Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How much to budget for health insurance/expenses in early retirement?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31




    If the ACA goes away, the individual mandate goes away, too. If that happens, we will once again be able to buy non-qualifying health plans without being subject to the penalty.

    I haven’t looked into the options much since a lot can and probably will change before I need to make a decision, but all I really want is coverage that will ensure a giant hospital bill doesn’t wipe out a big chunk of my life savings (think 6-figure or 7-figure bill). I don’t mind paying out of pocket for the “small stuff.” Catastrophic coverage combined with an HSA would be fine by me.
    Click to expand...


    This is the every man for himself mentality that is hurting this country on so many levels.  Of course you'll be fine.  You're already a millionaire in your 40's.  But, what about everyone else in your community?  How are we going to care for them if they show up in the ER with catastrophic problems because they couldn't afford the small preventative stuff and they can't afford any of the care they receive?  And as mentioned, without the protection of the ACA you could be unable to purchase insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
    There's a reason we have out of control health care costs in this country compared to every other nation in the world and it's because of the fact that we're the only country that doesn't have single-payer, universal healthcare programs.  Everyone pays a tax and everyone gets insurance.

    Here we are sitting on a forum with other wealthy people worrying about how we're going to pay for ourselves and basically ignoring the fact that millions and millions of our fellow citizens are going to be completely screwed and unable to afford anything.

    Comment


    • #32










      If the ACA goes away, the individual mandate goes away, too. If that happens, we will once again be able to buy non-qualifying health plans without being subject to the penalty.

      I haven’t looked into the options much since a lot can and probably will change before I need to make a decision, but all I really want is coverage that will ensure a giant hospital bill doesn’t wipe out a big chunk of my life savings (think 6-figure or 7-figure bill). I don’t mind paying out of pocket for the “small stuff.” Catastrophic coverage combined with an HSA would be fine by me.


      I’m sure most of us are fine with the HDHP/HSA setup (“catastrophic coverage”) only.  In fact, that’s the only arrangement that truly constitutes insurance in the healthcare market.  Insurance, after all, is a product you buy to protect yourself financially against a high-impact/low-probability event, such a serious injury or illness that could devastate one’s savings.

      The “small stuff” are just routine, common medical expenses that ALL of us should pay out of pocket.  As doctors, we can often get these things taken care of more cheaply anyway.

      I agree that the ACA has wrecked the individual insurance market and its repeal might once again mean that a couple in their 50s can buy their own insurance without having to pay for others’ guaranteed issue rating and unneeded coverages (infertility, maternity, etc).

       
      Click to expand…


      For many couples in their 50s, at least one spouse/partner will have a pre-existing condition, currently or eventually. Without the ACA (or similar substitute), they probably won’t be able to purchase insurance at all. They will be dropped.
      Click to expand...


      Insurance requires cost being commensurate with risk in order to have a functioning and healthy market.  You can't de-couple the two.  You certainly would expect for example to pay more for life insurance at age 60 than you would for the equivalent policy at age 30, due to the higher risk of death that comes with advancing age.

      With regard to "pre-existing conditions" in medical coverage, I understand it's a sticky and sensitive problem.  On one hand it seems unfair to make someone uninsurable (at least in terms of affordability) because they've had past medical problems.  On the other hand, guaranteed issue encourages people to wait until they're sick to buy insurance, since it costs them nothing extra for that delayed policy.  It also shifts those extra costs (they don't "disappear" because congress passes a law!) to healthy people.

      Let's just be honest about what the trade-offs are here because it isn't "free".

       

      Comment


      • #33







        If the ACA goes away, the individual mandate goes away, too. If that happens, we will once again be able to buy non-qualifying health plans without being subject to the penalty.

        I haven’t looked into the options much since a lot can and probably will change before I need to make a decision, but all I really want is coverage that will ensure a giant hospital bill doesn’t wipe out a big chunk of my life savings (think 6-figure or 7-figure bill). I don’t mind paying out of pocket for the “small stuff.” Catastrophic coverage combined with an HSA would be fine by me.
        Click to expand…


        This is the every man for himself mentality that is hurting this country on so many levels.  Of course you’ll be fine.  You’re already a millionaire in your 40’s.  But, what about everyone else in your community?  How are we going to care for them if they show up in the ER with catastrophic problems because they couldn’t afford the small preventative stuff and they can’t afford any of the care they receive?  And as mentioned, without the protection of the ACA you could be unable to purchase insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
        There’s a reason we have out of control health care costs in this country compared to every other nation in the world and it’s because of the fact that we’re the only country that doesn’t have single-payer, universal healthcare programs.  Everyone pays a tax and everyone gets insurance.

        Here we are sitting on a forum with other wealthy people worrying about how we’re going to pay for ourselves and basically ignoring the fact that millions and millions of our fellow citizens are going to be completely screwed and unable to afford anything.
        Click to expand...


        Ahhhhh, the same failed arguments used to justify the ACA passage are being resurrected.

        We were told that covering more people (magically for "free"!) would actually save money because they would get preventative health care and avoid expensive ER visits.  This turned out to be a false hope.  There's no  credible evidence that the individual mandate or expanded Medicaid and ACA-exchange coverages have altered ER-usage in any way.  They certainly haven't reduced costs--quite to the contrary actually.

        Its obvious you are a single-payer, government run healthcare advocate and that's fine.  Just don't misrepresent what that means, including the negatives.  Single payer healthcare:

        • is NOT "insurance".  It's a government program and those don't have a very good track record.  See the VA

        • is NOT "free".  The costs are merely hidden and shifted via greatly increased taxation.

        • covers everyone by trading away choice, convenience, responsiveness, and innovation.  Economists call this phenomenon "rationing by queue" instead of "rationing by price".  Remove the profit motive and you also remove a lot of other things too.


        Lets just be honest about the pros and cons.

        Comment


        • #34
          Well from what I can understand from reading several articles in the WSJ this morning is that the proposals on Pre-existing conditions should not effect anyone who has had unbroken coverage.  Just like pre-ACA times continuous coverage no problem.  This change is to prevent "free riders" who take out coverage only when sick.

          Comment


          • #35


            This is the every man for himself mentality that is hurting this country on so many levels. Of course you’ll be fine. You’re already a millionaire in your 40’s. But, what about everyone else in your community?
            Click to expand...


            The question was how much we plan to budget for our own healthcare in early retirement. How to work with the current and potential future landscape for the purposes of saving and budgeting appropriately and making sure ourselves and immediate family has adequate healthcare coverage.

            That's the question I'm trying to answer, not how to provide healthcare to 300 million people. That discussion could be a separate and quite interesting discussion in a forum thread of its own.

             

             

            Comment


            • #36
              POF I just checked the boglehead discussion.  It appears that there is no good answer at present.  We just have to wait and see.  I personally cannot get my "unearned" income below the cutoff for subsidies or even the 0% cap gains rate.  Unless you have an undiversified portfolio of all BRK.B it would be hard.  Also I think the subsidies on the ACA (or whatever it is called) will be decreased and your net worth considered.  I am ruling out medical tourism and immigration.

              Comment


              • #37




                I personally cannot get my “unearned” income below the cutoff for subsidies or even the 0% cap gains rate. Unless you have an undiversified portfolio of all BRK.B it would be hard. Also I think the subsidies on the ACA (or whatever it is called) will be decreased and your net worth considered.
                Click to expand...


                I agree.

                Trying to game the system in order to get under the limit and qualify for ACA subsidies is not what it was meant for.

                It will mean rearranging our investments not on overall financial return but on how to make it get under the wire for ACA subsidies that may not be wise. Also, the more the people who do this the more the chances that the rules will change and something else like net worth considered. So do we rearrange our investments differently now because the subsidy is no longer there?

                Let us be honest, our medical insurance system is all out of whack. Everyone is trying to see how they can get the best possible care paying the least amount of premiums. And many of us end up having a terrible insurance with high costs and ever rising premiums.As a nation we need to stop putting more band aids and start with something that will work well in the long run.

                 

                Comment


                • #38





                  This is the every man for himself mentality that is hurting this country on so many levels. Of course you’ll be fine. You’re already a millionaire in your 40’s. But, what about everyone else in your community? 
                  Click to expand…


                  The question was how much we plan to budget for our own healthcare in early retirement. How to work with the current and potential future landscape for the purposes of saving and budgeting appropriately and making sure ourselves and immediate family has adequate healthcare coverage.

                  That’s the question I’m trying to answer, not how to provide healthcare to 300 million people. That discussion could be a separate and quite interesting discussion in a forum thread of its own.

                   

                   
                  Click to expand...


                  I completely agree. We who consider early retirement (defined here as retirement before Medicare age) are in the position of planning for an uncertain future, one that could be very costly...or perhaps not as costly as we anticipate. The earlier the early retirement is, the greater the level of uncertainty.

                  Early retirement for those with finite resources requires a budget, and it is virtually impossible to have clarity when arriving at how much to budget for health care in two years, let alone 10 or 20 years. As a starting point, perhaps $25k per year for a married couple in the 50's is realistic. If you have overallocated, great, maybe you can take a vacation (or use the excess for dental work ).

                  More to the point, as PoF implied earlier in the thread, if relatively affluent people cannot afford to not work, how can middle income people avoid working for The Man until age 65 (if not beyond)?

                  Comment


                  • #39










                    If the ACA goes away, the individual mandate goes away, too. If that happens, we will once again be able to buy non-qualifying health plans without being subject to the penalty.

                    I haven’t looked into the options much since a lot can and probably will change before I need to make a decision, but all I really want is coverage that will ensure a giant hospital bill doesn’t wipe out a big chunk of my life savings (think 6-figure or 7-figure bill). I don’t mind paying out of pocket for the “small stuff.” Catastrophic coverage combined with an HSA would be fine by me.
                    Click to expand…


                    This is the every man for himself mentality that is hurting this country on so many levels.  Of course you’ll be fine.  You’re already a millionaire in your 40’s.  But, what about everyone else in your community?  How are we going to care for them if they show up in the ER with catastrophic problems because they couldn’t afford the small preventative stuff and they can’t afford any of the care they receive?  And as mentioned, without the protection of the ACA you could be unable to purchase insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
                    There’s a reason we have out of control health care costs in this country compared to every other nation in the world and it’s because of the fact that we’re the only country that doesn’t have single-payer, universal healthcare programs.  Everyone pays a tax and everyone gets insurance.

                    Here we are sitting on a forum with other wealthy people worrying about how we’re going to pay for ourselves and basically ignoring the fact that millions and millions of our fellow citizens are going to be completely screwed and unable to afford anything.
                    Click to expand…


                    Ahhhhh, the same failed arguments used to justify the ACA passage are being resurrected.

                    We were told that covering more people (magically for “free”!) would actually save money because they would get preventative health care and avoid expensive ER visits.  This turned out to be a false hope.  There’s no  credible evidence that the individual mandate or expanded Medicaid and ACA-exchange coverages have altered ER-usage in any way.  They certainly haven’t reduced costs–quite to the contrary actually.

                    Its obvious you are a single-payer, government run healthcare advocate and that’s fine.  Just don’t misrepresent what that means, including the negatives.  Single payer healthcare:

                    • is NOT “insurance”.  It’s a government program and those don’t have a very good track record.  See the VA

                    • is NOT “free”.  The costs are merely hidden and shifted via greatly increased taxation.

                    • covers everyone by trading away choice, convenience, responsiveness, and innovation.  Economists call this phenomenon “rationing by queue” instead of “rationing by price”.  Remove the profit motive and you also remove a lot of other things too.


                    Lets just be honest about the pros and cons.
                    Click to expand...


                    The ACA is not in anyway shape or form what I'm calling for.  It's a failed plan because it tries to mimic universal healthcare perks in a private insurance environment.  I know very well what single-payer, government run healthcare means and I am in no way trying to be dishonest about the pros or cons.

                    Of course it's not free (no ************************), it's paid for by taxes. Taxation is a much more reliable way to get everyone paying their fair share of the costs.  And it would not necessarily need to be "greatly increased taxes." Your arguments about giving up choice, convenience, responsiveness, innovation, etc are absolute garbage.  That's always the first thing opponents say when you mention government run healthcare.  Explain to me then how it is that the entire rest of the world uses universal healthcare in one way or another.  I'm sorry, but they are not all miserable and unhealthy.  I refuse to believe that the US is the only place in the world where you can get good healthcare.  It is, however, the only place in the world where you can go bankrupt and have your entire life ruined if you get sick.  Way to go USA!  And we're still not very healthy here if you haven't noticed.

                    And you think you don't have to wait for healthcare here?  HA! You do if you can't afford it.  I see it all the time.  "Need a knee replacement?  Oh, your insurance won't pay for it or you can't afford the deductible?  Sorry, go home and take ibuprofen until you die of a GI bleed."

                    Rationing by price is another way of saying "screw you if you're not rich."  Which is exactly what people like Mitch McConnell and his posse want.

                    You may not like the idea of having to pay more in taxes so that less fortunate people can receive decent healthcare, but it's the only logical solution that actually helps everyone.  That's why so far, the republicans haven't been able to come up with a plan that doesn't involve screwing millions of people out of health insurance.  And the democrat's plan failed simply because it didn't create an actual universal healthcare system.  Next time they need to go for the jugular and get the job done...Medicare for all.

                     

                    Comment


                    • #40




                      This is a question for early retirees and aspiring early retirees. Health insurance is a turbulent marketplace with ever-changing rules and ever-rising prices. How much are you budgeting for health insurance (and, more generally, health expenses, like deductibles and copays, dental work, vision, etc.), how did you arrive at this number, and how confident are you in your projections?

                      Edit: Planners, feel free to contribute to this, too.
                      Click to expand...


                      I would just use what I spent on it last year and adjust for inflation. Premiums are $1200 a month and the max out of pocket per year is about $10K a year. So $20K a year seems like enough to me.
                      Helping those who wear the white coat get a fair shake on Wall Street since 2011

                      Comment


                      • #41













                        If the ACA goes away, the individual mandate goes away, too. If that happens, we will once again be able to buy non-qualifying health plans without being subject to the penalty.

                        I haven’t looked into the options much since a lot can and probably will change before I need to make a decision, but all I really want is coverage that will ensure a giant hospital bill doesn’t wipe out a big chunk of my life savings (think 6-figure or 7-figure bill). I don’t mind paying out of pocket for the “small stuff.” Catastrophic coverage combined with an HSA would be fine by me.
                        Click to expand…


                        This is the every man for himself mentality that is hurting this country on so many levels.  Of course you’ll be fine.  You’re already a millionaire in your 40’s.  But, what about everyone else in your community?  How are we going to care for them if they show up in the ER with catastrophic problems because they couldn’t afford the small preventative stuff and they can’t afford any of the care they receive?  And as mentioned, without the protection of the ACA you could be unable to purchase insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
                        There’s a reason we have out of control health care costs in this country compared to every other nation in the world and it’s because of the fact that we’re the only country that doesn’t have single-payer, universal healthcare programs.  Everyone pays a tax and everyone gets insurance.

                        Here we are sitting on a forum with other wealthy people worrying about how we’re going to pay for ourselves and basically ignoring the fact that millions and millions of our fellow citizens are going to be completely screwed and unable to afford anything.
                        Click to expand…


                        Ahhhhh, the same failed arguments used to justify the ACA passage are being resurrected.

                        We were told that covering more people (magically for “free”!) would actually save money because they would get preventative health care and avoid expensive ER visits.  This turned out to be a false hope.  There’s no  credible evidence that the individual mandate or expanded Medicaid and ACA-exchange coverages have altered ER-usage in any way.  They certainly haven’t reduced costs–quite to the contrary actually.

                        Its obvious you are a single-payer, government run healthcare advocate and that’s fine.  Just don’t misrepresent what that means, including the negatives.  Single payer healthcare:

                        • is NOT “insurance”.  It’s a government program and those don’t have a very good track record.  See the VA

                        • is NOT “free”.  The costs are merely hidden and shifted via greatly increased taxation.

                        • covers everyone by trading away choice, convenience, responsiveness, and innovation.  Economists call this phenomenon “rationing by queue” instead of “rationing by price”.  Remove the profit motive and you also remove a lot of other things too.


                        Lets just be honest about the pros and cons.
                        Click to expand…


                        The ACA is not in anyway shape or form what I’m calling for.  It’s a failed plan because it tries to mimic universal healthcare perks in a private insurance environment.  I know very well what single-payer, government run healthcare means and I am in no way trying to be dishonest about the pros or cons.

                        Of course it’s not free (no ************************), it’s paid for by taxes. Taxation is a much more reliable way to get everyone paying their fair share of the costs.  And it would not necessarily need to be “greatly increased taxes.” Your arguments about giving up choice, convenience, responsiveness, innovation, etc are absolute garbage.  That’s always the first thing opponents say when you mention government run healthcare.  Explain to me then how it is that the entire rest of the world uses universal healthcare in one way or another.  I’m sorry, but they are not all miserable and unhealthy.  I refuse to believe that the US is the only place in the world where you can get good healthcare.  It is, however, the only place in the world where you can go bankrupt and have your entire life ruined if you get sick.  Way to go USA!  And we’re still not very healthy here if you haven’t noticed.

                        And you think you don’t have to wait for healthcare here?  HA! You do if you can’t afford it.  I see it all the time.  “Need a knee replacement?  Oh, your insurance won’t pay for it or you can’t afford the deductible?  Sorry, go home and take ibuprofen until you die of a GI bleed.”

                        Rationing by price is another way of saying “screw you if you’re not rich.”  Which is exactly what people like Mitch McConnell and his posse want.

                        You may not like the idea of having to pay more in taxes so that less fortunate people can receive decent healthcare, but it’s the only logical solution that actually helps everyone.  That’s why so far, the republicans haven’t been able to come up with a plan that doesn’t involve screwing millions of people out of health insurance.  And the democrat’s plan failed simply because it didn’t create an actual universal healthcare system.  Next time they need to go for the jugular and get the job done…Medicare for all.

                         
                        Click to expand...


                        "Rationing by price" is the way the EVERY good and service is distributed in a market economy.  Everything from hot dogs to toothpaste to automobiles to refrigerator repair.  You want "more" of something (quantitatively or qualitatively), you pay more.  If you pay less, you get less.  Saying flowery things like  "healthcare is a right" (or education or housing or whatever) in Sanders-esque fashion does not change the fact that all these things are baskets of goods and services that do not exist in unlimited or inexhaustible supply.  EVERYTHING is rationed in some form.  This is Econ 101.

                        Taxation in countries with socialized healthcare IS much higher so don't kid yourself that the difference is trivial.  It isn't.  Not only does high taxation negatively affect the individual's bottom line, it also tends to depress economic growth (which would also tend to depress one's investment returns as well).  Everything in life is a trade-off and there is no free lunch in the real world.

                        "Medicare for all" sounds fantastic, doesn't it?  Are you aware of the massive actuarial shortfalls currently afflicting Medicare-just-for-seniors?  They dwarf those involving SS.  And of course the CBO estimates from decades back of what Medicare would later cost ended up as usual being off by huge orders of magnitude.  Turns out, when you subsidize something (or hide/shift it's cost), people tend to demand more and costs rise far faster than anticipated.  Again, Econ 101.

                        The "rest of the world" with government run healthcare of course drafts off the innovation of American companies.  The vast majority of new drug and medical device innovation starts in the US.  Yes, our systematic expenses are higher as a result.  Average wait time for an MRI in Canada (itself a 1st world country) is 6 months.  We treat lots of Canadians where I work who come here for their knee replacements, for example.  Would they fly 1000 miles and pay a ton of money if they could get the exact same thing with no wait for "free" at home?  Don't think so.

                        I'm merely pointing out what the trade-offs are for "universal single-payer".  It's not the panacea those head-in-the-clouds people think it is.  Reality has a funny way of intervening.

                         

                        Comment


                        • #42
















                          If the ACA goes away, the individual mandate goes away, too. If that happens, we will once again be able to buy non-qualifying health plans without being subject to the penalty.

                          I haven’t looked into the options much since a lot can and probably will change before I need to make a decision, but all I really want is coverage that will ensure a giant hospital bill doesn’t wipe out a big chunk of my life savings (think 6-figure or 7-figure bill). I don’t mind paying out of pocket for the “small stuff.” Catastrophic coverage combined with an HSA would be fine by me.
                          Click to expand…


                          This is the every man for himself mentality that is hurting this country on so many levels.  Of course you’ll be fine.  You’re already a millionaire in your 40’s.  But, what about everyone else in your community?  How are we going to care for them if they show up in the ER with catastrophic problems because they couldn’t afford the small preventative stuff and they can’t afford any of the care they receive?  And as mentioned, without the protection of the ACA you could be unable to purchase insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
                          There’s a reason we have out of control health care costs in this country compared to every other nation in the world and it’s because of the fact that we’re the only country that doesn’t have single-payer, universal healthcare programs.  Everyone pays a tax and everyone gets insurance.

                          Here we are sitting on a forum with other wealthy people worrying about how we’re going to pay for ourselves and basically ignoring the fact that millions and millions of our fellow citizens are going to be completely screwed and unable to afford anything.
                          Click to expand…


                          Ahhhhh, the same failed arguments used to justify the ACA passage are being resurrected.

                          We were told that covering more people (magically for “free”!) would actually save money because they would get preventative health care and avoid expensive ER visits.  This turned out to be a false hope.  There’s no  credible evidence that the individual mandate or expanded Medicaid and ACA-exchange coverages have altered ER-usage in any way.  They certainly haven’t reduced costs–quite to the contrary actually.

                          Its obvious you are a single-payer, government run healthcare advocate and that’s fine.  Just don’t misrepresent what that means, including the negatives.  Single payer healthcare:

                          • is NOT “insurance”.  It’s a government program and those don’t have a very good track record.  See the VA

                          • is NOT “free”.  The costs are merely hidden and shifted via greatly increased taxation.

                          • covers everyone by trading away choice, convenience, responsiveness, and innovation.  Economists call this phenomenon “rationing by queue” instead of “rationing by price”.  Remove the profit motive and you also remove a lot of other things too.


                          Lets just be honest about the pros and cons.
                          Click to expand…


                          The ACA is not in anyway shape or form what I’m calling for.  It’s a failed plan because it tries to mimic universal healthcare perks in a private insurance environment.  I know very well what single-payer, government run healthcare means and I am in no way trying to be dishonest about the pros or cons.

                          Of course it’s not free (no ************************), it’s paid for by taxes. Taxation is a much more reliable way to get everyone paying their fair share of the costs.  And it would not necessarily need to be “greatly increased taxes.” Your arguments about giving up choice, convenience, responsiveness, innovation, etc are absolute garbage.  That’s always the first thing opponents say when you mention government run healthcare.  Explain to me then how it is that the entire rest of the world uses universal healthcare in one way or another.  I’m sorry, but they are not all miserable and unhealthy.  I refuse to believe that the US is the only place in the world where you can get good healthcare.  It is, however, the only place in the world where you can go bankrupt and have your entire life ruined if you get sick.  Way to go USA!  And we’re still not very healthy here if you haven’t noticed.

                          And you think you don’t have to wait for healthcare here?  HA! You do if you can’t afford it.  I see it all the time.  “Need a knee replacement?  Oh, your insurance won’t pay for it or you can’t afford the deductible?  Sorry, go home and take ibuprofen until you die of a GI bleed.”

                          Rationing by price is another way of saying “screw you if you’re not rich.”  Which is exactly what people like Mitch McConnell and his posse want.

                          You may not like the idea of having to pay more in taxes so that less fortunate people can receive decent healthcare, but it’s the only logical solution that actually helps everyone.  That’s why so far, the republicans haven’t been able to come up with a plan that doesn’t involve screwing millions of people out of health insurance.  And the democrat’s plan failed simply because it didn’t create an actual universal healthcare system.  Next time they need to go for the jugular and get the job done…Medicare for all.

                           
                          Click to expand…


                          “Rationing by price” is the way the EVERY good and service is distributed in a market economy.  Everything from hot dogs to toothpaste to automobiles to refrigerator repair.  You want “more” of something (quantitatively or qualitatively), you pay more.  If you pay less, you get less.  Saying flowery things like  “healthcare is a right” (or education or housing or whatever) in Sanders-esque fashion does not change the fact that all these things are baskets of goods and services that do not exist in unlimited or inexhaustible supply.  EVERYTHING is rationed in some form.  This is Econ 101.

                          Taxation in countries with socialized healthcare IS much higher so don’t kid yourself that the difference is trivial.  It isn’t.  Not only does high taxation negatively affect the individual’s bottom line, it also tends to depress economic growth (which would also tend to depress one’s investment returns as well).  Everything in life is a trade-off and there is no free lunch in the real world.

                          “Medicare for all” sounds fantastic, doesn’t it?  Are you aware of the massive actuarial shortfalls currently afflicting Medicare-just-for-seniors?  They dwarf those involving SS.  And of course the CBO estimates from decades back of what Medicare would later cost ended up as usual being off by huge orders of magnitude.  Turns out, when you subsidize something (or hide/shift it’s cost), people tend to demand more and costs rise far faster than anticipated.  Again, Econ 101.

                          The “rest of the world” with government run healthcare of course drafts off the innovation of American companies.  The vast majority of new drug and medical device innovation starts in the US.  Yes, our systematic expenses are higher as a result.  Average wait time for an MRI in Canada (itself a 1st world country) is 6 months.  We treat lots of Canadians where I work who come here for their knee replacements, for example.  Would they fly 1000 miles and pay a ton of money if they could get the exact same thing with no wait for “free” at home?  Don’t think so.

                          I’m merely pointing out what the trade-offs are for “universal single-payer”.  It’s not the panacea those head-in-the-clouds people think it is.  Reality has a funny way of intervening.

                           
                          Click to expand...


                          American healthcare subsidizes other countries, especially since we pay the majority of pharmaceutical prices. This is a very complicated issue, and despite how we'd like to put it into a neat box that benefits everyone, it does not. Trade offs are the rule of the universe.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Yep.  Same can be said of military/defense costs.

                            That's the price paid for being the "indispensable nation" and the richest large country in the world.  The GDP per capita of Arkansas is the same as that of the entire nation of France and Arkansas is one of the poorest US states.

                            Perspective

                            Comment


                            • #44




                              Do you have any idea how the PetroDollar system works?

                              Do you know why we invade countries and send carrier groups here and there?

                              Do you know why we have the biggest miltary budget and how it is financed?

                              Do you realize what is at stake right now in the Middle East? The great changes afoot?

                              Do you realize what will happen when PetroDollar recycling has to share the market with PetroYuan recycling?

                              This weekend will be the second of four consecutive weekends the Shanghai Exchange is running tests on the RMB crude futures contract. July 8th and 9th will be the 4th weekend. Guess what starts July 10th? Even more plumbing will be put in place for a PetroYuan recycle.

                              “Hong Kong Futures Exchange Limited (“the Exchange”) is pleased to announce that the Securities
                              and Futures Commission (SFC) has approved the introduction of the physically settled USD and
                              CNH Gold Futures1
                              (“Gold Futures Contracts”). The trading of the Gold Futures Contracts will
                              commence on Monday 10 July 2017 (“Commencement Date”).
                              The Gold Futures Contracts are introduced as the first dual-currency commodity futures with a
                              physical settlement feature and aim to establish a local price benchmark in Hong Kong. As new
                              additions to the Exchange’s commodities product suite, the Gold Futures Contracts will provide
                              more tools to address investors’ trading, hedging and risk management needs for asset allocation
                              and portfolio management.”
                              Click to expand...


                              This thread is about healthcare costs.

                              Could you please confine your tinfoil-hat rants to your own threads?  Howl at the moon there instead.

                              Thank you

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X