$600 billion plus: Estimated amount
needed to fund healthcare this year.
Source: White House *
Add a Comment Suggest a Solution Submit Research
del.icio.us
digg
twitter
facebook
newsvine
print
emailRecent Comments About $600 Billion
Yet i still can't get health
Yet i still can't get health care as a single guy
By Michael : July 22, 5:40pm
Look i dont have health
Look i dont have health insurance because i cannot afford it. i hope that the gov. can make that easier 4 people like me
By Melody : July 22, 10:15pm
You get little? Do you have
You get little? Do you have an annual physical? Access to vaccines, preventive medicine, drugs, emergency room care, well-educated doctors and nurses...
By Peter F : December 7, 5:21am
Comments
Submitted by Melody : July 23, 2:15am
Look i dont have health insurance because i cannot afford it. i hope that the gov. can make that easier 4 people like me
Submitted by Michael : July 22, 9:40pm
Yet i still can't get health care as a single guy
Submitted by Jason H : July 22, 1:52pm
Put this into perspective. The estimated cost for the proposed universal health insurance is around $1.6 trillion, which is $1,600 billion. Estimates have ranged from $1 tril to $3.6 tril. Medicare is already sliding into the red and cannot be sustained for much longer. If we can't afford to cover everyone over 65, how exactly shall we cover everyone under 65? Massive tax hikes, inflation (print money), and rationing of care? Nobody really knows. Current plans put forward by Congress are nowhere near enough to fund universal health insurance or slow govt health care spending, according to last weeks's testimony by the Director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and will actually increase federal spending. Never mind these petty details; Congress still rushes to vote on this 1,018 page bill before their August break.
Submitted by luis : July 20, 8:59pm
They should follow the example of latin america country's where health care is free to people with no money, but to charge the corporations who save money by getting tax breaks.
Submitted by George Otieno : July 17, 3:39pm
It will good for the American government to try all the means to aquire the money, so that to have a very healthy U.S.A. so that to have a healthy world.Because when mum is sick the child will be much sick because there will be no milk for the child.
Submitted by Trish G. : July 13, 4:03pm
Testing for Diabetes should be included w/ routine Bloodwork during CBC Labwork. A simple A1c test would detect Pre-Diabetes and cost less than Rx./ Med's after type 2 diagnoses.
Submitted by Suzanne W : July 13, 10:15am
Escalating Type II Diabetes is one of the reasons that:
As a nation we should be totally focused on real stress reduction not on stress management.
Sodas and junk food should be taxed to pay for health care.
Food advertising should be limited in the same way as tobacco product advertising e is limited or banned.
Healthcare credits should be given to all who can demonstrate that they buy healthy foods, etc.
Blaming the diabetic or obese person is not the way to solve the problem; as a society we all all responsible.
Submitted by Laurel S : July 10, 3:21am
IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT ACCESS TO QUALITY HEALTH CARE......
IF YOU HAVE FEARS ABOUT A SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM......
FIND ANSWERS AT......pnhp.org (Physicians for a National Health Plan)
Then start talking to others......and contact your legislators.......and don't stop.
Submitted by Your Name : July 2, 4:06pm
thats more than I expected!
Submitted by Cheryl T : June 22, 10:57am
It is a sad thing, diabetics who take care of themselves still get the sickening side effects of the disease. Not fair. I have seen first hand the destruction of the lives and people who live it. Stem cell research would be a good thing to help with the whole situation. It also takes money. Diabetics get complications even when getting care and sticking to a strict regement most times. It is very sad.
Submitted by Tarun S : June 10, 4:33pm
Ben your point about deficit and debt reduction is slightly off - we can actually lower our debt in %GDP terms and keep running deficits due to growth rates
Submitted by Gab G : June 10, 1:03pm
I can't believe it cost $600B this year for how little we get. Who's making all the money?
Submitted by Peter F : December 7, 9:21am
You get little? Do you have an annual physical? Access to vaccines, preventive medicine, drugs, emergency room care, well-educated doctors and nurses, advanced technology, and on and on? If you answered "yes" to even one of these questions you're ahead of 60% of the rest of the world.
Yes, the system can be improved, but the sense of priviledge and entitlement in this country create a very warped sense of what "little" really is.
Submitted by Kim M : July 19, 7:04am
The insurance companies are making all the money. Last QUARTER Blue Cross had a PROFIT of $805 Million. That is after all the bills for hospitals, doctors, equipment, etc. are paid That is just one company for 3 months! Just calculate that out for one year and multiply that by all the other health insurance companies. This is the problem with the system. Health insurance has to be a one-party payor. If someone wants supplemental insurance then they should be able to purchase it. Believe me the business of health care will drastically change. Right now the big insurance companies are spending millions to lobby Washington to let them continue as usual. Funny how one never hears or reads about how much the executives make at any of the insurance companies or how much profit they make. They want it on the down low while they deny coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, raise premiums 20% to 30% per year on individual policies on people they are trying to get rid of. But our politicians are too well compensated by the insurance companies to address the problems. This has to change.
Submitted by Ben B : June 10, 10:30am
This number by itself is frightening and an obstacle to reform. The Treasury doesn't have another $600bn to spend this year. Deficit and debt reduction need to be urgent priorities now. Universal healthcare is only going to win public support if it promises to *save* money in the long run, not increase government spending. Healthcare spending has to be treated as a big pot - with individual, family, employer, and government contributions all part of the big picture - so saving money from one end (individual/family contributions) justifies shifting the tax and spending burden to the other end (government). Otherwise, adding $600bn of government spending only seems to increase the total healthcare burden, which is counter-productive.