Half Of US Population Accounts For Only 2.9% Of Healthcare Spending; 1% Responsible For 21.4% Of Expenditures

Tyler Durden's picture

With the topic of peak class polarization once again permeating the airwaves and clogging up NSA servers, and terms like 1% this or that being thrown around for political punchlines and other talking points, one aspect where social inequality has gotten less prominence, yet where the spread between the "1%" and everyone else is perhaps most substantial is in realm of healthcare spending: perhaps the biggest threat to the long-term sustainability of the US debt picture and economy in general. The numbers are stunning.

According to the latest data compiled by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in 2010, just 1% of the population accounted for a whopping 21.4% of total health care expenditures with an annual mean expenditure of $87,570. Just below them, 5% of the population accounted for nearly 50% of all healthcare spending. Just as stunning is the "other" side: the lower 50 percent of the population ranked by their expenditures accounted for only 2.8% of the total for 2009 and 2010 respectively. Perhaps in addition to bashing the "1%" of wealth holders, a relatively straightforward and justified exercise in the current political climate, it is time for public attention to also turn to the chronic 1% (and 5%)-ers who are the primary issue when it comes to the debt-funding needed to preserve the US welfare state.

The spending distribution in chart format:

Broken down by age - While the elderly represented 13.3 percent of the overall population, they represented 47.9 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders:

Broken down by sex - While women represented 50.9 percent of the overall population, they represented 61.6 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders:

Broken down by race and ethnicity - Individuals identified as Hispanic and black non-Hispanic single race were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care spending:

More of the report's findings:

  • In 2009, 1 percent of the population accounted for 21.8 percent of total health care expenditures and 20.5 percent of the population in the top 1 percent retained this ranking in 2009. The bottom half of the expenditure distribution accounted for 2.9 percent of spending in 2009; about three out of four individuals in the bottom 50 percent retained this ranking in 2010.
  • Those who were in the top decile of spenders in both 2009 and 2010 differed by age, race/ethnicity, sex, health status, and insurance coverage (for those under 65) from those who were in the lower half in both years.
  • Those in bottom half of health care spenders were more likely to report excellent health status, while those in the top decile of spenders were more likely to be in fair or poor health relative to the overall population.
  • While 15 percent of persons under age 65 were uninsured for all of 2010, the full year uninsured comprised 26.1 percent of those in the bottom half of spenders for both 2009 and 2010. Only 3.4 percent of those under age 65 who remained in the top decile of spenders in both years were uninsured for all of 2010.
  • Relative to the overall population, those who remained in the top decile of spenders were more likely to be in fair or poor health, elderly, female, non-Hispanic whites and those with public only coverage. Those who remained in the bottom half of spenders were more likely to be in excellent health, children and young adults, men, Hispanics, and the uninsured.

And the full report.

In 2009, 1 percent of the population accounted for 21.8 percent of total health care expenditures, and in 2010, the top 1 percent accounted for 21.4 percent of total expenditures with an annual mean expenditure of $87,570. The lower 50 percent of the population ranked by their expenditures accounted for only 2.9 percent and 2.8 percent of the total for 2009 and 2010 respectively. Of those individuals ranked at the top 1 percent of the health care expenditure distribution in 2009 (with a mean expenditure of $90,061), 20.5 percent maintained this ranking with respect to their 2010 health care expenditures.

In both 2009 and 2010, the top 5 percent of the population accounted for nearly 50 percent of health care expenditures. Among those individuals ranked in the top 5 percent of the health care expenditure distribution in 2009 (with a mean expenditure of $40,682), approximately 34 percent retained this ranking with respect to their 2010 health care expenditures. Similarly, the top 10 percent of the population accounted for 65.2 percent of overall health care expenditures in 2009 (with a mean expenditure of $26,767), and 39.7 percent of this subgroup retained this top decile ranking with respect to their 2010 health care expenditures. The data also indicate that a small percentage of the individuals in the top percentiles in 2009 and 2010 had expenditures for only one year because they died, were institutionalized, or were otherwise ineligible for the survey in the subsequent year.

In both 2009 and 2010, the top 30 percent of the population accounted for nearly 90 percent of health care expenditures. Among those individuals ranked in the top 30 percent of the health care expenditure distribution in 2009, 62.6 percent retained this ranking with respect to their 2010 health care expenditures (figure 1). Furthermore, individuals ranked in the top half of the health care expenditure distribution in 2009 accounted for 97 percent of all health care expenditures. Among this population subgroup, 74.9 percent maintained this ranking in 2010. Alternatively, individuals ranked in the bottom half of the health care expenditure distribution accounted for only 2.9 percent of medical expenditures (with a mean expenditure of $236 in 2009). Similar to the experience of the top half of the population based on their medical expenditure rankings, 73.9 percent of those in the lower half of the expenditure distribution retained this classification in 2010.

Given the high concentration of medical expenditures incurred by the top decile of the population ranked by health care spending (65.2 percent), identifying the characteristics of those individuals exhibiting significant reductions in health care spending in a subsequent year is also of interest. Among those ranked in the top decile in 2009 based on their high level of medical expenditures, 29 percent shifted to a ranking in the lower 75 percent of the expenditure distribution in 2010 (data not shown). Individuals ranked in the lower 75 percent of health care spending accounted for only 13.6 percent of all medical expenditures in 2010.

Individuals who were between the ages of 45 and 64 and the elderly (65 and older) were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the top decile of spenders for both 2009 and 2010. While the elderly represented 13.3 percent of the overall population, they represented 47.9 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders. For those individuals who remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care expenditures over the two-year span, the elderly represented only 3.1 percent of the population. Alternatively, children (0-17) and young adults (18-29) were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the bottom half of spenders (32.4 percent and 23.5 percent, respectively). In contrast, children and young adults represented only 2.1 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively, of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders. Individuals in the top decile ordered by medical expenditures in 2009 that shifted below the first quartile in 2010 were predominantly between the ages of 30 and 64.

Individuals identified as Hispanic and black non-Hispanic single race were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care spending. While Hispanics represented 16.3 percent of the overall population in 2010, they represented 24.8 percent of those individuals who remained in the bottom 50 percent of spenders (figure 3). For those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders, Hispanics represented only 6.0 percent of the population. Individuals in the top decile ordered by medical expenditures in 2009 that shifted below the first quartile in 2010 were more likely to be non-Hispanic whites and other races (74.9 percent) relative to their representation in the overall population (66.6 percent).

Individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders in 2009 and 2010 also differed significantly by sex, compared with those who remained in the lower half of the distribution ranked by medical care expenditures. While women represented 50.9 percent of the overall population, they represented 61.6 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders (figure 4). For those individuals who remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care expenditures over the two-year span, women represented only 43.3 percent of the population. Alternatively, men were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the bottom half of spenders (56.7 percent). In contrast, men represented only 38.4 percent of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders. Individuals in the top decile ordered by medical expenditures in 2009 that shifted below the first quartile in 2010 were predominantly female (58.3 percent).

Health status was a particularly salient factor that distinguished those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders. Overall, 2.8 percent of the population was reported to be in poor health in 2010, and another 7.8 percent was classified in fair health (figure 5). In contrast, of those individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders, 20.2 percent were in poor health and another 26.7 percent were in fair health. Furthermore, for those individuals remaining in the bottom half of spenders, only 0.5 percent were reported to be in poor health and 4.1 percent in fair health. Individuals in excellent health were disproportionately represented among those who remained in the lower half of spenders both years (41.2 percent). Alternatively, for those individuals remaining in the top decile of spenders, only 5.2 percent were reported to be in excellent health and 14.5 percent in very good health. Individuals in the top decile ordered by medical expenditures in 2009 that shifted below the top quartile in 2010 were predominantly in excellent, very good, or good health (25.8, 34.8, and 23.2 percent, respectively).

Focusing on the under age 65 population, health insurance coverage status also distinguished individuals who remained in the top decile of spenders from their counterparts in the lower half of the distribution. Individuals who were uninsured for all of calendar year 2010 were disproportionately represented among the population that remained in the lower half of the distribution based on health care spending. While 15 percent of the overall population under age 65 was uninsured for all of 2010, the full year uninsured comprised 26.1 percent of all individuals remaining in the bottom half of spenders (figure 6). Alternatively, only 3.4 percent of those under age 65 who remained in the top decile of spenders were uninsured. In addition, while 17.9 percent of the overall population under age 65 had public-only coverage for all of 2009, 32.6 percent of those who remained in the top decile of spenders had public-only coverage.

With respect to poverty status classifications, 36.2 percent of the overall population resided in families or single-person households with high incomes in 2010 (figure 7) and 15.2 percent had incomes at or below the poverty threshold. A lower representation of high income individuals (26.6 percent) and a higher representation of the poor (19.3 percent) were observed among those who remained in the lower half of spenders in both 2009 to 2010.

Source: The Concentration and Persistence in the Level of Health Expenditures over Time: Estimates for the U.S. Population, 2009-2010

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
fudstampz's picture

I have an older relative (ex government worker) who is highly medicated and seems to have at least one surgery every couple years. Follwed up of course with extended hospital stay, all paid for by you and me. Her usefullness on this planet has come and gone, I don't see any benefit of her existence, she is too costly.

spooz's picture

"Usefulness" is relative. You give no details about your aunt and for all we know you just don't like old people, like to repeat the propaganda you've soaked up or are interested in aiding the divide and conquer techniques favored by the oligarchs who run things.

Others, who have been able to accumulate wisdom through years of work, can contribute to the general welfare by developing standards.  Like the physicians who contributed to the Choosing Wisely website, which seeks to promote the most effective use of health care resources:

http://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/

 

fudstampz's picture

no hatred of old people here, the ROI just dosen't make any sense

Alpacanio's picture

Working in Medical equipment i can tell you first hand that many folks just don't want to settle for equipment that works fine to meet their needs, but not the "latest thing" or "High end" equipment they see on TV during the day. I'm all for living a better lifestyle and we can provide great things. But many people don't really need this high end equipment but because Lucy in apartment 301 in our govenment paid for elderly houseing has the latest thing. I have to have one too.

It's out of control the amount of money that's spent for these layabouts esp, the ones who are young and are in the system for being overweight or on a big pharma pyhco med.

 

walküre's picture

Inflated like the Dollar that supports them and just as hollow. When Dollar collapses the fat will learn to walk again and the psychos will go quiet from withdrawal.

spooz's picture

As long as hospital ICUs can continue raking in the dough on procedures during the last few months of life, and we allow scare tactics about death panels to limit intelligent conversation about that, we will have capitalists exploiting end of life care to maximize profits.

But lets focus instead on how extraordinarily large the bill for individual procedures is in the US compared to the rest of the developed world. Single payer systems are more cost effective per capita for better outcomes.  But when profits and cronies matter more than the health of citizens, you get the disfunctional US system

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-tha...

 

Emergency Ward's picture

"Benevolent Govt" witch-doctor bullshit.  Govt single-payer would be extremely expensive, extremely complex, and require a trillion-dollar bureaucracy -- which would "administer" instead of "provide care".  The costs are just hidden from your view by way of your taxes being swallowed up by the newly imposed "system" -- the dysfunctional current "system" now hides costs, but single-payer would be far worse.  Death Panel, no appeal.

If you don't support the Surveillance/War/Police state, how could you trust them with your health care?  But I guess that all goes hand in hand.

scraping_by's picture

Not sure where you're going with this.

If you haven't dealt with private insurace companies going round and round and denying coverage, try it some time. You'll discover it depends on what 'is' is.

The current medical delivery system has a huge amount of frictional costs, mostly guys in suits with good salaries sitting around tables. No single payer system would put up with that. They'd get squeezed out soonest.

Bleating 'government bad, private good' will get you friends, however. Just make sure they pay you for your time and work.

Emergency Ward's picture

You got it right with the "frictional cost" thing -- and much of that is due to the BigBoys lobbying their pals in Congress -- health care overall would be a fraction of the cost without all that friction.  That is where the problems lie, and would only increase (in my opinion) with the total govt controlled system.  But my other point is that the govt always ends up using extremely expensive methods to oppress the taxpayers and citizens by way of the police state, out-of-control war state, and now the Orwellian surveillance state.  The Health Care thing would develop into another control and oppress mechanism (again my opinion).  Statists always insist that total government solutions are always the best.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Don't be a dope. "Health" is an actuarily-uninsurable risk. That's why private insurers fail at it. If you think the government can do the impossible, then you are one hopelessly-deluded lost cause. The government fucks up the possible; they will royally fuck up the impossible.

scraping_by's picture

Health care is a need - response item. Just like car, house, clothing, and girlfriend maintenance, you fill the need and go on.

You'd be surprised how predictable sickness and death rates are, over a large enough population. Try the CDC Mortality and Morbidity literature. Grim but mathematical.

And while you have to revise the tables on a regular basis, actuarials live for that sort of thing. High paying jobs in clean places with attractive people dressed to please.

The current clusterfuck is too many suits trying to grab money for their groups, and too many providers doing medicine because they can, rather than the patients need.

Other governments do the impossible. But other governments aren't run by corporate lackeys.

spooz's picture

If you could get yourself to seek information outside of the propaganda machine, you would find that the rest of the developed world has some form of single payer that is much cheaper and has better outcomes than our crony capitalist system.

We actually have an example of single payer in this country that beats the other alternatives, The Veterans Health Administration. In contrast to the fee-for-service model that the private system enshrines, the VHA operates on a set budget with salaried doctors and it is allowed to negotiate prices with Big Pharma, something that Obamacare and Medicare are denied.

http://www.rand.org/blog/2012/08/socialized-or-not-we-can-learn-from-the...

Emergency Ward's picture

Spooz, you're funny -- spewing out information and misinformation from the single-payer propaganda mill while calling others out for propagandizing.

spooz's picture

So, the rest of the developed world as an example isn't enough for you?  You need to narrow it down to your duopoly party propaganda? Because as far as I see, there *is* no progressive voice putting out single payer propaganda.  Only some disenfranchised bloggers.

And "anarchists" are a tool of the oligarchs.

Emergency Ward's picture

Spoken like a true sophist.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Hey dipshit-- the "rest of the developed world" is run by marxists, and the last time I checked, they were going off the fucking cliff.

Peddle your bullshit at FailyKos or HuffPuff, that shit doesn't play here, douchebag.

scraping_by's picture

Are you talking about our friends across the Pond, who are being ground under the boot of the ECB? Very unmarxist organization, that.

Dictatorship of the bankers, dictatorship of the masses, suppose it's all the same thing.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

You need to brush up on the historically-documented relationship between bankers and marxists.

Of course, when I say "historically-documented", I don't mean the bullshit history books you probably read in high school. Or college.

DOT's picture

It's the bitchez, bitchez!

saycheeeese's picture

no surprise with those numbers,  I heard that in Swizterland and Germany about 3-4% of the population is responsible for about 70% of the costs.

the challenge is with aging population but  medicine approach changes are in the mind of quite a few policy makers 

lemarche's picture

OUAOH WHAT A SURPRISE !!!! HOW MUCH TIME DID THEY SPEND / HOW MUCH MONEY DID THEY SPEND COMPILING THAT SURVEY/DATA????

 

WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT ONLY 1% OF AMERICANS HAVE SERIOUS ILLNESSES !!!.... SUCH AS CANCER, OR HEAVY SURGERY.... THAT ARE OF COURSE MUCH MORE COSTLY THAN GETTING YOUR YEARLY FLU VACCINE....

 

THAT S JUST WHAT IT MEANS HEALTH INSURANCE !!... YOU PAY FOR THE HEAVY TREATMENTS, HOPING (I GUESS MOST PEOPLE HOPE THAT) IT NEVER HAPPENS TO YOU, BUT IF IT DOES, YOU ARE COVERED... COS OTHERWISE WOULD COST YOU AN ARM AND A LEG................................

wisehiney's picture

I self insured until I was in my late thirties. Have not been to a doctor (dentist - yes) in over thirty years. Have had broken fingers, toes, cuts, food poisoning, flu's, viruses, etc. I am a little to proud to take any of their "free" shit. But if oBUMMER care passes, I will go get all of my raggedy ass fixed. I will be at the doctors office every damn week. I will do a little TEA Party style cloward and piven. Break it. The weasels and deadbeats will be gone within two months of a systemic breakdown. God Bless America II.

P.S. Tennesse whiskey will cure all your ills. Except the hangover.

1eyedman's picture

you are under the impression you wont have to pay for co=pays or dedcutibles?   the forced insurance is not free, and certainly not cheap.   going forward only the medicare people can continue to overconume healthcare.   the medicaid people are going to be standing in lines at county clinics, hopitals will let them come in but schedules will be 'full for the next 90 days'.

wisehiney's picture

If it is not a really good deal for me, then I won't do it. If I have to pay a small percentage, I will USE IT UP! I have a couple of doctor and dentist friends to turn to outside the system. I have encouraged them make sure they have all the equipment they can use - outside of a public hospital. They used to think I was crazy. Not anymore.

scraping_by's picture

There's already Obama-Gap insurance out there.

When the deductables are like $100K, you're still talking a significant portion of the population in medical bankruptcy. Which is a feature, not a bug.

We'll all end up on the county anyway, it's just this way, the middle class will take another big hit.

1eyedman's picture

a Dr  I spoke with a a conference about obamacare and single-payer and price transparency suggested we should all have to pay 100% of the cost of annual, routine healthcare, and a high dedcutible for urgent matters, stitches, broken arm etc.  this way people could shop for where they want to go and all the 'overconsumers' of healthcare (who go in with the sniffles, or a sore knee--knowing they'll spend 20 bucks, maybe 0)   out of healthcare offices.

but for major issues, single payer.  no one can afford a catastrophe, and no insurance company can sell policies at a high enough premium to cover 100k's of expenses.

i think it makes sense.

DR's picture

In my middle class world most people I know have HSA accounts of around yearly $2000-5000 and then their standard insurance/deductable kicks in. I don't know of anyone who would take off a day of work to 'consume' medical care that they don't need.

RaceToTheBottom's picture

I would go a little further, I would pay people for wellness achievements.  Before everyone downtrash me to oblivion, just getting 50% of those non healthy people owning thier bad health, would reduce the healthcare costs a lot.

Just getting those obese cart drivers shopping for chips on their EBT to walk a mile a day, would do wonders

MsCreant's picture

I heard some mainstream news this morning, the talking head said, in a very matter of fact way "This program won't work if we don't make the young contribute." 

She clearly could not hear herself, or if she did, she is okay with coersion.

The young typically have less money and less health problems. This program fucks them two ways. 

I apologize on behalf of the parent/grandparent set, this is not okay, we are not entitled. I am responsible to take care of my body through excercise and diet. I am responsible to set myself up for my old age. You are not responsible to take care of me. Please don't think all of us feel entitled. Please treat me nicely and with respect when I get old, but I don't want to coerce anything from you (and if I do need your chairity later, you will be less able to help me because I took from you when you were trying to become established).

Again, I am so sorry.

Mercury's picture

All health insurance systems fund care for the old and sick with contributions from the young and healthy.

Actually all insurance payouts period esentially come from people who don't need them now since it's hard to buy fire insurance when your house is on fire.

So, you either have currently young people pay for currently old people or have your younger self pay for your older self or, Logan's Run style, eliminate old people and dramatically lower the cost structure.

Obamacare is going to attempt a mix of all three while simultaneously increasing the bureaucracy and red tape by several orders of magnitude.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Or the old people could save money, get a fair return on their savings, and buy directly from the provider if the service is needed.

Mercury's picture

No! How would people know what to buy or whether or not something was expensive or a good deal? That's crazy talk.

However, cental planners are just about to roll-out something called "health insurance exchanges" - a real, brilliant innovation.

If I understand correctly the government is going to facilitate the matching of buyers and sellers of a product/service in something called a marketplace or exchange.

MsCreant's picture

And they keep us at each others throats about this stuff when in fact we should be looking at inflation as a phenomenon that makes it hard to save for old age because the dollars you earned when you were young do not hold their value. Add in that government intervention is driving the costs of health care up faster than inflation is affecting most of the other sectors of the economy and you have a situation where you post what you did above and see is as "just the way it is."

We have to "take" from someone, because through inflation someone "took" from us earlier. 

Mercury's picture

CPI says there is almost no inflation and if not for ZIRP we'd all die.

Stick to the script.

Totentänzerlied's picture

Well I thought I might be able to beat the clown-and-idiot brigade on this one before the lies start flying, but I guess not.

Actuarial science deals with such skewed distribution all the time, perhaps the most famous is Pareto's law.

That's all there is to it. No grand mystery. No opportunity for (self-)righteous indignation, gloating or blame. Just gorgeous, simple, statistics. Accurate or not.

Yeah, the distribution is skewed. It always has been. Everywhere. For all time.

Lots of you sound about 2 trips to Walmart away from donning your jackboots and demanding, guess who, the government, do something about this. Because the fact that in any society of any size, the fact that people are different is just utterly incomprehensible and frightening, because they don't, and won't, conform to your preferences and desires. Geez, so much for all that bullshit about individualism, oh well, it was all lies anyway. Does that mean you should become fellow-travellers to the liberal-progressives?

When push comes to shove, a lot of the autistic libertarians (h/t Notarealamerican) sound functionally identical to their erstwhile archenemies: like a bunch of whining imbeciles outraged and enraged by their lack of control over other people. Which hardly makes them unique, just hypocrites. Once more, hardly unique.

Hint: individualism, free markets, private property, and self-government imply/require/necessitate/mean letting other people do what they want with themselves and their property. If you're gonna push THAT naïve and idealistic pabulum, at least try to be internally consistent, or you make the rest of us, who understand political economy at a gradeschool level (as opposed to not at all) look bad.

RaceToTheBottom's picture

The biggest fallacy for the marginally educated is the normal distribution.

Just removing that would increase the IQ of the world by 25 points

Herkimer Jerkimer's picture

'

'

'

Socialized medicine is nothing more than an experiment in life extension and calming irrational soccor moms that their prodigy is not going to die from a case of the sniffles.

 

•?•
V-V

WallowaMountainMan's picture

i read somewhere that the costs of health care for healthy life style people is greater in the long run than non-healthy life style people because the former live longer before going through the same end of life extreme health care costs as the latter.

just a thought.

:)

 

alien-IQ's picture

What is the thrust of this article? Is the fact that the elderly need more medical care than younger people supposed to be some shocking revelation?

Is the point being made that they should not be given care?

Really, what's the fucking point trying to be made here?

MsCreant's picture

Women's stats are higher too. Men are less likely to seek help, women go to the doctor more often, women live longer, etc. I did not feel offended by the article, and see them as wanting to deny me health care because I am a woman. I saw it as an exploration into who uses what. Much of it is cultural. Minorities go less because they are more likely to be poor, true, but they also are not acculturated to go to the doctor for every sniffle. 

Catullus's picture

The point is in context of health insurance. Not health care. Health insurance is a monthly expiring put option on your health. 1% of the population wins that bet to the tune of most of the payout. The next 20% wins the rest. So for 80% of the population, health insurance is a loser's bet on any given monthly or annual basis.

The government forcing you to buy the monthly expiring put option doesn't change this game one bit. It just provides a larger pool of to pay to that 1-20%. What not allowing pre-existing conditions to be rejected means that the 1-20% might take up an even more disproportionally higher percentage of the health put option take. FURTHER dis-incentivizing people to get health insurance.

rtalcott's picture
Sugar: The Bitter Truth  and HFCS....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public

The Reich's picture

These have been the normal figures for decades.

 

Greetings from Old (+decadent) €urope

scraping_by's picture

Yes. but now we need enemies to explain why Obamacare doesn't work and why we should ignore rich people.

What better hated minority that those who didn't ask to be part of it?

involuntarilybirthed's picture

Uh-oh!  Those youngsters the boomers were counting on to support them can't get job?

and

After the doc says there is no hope: 

- pull the plug

or

-family that want's to continue aid pays future bills out of pocket.

make that the choice.

JR's picture

All through your life, you’ve paid for health care. And just before you die, when you begin to use what you’ve paid for, you become the target for the cost cutters. The danger is, this information will be used by the socialists to throttle your health care when you begin to reach age 52 and beyond -- as does Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel in his now infamous Reaper Curve.

Watch out for the misuse of data based on the last two months of life.

Regardless of age, hospital admission rates do not increase until just a few months before death, according to James F. Fries, M.D.  Using a study by the Manitoba Health Services, research shows that “two months before death a quarter of people are hospitalized; in their last month, about half of the people are hospitalized.

Another study Fries cites, Medicare Reimbursement per Enroller, shows that medical costs don’t necessarily rise with age. “Medicare costs for those who survive a given year do not increase with age. It is the high cost of death and the increase in the fraction of  each successive age group who die that cause the apparent increase in costs per year. These high cost death are often painful, undignified, agonizing, and include a lot of intensive technical life support.

According to Fries: “If we can decrease the high cost of death we can greatly decrease high medical costs in older age groups.”

This is no way justifies Death Panels or The Reaper Curve as advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, White House health-care adviser and brother of Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. For a look at where you fit in on The Reaper Curve, here is the chart:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html

cpt crash's picture

The Emanuels are dual citizens: US and Israel. Rahm served in the IDF but never in the US military. And, strangely, they are like Nazi sociopaths.

MrPoopypants's picture

Wait, so healthcare for old white ladies costs more than for young Mexican guys? Shocker. I wonder who's contributed more to the country since the early 1900s?

Breaking down the numbers, it seems like out of every 20 people, 19 are paying for 1 person to die more comfortably. Sounds about right.