) will provide incentives to improve lifestyle.
Newer health care provider models can reduce costs by relying on nurse practitioners, physician's assistants and other para-professionals to treat minor and chronic ailments in medical groups and walk-in clinics.
Giving patients incentives to shop for the best care for the lowest cost by offering various insurance options as opposed to the "one-size-fits-all" model offered by insurers, Medicare and "Obamacare".
Reducing medical insurance premiums by litigation reform, including a workers compensation-type damages tables covering all but gross or criminal negligence claims.

To mikemce, I think your comment was the best rebuttal for this article.
Personally, I don't think this will happen.

The cost of health care will not exceed family income in 2033, or any other year.

Notwithstanding the nice graph, it ain't gonna happen.

Extrapolating current rates and rates-of-change beyond a few years is meaningless. There will be changes in our economic structure, as yet unseen, that will alter both incomes and costs.

Not to be alarmist, but one such change is that the financial house of cards being constructed through excessive spending by our elected officials is going to collapse. Since neither major political party has any intention of balancing the budget, the only question is when the collapse will come.

As only those with incomes in the top 10-15% will be able to afford health care.

It's not that the political parties don't have any intention of balancing the budget, it's that their corporate masters have no intention of allowing their gravy train to leave the tracks before there is no other choice.

Your politics is showing! The job of those evil corporations is to make a profit and in the meantime employ as many people as they need to make a profit.

We need the 99% to better themselves, if they are really interested, not to become the 100% by destroying the 1%. Don't like your master? Quit. Don't like your job/duties? Start your own. Then we'll see who is a penny-pinching miser.

I just took a survey a few days ago where they were looking at which options people would take when the new health insurance laws take effect and people will start looking at health insurance plans from the "pool". They listed all the proposed options from all the major insurance companies and the expected costs, etc. The shocking thing is that the plans were priced at $2,200 to $4,000+ PER MONTH for a family of TWO. And the coverage, even with the best offered plan, would be worse than what I currently have.

My current plan costs me over $1,600 per month and my employer only pays $150 per month toward it. That's over 30% of my income right now!

It's just hard to image being able to afford medical insurance my longer at these rates.

...after your rates go up 2 or 3 times, everything it provides is "free"!

Sheer unbelievable. How do these premium projections compare with Europe & else where?

If Japan & Europe can provide national healthcare plans at far less cost & delivering higher healthy life expectancy, there must be something seriously wrong with the way the US is doing it.

Most developed countries have public health care, the anticonstitution story is false and does not matter. Way before cost of insurance meets income it will be unaffordable for 99% of us at that pace of premium increase. Increasing costs is due to the fact that heath is a business in an financial capitalism. These countries like France for example keep costs in control by dictating what doctors and drug companies can charge so they basically take this business out of the capitalistic world and it's working great with the exception they go too far by not asking a large enough co-pay which causes abuses. Doctors still make a very good living but do not usually drive Ferrari's except a few exceptions like cosmetic surgeons. Recently we moved and my wife had to quit her job. She was offered "cobra" to keep her insurance and the cost was over $900 a month. If one does not work how can he or she afford $900 in insurance per month? In France or other countries with similar systems she would have been covered just like if she was working.The way people pay for it is a percentage of their income up to a certain amount just like social security in the US, it's actually called social security in France. The more people pay, the less they have to increase premiums so in bad times like now they run a deficit. The same principles apply to retirement and public education which is almost free all the way to university.

The US will have come to such a system, there is no way around it. If auto insurance is mandatory why would that not be the case for HC? It concerns everyone and when someone is brought to the ER and can't pay the bill the others who do have insurance pay that cost anyway. I am certain that the vast majority of Americans support universal HC or would be in favor of it if they would stop listening to the lies of lobbyists such as the "fair and balanced" news channel.

...are bankrupt, if you haven't been reading the paper lately.

Everyone who thinks healthcare is cheaper in Europe is looking at old data the Obama administration threw out to the public during the healthcare bill fight.

It was an old 2000 study by the World Health Organization that declared all of Europe provided healthcare at a lower cost per person than the US. The sad part is they were wrong and later quietly admitted it.

The original study in 2000 was flawed in that it only looked at premiums paid in Europe. They left out co-pays, deductibles and more importantly TAXES. All of which somehow made it into their US numbers. In 2003 they came out with a revised study based on a larger data set that included ALL SOURSES of money that paid for European healthcare.

Once those factors were added in the US was the cheapest per person cost for healthcare among western nations. Italy was still one of the best in Europe.

After reading the final report I have to admit to liking the Italian operating and funding model. Healthcare operations and costs are managed at the regional level.

Healthcare taxes, done as a property tax, vary from region to region based on how effective the regional management is at managing costs. The regional healthcare management head is an elected position not a bureaucrat, so quality and cost effective service, good care and low taxes, are what gets them reelected.

It would be comparable to our states managing it in the US with an elected official in charge of the State Health Department.

Who would have guessed Italy would model something after the method preferred by our founding fathers. Let states manage their own systems. Get the feds out of our lives.

The problem with all health care (HC), is that the health care providers have been allowed to write their own contract for too long. We are into and era of 'early detection'. This is being touted as your only option, because otherwise you will die. We are being over-diagnosed and over-treated for conditions that probably don't require it. In other words, the HC pros have learned the fine art of fear mongering. Cut done on half (or more) of the tests, and you will cut about 2/3 of the cost. How do the other countries that have National Health care do it? The only allow certain, proven, tests. The Republicans are putting so much false information out there, that it is hard to get a proper look at it. You shouldn't be looking at how America should create a HC system, but any other country like Canada, Japan, China, France, Germany, England etc etc. They all have them, and they work well. Some are better than others. A good HC system is like a very successful American Corporation: Wal-Mart. The masses bring the cost down. Canada has approx 36 million people and a large, spread-out country. The USA has approx 360 million people and is smaller. Go figure who should have the advantage of the benefits of cost per person ratio. The answer should be obvious.

Successful? They are broke or haven't you seen any news dispatches lately. They are throwing everything not tied down overboard in an attempt to keep from sinking. The German people are screaming 'No more' to bailing out failed economies - I hear them. And Health Care is just the opening volley in the U.S.

The big debt problem in Europe is pensions that were promised because it was easier than trying to deal realistically with the unions. Health Care - yes we need one system for all - but certainly not the European model as it is a failed system.