Healthcare Spending to Double by 2017
As if healthcare spending weren't already a train wreck in the making, it's projected to nearly double by 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced today. That means it'll reach a whopping $4.3 trillion and account for 19.5 percent of our gross domestic product, up from 16.3 percent now.
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe called Campaign Land, the candidates for president propose expanding coverage to some or all of the 47 million who are uninsured. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in particular are talking up huge new programs that they claim would accomplish the laudable goal of making healthcare coverage universal. John McCain's plan is less far reaching, but he, too, proposes improving access to affordable healthcare.
I know that candidates don't like to get bogged down in specifics while they're weaving their spells, but this particular voter is finding it hard to give in to their enchantments while there's this distracting little voice inside saying, "Show me the money."
It's not that the candidates haven't discussed costs. They have. Using the handy side-by-side comparison tool at the Kaiser Family Foundation's election website, I can easily see that Clinton estimates her program will cost $110 billion annually once it's fully phased in, while Obama says his will cost $50 to $65 billion. McCain hasn't yet spelled out what his plan would cost, so it's harder to hold his feet to the fire, at least for now.
The Clinton and Obama campaigns maintain that they've figured out how to pay for their proposals without worsening the deficit. The problem is that given the difficulties we already face—that $4.3 trillion—their mechanisms to finance these programs just aren't very convincing. In addition to discontinuing tax cuts for wealthy Americans and reducing our presence in Iraq, they rely extensively on savings from quality and efficiency improvements within the healthcare system itself. That's like saying you're going to pay for a weight-loss program with the money you'll save on groceries once you're slim. Beefing up prevention and adopting electronic health records do indeed hold out great promise for long-term healthcare savings. But how are we going to pay for them in the here and now?
Tags: healthcare | presidential election 2008 | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | John McCain
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (7) | Print
Reader Comments
End of Life Care
It is common knowledge amongst medical professionals that the last year of one's life is the most medically costly one. As the baby boomers age, develop Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and heart disease, the federal government will be under a huge burden to shift resources to pay for the care all these baby boomers need.
As a society, we need to decide what we can afford. As individuals, do not rely on the government to meet your needs. Social security is an adjunct at best. Medicare will never be able to pay for all these health care needs. As the cost of providing care escalates and Medicare cuts payments to health care providers, more physicians will be opting out of Medicare. Private insurance and long term care insurance are the best we have now. While costly, the cost of not being prepared is going to be higher.
The US sends more (higher percentage of GDP) than any other country on earth, yet by no quantitative measure do we have one of the best health care systems. By every normal measure (longevity, infant mortality, etc.) we rank very low relative to other western countries, so what are we spending all thin money for? Many politicians say we (the American people) don't want a system like Canada, UK or France, now I don't really know if I would or wouldn't want any of those systems but I do know ours isn't even as good as the ones "we don't want".
This situation is a bit like the war in Iraq. All the military specialists tell us we cannot continue to persue this war without seriously effecting our ability to defentd the USA, but we continue doing it anyway. We have been warned for years now that we cannot continue to run our health care system the way that we do without risking bankrupting our country, but we just keep on doing what we are doing. Is it always better to just refuse to make a decision, with the idea that the decision would have to be worse than the way things are. I am a well off guy but even I am shocked at the cost of medical insurance. I can continue to pay my premiums for the forseable future, but I am sure that the many many Amreicans will not be so fortunate.
False dichotomy
This is a false dichotomy argument, typical of the rePublican approach to political discourse. According to you, we are faced with a grim choice: 1) plunge the society further into debt, or 2) do nothing. I can imagine a potential third choice. That would be an integrated approach that includes things like repealing legislation that forbids bulk rate prices for drugs from being negociated, repealing tax cuts where they are not needed, public education campaigns to reduce medically disastrous behavior of individuals, making sure that no one has to rely on a hospital emergency room as their primary care source, spreading medical insurance risk beyond the confines of cherry-picked, for-profit groups. This is off the top of my head. No doubt serious experts can expand the approach. One thing is certain; simply doing nothing is neither a useful, nor a compassionate alternative. Shame on you for trying to frame the issue the way you did.
advertisement
