Page 59 of the 2002-2003 chapter at
http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/home.htm: "[T]he average U.S.
household allotted 5.9 percent ($2,384) of total spending
for healthcare, with 50.8 percent ($1,210) going for health
insurance premiums... "

So this report suggests that the fraction of family income
spent on healthcare from 1950 to 2003 has not changed much.
This is surprising to me, given all the reports of the
increases in the cost of health care being way out of line
with inflation in the last decade+. I wonder if it's perhaps
due to a much larger pool of people having health insurance
today compared to 1950. Figure 1,
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/t...ance.health.us ,
indicates that about 70 million people in the U.S. had
health insurance in 1950. The U.S. population was about 140
million at this time, so about 50% of the population was
health insured in 1950. The U.S. Census Bureau says that
about 85% of people in the U.S. had health insurance in 2004
(according to Wikipedia). The greater pool spreads the costs
around. So health care billings could rise significantly,
but if the size of the health-insured pool rises at the same
time (and the new members of insurance plan tended to be
healthier than the more senior members), then each family
would not necessarily see a proportionate increase in
premiums. In theory, as the number of folks insured rose,
families could even see a decrease.

The amount of money (1) insurers pay out for claims added to
what (2) people pay out of pocket may yield a different
result. In other words, compare total amount billed (to
insurance companies and indivduals) to per capita income, in
1950 and today, and see if this reflects the many publicized
reports of health care costs being out of control.

Also, the BLS site's use of averages, and not medians, may
be skewing things a great deal.

Otherwise, I am baffled by what the BLS site claims.

I got some numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis website.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/Se...asp?Selected=N

The two table for gov't receipts and expenditures are Table 3.6 and
Table 3.12 (in billions of dollars)

Extracted from Table 3.6
Contibutions for government social insurance
Employer contributions
line 5 Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance ... 280.2
line 6 Hospital insurance ... 79.9
Employee and self-employed contributions
line24 Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance .. 278.1
line25 Hospital insurance ... 82.3


Extracted from Table 3.12
Transfers to persons
Federal
line 6 Hospital and supplementary
medical insurance ....... 332.7
State and local
line32 Medical care ....... 315.0


So, my totals for the above categories show contributions totalling
162.2 for clearly hospital insurance, with 647.7 going out for
not-so-clearly hospital (and supplementary medical insurance, and
medical care). I do not know enough about "old-age, survivors, and
disability insurance" - but if that is added in also, then the total
contributions run 720.5.

These categories above are not as large as what I believe is what we
know as social security, which is around 800 billion going out, and it
is running a deficit.

If we can make the assumptions that private insurance companies will
operate only if they can do so at a surplus, then it seems it is indeed
a good idea to encourage everyone to get some private health insurance
- on a macroeconomic level.

The BLS numbers for healthcare do include health insurance. I checked
their table for the age group 55-65. Average reported numbers for the
entire group are $3,198 a year. That does not include drugs (which is a
smaller number).

By contrast, the comparable number for entertainment was $2,686.

Does anybody buy these numbers?

Here're some preliminary numbers - the BLS page has data on 100 years
of consumer spending.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/home.htm

One thing that jumps out is the expenditure for healthcare. In 1950, it
was about 5.2% of budgets; in 2004 it was about 5.4%. How the data is
compiled, and what the category includes is always important, but in
2004 the category for personal insurance is small (I would assume it
includes health insurance, since there isn't any other place except the
healthcare line, where it could go). The line including social security
is much larger - I didn't see a footnote explaining whether that
included medicare/ medicaid taxes.

(An interesting note, the BLS data says that in 1950 Food was almost
30% of the family budget. And, oh ... from 1901 to 1918 personal income
more than doubled, and 70% of the nation reported a budget surplus ...
maybe explaining in part why the '20's roared.)

In article <1156004355.123698.155800[at]m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> ,
"dapperdobbs" <GeorgeCFL[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

There are two things to consider
a) Can you manage the pay out of say rotator cuff surgery without
bankruptcy

b) can you deal with paying list price versus the 30 - 50% (or more)
discount given to insured patients. I have seen a major teaching
hospital discount a $96K bill (for the rotator cuff surgery) to $12K
because the patient was insured under medicare. Discounts are given to
most of the non - medicare insurers.

What are the macro numbers on health insurance premiums and payouts, in
the private and public (medicare / medicaid) sectors? What are the
differences in pricing between public and private hospitals? Is it
better to pay premiums, or pay cash?

Since future healthcare is a worry for so many, I think it's worth a
topic of it's own - a private room where we can doctor it :-)