We Don't Have a Spending Problem. We Have an Aging Problem.

Single payer system cannot get here fast enough.

 

The math problem is that technology & advances in healthcare are allowing people to live longer at an exorbitant cost to the younger, healthier-non using contributors of the pool.

An extra 3 years of life can easily cost $5 mil. Saw it with my grandfather, RIP. These costs are then paid to the hospital corporations & pharmaceutical companies. Pharma companies regularly pay top dividends to shareholders.

It's toxic to say, but healthcare companies should be nonprofit or at least return profits after operating expenses/R&D to the treasury.

 

What's the solution . . . we cannot stop getting old

Well not the poor people anyway
ILLUMINATI!!!

Rocket River

 

How are other developed nations dealing with this? Single payer system will reduce cost significantly, but plenty Repub/Libertarians type would not go for this, so out healthcare cost as a percentage of the GDP will continue to rise, maybe when it hit 30% something will finally be done.

 

Also has a lot to do with obesity, smoking and overall unhealthy lifestyles of the American people and the major health problems that develop due to those circumstances. Also the fact that Dr's have to run every damned test possible to rule out everything when you go in so that they don't get sued.

 

Au contraire! It's very easy to stop a poor person from getting old.

 

Defense spending is the problem, the solution, and the eventual demise of this empire.

 

Interesting read. I'm not sure if I agree with all parts of the argument though. I think it's a strong variable to consider nonetheless.

Unfortunately, I don't think we can ever recover from the Bush years. I don't blame everything on him, but the amount of money he put into the most idiotic war in history will have life-lasting damage.

 

Those who are negligent with their health begin to have serious problems with their health at a much younger age. Obesity starts affecting the body very quickly. Its very common to start having problems in their 30's. We aren't talking about 300-400lb mammoths, but those who are merely 25%-50% overweight. Its a combo of the stress on the body and poor nutrition.

I do agree that the elderly are burdening the system with new medicine advances that keep them alive longer and extremely expensive. Unfortunately we have this notion that everyone in the country is entitled to the best of everything. Resources and manpower are not unlimited. Treating them so will only bankrupt the system. A single payer system won't give unlimited resources.

 

You're correct. Healthcare costs from obesity start increasing exponentially on people when they hit 30's.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508703/pdf/amjph00008-0050.pdf

Per this article published in 1999, obesity healthcare costs were 5.7% or $52 billion of healthcare spending.

Per this report in 2010, obesity healthcare costs had shot up to 16.7% spending or $167 billion.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w16467


Overall, people in their last 2 to 4 years of life is ~50% of all healthcare expenditures & the demographics are elderly white women accounting for a disproportionate amount.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...made-up-50-of-us-health-care-spending/251402/

Young people demanding a single payor will get it one day but my question is why do you feel like you need to subsidize the older population's health care costs so much? Young people will disproportionately bear the burden of the costs of healthcare and social security since we're underpopulated at the moment for our liabilities IMO.

 

What is the alternative. . . long healthy life is a luxury of the rich?

Obesity contributes as much to the economy.
If everyone was 'fit' and ate right . . . I don't think Hostess would be the only company going out of business

Rocket RIver
Think of the Fast Food Jobs alone . .

 

The article has an obvious logical fallacy: it states that because, in 2017, spending will be at the same level relative to GDP as it was when Reagan made his initial claim that we have a spending problem, the claim is untrue. But nowhere does it prove that the claim was untrue with spending at 22.2% of GDP.

 

Chained CPI

 

The govt is subsidizing the wrong food making junk food & garbage artificially cheaper than the market would bear. Go into a corner store in a poor and predominately minority area and all they have access to is junk food....or watch this clip from the documentary "Weight of the Nation" from HBO to see what our government is allowing in poor neighborhoods:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7MJnm5X9NN0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It's predatory & fueling a crisis. Don't forget, FDA regulates both food & drugs. Food fuels disease---->healthcare needed....conflict of interest?

 

Not to mention the change in GDP
22.2 percent of 100
is quite different than 22.2% of a 1000

We have to see how the GDP has grown as well.

Rocket River

 

Old people promised themselves a bunch of stuff.

 

That's rad. How are those old people going to pay for the stuff when they have no jobs and no more manias?