As near as I can tell, the $50,000 number is a ten year number, but I’ll agree it’s not clear from the article.I know several posters pointed this out, but I saw nothing in the OP that said the Obamacare $50,000 was for ONE year:
From the OP: **The number comes from figures buried in a 15-page section of the nonpartisan organization’s new ten-year budget outlook. **
I was just presenting my figures in comparison, but if you like, my personal 10-year out of pocket cost is $48,000. With my govt share, $96,000. Almost twice as much as Obamacare.
I have worked as a medical technologist in a hospital lab for over 30 years.
The biggest problem with the ACA is that it did nothing to reduce the high costs of health care in the U.S.
I can think of a few reasons why health care is so expensive:
Instead of passing a 2000-page bill, President Obama and his cronies should have started small and rammed through some kind of legislation that would cover the cost of yearly medical and dental check-ups for every American.
- ** Lack of preventative health care, mainly regular doctor and dentist appointments**.
I think you will be hard-pressed to find many hospital professionals who are enamored of the ACA.
- **The unhealthy life-style practiced by a huge percentage of the American population, leading to debilitating diseases like diabetes, strokes, and heart disease.
- Lawyers who make a living on medical lawsuits, making it necessary for doctors to order unnecessary tests and procedures to keep from getting sued.**
- ** Waste in hospitals!** This is a biggie. There is so much waste, especially in clerical settings. We constantly have to cancel tests that are ordered in duplicate (if we don’t cancel them, they get done and the patient gets a double charge).
Sorry to shorten your post. I would agree with most of this, except that there are studies purporting to show that “preventive” care does not change outcomes.
I am not sure about the lifestyle change encouragement beyond a certain level. This often ends up simply being resort to the latest fad in “healthy living”. I also read an interesting thesis written by a nurse who interviewed a number of overweight teen girls, and it appears harping on weight by healthcare people encourages contrary attitudes and behavior almost without exception. I am not sure most healthcare professionals have the knowledge or ability to actually affect life habits.
But there’s more. Undoubtedly some hospitals have outdated equipment. Some, on the other hand, are gold-plated almost beyond belief. High level executives are often paid in the figures in “not for profit” hospitals (which almost all are). Medicare allows providers to build their costs into their Medicare reimbursement rate. Obviously a situation allowing for political enhancement of reimbursement.
Poor pay for many physicians, relatively speaking. Orthopaedic surgeons get paid massively better than general surgeons even when the procedure performed by the latter is more complex than that by the former. Reimbursement is skewed toward fairly arbitrary specialty groups.
Poor use of nurses, NPs and PAs. They have been put in a position of being virtual competitors with the Family physicians, whose number is dropping. Yet, their ability to use judgment is limited by computer driven “evidence based medicine” dictates. NPs should be able to have their own practices so primary care is not also supporting the superstructure of specialists and bureaucrats. Only a couple of states allow that.
Deductibles and co-pays should be meaningful. There is no good reason at all for insurance to cover, say, a $100 charge, or for people to expect it to. Catastrophic coverage should be available and fairly priced. Those who don’t want to pay more than $20 for a routine visit to the doctor should be the ones who pay for that kind of coverage.
Insurance coverage truly should be ala carte. If I almost never consume alcohol, why should I have to have rehab coverage for it? Why should a 60 year old woman have to have maternity coverage?
Insurance across state lines should be allowed. There is no reason other than politics for each state to decide which carriers can operate in their state. This creates oligopolies of the favored.
I am not persuaded that medical schools should be the ones to determine how many doctors there are.
Lots of good, thought-provoking comments in your post.Sorry to shorten your post. I would agree with most of this, except that there are studies purporting to show that “preventive” care does not change outcomes.
I am not sure about the lifestyle change encouragement beyond a certain level. This often ends up simply being resort to the latest fad in “healthy living”. I also read an interesting thesis written by a nurse who interviewed a number of overweight teen girls, and it appears harping on weight by healthcare people encourages contrary attitudes and behavior almost without exception. I am not sure most healthcare professionals have the knowledge or ability to actually affect life habits.
The CEO of our hospital is paid around $250,000/year. He’s a medical doctor who left practice to take up hospital administration. I don’t consider that an exorbitant salary.But there’s more. Undoubtedly some hospitals have outdated equipment. Some, on the other hand, are gold-plated almost beyond belief. High level executives are often paid in the figures in “not for profit” hospitals (which almost all are). Medicare allows providers to build their costs into their Medicare reimbursement rate. Obviously a situation allowing for political enhancement of reimbursement.
I don’t know if it makes a difference, but ortho surgeons are at the greatest risk of acquiring HIV from a patient because the bone shards are loaded with blood and therefore are highly infectious if they pierce the skin. Even though all kinds of safety measures are used, those bone shards and fragments still can fly around. Maybe that’s one reason they are paid so much. You couldn’t pay me enough to be a bone doc.Poor pay for many physicians, relatively speaking. Orthopaedic surgeons get paid massively better than general surgeons even when the procedure performed by the latter is more complex than that by the former. Reimbursement is skewed toward fairly arbitrary specialty groups.
Not sure what an NP is. I agree that R.N.s, P.A.s and Physical Therapists should be licensed to diagnose and treat. Right now, many people refuse to see a doctor (trust issues, cost, etc.), but they will go see someone with a homemade diploma. Sad.Poor use of nurses, NPs and PAs. They have been put in a position of being virtual competitors with the Family physicians, whose number is dropping. Yet, their ability to use judgment is limited by computer driven “evidence based medicine” dictates. NPs should be able to have their own practices so primary care is not also supporting the superstructure of specialists and bureaucrats. Only a couple of states allow that.
I’m not sure about $100 co-pays–that’s meaningful money for me and I’m sure for others.Deductibles and co-pays should be meaningful. There is no good reason at all for insurance to cover, say, a $100 charge, or for people to expect it to. Catastrophic coverage should be available and fairly priced. Those who don’t want to pay more than $20 for a routine visit to the doctor should be the ones who pay for that kind of coverage.
I would love this, although I do understand why we all share and share alike. A 60-year-old woman doesn’t need maternity coverage, but neither do most 30-year-old women need arthritis meds or a knee replacement. Circle of life, you know. We’re all in this together.Insurance coverage truly should be ala carte. If I almost never consume alcohol, why should I have to have rehab coverage for it? Why should a 60 year old woman have to have maternity coverage?
I’m a believer in letting the states make decisions. The population of Wyoming is very different than the population of Florida, and has different health needs.Insurance across state lines should be allowed. There is no reason other than politics for each state to decide which carriers can operate in their state. This creates oligopolies of the favored.
Who should determine this?I am not persuaded that medical schools should be the ones to determine how many doctors there are.
NP=Nurse Practitioner. Maybe they’re not in every state. They’re degree RNs who go on to get Masters’ or Doctors’ degrees in a specific area of practice. They can diagnose, treat and prescribe. Some can perform fairly minor procedures, though some do some pretty tricky things like ESIs. In some states, they can have their own practices within their fields. In most, they can’t. They have to have a physician “collaborator”, which means they have to be employed by some clinic complex or not at all. The “collaborators” are supposed to review their work, but I am persuaded that’s mostly performed in the breach.Lots of good, thought-provoking comments in your post.
I agree that healthcare professionals are not the best at “lifestyle counseling”, and the “wellness programs” in many companies are useless and actually cause more stress.
But I have a hard time with people who demand healthcare while holding a cigarette in one hand, a donut in the other, and can’t wait to get home to their fridge full of soda and beer. I’m not sure what we can do about this. But surely, there is something that could be done.
IMO, reducing taxes would be helpful. The higher the taxes, the harder we have to work to make enough money just to pay our bills. This often means working longer hours, which leaves less time for healthy meal prep and exercise, along with sleep and relaxation (stress relief).
The CEO of our hospital is paid around $250,000/year. He’s a medical doctor who left practice to take up hospital administration. I don’t consider that an exorbitant salary.
And a few years ago when the economy was frighteningly awful, ALL of our hospital managers, executive and 2nd line, voluntarily accept a 5% salary cut.
I know that in the big cities, some of the mega-hospitals have CEO’s with multi-million dollar salaries. But I’m guessing that in most small cities and towns, the CEO’s of the local hospitals don’t make much more than the local unionized skilled worker.
I don’t know if it makes a difference, but ortho surgeons are at the greatest risk of acquiring HIV from a patient because the bone shards are loaded with blood and therefore are highly infectious if they pierce the skin. Even though all kinds of safety measures are used, those bone shards and fragments still can fly around. Maybe that’s one reason they are paid so much. You couldn’t pay me enough to be a bone doc.
Not sure what an NP is. I agree that R.N.s, P.A.s and Physical Therapists should be licensed to diagnose and treat. Right now, many people refuse to see a doctor (trust issues, cost, etc.), but they will go see someone with a homemade diploma. Sad.
I’m not sure about $100 co-pays–that’s meaningful money for me and I’m sure for others.
And I’m not sure that many medical procedures cost $100 or less.
I would love this, although I do understand why we all share and share alike. A 60-year-old woman doesn’t need maternity coverage, but neither do most 30-year-old women need arthritis meds or a knee replacement. Circle of life, you know. We’re all in this together.
I’m a believer in letting the states make decisions. The population of Wyoming is very different than the population of Florida, and has different health needs.
Who should determine this?
I think if it saves lives, even one life, its all worth it.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927348/Obamacare-program-costs-50-000-American-gets-health-insurance-says-bombshell-budget-report.html
It will cost the federal government – taxpayers, that is – $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under the Obamacare law, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Monday.
The number comes from figures buried in a 15-page section of the nonpartisan organization’s new ten-year budget outlook.
The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in ‘between 24 million and 27 million’ fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect.
Pulling that off will cost Uncle Sam about $1.35 trillion – or $50,000 per head.
The numbers are daunting: It will take $1.993 trillion, a number that looks like $1,993,000,000,000, to provide insurance subsidies to poor and middle-class Americans, and to pay for a massive expansion of Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) costs.
Offsetting that massive outlay will be $643 billion in new taxes, penalties and fees related to the Obamacare law.
That revenue includes quickly escalating penalties – or ‘taxes,’ as the U.S. Supreme Court described them – on people who resist Washington’s command to buy medical insurance.
It also includes income from a controversial medical device tax, which some Republicans predict will be eliminated in the next two years.
If they’re right, Obamacare’s per-person cost would be even higher. >
CBO Still Refuses to Score Obamacare, Ignores 15 Tax Hikes in Healthcare Law
atr.org/cbo-still-refuses-score-obamacare-ignores-15-tax-hikes-healthcare-law
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this week released their annual Budget and Economic Outlook which sets the budget baselines and estimates for the whole year.
Buried in Appendix B of the report is CBO’s attempt to provide an updated score of Obamacare. But that’s not what they did. They only scored the “coverage provisions” of the law, ignoring some fifteen tax increases which are also a part of Obamacare and its cost to taxpayers.
This is the news forum.I don’t see how this has anything to do with Catholicism or any other religion.
And what about the people who lose their lives along the way?I think if it saves lives, even one life, its all worth it.
Can you be more specific?And what about the people who lose their lives along the way?
The $50k is the cost of the program divided by 27 million, the yearly cost works to $5000 per person per year who gains health insurance coverage as a result of the ACA. The actual cost per person per year is $665 based on 300 million Americans.As near as I can tell, the $50,000 number is a ten year number, but I’ll agree it’s not clear from the article.
Regardless, you say you and the government are paying $96,000 over ten years, with you paying half and the government paying half. You work for the government, so of course the government pays a portion, just as Microsoft or any company with a retirement health plan would.
But that isn’t an apt comparison because, presumably, if you were in the private sector, Microsoft or whoever would have funded that potential liability. Some companies like GM didn’t, and went bankrupt because of it. The government doesn’t. The $50,000 is the government cost for EVERYBODY who has Obamacare; many or most of whom are not subsidized at all. Many or most pay for it in full. Almost everybody pays into it to some degree, and it STILL costs the government $50,000 per covered person.
As it turns out, the situation was not as bad as when first reported when they said so many people would lose their insurance and be unable to get something along the same lines. I hadn’t kept up with that.Can you be more specific?
As I opined, the $50,000 is a ten year cost per enrolee on average. For some it would be much lower, for some much higher. It isn’t a matter of what it costs each person in the whole country. The issue in the OP was whether it was a cost-effective means on a per capita basis.The $50k is the cost of the program divided by 27 million, the yearly cost works to $5000 per person per year who gains health insurance coverage as a result of the ACA. The actual cost per person per year is $665 based on 300 million Americans.
Precisely. Obama’s policies have helped the very rich, mired the poor in stagnant and inefficient programs that give them subsistence but few opportunities but the Middle Class is truly stuck between, making too much to obtain subsidies but too little to buy an equivalent policy or worse losing their insurance when their employer cuts hours or benefitsAs I opined, the $50,000 is a ten year cost per enrolee on average. For some it would be much lower, for some much higher. It isn’t a matter of what it costs each person in the whole country. The issue in the OP was whether it was a cost-effective means on a per capita basis.
And, of course, you wouldn’t divide by 300 million anyway because those who are actually paying for it are much fewer. Certainly, some of “the rich” are paying, but the big payers, relatively speaking, are those in the middle class who do not receive subsidies and can’t manipulate their taxes the way the truly rich can. It’s a wealth transfer from one segment of the middle class to another, primarily.
I wish President Obama would stop saying that he’s trying to help the Middle Class. He doesn’t seem to know who the people in the “Middle Class” are and what we need.Precisely. Obama’s policies have helped the very rich, mired the poor in stagnant and inefficient programs that give them subsistence but few opportunities but the Middle Class is truly stuck between, making too much to obtain subsidies but too little to buy an equivalent policy or worse losing their insurance when their employer cuts hours or benefits
Illinois is too deep on the pension issue to be involved with health issues. I don’t know why Illinois chose to split on the Medicare funding. Maybe these short-term politicians making long range decisions are not such a good idea after all.Our State government (Illinois) owes our hospital many millions of dollars in Medicaid payments. We have projects and equipment that are on hold, as well as the hiring of more staff (mainly nursing) because we don’t have the money that we are owed.