4 ms·

Healthcare providers and insurers have received much of the gains, it's not just a class issue. Since 2001, employers' benefit costs have risen 60%, which is al

Healthcare providers and insurers have received much of the gains, it's not just a class issue. Since 2001, employers' benefit costs have risen 60%, which is almost twice the rate salary increased. Perhaps salary increases would've outpaced inflation, leading to the real wage gains everyone's missing, if that money weren't being diverted into the employer's share of health insurance premiums.

WalterBright 11y ago
The government's share of GDP has increased substantially. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.ht...
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  And how much of that is due to increasing medicare costs?
  - zaroth 11y ago
    Looks like about 40% of the increase over the last 30 years can be attributed to increased "health" spending. Health as a percentage of total has gone from ~10% - 22%. Health Everything Else (Per Capita, 2009 dollars) 1986 1141 10243 2016 4111 14484 Inc 2970 4241 http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1980_2021USd_17s2li111mcn_F0t10t http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1980_2021...
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  In perspective its really not that odd. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S 1) 2015 is 20.55%. 1980 is 20.64%. 2) Recessions increase spikes as a share of GDP, really bad recessions have bigger spikes.
  - WalterBright 11y ago
    Scroll down to chart S.03t. It shows a consistent trend upwards. The chart shows total government spending, not just federal.
    - fweespee_ch 11y ago
      The point is, I can't fix the other 49 states with magical powers.
zaroth 11y ago
Maybe a nit, but spending more on health care doesn't mean there were not "real wage gains". The wage gains were real, and people spent a big part of those gains to get more healthcare. Another way to phrase it... If health spending had stayed constant since 2001, how much less "care" would the system be providing right now? All that extra spending is not pure waste, I'd love to see some hard studies on how much "waste" has increased and how exactly do you define it? If you meant "economic gains" as-in healthcare's share of the overall pie has increased, and so healthcare as a sector of the economy has seen an outsized share of gains, that is definitely true.
- diskcat 11y ago
  >The wage gains were real, and people spent a big part of those gains to get more healthcare. for old people, who are not earning those wages. blame socialism
  - zaroth 11y ago
    It's also called an insurance pool. You don't pay based on your own current cost, or even the old unemployed people's current cost. You pay based on your own expected lifetime cost, which is increasing substantially for those young employed workers. ACA flattened the rating factors a lot to shift cost to younger insured. Personally I don't think that was good policy. You have a lot more disposable income after the kids graduate college, it's not necessarily a bad thing for health care costs to be shifted later in life. But annual premiums rise for the young anyway because their expected lifetime benefits are increasing substantially every day. I guess my point is we all pay in, and we all ultimately take out of the system. If it was single-payer the cost would be exactly your marginal tax rate. As-is the cost is highly correlated with your marginal tax rate but just with a much lower cap.
    - diskcat 11y ago
      >I guess my point is we all pay in, and we all ultimately take out of the system. And my point is that young people disproportionately pay in a larger value and disproportionately take out a smaller value. > You pay based on your own expected lifetime cost, which is increasing substantially for those young employed workers. So would a person who would be expected to live forever pay all his income? If you are expected to live longer then you should be expected to pay for longer and not more per year. This doesn't make any logical sense.
cmurf 11y ago
What about education? Seems like everyone I know has substantial student loans. And that's a double dip because it's the school and a bank making money off the student. The next tend is employers paying part of the student loan. Just like how employers started to pay for health care payments. Then the costs really went up.

WalterBright 11y ago

The government's share of GDP has increased substantially. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.ht...

jjoonathan 11y ago
And how much of that is due to increasing medicare costs?
- zaroth 11y ago
  Looks like about 40% of the increase over the last 30 years can be attributed to increased "health" spending. Health as a percentage of total has gone from ~10% - 22%. Health Everything Else (Per Capita, 2009 dollars) 1986 1141 10243 2016 4111 14484 Inc 2970 4241 http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1980_2021USd_17s2li111mcn_F0t10t http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1980_2021...
fweespee_ch 11y ago
In perspective its really not that odd. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S 1) 2015 is 20.55%. 1980 is 20.64%. 2) Recessions increase spikes as a share of GDP, really bad recessions have bigger spikes.
- WalterBright 11y ago
  Scroll down to chart S.03t. It shows a consistent trend upwards. The chart shows total government spending, not just federal.
  - fweespee_ch 11y ago
    The point is, I can't fix the other 49 states with magical powers.

zaroth 11y ago

Maybe a nit, but spending more on health care doesn't mean there were not "real wage gains". The wage gains were real, and people spent a big part of those gains to get more healthcare. Another way to phrase it... If health spending had stayed constant since 2001, how much less "care" would the system be providing right now? All that extra spending is not pure waste, I'd love to see some hard studies on how much "waste" has increased and how exactly do you define it? If you meant "economic gains" as-in healthcare's share of the overall pie has increased, and so healthcare as a sector of the economy has seen an outsized share of gains, that is definitely true.

diskcat 11y ago
>The wage gains were real, and people spent a big part of those gains to get more healthcare. for old people, who are not earning those wages. blame socialism
- zaroth 11y ago
  It's also called an insurance pool. You don't pay based on your own current cost, or even the old unemployed people's current cost. You pay based on your own expected lifetime cost, which is increasing substantially for those young employed workers. ACA flattened the rating factors a lot to shift cost to younger insured. Personally I don't think that was good policy. You have a lot more disposable income after the kids graduate college, it's not necessarily a bad thing for health care costs to be shifted later in life. But annual premiums rise for the young anyway because their expected lifetime benefits are increasing substantially every day. I guess my point is we all pay in, and we all ultimately take out of the system. If it was single-payer the cost would be exactly your marginal tax rate. As-is the cost is highly correlated with your marginal tax rate but just with a much lower cap.
  - diskcat 11y ago
    >I guess my point is we all pay in, and we all ultimately take out of the system. And my point is that young people disproportionately pay in a larger value and disproportionately take out a smaller value. > You pay based on your own expected lifetime cost, which is increasing substantially for those young employed workers. So would a person who would be expected to live forever pay all his income? If you are expected to live longer then you should be expected to pay for longer and not more per year. This doesn't make any logical sense.

cmurf 11y ago

What about education? Seems like everyone I know has substantial student loans. And that's a double dip because it's the school and a bank making money off the student. The next tend is employers paying part of the student loan. Just like how employers started to pay for health care payments. Then the costs really went up.