Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)

15. About 8.9% of employees are directly involved in care.

Reply to Warren Stupidity (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 30, 2013, 10:52 AM

Oct 2013

29-0000 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations is 5.87% and 31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations is 3.01%.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

But that doesn't include all the other people in medical businesses from receptionists to managers. And it doesn't include people in many of the occupational categories in insurance, finance, law, pharma, health supplies, medical device manufacture and distribution, etc.

Profit margins in healthcare are substantial but by not means outstanding. They don't approach Apple's profit margins.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What percent of GDP is spent on healthcare? [View all] kentuck Oct 2013 OP

That would make too much sense, plus it would make our labor force competitive again Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #1

Healthcare is mostly labor cost, so cutting half off costs would cut employment by about 8% FarCenter Oct 2013 #11

cool theory, bro Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #14

About 8.9% of employees are directly involved in care. FarCenter Oct 2013 #15

So according to your theory 8 of that 8.9% of the workforce got fired Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #17

The insurance, pharma, medical device, clerical and admin staff, etc. are above the 8.9% FarCenter Oct 2013 #19

The healthcare needs are still there? kentuck Oct 2013 #20

Healthcare needs are not directly related to cost FarCenter Oct 2013 #24

And what does that have to do with more people unemployed? kentuck Oct 2013 #26

It's not cutting them by half. Half would be from employee, other half from employer CreekDog Oct 2013 #27

Commie! leftstreet Oct 2013 #2

That part is not a bad idea. But, wringing the profit out of drugs, providers, device Hoyt Oct 2013 #3

Would it be different than it is today?? kentuck Oct 2013 #4

If you want to save costs, it has to be done. Sure it's no different than Hoyt Oct 2013 #5

A badass single payer with infinite leverage might just have an edge there NoOneMan Oct 2013 #6

You'd think. But Medicare has only been marginally effective in doing that. Hoyt Oct 2013 #7

Providers in America are not dealing with just a single payer NoOneMan Oct 2013 #8

Medicare is a big payer, and costs per beneficiary go up every year. Hoyt Oct 2013 #9

America pays about double what every other country pays for healthcare. kentuck Oct 2013 #10

8.5% of paychecks won't support the 50 million with no paychecks maced666 Oct 2013 #12

Simply not correct davekriss Oct 2013 #13

A good idea, but for the math. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #16

Oddly enough the math works just fine in every other advanced industrialized democracy. Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #18

"The math" does, but *this* math doesn't. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #21

What difference would it make?? kentuck Oct 2013 #22

How much should Bill Gates pay toward single payer healthcare? lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #23

I think your plan is flawed. kentuck Oct 2013 #25

Healthcare currently costs 18% *of GDP*. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #28

One thousand millions in a billion dollars. kentuck Oct 2013 #29