Health Costs and History

[Freedom4all]

From the WSJ:

Health Costs and History
Government programs always exceed their spending estimates.

In 1965, Congressional budgeters said that it would cost $12 billion in 1990. Its actual cost that year was $90 billion. Whoops. The hospitalization program alone was supposed to cost $9 billion but wound up costing $67 billion.

These aren't small forecasting errors.

The rate of increase in Medicare spending has outpaced overall inflation in nearly every year (up 9.8% in 2009), so a program that began at $4 billion now costs $428 billion.

The Medicare program for renal disease was originally estimated in 1973 to cover 11,000 participants. Today it covers 395,000, at a cost of $22 billion. The 1988 Medicare home-care benefit was supposed to cost $4 billion by 1993, but the actual cost was $10 billion, because many more people participated than expected. This is nearly always the case with government programs because their entitlement nature—accepting everyone who meets the age or income limits—means there's no fixed annual budget.

 

[Freedom4all]

The lesson here is that spending on nearly all federal benefit programs grow relentlessly once they are established. This history won't stop Democrats bent on ramming their entitlement into law. But every Member who votes for it is guaranteeing larger deficits and higher taxes far into the future. Count on it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

One factor in the forecast errors (is that ever an understatement) is the impossibility of estimating the cost of future technological advances and the effect they have on longevity. More people living longer (on average) using more expensive medical technology/procedures leads to large errors in the forecasting.

The bottom line is that people want the best medical care money can buy when they need it for themselves or a loved one (just look at the medical coverage for Congress) but don't want to pay for it themselves - let the insurance company, the government, the rich, the employer, etc pay the bill.

A quick anecdote - my wife has relatives in the UK. Back in the 80's and 90's the desired corporate perk for mid-level management was a company car. Now it's private health insurance so they can escape the national system.

Jim

 

[tech2101]

(just look at the medical coverage for Congress)
Jim

Congress has the same system as all Federal Employees. They have a choice between several carriers like BCBS, AETNA, GEHA, etc...

The cost for the plan for a family that chose BCBS (standard option) is about $185.06 (bi-weekly). That does not include Dental and Vision. If you elect to purchase it, the cost would be an additional $43.23 (bi-weekly). It is good coverage, but not as good as what most airlines used to offer (mine was free for the entire time I was with NWA). The rates for Federal Employees using the BCBS plan increased 13% from 2008 to 2009. They are going to increase again by approximately 10% in 2010 over the 2009 rates. No increase in coverage (actually some previously covered expenses are being limited or dropped).

The one thing Congress does enjoy that other Federal Employees do not is the on site clinic and pharmacy.

"Under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) --
available to members of Congress and nine million other federal
workers, retirees and dependents -- health-care plans are offered in
competition with current fee-for-service and health maintenance
organization options"
http://www.ncpa.org/health/pdh73.html"

The main website of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program :
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/index.asp

Link

 

[BoeingBoy]

They have a choice between several carriers like BCBS, AETNA, GEHA, etc...

10 nationwide plans to be exact - when was the last time your employer offered more than 1 or 2 in your state? All those choices allow coveraged to be tailored on one's specific needs or desires much more than the choices available to most non-federal workers. No "pre-existing condition" exceptions. No coverage limits.

The one thing Congress does enjoy that other Federal Employees do not is the on site clinic and pharmacy.

Don't forget special access to Washington's federal health facilities - Bethesda and the Walter Reed. Reserved parking and free outpatient care.

And that on-site clinic and pharmacy. Most workers would gladly pay $42 per month to have the services available there as their only health coverage - doctors that come to you 24/7, physical therapy, x-rays, minor surgery, specialists, and that pharmacy. Heck, I pay $50/mo copay for one medication - I'd love to just get all my and my wife's prescriptions filled for $42/month. She's already hit the BCBS max limit so her's are all out of pocket (oh, that's right - the plans available to Congress don't have limits).

Don't know when you left NW but when I retired from US I was paying more per month for BCBS than those in Congress do. When I retired, there was no retiree medical provided - Congressmen/women get to continue theirs after 4-5 years on the job.

For some reason, I don't think that those in Congress will give up their plans to go on whatever they pass for the rest of us. Do you?

Jim

 

[tech2101]

For some reason, I don't think that those in Congress will give up their plans to go on whatever they pass for the rest of us. Do you?
Jim

I am not sure what you mean. They are not taking anything away from those that already have insurance coverage. I am not sure anyone can really say for sure what this thing will look like when the President signs it. I am for competition for the insurance carriers. How that comes about is like talking about abortion...

When I was replaced during the strike at NWA (8/2005), I don't remember what we were paying, if anything. I have tried to put that behind me. We had a great contract under the IAM, and then AMFA. One of my former co-workers (Kev) may be able to enlighten me as to what we were paying, if anything.

Back on the subject,

I agree, Federal Employees and their dependents enjoy good coverage. All nine-million of them. That is one of the things that attracts people to go to work in civil/public service. It is not the pay or the great recognition that they get...(I am not including members of Congress in that group) and no, Congress will not change the OPM rules on the FEHBP.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I am not sure what you mean.

What I meant was:

no, Congress will not change the OPM rules on the FEHBP.

While the insurance coverage for members of Congress is largely the same as for all federal workers, there are extra perks only available to members of Congress. Whatever comes out of all this talk about health coverage reform, I can say with 99.99% certainty is that members of Congress will be able to keep what they have instead of going on whatever any reform makes available to the average employee in this country.

Jim

 

[tech2101]

What I meant was:



While the insurance coverage for members of Congress is largely the same as for all federal workers, there are extra perks only available to members of Congress. Whatever comes out of all this talk about health coverage reform, I can say with 99.99% certainty is that members of Congress will be able to keep what they have instead of going on whatever any reform makes available to the average employee in this country.

Jim

We are on the same page.

Congress will never vote to rid themselves of the perquisites they currently enjoy.

 

[Seatacus]

perquisites

you made me look up that word. you could have just said "perks". what up with that :unsure:

 

[BoeingBoy]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have any answers. I don't trust the government to run health care and stay within any kind of cost estimates. I don't trust the insurance/drug/medical device companys to do what's in the public interest (that isn't their CEO's job anyway), I don't trust a significant portion of the population to stop sueing someone/anyone/everyone when something goes wrong when it couldn't have been prevented. In the longer run I can't see anything but rationing of health care - it'll just become too expensive to give everyone whatever they want and John Q Public ends up paying the bill whether directly or indirectly.

Heck, I look at just Medicare and SS and wonder what the future holds since I represent the statistal profile that's coming in a few years - each recipient's benefits (Me) paid for by two workers (my 2 kids). The cost of the governments promises to my generation is more than my kids should have to bare. Throw in the other costs of government (at all levels) and they'll have to be making what are now considered high incomes just to get by.

Jim

 

[tech2101]

you made me look up that word. you could have just said "perks". what up with that :unsure:

Using proper grammar, language, and spelling is a lost art in our computer and cell phone society. I try and do my part to write in complete sentences using proper grammar and spelling. I try to set an example for the children. Do I make mistakes? Yes, but I do try.

Maybe I am just getting old...

My apologies for the thread drift.

 

[southwind]

Just don't be lettin' it happen again, Tech ! For the chilldrents sake ! :blink:

 

[tech2101]

Just don't be lettin' it happen again, Tech ! For the chilldrents sake ! :blink:

Thank you for reinforcing my point so eloquently.

 

[delldude]

We are on the same page.

Congress will never vote to rid themselves of the perquisites they currently enjoy.

Tell me then.....why as we seem to have differing views of the political spectrum.... it now seems we agree here.....to some extent......and then............why do you and I and others vote for these clowns who sell this to us?
Is it right to tolerate their perks over ours?
Or do you agree they are 'entitled' to it as we are not?
What do you plan to do to deal with this abrogation of power?

 

[tech2101]

Tell me then.....why as we seem to have differing views of the political spectrum.... it now seems we agree here.....to some extent......and then............why do you and I and others vote for these clowns who sell this to us?
Is it right to tolerate their perks over ours?
Or do you agree they are 'entitled' to it as we are not?
What do you plan to do to deal with this abrogation of power?

As I stated. They will not vote to rid Federal Government employees of the benefits they currently enjoy.

I went on strike to stop the erosion of pay/benefits for the AMT trade.

Do you want wholesale lowering of benefits for the entire government workforce to make you feel better?