4 ms·

I would love to see this data compared to other countries. I find it interesting that despite everything to do with health care, we're only spending approximat

by bmelton 15y ago

I would love to see this data compared to other countries. I find it interesting that despite everything to do with health care, we're only spending approximately 4% more on medical care than we were in 1949. That we are generally buying larger houses is no surprise, but that we're spending a substantially larger portion of our incomes to do so is, while not surprising, certainly interesting in the sense that this binds us to our income streams more than generations past. I don't know the data, so perhaps someone could enlighten me as to whether or not this is because houses are just more expensive than they used to be, or because we just like buying larger houses (possibly for status) than we used to, or whether we just have more income available to spend on houses since we're spending so much less on food and clothing?

sophacles 15y ago
I find it interesting that despite everything to do with health care, we're only spending approximately 4% more on medical care than we were in 1949. This is almost meaningless by itself. An actually useful number would be comparing that to say, number of doctor visits/treatments and how effective those are.
xxpor 15y ago
>I find it interesting that despite everything to do with health care, we're only spending approximately 4% more on medical care than we were in 1949. 4% in terms of the whole pie, but over 100% more in relative terms, which I think is more important. >I don't know the data, so perhaps someone could enlighten me as to whether or not this is because houses are just more expensive than they used to be, or because we just like buying larger houses (possibly for status) than we used to, or whether we just have more income available to spend on houses since we're spending so much less on food and clothing? To address the point about houses being more expensive than they used to be, I think the $/sq ft in real terms metric has increased. As people move out farther and farther out into the suburbs and exurbs, the externalities of the house increase. It's much more expensive on a per capita basis to run a full service municipality when the density is 300 people / sq mi vs 4000 or 7000 people / sq mi. It's also more expensive for utilities, etc.
dockd 15y ago
Maybe you and I are spending 4% more, but your employer is spending a whole lot more. I believe health insurance costs my employer $16,000/year for me.
badgergravling 15y ago
There are definitely similar studies in other countries, although I don't have them to hand. I did just see a survey for the UK which put the cheapest areas to live with house prices 3.8 times the average wage up to about 9.8 the average wage in the most expensive, and the cost of housing and rent has rocketed up since I first started renting 10 years ago... After the mortgage there's not a lot left to spend on anything else!
roc 15y ago
The medical care number has to be distorted. I don't know any American families whose contributions toward their insurance premiums alone would amount to only 7% of spending. Not counting co-pays or co-insurance or any out of pocket costs. To get down to 7% they must not be counting employer contributions, those who get medical care from the VA, Medicare or Medicaid, nor people going uninsured and then filing bankruptcy when they get hit with notable medical costs. There is simply no way.
- ImprovedSilence 15y ago
  I would guess they are not taking into account employer contributions, as that is not money I as a consumer ever see in my paycheck. my medical bills (including insurance premos) the past few years average out to $1200/year (significantly less than 7% of my income). If I didn't have a job/insurance, they would be zero. I would guess there are a significant number of un-employed/un-insured, that don't have medical bills, averaging this number down.
  - roc 15y ago
    > "I would guess they are not taking into account employer contributions, as that is not money I as a consumer ever see in my paycheck" No, but it's money that has a direct impact on wages and given the inconsistency of rates of employer contributions, it would mean that "What Americans Spend Their Money On" is not equivalent to "What Things Cost, That Americans Buy". Similarly not counting government payments toward health-care breaks that equivalence. I wasn't trying to dismiss a potential usefulness of seeing where net consumer spending is going, on average. I was just responding to what I saw as a casual conflation between "we're not spending much more out of pocket" with "the price of healthcare isn't that big a deal". I saw the GP post as suggesting that large year-over-year percent increases hadn't amounted to a large net impact when compared to earnings. I may have misread that, but that's the implication I was responding to. And there's simply no way 7% of net consumer spending is the right picture from which we can deduce the impact of health cost increases.
- pdx 15y ago
  My insurance (healthy young family of four, $1K deductible per person) costs me 12.6% of my pretax earnings, not including what my employer kicks in. It was over 14% before my last raise, and it would be even higher if my company hadn't aggressively shopped around among several insurers. That's for me as an engineer making almost 100K. What about the guy making $70K with a family of four? It is a huge drain.

by bmelton 15y ago

sophacles 15y ago

I find it interesting that despite everything to do with health care, we're only spending approximately 4% more on medical care than we were in 1949. This is almost meaningless by itself. An actually useful number would be comparing that to say, number of doctor visits/treatments and how effective those are.

xxpor 15y ago

>I find it interesting that despite everything to do with health care, we're only spending approximately 4% more on medical care than we were in 1949. 4% in terms of the whole pie, but over 100% more in relative terms, which I think is more important. >I don't know the data, so perhaps someone could enlighten me as to whether or not this is because houses are just more expensive than they used to be, or because we just like buying larger houses (possibly for status) than we used to, or whether we just have more income available to spend on houses since we're spending so much less on food and clothing? To address the point about houses being more expensive than they used to be, I think the $/sq ft in real terms metric has increased. As people move out farther and farther out into the suburbs and exurbs, the externalities of the house increase. It's much more expensive on a per capita basis to run a full service municipality when the density is 300 people / sq mi vs 4000 or 7000 people / sq mi. It's also more expensive for utilities, etc.

dockd 15y ago

Maybe you and I are spending 4% more, but your employer is spending a whole lot more. I believe health insurance costs my employer $16,000/year for me.

badgergravling 15y ago

There are definitely similar studies in other countries, although I don't have them to hand. I did just see a survey for the UK which put the cheapest areas to live with house prices 3.8 times the average wage up to about 9.8 the average wage in the most expensive, and the cost of housing and rent has rocketed up since I first started renting 10 years ago... After the mortgage there's not a lot left to spend on anything else!

roc 15y ago

The medical care number has to be distorted. I don't know any American families whose contributions toward their insurance premiums alone would amount to only 7% of spending. Not counting co-pays or co-insurance or any out of pocket costs. To get down to 7% they must not be counting employer contributions, those who get medical care from the VA, Medicare or Medicaid, nor people going uninsured and then filing bankruptcy when they get hit with notable medical costs. There is simply no way.

ImprovedSilence 15y ago
I would guess they are not taking into account employer contributions, as that is not money I as a consumer ever see in my paycheck. my medical bills (including insurance premos) the past few years average out to $1200/year (significantly less than 7% of my income). If I didn't have a job/insurance, they would be zero. I would guess there are a significant number of un-employed/un-insured, that don't have medical bills, averaging this number down.
- roc 15y ago
  > "I would guess they are not taking into account employer contributions, as that is not money I as a consumer ever see in my paycheck" No, but it's money that has a direct impact on wages and given the inconsistency of rates of employer contributions, it would mean that "What Americans Spend Their Money On" is not equivalent to "What Things Cost, That Americans Buy". Similarly not counting government payments toward health-care breaks that equivalence. I wasn't trying to dismiss a potential usefulness of seeing where net consumer spending is going, on average. I was just responding to what I saw as a casual conflation between "we're not spending much more out of pocket" with "the price of healthcare isn't that big a deal". I saw the GP post as suggesting that large year-over-year percent increases hadn't amounted to a large net impact when compared to earnings. I may have misread that, but that's the implication I was responding to. And there's simply no way 7% of net consumer spending is the right picture from which we can deduce the impact of health cost increases.
pdx 15y ago
My insurance (healthy young family of four, $1K deductible per person) costs me 12.6% of my pretax earnings, not including what my employer kicks in. It was over 14% before my last raise, and it would be even higher if my company hadn't aggressively shopped around among several insurers. That's for me as an engineer making almost 100K. What about the guy making $70K with a family of four? It is a huge drain.