Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Health-Care Crisis Endangers Economy

By Jason Leopold, Consortium News. Posted July 6, 2008.


A new report urges policymakers to find a solution to the health-care crisis; long-term fiscal problems may develop if the issue is not addressed.
Advertisement

If the United States does not act soon to address health-care costs, federal and state governments as well as American businesses could face a cascading fiscal crisis with devastating long-term consequences, says a new report by the Government Accountability Office.

In the report entitled, "Long Term Federal Fiscal Challenge Driven Primarily by Health Care," the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, said an immediate "multi-pronged solution" must be pursued before the "window of opportunity" to address the issue closes.

"Rapidly rising health-care costs are not simply a federal budget problem," said the report, prepared by Gene Dodaro, acting U.S. Comptroller General. "Growth in health-related spending is the primary driver of the fiscal challenges facing state and local governments as well.

"Unsustainable growth in health-care spending also threatens to erode the ability of employers to provide coverage to their workers and undercuts their ability to compete in a global marketplace."

Over recent decades, a patchwork U.S. approach to health care has evolved with many employers offering health insurance to workers; federal Medicare covering health costs for the elderly; state Medicaid programs providing limited care for the poor; and tens of millions of Americans uninsured.

By contrast, most industrial countries offer government-funded health insurance paid for through taxes, freeing up businesses from the direct costs and thus allowing them to charge less for their exports.

The GAO report said health-care costs are putting mounting pressure on both U.S. government budgets and the broader economy.

"Federal expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid represent a much larger, faster-growing, and more immediate problem than Social Security," the report said.

"Medicare and Medicaid are not unique in experiencing rapid spending growth, but instead this growth largely mirrors spending trends in other public health-care programs and the overall health-care system. A number of factors contribute to the rise in spending, including the use of new medical technology and market."

Complicating the long-term economic issue for the United States is the fact that for years the federal government has financed federal initiatives with surpluses in Social Security trust funds.

"When such borrowings occur, the Department of the Treasury issues federal securities to these government funds that are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government," the GAO report said.

"Although borrowing by one part of the federal government from another does not have the same economic and financial implications as borrowing from the public, it represents a claim on future resources and hence a burden on future taxpayers and the future economy.

"If federal securities held by those funds are included, the federal government's total debt is much higher -- about $9 trillion as of the end of fiscal year 2007."

Senate Testimony

Last month, before the Senate Finance Committee, Dodaro testified that immediate health-care reform is essential.

Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office who also testified, said "health-care spending is the single most important factor determining the nation's long-term fiscal condition" and added that the U.S. political system is not very good at addressing long-term problems.

"But the problems caused by rising health-care costs are not just long-term ones," Orszag said. "In fact, some of them are already having significant effects on various aspects of our society.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: insurance, obama, mccain, health care reform

Jason Leopold is the former Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires where he spent two years covering the energy crisis and the Enron bankruptcy. He just finished writing a book about the crisis, due out in December through Rowman & Littlefield.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
According to recent studies we're now paying for national health insurance we're just not getting it
Posted by: yellow on Jul 7, 2008 2:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of the nearly $3.5 trillion annually collected in total state, federal and local tax revenues about $1.2 trillion of the $2 trillion spent annually in the US on health care is funded by the government. The 60% of the total annual spending on health care in the US that is government funded pays for medicare, medicaid, the VA, the Indian Health Service, health insurance for government employees and for some private sector employees working for firms with extensive government contracts as well as tax deductions for health care costs. More than one third of tax revenues collected annually go to pay for health care in the US.

The share and amount of income annually going to health care through taxes alone is slightly progressive with those earning $75,000 annually paying about 11% of their income to government health costs and those earning only $25,000 paying about 9%. What is so unjust about this is that so many people at or below the median income have no access to health care despite paying these costs. When the share and amount of total income paid by households with insurance is calculated, the share of income paid in taxes and private insurance premiums becomes steeply regressive with over 37% of income being paid by households earning around $25,000 annually, over 26% for the earning $50,000 and around 22% for those earning $75,000. The further up the income scale the lower the portion of income paid for health care costs.

This doesn't account for all the out of pocket expenses and co-payments of various types nor for those things no covered by the health insurance policy at all. Half of all consumer bankruptcies in the US are caused by high outstanding medical bills. The current fragmented system is costly in terms of administrative waste and high CEO salaries. We need single payer health care now. We're already paying for it with the current cost inefficient system which excludes increasing numbers of people every year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ProfAddictionFuturist
Posted by: ProAddictionsFuturist on Jul 7, 2008 2:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an added complication to the healthcare problems and cost, a virtually invisible factor must be included. Up to 35% of all healthcare costs are very closely related to chemical misuse, dependency, and genetically based addiction. The major portion of these costs remain hidden due to the history of the insurance industry to deny payment or not include adequate coverage. All too frequently, mental health problems involve self-medication with alcohol and illicit chemicals. Here again, is an area that insurance companies are not prone to cover well. The reason: Past experience has shown no clearly identifiable savings and this is a very correct assumption. When we consider that, up to now, the vast majority of "Substance Abuse Treatment Programs" have been using a far too much of an anecdotal approach and little more than a psychosocial model of a 12-Step program as treatment. Long-term outcomes have been very poor and little better than simply getting detoxified and going to some 12-Step program like AA or NA as was done prior to the advent of some measure of formal treatment. Very few treatment programs do long-term outcome studies. Up to 76% of treatment has fallend in to the taxpayer funded "Community Based Treatment Programs." They are historically underfunded with the majority of funding going to the "War on Drugs."
Although there are no accurate statistics that could be termed reliable regarding 12-Step long-term success, it has been estimated as being little better than 15% to 20%. This is about what I suspect would be the outcomes, if studies were done of the Community Based Programs.The cost to healthcare remains hidden in the form of overall general poor health habits, accidents not reported as alcohol or other chemical self-medication related, etc. If accurately reported as alcohol or chemical misuse related, most healthcare policies would not cover the treatment costs. It represents unwise "game-playing" that quality, evidence based, alcohol and chemical dependency treatment should have been dealing with as far back as the 1980s when the insurance industry was forced into managed care. My forecast for the here and now, made in 1986 has been manifested as forecasted. The entire mental health and addictions treatment industry is just now pushing to provide science based (evidence based) treatment that the National Neuroscience and Addictions Research Foundation was calling for back in 1986. The "War on Drugs," and far too much general apathy since then, has put mental health and addictions treatment far behind in the ability to effectively utilize the current scientific
technologies that are rapidly developing within the genetic, epigenetic, and neuroscientific studies fields.The current estimate of $800 billion per year in Gross Domestic Product that can be tied to alcohol and other chemical misuse will very likely dissapear from our economy at a rapid pace when the current use of neuropsychopharmacological products and proposed genetic engineering and actual genetic cures for mental health and chemical misuse are elevated to higher levels of practical use. This must be taken into consideration when looking at any healthcare reforms. If not, our healthcare problems and cost will never be effectively addressed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For gas and food money stop your health payments...
Posted by: Landbaron on Jul 7, 2008 3:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IF YOU HEARD OF A COUNTRY that in 1995 introduced single-payer universal health care, with complete freedom of choice of doctors and no waiting lists, you would expect all the presidential contenders to be beating a path there to find out what was happening. After all, this is not Shangri-la. It is Taiwan, which also offers dental and prescription-drug coverage, and the choice between Chinese traditional or modern medicine, all for just over a third of the proportion of the GDP that the U.S. "system" costs.

But none of the last three remaining major presidential candidates mentioned this highly successful Taiwanese experiment. Indeed, all of them ruled out any single-payer system. To sharpen the irony, the designers of the Taiwanese system scoured the globe for a model, and in the end adopted what they thought was the most promising system to emulate—Medicare in the U.S.A.!
The reason for this political omerta is that ALL THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WANT TO APPEASE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, under whose lobbying aegis the U.S. spends 16 percent of GDP on a health-care "system" that leaves 45 million uninsured and countless millions more underinsured.
The moral of this story is; OBAMA IS A PUPPET BOY!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Elephant in the Room
Posted by: PaulK on Jul 7, 2008 6:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the discussion I read and hear about the health care dilemma pretty much avoids the obvious cause of the problem. It is the hugely expensive type of medical treatment and drug barrage that the words "health care" denote in the U.S.

Other countries almost universally include a variety of options in their covered health care - from traditional and herbal remedies to homeopathy,acupuncture, etc. They also almost all have far lower costs - and far better health results. Our high-tech, high-drug dependent, high-cost system kills or sickens large numbers of people, while less risky, less expensive and, often, proven effective alternatives are excluded from the mix.

Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical, chemical and other corporations profiting from the present state of affairs pretty much control the government, so we won't have any significant improvement until the level of bankruptcy and untreated or exacerbated illness becomes a tide that can't be ignored.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 'club' supermarkets-ie- 'Albertson's sell what you buy
Posted by: Landbaron on Jul 8, 2008 3:40 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a list of the food and non-prescription medicines you buy to the health insurance companies to adjust your rates to ensure profits. Safeway -it said in the Bottom Line- is the only one they know of where you can be an "anonymous" customer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]