Everything Is More Expensive

I once took my income off after completing Turbo Tax. You have to do this afterwards (just don't save it the 2nd version). I wanted to see how much I would need to bring in to make up the difference if I quit my job (not thinking I would quit but just to have a plan B if something happened). Granted, you have to also consider the loss in retirement and social security contributions but still, if push come to shove, what you are living on currently is what will matter at the second. It really was not that much that I was actually bringing in cash wise, only 24K out of my pretty nice salary. We lose so many credits because we both work. We also hit a larger tax bracket since we both work and the additional tax brackets are over both salaries. Out of that 24K, if I had to pay daycare, that would pretty much wipe that out. Since I am a stay at home federal employee I don't have to have additional clothes, food or transportation.

Many people do not do that math of what additional income does to your overall. Also, I really wish our system did not penalize for working more. That is my #3 biggest issue for current times. My husband is going back to drilling with the Army next month and that additional income will be something I need to do the math on.

:thumbsup2:thumbsup2:thumbsup2 YES, YES, YES!

i agree so much! people need to look at the EXPENSE of their job/a potential job and weigh the cost/benefits.

i retired from government and at one point my agency was trying to cut back costs so they offered voluntary furlough but you would keep your full employee benefits, their contributions (so no impact to pension or healthcare costs) and full vacation/sick/floating time accrual amounts. i had my cpa run the numbers-we were paying for 3 tiered childcare for 2 kids (before school care/actual school tuition/after school care b/c it was easier/cheaper than having them go to 2 different places for school and care). by reducing from 8 1/2 hours per day to 6 (at 6 hours my state didn't require an employee to take a lunch break) dh could change his hours so that before school care was eliminated, and i could pick up the kids before after school care kicked in. that was a HUGE savings. add in the difference in taxes and we were ahead each month.

the same goes for dd. she was looking for a job/any job out of college (not going into her major field at this point). she was trying to decide between some that differed a few dollars an hour. granted-a few dollars an hour around minimum wage is HUGE in that income bracket but i had her look at the job differences-in particular commute and benefits. the one that paid a few dollars more had a reasonable commute but it was twice what the other one had and offered minimal benefits. the lower paying job cut the commute in half (gas/car wear and tear savings) but the kicker was-an employee cafeteria w/ free meals during your work shifts (HUGE SAVINGS) and full medical/dental/vision in a no/low deductible and copay plan for less than $50 a month:eek: the value of that alone is incredible.

so few people consider this stuff. i saw it slam many in the face during the recession. one parent would lose their job and they thought all was lost until they saw how much was still in their budget after the eliminated daycare, commute, work lunches, the work coffees, work clothing....many ended up ahead such it changed their lifestyles to having a sahp until their kids aged up enough to eliminate the big childcare expense.
 
That is not factual. It's your (biased) opinion and it's great that you are happy with it. Many countries have good health care systems.

Here the USA is ranked 37th http://thepatientfactor.com/canadia...zations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

Here the USA is ranked 11th https://fr.april-international.com/.../which-countries-have-best-healthcare-systems

Ranking world's healthcare systems: what criteria?
To succeed in ranking healthcare systems around the world, surveys use a more or less significant amount of indicators.

  • The EHCI study ranks healthcare systems based on such criteria as patient rights, waiting times for treatment, services provided to patients and prevention.
  • The Commonwealth Fund classifies indicators into 5 groups: quality, access, efficiency, equity and healthy lives. Thus, the survey includes indicators like safety, waiting times, administrative organisation and equal access to healthcare.
  • Bloomberg uses life expectancy, healthcare cost as percentage of GDP and healthcare cost per capita to rank world's healthcare systems.
If you are gonna post rankings, know what is in the rankings and what parts truly are "worthwhile to the patient" vs "worthwhile to the 3rd party payers or government payers".

I would post more, but we'd move into politics. Needless to say, when rich folks start going away from the US to get their care vs coming to it, then I'd probably worry about the state of the care US patients receive (vs worrying about the cost they pay for it, which is the worry)...
 


Ranking world's healthcare systems: what criteria?
To succeed in ranking healthcare systems around the world, surveys use a more or less significant amount of indicators.

  • The EHCI study ranks healthcare systems based on such criteria as patient rights, waiting times for treatment, services provided to patients and prevention.
  • The Commonwealth Fund classifies indicators into 5 groups: quality, access, efficiency, equity and healthy lives. Thus, the survey includes indicators like safety, waiting times, administrative organisation and equal access to healthcare.
  • Bloomberg uses life expectancy, healthcare cost as percentage of GDP and healthcare cost per capita to rank world's healthcare systems.
If you are gonna post rankings, know what is in the rankings and what parts truly are "worthwhile to the patient" vs "worthwhile to the 3rd party payers or government payers".

I would post more, but we'd move into politics. Needless to say, when rich folks start going away from the US to get their care vs coming to it, then I'd probably worry about the state of the care US patients receive (vs worrying about the cost they pay for it, which is the worry)...

Sorry it was the ignorant "ugly American" brag of yours. Nothing to do with politics dear.
 
The reality is that healthcare takes a much bigger chunk of my pay than it did a decade ago. Nothing political about that.

You are not wrong that healthcare is definitely continuing to get more expensive - found an interesting chart on healthcare spending (setting aside insurance cost, just what is getting spent in the healthcare space).

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...-health-spending-has-grown-substantially_2017

Upside is that you are more likely to survive many kinds of cancers in 2018 than you would have in 1970, downside is that treatment (of many many kinds, not just cancer) is super expensive. Not sure how you deal with this fundamental issue - if it is possible to cure someone, or extend their life, how do you decide not to spend the money on doing that? And if the person is broke, should they not receive care? If they do receive care, should they remain liable for those debts for the rest of their life?

We are not rational consumers of healthcare. We can't control our consumption (yes, I realize that certain behaviors may contribute, but it isn't possible to say that I'll never get into a terrible accident and I will never get cancer, therefore I am not a consumer of expensive medical care - we all could need expensive treatment at any time). Even if you try to be a rational consumer - investigate costs ahead of a procedure, only use in-network facilities etc., it is almost impossible to get a hospital or doctor's practice to give you an accurate estimate of what the cost will be - depends on the specific support staff working that day, and hospital charges are notoriously opaque. If you brought your car to a mechanic and they charged you 6x what their original estimate was, you'd have recourse. You can't even talk to an actual doctor about the cost of treatment - they will invariably tell you that they don't know about that stuff, talk to the business office. My DH was on a medication that was costing $1500 for a month (after insurance). It wasn't working well, so he asked for an alternative. The alternative costs $40 per month - but the doc had no idea of the cost, and didn't take it into consideration when recommending treatment. This part of the system is seriously broken.

This is why it is my opinion that everyone needs to be in the pool - share the costs across the largest possible population and healthcare providers need to be invested in being transparent about their charges (rather than having to grab revenue from any available source because of treatment that is never paid for). In any given year, most people will be healthy, they can help bear the cost for the sick, until it is their turn to need major medical expenditure. This may look like @RamblingMad's universal healthcare, or some other system. The repeal of the individual mandate is definitely contributing to the premium increases this year - fewer people contributing to the system, more uninsured people unable to pay for the care they need (that they didn't expect to need, and therefore chose not to buy health insurance for).

Everyone was complaining about increasing health insurance premiums and costs long before the ACA happened. I remember my sister didn't have access to health insurance (at 22 - college grad, working for a small company that didn't provide health benefits) being only able to find a policy she could barely afford that specifically excluded anything related to pregnancy and limited the insurance company's total liability to a specific $ over her lifetime. It was better than no insurance, but only barely.
 
:thumbsup2:thumbsup2:thumbsup2 YES, YES, YES!

i agree so much! people need to look at the EXPENSE of their job/a potential job and weigh the cost/benefits.

i retired from government and at one point my agency was trying to cut back costs so they offered voluntary furlough but you would keep your full employee benefits, their contributions (so no impact to pension or healthcare costs) and full vacation/sick/floating time accrual amounts. i had my cpa run the numbers-we were paying for 3 tiered childcare for 2 kids (before school care/actual school tuition/after school care b/c it was easier/cheaper than having them go to 2 different places for school and care). by reducing from 8 1/2 hours per day to 6 (at 6 hours my state didn't require an employee to take a lunch break) dh could change his hours so that before school care was eliminated, and i could pick up the kids before after school care kicked in. that was a HUGE savings. add in the difference in taxes and we were ahead each month.

the same goes for dd. she was looking for a job/any job out of college (not going into her major field at this point). she was trying to decide between some that differed a few dollars an hour. granted-a few dollars an hour around minimum wage is HUGE in that income bracket but i had her look at the job differences-in particular commute and benefits. the one that paid a few dollars more had a reasonable commute but it was twice what the other one had and offered minimal benefits. the lower paying job cut the commute in half (gas/car wear and tear savings) but the kicker was-an employee cafeteria w/ free meals during your work shifts (HUGE SAVINGS) and full medical/dental/vision in a no/low deductible and copay plan for less than $50 a month:eek: the value of that alone is incredible.

so few people consider this stuff. i saw it slam many in the face during the recession. one parent would lose their job and they thought all was lost until they saw how much was still in their budget after the eliminated daycare, commute, work lunches, the work coffees, work clothing....many ended up ahead such it changed their lifestyles to having a sahp until their kids aged up enough to eliminate the big childcare expense.
My dad talked about how when he started working, his pay wasn't great but his benefits were. People have said you can't eat benefits, but I don't think that makes sense because the less you spend on things such as health care, the more money you have for other things. Your paycheck goes farther. My dad also had a good pension and he pointed out to me that I would have a good one as well when I decided to be a teacher. It meant nothing to me then but boy does it now.
 


:thumbsup2:thumbsup2:thumbsup2 YES, YES, YES!

i agree so much! people need to look at the EXPENSE of their job/a potential job and weigh the cost/benefits.

i retired from government and at one point my agency was trying to cut back costs so they offered voluntary furlough but you would keep your full employee benefits, their contributions (so no impact to pension or healthcare costs) and full vacation/sick/floating time accrual amounts. i had my cpa run the numbers-we were paying for 3 tiered childcare for 2 kids (before school care/actual school tuition/after school care b/c it was easier/cheaper than having them go to 2 different places for school and care). by reducing from 8 1/2 hours per day to 6 (at 6 hours my state didn't require an employee to take a lunch break) dh could change his hours so that before school care was eliminated, and i could pick up the kids before after school care kicked in. that was a HUGE savings. add in the difference in taxes and we were ahead each month.

the same goes for dd. she was looking for a job/any job out of college (not going into her major field at this point). she was trying to decide between some that differed a few dollars an hour. granted-a few dollars an hour around minimum wage is HUGE in that income bracket but i had her look at the job differences-in particular commute and benefits. the one that paid a few dollars more had a reasonable commute but it was twice what the other one had and offered minimal benefits. the lower paying job cut the commute in half (gas/car wear and tear savings) but the kicker was-an employee cafeteria w/ free meals during your work shifts (HUGE SAVINGS) and full medical/dental/vision in a no/low deductible and copay plan for less than $50 a month:eek: the value of that alone is incredible.

so few people consider this stuff. i saw it slam many in the face during the recession. one parent would lose their job and they thought all was lost until they saw how much was still in their budget after the eliminated daycare, commute, work lunches, the work coffees, work clothing....many ended up ahead such it changed their lifestyles to having a sahp until their kids aged up enough to eliminate the big childcare expense.

Definitely!!! When I hear new moms tell me they can't afford to work, I always tell them do the real math! You are not losing your gross salary, but your adjusted after considering your spouse's salary is also taxed higher! All the years that my 4 kids were under 18 we got very little or none of the child tax credit! Now that they are all 18 and over, they changed the tax law! darn it!

I understand wanting to work and wanting to have that security but don't just say that is the only reason!

My husband and I are both federal employees and hope when we get closer to retirement they will over an early out! ha!
 
Ranking world's healthcare systems: what criteria?
To succeed in ranking healthcare systems around the world, surveys use a more or less significant amount of indicators.

  • The EHCI study ranks healthcare systems based on such criteria as patient rights, waiting times for treatment, services provided to patients and prevention.
  • The Commonwealth Fund classifies indicators into 5 groups: quality, access, efficiency, equity and healthy lives. Thus, the survey includes indicators like safety, waiting times, administrative organisation and equal access to healthcare.
  • Bloomberg uses life expectancy, healthcare cost as percentage of GDP and healthcare cost per capita to rank world's healthcare systems.
If you are gonna post rankings, know what is in the rankings and what parts truly are "worthwhile to the patient" vs "worthwhile to the 3rd party payers or government payers".

I would post more, but we'd move into politics. Needless to say, when rich folks start going away from the US to get their care vs coming to it, then I'd probably worry about the state of the care US patients receive (vs worrying about the cost they pay for it, which is the worry)...

Right now poor folks buy their prescription drugs from other countries or take medical vacations to Mexico to get care that they cannot afford in the US. That's a problem too.

My dad talked about how when he started working, his pay wasn't great but his benefits were. People have said you can't eat benefits, but I don't think that makes sense because the less you spend on things such as health care, the more money you have for other things. Your paycheck goes farther. My dad also had a good pension and he pointed out to me that I would have a good one as well when I decided to be a teacher. It meant nothing to me then but boy does it now.

And the cost of public benefits (majority of the cost is paid by the state/municipality instead of public sector workers) is one of the reasons that many states are in very difficult financial circumstances and having to raise property/income tax rates to cover the cost, especially for retired workers who are costing more in healthcare costs, driving up the amount the state has to cover each year. Its a big circle - healthcare is expensive, and someone has to pay for it - taxpayers, employees, employers. Back 20-30 years ago, jobs offered great healthcare and defined benefit pensions, but at the time companies didn't have to account for the future cost of the benefits they were offering (government entities still don't). Its not so much that that system worked great before, its just that all the costs were pushed into the future. The future is now, and healthcare is much more expensive (and effective) than previous generations could have anticipated.
 
Last edited:
Which leaves the average person retiring with $125k to cover them. It’s hard to save when you don’t have a lot left after expenses.

This then gets people into a 7 year bankruptcy cycle. Every 7 years they run up their debt, and then they file for bankruptcy.

Meanwhile folks that can afford to save grow their money via equities.

Go through a few economic cycles and you have terrible inequality with employee benefits reduced after each cycle.

The exploitation of contract workers is insane right now too. They get no benefits.
 
My dad talked about how when he started working, his pay wasn't great but his benefits were. People have said you can't eat benefits, but I don't think that makes sense because the less you spend on things such as health care, the more money you have for other things. Your paycheck goes farther. My dad also had a good pension and he pointed out to me that I would have a good one as well when I decided to be a teacher. It meant nothing to me then but boy does it now.

it was definitely the draw to civil service for dh and i. NOW i look at the way those identical jobs have much less in the way of benefits (esp. retiree) and i question if i would make the same decision b/c the lower pay is no longer offset by s/t and l/t benefits. for my dd though-i know she views her current employer as 'just for now' and has no desire to stay with them long term but when i look at their benefits i think she should consider moving into jobs her major reflects within the organization b/c beyond excellent insanely low cost health insurance they offer free or low cost disability insurance, generous 401k match-and what freaking 'entry level' job these days starts you off with 13 days of paid vacation you can opt to sell back that over time increases to 39 DAYS per year:faint:??? CRIPES-sell just a little more than half back each year and you've earned an additional full month of pay.
 
When we bought our house in the 80s we had a variable rate of 18-21% and had to put 20% down, and inflation was much higher than it is now, so I get tired of young people saying we had it so much better then.

Making a major purchase during an inflationary period is a boon to the buyer, not the other way around, provided that you are still in your income-earning years and your income largely keeps pace with inflation as well. Having purchased a house three years ago, I'd love to see the US/world go through a big inflationary period for a few years. If my income grows 30-50% thanks to inflation but I paid a fixed amount for my largest expense prior to the inflationary period, the house just got a whole lot cheaper.

Instead, the mortgage interest deduction that was around for 105 years got rendered useless for much of the middle class and that during a relatively low-inflation period. That's a bummer.

I wouldn't complain about the general situation facing younger folks today (I'm in my early 30s). We have countless opportunities to make our way in the world and frugality remains an excellent pathway to success and wealth. But I'd love to have a few years of 8-10% annual inflation. It would effectively reprice our house at a massive discount compared to what it actually cost us a few years ago.
 
We moved from California to the Southeast 3 years ago. I thought that everything would be less expensive in the South, especially after living in one of the most expensive states. But, not true. I’m finding many things that cost more. I used to pay $90 for haircut, color with foils (& doing roots) in California. Where I live now I pay $130 & that’s the cheap end here. Many places start @ $200 for that before I found the lady where I go now. Every time I go to the grocery store, prices increase. Lettuce was 99 cents, now its $1.50. Items at the grocery store didn’t increase by a few cents, it’s a substantial jump. Our cable bill just went up $25/month. My husband left a job in California where he (& no one else) received a raise in over 10 years (he’s been out of there for 3 years & they still haven’t gotten a raise). They took away bonuses & 401k’s long before that & benefits such as healthcare was pretty much non-existent. While things are better st new job, they’re already talking about no bonuses this year. Everything continues to cost more, just the cost of living & paying monthly bills but, in our case, income has not kept up.
LOL Depends on where you move. You sell your $400,000 shack in California and buy a nice house in Laurel, Mississippi for $12,000 to $70,000. That $300,000 will buy you a lot of dye jobs.
 
Making a major purchase during an inflationary period is a boon to the buyer, not the other way around, provided that you are still in your income-earning years and your income largely keeps pace with inflation as well. Having purchased a house three years ago, I'd love to see the US/world go through a big inflationary period for a few years. If my income grows 30-50% thanks to inflation but I paid a fixed amount for my largest expense prior to the inflationary period, the house just got a whole lot cheaper.

Instead, the mortgage interest deduction that was around for 105 years got rendered useless for much of the middle class and that during a relatively low-inflation period. That's a bummer.

I wouldn't complain about the general situation facing younger folks today (I'm in my early 30s). We have countless opportunities to make our way in the world and frugality remains an excellent pathway to success and wealth. But I'd love to have a few years of 8-10% annual inflation. It would effectively reprice our house at a massive discount compared to what it actually cost us a few years ago.

This is fine if you locked in a low rate prior to the inflation increase. If you’re paying the inflation cost in interest, you’re in a tough spot until you can refinance at a lower rate.

A good discussion of this cycle took place in season 4 of All In the Family. Search YouTube for Archie Bunker and Inflation. I think they handled it pretty well in that episode.

The big problem back then was salaries not keeping up with rising costs. My parents had a tough time during that cycle. My grandparents were buying bonds like crazy to make it through the first couple years of their retirement.
 
it was definitely the draw to civil service for dh and i. NOW i look at the way those identical jobs have much less in the way of benefits (esp. retiree) and i question if i would make the same decision b/c the lower pay is no longer offset by s/t and l/t benefits. for my dd though-i know she views her current employer as 'just for now' and has no desire to stay with them long term but when i look at their benefits i think she should consider moving into jobs her major reflects within the organization b/c beyond excellent insanely low cost health insurance they offer free or low cost disability insurance, generous 401k match-and what freaking 'entry level' job these days starts you off with 13 days of paid vacation you can opt to sell back that over time increases to 39 DAYS per year:faint:??? CRIPES-sell just a little more than half back each year and you've earned an additional full month of pay.
You are right about that. Our state raided our retirement programs and now are deciding they need to modify them. That's why I retired when I did. My husband has what was once a great job for a high school graduate at a local university. Not the greatest pay but good benefits. But things have changed so much and now the threats of outsourcing. He gets tons of vacation and sick time but hasn't had a raise in years. There is a new president now and he is giving them raises. Finally.
 
And the cost of public benefits (majority of the cost is paid by the state/municipality instead of public sector workers) is one of the reasons that many states are in very difficult financial circumstances and having to raise property/income tax rates to cover the cost, especially for retired workers who are costing more in healthcare costs, driving up the amount the state has to cover each year. Its a big circle - healthcare is expensive, and someone has to pay for it - taxpayers, employees, employers. Back 20-30 years ago, jobs offered great healthcare and defined benefit pensions, but at the time companies didn't have to account for the future cost of the benefits they were offering (government entities still don't). Its not so much that that system worked great before, its just that all the costs were pushed into the future. The future is now, and healthcare is much more expensive (and effective) than previous generations could have anticipated.


the trade off though is public service employment generally pays much less than the private sector for the identical job. in dh's division IT folks were making a fraction of what the going rate was in the industry. my line of worked required very specialized degrees and licensing to so much as sign certain documents. the same credentials in a private practice paid such that the turn over was tremendous (why public sector tried to get people within to do the education on their dime and commit to so many years of employment otherwise it was very quick turnover). if benefits don't offset the pay then paying the prevailing wage for a given job will end up costing the tax payers as well so i think to some extent they look to the numbers and crunch how long a retiree tends to live post retirement and the cost of those benefit expenses vs decades and decades of much higher pay (and there are careers in public service where people retire in their early 60's and the norm is death w/in 5 years b/c of the nature of their prior jobs-my dad used to read his retiree newsletter and attested to it, and i read mine and can see it month to month for certain classifications).
 
You are right about that. Our state raided our retirement programs and now are deciding they need to modify them. That's why I retired when I did. My husband has what was once a great job for a high school graduate at a local university. Not the greatest pay but good benefits. But things have changed so much and now the threats of outsourcing. He gets tons of vacation and sick time but hasn't had a raise in years. There is a new president now and he is giving them raises. Finally.

the county i worked for began to renege on some agreements with retirees back in 2002 but the capper was when they said the were going to cancel all health coverage for retirees:faint::faint::faint: now none of us get it for free but back in the day we got to pay at active employee rates, then it was capped years later so retirees pay the difference (no incentive for them to find cheaper coverage). the retirees had to launch a lawsuit to keep our benefits. crazy amounts of money for legal fees on both sides-what a waste.
 
the trade off though is public service employment generally pays much less than the private sector for the identical job. in dh's division IT folks were making a fraction of what the going rate was in the industry. my line of worked required very specialized degrees and licensing to so much as sign certain documents. the same credentials in a private practice paid such that the turn over was tremendous (why public sector tried to get people within to do the education on their dime and commit to so many years of employment otherwise it was very quick turnover). if benefits don't offset the pay then paying the prevailing wage for a given job will end up costing the tax payers as well so i think to some extent they look to the numbers and crunch how long a retiree tends to live post retirement and the cost of those benefit expenses vs decades and decades of much higher pay (and there are careers in public service where people retire in their early 60's and the norm is death w/in 5 years b/c of the nature of their prior jobs-my dad used to read his retiree newsletter and attested to it, and i read mine and can see it month to month for certain classifications).
According to a Pew Study, on average a public sector job pays 25% MORE than the same job in the private sector. My son went from private sector IT to public sector and DOUBLED his salary. And the benefits are amazing.

A former co-worker of mine took a California State Public Information Officer job. She is 10 years younger than me, and has 10 years less experience. Pay is public record here. Her pay in 2018 $141,633. That is more than my wife and I make COMBINED. And this is a job that we are over qualified for.
 
Last edited:
According to a Pew Study, on average a public sector job pays 25% MORE than the same job in the private sector. My son went from private sector IT to public sector and DOUBLED his salary. And the benefits are amazing.


'on average'-that's not taking into consideration highly specialized jobs. sure, depending on the IT job someone could get more going to work for public sector but if it's an IT job that's directly involved with certain legacy systems involving public programs that unless you've either worked directly in those programs or received the rare/costly training in them-a private sector employer will pay scads of more money for you to jump ship to them so they have you as a marketing ploy for the outside contracts they bid on. my agency/the other agency dh worked for were hiring just basic IT staff beginning in the early 2000's-anything specialized they contracted out, didn't replace the skilled staff as they left which resulted in some catastrophic financial and legal debacles that still haunt them.

there are job classifications i supervised in the early 2000's that either no longer exist or pay peanuts b/c younger up and coming college grads wanted the higher pay private employers offered so many were outsourced to contractors or the higher end duties placed on the backs of upper level staff w/the remaining duties handled by 'data droids' (new staff that entered the data but had no clue what they were entering/why so couldn't catch an error before they input it, didn't recognize it when it happened, can't answer a question to the public to save their lives).


there's also the huge variance in 'public sector' pay/benefits in california-

cal pers covered vs. privately managed (like some of the counties do), and the public utilities are a whole other animal (old school smud benefits were phenomenal, not sure where newbies fall now). i also wonder what happened with all the staff that worked for the cities/counties that filed bankruptcy back in the day-i know the ones that came to work for my county fared fairly well but if there jobs weren't outright eliminated in the restructuring they spoke of co-workers who were looking at massive pay/benefit/pension cuts they would never recover from.
 
Not be be political, but the US health care is the best in the world. It's why the richest of the world, like Mick Jagger, come to be treated in our country, not theirs.

What folks are always discussing is the cost of US Healthcare and who should bear it. Right now, we have a cost system that allows everyone the best in the world care, whether they can afford it and without worrying how much they use it. That means most of the system's costs fall to those who can afford it - the middle class and up, and the least sick bear some of the costs of the most sick.

The drive to make public the costs of procedures and medical tests is a drive to both make them more efficient and to drive the middle class level to the "less cadillac, but still effective" options - to try to drive more affordability through informed use vs "diktat from above" that tends to be about enforced limiting of use (if the government or insurance companies get to decide).

That's as much as I'll say b/c anything else gets political, but when "the grass is always greener", maybe we should actually research what the grass elsewhere gets and what their richest citizens do for their health. B/c for me, I'd rather be in the country able to use Mick Jagger's doctor, than be in the one where I have to watch from afar as he has the 100K to travel and drop on an immediate life-saving procedure at age 75 that I will never have.
The United States doesn't even rank in the Top 10 when it comes to healthcare worldwide.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top