Health Cost Rise 2-16-26

In 2026, average U.S. health costs are projected to rise significantly, with forecasts suggesting a 6.5% to over 10% increase in total health benefit costs. Health spending generally increases with age, with costs rising from around $2,000 annually for children (ages 5–17) to over $11,000 annually for those over 65. 

Here is a breakdown of 2026 average health care costs by age group, based on projected data: 

Estimated 2026 Monthly Health Insurance Costs 

Premiums are rising steeply, with some ACA Marketplace plans experiencing 20% or higher rate increases. 

Age 50: Average monthly costs are estimated around $845–$1,052.

Age 55: Average monthly costs are estimated around $1,313.

Age 60: Average monthly costs are estimated around $1,284–$1,598.

Age 64+: Average monthly costs are estimated around $1,766.

Key 2026 Cost Projections and Trends

Total Costs: The average employee-sponsored health benefit cost is expected to rise by 6.5% to 7.6%.

Retirement Costs (Age 65+): A 65-year-old couple retiring in 2026 can expect total annual healthcare costs (including Medicare premiums, deductibles, and medigap) to start around $17,003 in their first year of retirement, rising to over $55,000 annually by age 85.

Total Lifetime Cost (65+): A 65-year-old couple retiring in 2026 may need nearly $700,000 to over $950,000 for lifetime health expenses, depending on longevity and health conditions.

Gender Differences: Women often face 15% higher retirement healthcare costs than men due to longer life expectancy. 

Primary Cost Drivers in 2026

Prescription Drugs: Utilization of high-cost medications, specifically GLP-1 drugs for weight loss and diabetes, is driving up costs.

Chronic Conditions: Increased treatment for chronic conditions (cancer, cardiovascular disease) is elevating overall spending.

Hospital and Behavioral Health: Increased inpatient admissions and a surge in outpatient behavioral health claims are driving costs higher. 

Note: These estimates are based on projections from 2025/2026 industry reports (Kiplinger, Venteur, HealthView Services) and are subject to change based on final policy decisions.

Projected U.S. healthcare costs for 2026 reflect a sharp increase across all age groups, driven by rising medical trends and the expiration of pandemic-era subsidies. Industry analysts expect total healthcare benefit costs to rise by 6.5% to 9.6% in 2026. 

Estimated Monthly Costs by Age (2026)

Costs vary significantly by age, with older individuals paying substantially more due to higher health risks and age-based premium adjustments allowed under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

Age Group  Est Monthly Cost 2026  Annual Change from 2025

Age 50        $1052                            +21%

Age 55        $1,313                           +21% 

Age 60        $1,598                           +21%

Age 64        $1,766                           +21%

Key Cost Drivers and Trends for 2026

Premium Spikes: For those on the ACA Marketplace, average benchmark premiums are projected to rise significantly if enhanced tax credits expire, with some estimates suggesting a 114% increase ($888 to $1,904) for certain enrollees.

Medicare Increases: The standard Medicare Part B monthly premium is set to rise to $202.90 in 2026 (a nearly 10% increase), while the Part B deductible will increase to $283.

Usage Factors: Increased spending is attributed to the rising use of GLP-1 therapies for obesity and diabetes, higher hospital labor costs, and a surge in behavioral health claims.

Out-of-Pocket Growth: While Medicare Advantage premiums remain low (averaging $4), the average out-of-pocket maximum for these plans is projected to rise by 7% to $6,153 in 2026. 

Historical Context (Spending per Capita)

Historically, individuals aged 65 and older spend approximately 2.5 times more on healthcare than working-age adults and 5 times more than children. As of late 2024, the average total per capita health spending in the U.S. reached approximately $15,474. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+are+the+average+us+health+costs+by+age+group+2026+google+ai

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

US 1960 Healthcare Spending 2-16-26

In 1960, U.S. healthcare spending was relatively low, with per capita expenditures at approximately $147. While detailed, age-stratified cost data in 1960 dollars is scarce, national health spending was only 5.2% of GDP, compared to 17.9% in 2010. Costs were rising, driven by increased insurance coverage and rising hospital fees.  

Overall Costs: In 1960, total U.S. health expenditures were $27 billion.

Per Capita Spending: $147 per person in 1960.

Age Distribution Trends: Although precise 1960 figures by age are not provided in the search results, historical trends indicate that, similar to later years, older populations consumed more resources. By the 1960s and early 70s, as health insurance expanded, spending started to rise, particularly for hospital and physician services.

Context: In 1960, 1 in 20 dollars of the U.S. economy was spent on health care. 

In 1960, average per capita healthcare spending in the U.S. was approximately $143 to $147. Detailed age-specific datasets for 1960 are limited as Medicare and Medicaid were not established until 1965; however, historical analyses provide key cost distributions for that era. 

Estimated Costs by Age Group

While exact 1960 dollar amounts for every age bracket are not always recorded in a single table, research from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) highlights these early patterns:

Infants (Under 1 year): Medical spending for the very young was significantly higher than for older children, though it grew most dramatically after 1963.

Children & Young Adults: Generally the lowest spending group. Relative costs typically declined after the first year of life, remaining level until roughly age 20 for females and age 30 for males.

The "Middle-Aged" (1–64 years): This group accounted for the majority of the population but had lower per-person growth rates (roughly 4.7% annually) compared to the very young or very old.

The Elderly (65+ years): Even before Medicare, this group had the highest costs.

1962 Survey: The average medical cost for aged couples paying out-of-pocket was approximately $142, while non-married elderly individuals averaged $270.

Cost of Life Gained: Looking back from 1960, the average cost per year of life gained for a 65-year-old was estimated at $84,700 (adjusted for long-term value). 

Historical Context (1960)

Share of Economy: Healthcare spending represented only 5.2% of the U.S. GDP in 1960, compared to nearly 18% today.

Payment Methods: In the early 1960s, a much larger portion of healthcare was paid for directly out-of-pocket or through private voluntary agencies, especially for the elderly.

Price Drivers: Total national health expenditures were $27 billion. Spending growth in this decade was primarily driven by "non-price factors" like increased access to care and expanding private insurance coverage. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+were+us+healthcare+costs+by+age+group+in+1960+google+ai

Comments

In 1960, a hospital room charge was $24 per day including DX and Lab.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Catholic Hospitals 2-16-26

Around 1960, the number of Catholic hospitals in the United States reached its peak, with approximately 800 to 868 hospitals. 

Peak Numbers: Data from around 1960 indicates that religious orders operated nearly 800-900 hospitals during this period.

Specific 1960-1961 Reports: A 1961 report noted 852 to 868 Catholic hospitals in the U.S..

Historical Context: Between 1840 and 1960, Catholic religious orders founded more than 1,000 hospitals in the United States.

Patients Served: In 1960, these institutions recorded nearly five million patient admissions, with about 56% of those patients being non-Catholic. 

Following the 1960s, the number of Catholic hospitals began a slow decline, with about 600-639 reported in recent years. 

Around 800 Catholic hospitals were operating in the United States in 1960. 

This period is often cited as the peak for Catholic healthcare facilities in the U.S. before a gradual decline caused by mergers and secularization. Historical records from that era highlight the significant role these institutions played in the national healthcare system: 

Hospital Capacity: These 800 hospitals provided approximately 137,000 beds for patients.

Patient Admissions: In 1960, Catholic hospitals reported nearly 5 million admissions, with approximately 56% of those patients being non-Catholic.

Workforce: By 1965, the ministry was supported by over 13,600 religious sisters serving across these facilities.

Total Reach: Between 1840 and 1960, religious orders founded more than 1,000 hospitals in total across the country. 

Today, the Catholic Health Association reports there are more than 600 Catholic hospitals remaining in the U.S., which still account for about one in seven patients cared for daily. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+catholic+hospitals+were+there+in+the+us+in+1960+google+ai

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

US 1960 Life Expectancy 2-16-26

In 1960, the average life expectancy at birth in the United States was approximately 69.7 years. This figure represents a significant increase from 47 years in 1900.  

Total Life Expectancy (1960): 69.7 years.

Gender Breakdown (1960): While figures vary slightly by source, women generally had a higher life expectancy than men (e.g., 71.8 for women vs. 66.5 for men in 1950-1960 data).

Context: Life expectancy grew from roughly 47 years in 1900 to nearly 70 by 1960, driven by medical advances, but it was still lower than the ~79 years seen in the 2010s. 

In 1960, the average life expectancy at birth in the United States was 69.7 years. 

This figure represents a significant increase from previous decades; for comparison, life expectancy in 1900 was just 47.3 years. By the early 1960s, the U.S. reached a milestone where the average American could expect to live to 70 for the first time in history. 

1960 Life Expectancy Breakdown

Life expectancy varied significantly based on gender and race: 

Total Population: 69.7 years

By Gender:

Females: 73.1–73.2 years

Males: 66.6–66.7 years

By Race:

White Americans: 70.6 years

Black Americans: 63.6 years 

Historical Context & Trends

Leading Causes of Death: In 1960, chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, and stroke were already the primary causes of mortality.

Growth Rate: The largest gains in U.S. life expectancy after 1960 occurred between 1970 and 1980, when it rose by approximately three years.

Modern Comparison: As of 2023, the average U.S. life expectancy has risen to approximately 78.4 years. 

For more detailed historical data, you can refer to the U.S. Census Bureau's historical reports or the Social Security Administration's life tables. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+was+us+life+expectancy+in+1960+google+ai

In 1960, the United States spent approximately $23.4 billion to $27.2 billion on national healthcare expenditures, representing roughly 5% to 5.2% of the nation's GDP. This amounted to about $146–$147 per person annually. At that time, most health spending consisted of out-of-pocket payments.

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+did+the+us+spend+on+healthcare+in+1960+google+ai

Total U.S. healthcare spending in 2025 is projected to reach approximately $5.6 trillion, driven by a 7.1% increase in costs, notes Modern Healthcare and KFF. Healthcare expenditures are expected to account for roughly 18% of the gross domestic product (GDP), with hospital care representing the largest share at $1.8 trillion. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+did+the+us+spend+on+healthcare+in+2025+google+ai

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Lowering Campaign Costs 2-15-26

Lowering the cost of political campaigns in the U.S. for the 2026 election cycle involves a combination of legislative reform,, stricter regulatory enforcement, and shifting away from high-cost, traditional media advertising. Key strategies proposed or under consideration include strengthening anti-coordination rules between campaigns and Super PACs, passing transparency laws to curb "dark money," and exploring public financing systems.  

Here are specific ways the US can lower campaign costs in 2026:

1. Legislative and Regulatory Reforms

Strengthen Anti-Coordination Rules: Passing legislation like the Stop Illegal Campaign Coordination Act would prevent Super PACs and campaigns from coordinating, forcing outside groups to run their own, often less effective, campaigns, thus reducing the total money spent.

The DISCLOSE Act: This proposed legislation would require organizations spending money on elections to disclose their donors, reducing the flow of "dark money" and increasing accountability, which can deter the need for massive, secretive spending.

End "Dark Money" in Nonprofits: Congress could act to prevent 501(c) nonprofit groups from being used to funnel unlimited, undisclosed funds into elections.

Constitutional Amendment: Proposing an amendment, such as the Democracy for All Amendment or the We the People Amendment, would explicitly allow Congress and states to regulate and limit campaign spending, reversing the Citizens United decision. 

2. Public Financing and Small Donor Empowerment

Small Donor Matching Programs: Modeled after New York City's system, public funds can match and multiply small donations (e.g., a 5:1 match). This encourages candidates to rely on smaller, grassroots donations rather than high-dollar, special interest donors.

"Democracy Vouchers": This system gives citizens vouchers to donate to candidates of their choice, which can help challengers compete without needing to court wealthy donors.

Tax Credits for Small Donations: Providing tax incentives for individuals to make small contributions encourages broad-based participation and reduces reliance on corporate or union money. 

3. Alternative Campaigning Strategies

Shifting from TV to Digital: As political ad spending for 2026 reaches new highs, with broadcast TV taking up 49% of the share, smaller, cost-effective campaigns are increasingly using digital and texting outreach to reach voters directly, as they are often cheaper and more targeted.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV): By allowing voters to rank candidates, RCV can eliminate the need for costly, separate runoff elections. 

4. Addressing Supreme Court Decisions

Regulating Coordinated Spending: A 2026 Supreme Court case, NRSC v. FEC, could, depending on the ruling, either increase costs by allowing more party-coordinated spending or be managed by new legislative limits on such activities.

Current 2026 Context: For the 2025-2026 cycle, the FEC has increased individual contribution limits to $3,500 per election to account for inflation, and total spending is projected to reach new highs. 

Efforts to lower the cost of U.S. political campaigns in 2026 center on legal reforms to coordination rules, the expansion of public financing, and new legislative transparency requirements. 

1. Reforming Coordination & Ad Rates

A major factor in campaign costs is the difference in advertising rates for candidates versus outside groups. 

Lowest Unit Charge (LUC): By law, candidates receive the lowest possible television ad rates, which are significantly cheaper than those paid by Super PACs.

Coordinated Spending Case: The Supreme Court is currently considering NRSC v. FEC, which could lift limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates. If these limits are removed, parties could gain access to the cheaper candidate ad rates, potentially allowing their fundraising to go further. 

2. Expanding Public Financing Programs 

Several jurisdictions are implementing public funding to reduce reliance on large private donations for the 2026 cycle. 

State & Local Matches: New York State is debuting a small-donor matching program for statewide offices in 2026. Similarly, Maryland counties like Anne Arundel and Baltimore will use new programs to match small campaign donations with public funds.

Democracy Vouchers: Seattle voters recently renewed their "democracy voucher" program, which provides residents with certificates to give to their preferred candidates. 

3. Legislative & Constitutional Proposals

Lawmakers and advocacy groups are pushing for structural changes to curb "dark money" and unlimited spending. 

The DISCLOSE Act: This proposed legislation would require major political contributors to disclose their funds, aiming to eliminate secret "dark money" in elections.

Stop Illegal Campaign Coordination Act: This bill seeks to create a "firewall" between candidates and outside spenders to prevent coordination that bypasses contribution limits.

Constitutional Amendment: Advocacy groups like the Brennan Center argue that a constitutional amendment is necessary to overturn Citizens United and allow Congress to set reasonable limits on campaign expenditures. 

4. Digital & Targeted Outreach

To bypass the "prohibitively expensive" costs of traditional TV and radio, smaller or first-time 2026 campaigns are increasingly shifting to digital outreach and texting to reach voters at scale. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+can+the+us+lower+the+cost+of+political+campaigns+in+2026+google

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

What Voters Need 2-15-26

Voters need access to Candidates’ Full Resume, Positions on Issues and Political Party of all candidates running for office.  This information should be on Candidate Webpages before candidates are allowed to register as candidates for elective office. This is critical especially for Candidates for Federal Office in the US Congress. 

Campaign contributions should be limited to include contributions to US House and Senate seats with no “outside money” allowed.  All contributions for US House seats should be confined to individuals and corporations who reside in the US House District. All contributions for US Senate seats should be confined to individuals and corporations who reside in the State. All candidates should be free to fund their own campaigns.

US House candidates will hold more “in person” meetings with voters throughout the district. US Senate candidates will need to do the same over a larger area.

Political Parties will need to maintain lists of candidates as they register to become candidates.

The restrictions listed above should effectively reduce spending on US House and Senate Campaigns.

Funding Candidates for US President would be limited to campaign contributions from individuals and corporations residing in the US.

These restrictions will allow the US to get the “Money out of Politics”.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Republican Approval 2-15-26

Based on recent 2026 developments, Republican voters show high levels of support for House Republican initiatives that focus on election security, such as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which passed with nearly unanimous support from Republican lawmakers in Feb 2026. These initiatives are often framed as key priorities for the 2026 midterm elections and are intended to align with voter demands for stricter voter ID laws and proof of citizenship.  

Key Aspects of Support:

Election Security/SAVE Act: The House-passed SAVE Act, which mandates proof of citizenship for federal voter registration, was largely approved on a party-line vote (218-213), highlighting unified support among GOP lawmakers for this initiative. This follows a pattern where Republican voters favor measures intended to reduce voter fraud, even as they face opposition from Democrats.

Alignment with Leadership: The initiatives, such as the SAVE Act and, in some cases, efforts to repeal tariffs, are often backed by House leadership and align with the broader priorities of the Trump administration.

Diverse Views on Turnout: While core Republican voters consistently support the party's platform (around 70% in some, though not all, metrics), there is a segment of "new" Republican voters that may not be as reliably locked in on every initiative.

State-Level Support: In various states, Republican voters have supported, and lawmakers have pushed for, measures that limit the ability of outside groups to influence ballot measures, aiming to increase the scrutiny of state-level initiatives.

However, these initiatives are often part of a contentious, narrowly passed agenda in the House (e.g., 216-215 votes), indicating that while they have strong support among the party faithful, they are not universally accepted by the broader electorate. 

As of February 2026, Republican voter approval for House initiatives is a study in contrasts: while core party members remain largely supportive, there are significant signs of internal friction regarding specific policy priorities and the influence of the Trump administration.

Key Initiatives and Voter Sentiment

Voter Eligibility and "SAVE Act": The House recently passed an updated version of the Safeguard

American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act on February 11, 2026. This legislation, which mandates strict proof-of-citizenship for voter registration, aligns with high-priority demands from Donald Trump and is intended to resonate with the GOP base ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Tariff Controversies: A significant "GOP revolt" occurred in February 2026 when several House Republicans (including Reps. Don Bacon and Thomas Massie) initially blocked a procedural rule to protest language that would have barred members from calling votes to repeal President Trump's tariffs. This internal split reflects broader voter divisions; a February 2026 bipartisan House vote even "slapped down" certain tariffs on Canada.

Economic and Social Policies: While Republican lawmakers are pushing dozens of bills targeting diversity (DEI) initiatives to appeal to voters, recent polling suggests a gap in enthusiasm. Only about half of Republicans say Trump’s current priorities are correct, with many expressing concern over the "turmoil" accompanying his second-term economic leadership. 

Approval and Turnout Trends

Core vs. New Republicans: A December 2025 study highlighted a loyalty gap: while 70% of "core Republicans" definitely plan to support the party in the 2026 midterms, only 56% of voters newly brought into the party by Trump feel the same.

Policy Misalignment: Despite the legislative push, an AP-NORC poll found that the Republican president failed to earn majority approval on several key issues, with many voters feeling his policies have not directly helped them.

State-Level Pushback: In several states, Republican voters have directly countered GOP legislative initiatives through ballot measures, particularly on issues like abortion rights and Medicaid expansion, where voters approved measures that Republican lawmakers subsequently tried to limit or defund. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=approval+of+Republican+House+initiatives+by+Republican+voters+google

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader