Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Health Care Reform Will Not Hold Down Costs (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Health Care Reform Will Not Hold Down Costs
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Medicare Actuary Doubts Health Care Law Will Hold Down Costs

quote:
Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

Costs could also increase if Medicare cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies turn out to be politically unsustainable over the years. The actuary's office has projected those cuts would eventually force about 15 percent of providers into the red. The health care law funnels savings from the Medicare cuts to provide coverage to uninsured workers and their families.

Link

I found that all of these statements over the past two years that the health care law would reduce the deficit strained credibility. Apparently the analysis by the chief Medicare actuary concurs. The primary problem with American medical care is the very high costs and it remains so. This is the core issue and it's one both parties have failed to seriously address.

George Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit was an unpaid for fiscal time bomb and the addition of Barack Obama's health care reform law makes matters worse.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The primary problem with American medical care is the very high costs and it remains so. This is the core issue and it's one both parties have failed to seriously address.


I completely agree with this statement. this is the main reason i haven't jumped in on either side of the healthcare reform debate.

testing 2 vials of my blood required $840. my aunts treatment for leukemia cost in excess of 750k, including a single prescription of 7 pills that cost 5k. my stepdad had surgery on his back to install a spine stimulator that cost 250k for a 4 hour surgery. my buddies sister is an ob/gyn that makes 50k a month. costs are out of control and unrealistic. for many diseases treatment is unobtainable without insurance or government intervention. until we do something to lower the cost of treatment no ammount of bandages is ever going to fix the situation.

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was billed over $200 for one blood test. The insurance negotiated rate was $12. I'm assuming, then, that Quest Labs can cover their expenses and make enough profit to stay in business by getting paid $12 for this test. Why charge $200 to the uninsured? Because insurance companies require the appearance of them getting a good deal in negotiating. If anyone could walk in and pay $12 it wouldn't look nearly as good as if someone could look at the bill and say, "This insurance is worth it, look, it saved me over $180."

If this problem could be fixed and medical services were priced reasonably most people would be able to afford routine medical care on their own.

Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I was billed over $200 for one blood test. The insurance negotiated rate was $12. I'm assuming, then, that Quest Labs can cover their expenses and make enough profit to stay in business by getting paid $12 for this test.
I don't know that your assumption is true, sadly. The insurance industry is specifically exempt from antitrust laws. It may be that the uninsured customers paying for their own tests are subsidizing the insured - or there may be some more complicated thing going on. Insurance companies have been known to drive health care providers bankrupt on purpose.
Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Foster says analysis by his office shows that the health care law will raise the nation's health care tab modestly because newly insured people will be getting medical services they would have otherwise gone without.

Costs could also increase if Medicare cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies turn out to be politically unsustainable over the years. The actuary's office has projected those cuts would eventually force about 15 percent of providers into the red. The health care law funnels savings from the Medicare cuts to provide coverage to uninsured workers and their families.

As for people getting to keep their health insurance plan, Foster's office is projecting that more than 7 million Medicare recipients in private Medicare Advantage plans will eventually have to find other coverage, cutting enrollment in the plans by about half.

The health care law gradually cuts generous government payments to the plans, so insurers are expected to raise premiums or even drop out. And the main reason seniors have flocked to the private plans is that they offer lower out-of-pocket costs.

Medicare recipients who lose private coverage would still be guaranteed coverage in the traditional program, but they would likely have to take out a supplementary insurance plan for gaps in their coverage.

So it may mean a modest increase in the nation's health care tab, and if the plan isn't followed, it could cost more. (Gee, I wonder if costs would jump if we didn't follow other parts of the plan, too, or scrap the plan completely?) And those with Medicare Advantage--which costs the government more than regular Medicare, IIRC--might lose their policies because the government isn't putting extra money into it anymore.

Not exactly causing large increases in health care and kicking everyone off their insurance. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's what happens when you mandate coverage (increasing demand) without doing anything to limit how much the provider can charge...
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't mind a law limiting service provider charges to cash customers to No more than the lowest rate + 20%. This would also mean that providers could not charge a cash customer more than 20% greater than the Medicare reimbursement rate, assuming they participate in Medicare.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
So it may mean a modest increase in the nation's health care tab, and if the plan isn't followed, it could cost more.

Not exactly causing large increases in health care and kicking everyone off their insurance. [Smile]

Modest increases so far. That's 1 year into the plan and before all of the provisions have been fully implemented. The bill supporters (on this very board) argued strenuously that the Health care law would lower medical costs.

Furthermore, the Medicare reimbursement rate reduction has been postponed for a decade. The bill (and CBO estimate) assume that it will finally be enacted this year. That's about as likely as pigs growing rocket engines out of their butts and colonizing Mars. [Razz]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Modest increases so far. That's 1 year into the plan and before all of the provisions have been fully implemented.
Has there been a significant increase of the number of insured all ready? Foster did state that this modest increase would be the result of "newly insured people ... getting medical services they would have otherwise gone without."

I think you misread the quote.

quote:
Furthermore, the Medicare reimbursement rate reduction has been postponed for a decade. The bill (and CBO estimate) assume that it will finally be enacted this year. That's about as likely as pigs growing rocket engines out of their butts and colonizing Mars.
Not implementing the plan will throw the estimates off. Just like not funding it. But that is not the fault of the plan, is it?
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

quote:
I wouldn't mind a law limiting service provider charges to cash customers to No more than the lowest rate + 20%. This would also mean that providers could not charge a cash customer more than 20% greater than the Medicare reimbursement rate, assuming they participate in Medicare.
I've suggested something similar in the past.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Not implementing the plan will throw the estimates off. Just like not funding it. But that is not the fault of the plan, is it?

Yes, it is! Anytime a plan is predicated on unlikely assumptions the plan is foolhardy at best. This is a foolhardy plan.

Even the Left realizes the plan is flawed and is just hoping to fix it in the future. The Right mostly just detests it as a force majeure of the Left. There will be no success until a true compromise plan can be built with an agreement based on a broad consensus.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Furthermore, the Medicare reimbursement rate reduction has been postponed for a decade. The bill (and CBO estimate) assume that it will finally be enacted this year. That's about as likely as pigs growing rocket engines out of their butts and colonizing Mars. [Razz]

The bill assumes nothing of the sort. Getting a permanent fix in place for that broken policy or punting it a little further down the road in place is a completely tangential issue.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Foster says analysis by his office shows that the health care law will raise the nation's health care tab modestly because newly insured people will be getting medical services they would have otherwise gone without.
Ah, so "won't lower costs" is deceptive, because it plays to the straw man of total health care spending (where no on pretended there would be a reduction) rather than individual costs.

Properly insuring 30 Million more people is going to result in more overall spending on healthcare, but it will also mean that each person's individual overall costs will go down a bit

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I wouldn't mind a law limiting service provider charges to cash customers to No more than the lowest rate + 20%. This would also mean that providers could not charge a cash customer more than 20% greater than the Medicare reimbursement rate, assuming they participate in Medicare.
JWatts, you socialist rascal, you! Seriously, that really is too left wing for me. That level of government intrusion into the pricing policies of private companies does not seem right to me.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
JWatts, you socialist rascal, you! Seriously, that really is too left wing for me. That level of government intrusion into the pricing policies of private companies does not seem right to me.

[Big Grin] I would assume you were joking, but you did say "seriously", so I'll point out that the Federal and State governments place hundreds of pricing constraints, both directly and indirectly on goods already.


I'm sure you've seen the very popular cigarette signs that say something like "Priced at the State Minimum". Link

And of course there are any number of anti Price gouging laws.

quote:
In the United States, laws against price gouging have been held constitutional as a valid exercise of the police power to preserve order during an emergency, and may be combined with anti-hoarding measures.
Link

And of course the recent Obama Credit Card regulations restrict what credit card companies can charge:
quote:
The new credit card rules, which go into effect in nine months, prohibit companies from giving cards to people under 21 unless they can prove they have the means to pay the debt or a parent or guardian co-signs. A customer also will have to be more than 60 days behind on a payment before seeing a rate increase on an existing balance. Even then, the lender will be required to restore the previous, lower rate if the cardholder pays the minimum balance on time for six months.

And consumers also will have to receive 45 days’ notice and an explanation before their interest rates increase.

Link

So complaining about something as benign as narrowing the band of health care charges to 20% is a stretch when the Federal government feels the need to treat 20 year old citizens as if they were minors.

And we won't even go into the Federal government giving two of the biggest car companies on the planet over to the UAW.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Foster says analysis by his office shows that the health care law will raise the nation's health care tab modestly because newly insured people will be getting medical services they would have otherwise gone without.
Ah, so "won't lower costs" is deceptive, because it plays to the straw man of total health care spending (where no on pretended there would be a reduction) rather than individual costs.

Properly insuring 30 Million more people is going to result in more overall spending on healthcare, but it will also mean that each person's individual overall costs will go down a bit

That is a LOT of backpedaling by you and your assertions about the impact of the bill, not per person but in toto.

However to be fair, you also made quite apparant that you didn't give a flying fig if it cut total costs since it meant 'healthcare was underutilized'.

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That is a LOT of backpedaling by you and your assertions about the impact of the bill, not per person but in toto.
Pointing out that your assertion is a complete strawman isn't backpedaling. You're inventing an assertion that was never made. The point is to get everyone reasonably well covered, which will, by the very nature of insurance pooling, will reduce individual costs. That's what "affordable" means- less cost to each consumer, not less total spending.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Un F*cking believable! You blythly repeated every single talking point the WH made, impuning anyone who questioned Obama's assumptions as a political obstructionist.

However, the WH, Pelosi, et al were all saying this was deficit neutral! Not one dime more extra on the budget. It was all covered by cuts and taxes and fees. Even with the 30 million extra (another WH talking point). In fact, many said time and time again it would REDUCE THE DEFICIT! That is NOT 'cutting the costs for individuals', though they promised that too...and free ponies...and jam tomorrow and jam yesterday. That is a NET REDUCTION IN PAYMENTS IN HEALTHCARE OVERALL.

YOU may not care. But this is not the bill of goods that was sold to a questioning public.

Say on Squealer.

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is more deficit neutral. The extra spend is more than counter-balanced by other revenues and spending cuts. You're trying to make a completely false equivalence between "deficit neutral" and "spending neutral" and then forcing the words of others to conform to that lie.

No one ever claimed that it wouldn't represent additional spending, heck Obama handicapped the bill a bit when he set the rough target of $900 billion in spending for the first 10 years, which induced the Senate to slow down the implementation timeline a bit to try to hit that target.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But this is not the bill of goods that was sold to a questioning public.
Again, I seriously doubt that if you were to ask ten members of the "questioning public" the purpose of the healthcare bill, even one of them would say "deficit reduction."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oqOk1DXuG4

Around the minute mark. He specifically says 'Control Costs' for personal, federal and business.

Now it DOESN'T control costs according to the actuary...as well as several other promises made which are breaking.

It's okay to be wrong. It's okay think it's still a good (though that ice is getting thinner and thinner). But now you are going into verbal gymnastics and hoping that people don't have access to the internet. When you need to retreat to caveats and defining what 'is' is, then either your master communicator a) failed, b) lied, or c) was wrong.

This is one of many instances where he pushed the cost containment meme. It was a WH talking point. Live by the talking point...

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He specifically says 'Control Costs' for personal, federal and business.
And you don't think it'll control costs? Why not?

I understand we're nitpicking, here, but it seems to me that the plan is indeed designed to control costs. That was one of the biggest complaints against it.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Somehow defict reduction was mentioned in almost EVERY SINGLE SPEECH...but now it wasn't important. REALLY, Tom? But you want to weasel behind the word 'purpose'. See video above. Our Talking Point in Chief clearly outlined the fiscal unsustainability of our current insurance system. Spoke about it at length. The world is not binary. It's purpose could be 'provide healthcare to the uninsured' AND 'contain costs and reduce deficits'. It was sold that way.

But that isn't the point of the orignial article. It was ALSO a talking point that this bill would contain costs. This seems increasingly doubtful.

But to throw that meme you are trying to establish:

Poll: Two questions

Have you heard, read or seen anything about the healthcare bill, even once?

If yes

Was deficit reduction a key provision of the latest healthcare bill?

Exactly what percentage do you think would respond yes to the second question?

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
He specifically says 'Control Costs' for personal, federal and business.
And you don't think it'll control costs? Why not?

I understand we're nitpicking, here, but it seems to me that the plan is indeed designed to control costs. That was one of the biggest complaints against it.

Just in the first two minutes of that video

"We will contain costs on healthcare."

"People who put off an examination they need, or medicine to make them more comfortable, they'll be able to get that." (paraphrased)

These two ideas are extraordinarily hard to reconcile. Not impossible but I put it beyond the government as it stands.

And to the 'nitpick' thing? NO! It is NOT a nitpick. If the President mentions deficit reduction in every single speech, when he goes on for 3 minutes plus in a ten minute speech about the fiscal shoals of healthcare ahead, to suddenly hear 'nope...doesn't reduce costs' is pretty damning.

[ January 29, 2011, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: flydye ]

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Our Talking Point in Chief clearly outlined the fiscal unsustainability of our current insurance system.
Do you understand the difference between the fiscal unsustainability of our insurance system and the national deficit? The two problems, while both financial, are not in fact the same and do not have the same solution.

------

quote:
These two ideas are extraordinarily hard to reconcile.
Not if you've been paying attention. Something that people don't seem to understand -- even people on this board, despite having been linked to several studies demonstrating the effect -- is that regular doctor's visits dramatically reduce the total cost of healthcare.

[ January 29, 2011, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's no point in worrying about the nitpicking. This bill will cost far more than advertised. The costs will run up, just like they traditionally do in Federal run programs. Receipts will turn out to be less than predicted and costs will turn out to be more than predicted.

The costs will be much higher than Obama predicted and pretty soon this plan will be absolutely unaffordable. We are currently running massive deficits and the Federal budget is in deep trouble. There is no room for any new expensive legislation. Certainly not another $150 billion a year plus inflation.

The average cost of medical insurance in the US is $5K per year. Roughly 30 million un-insured. 30 million * $5K = $150 Billion per year.

The health care reform plan will be modified to be deficit neutral within the next 6-8 years. Assuming President Obama can when re-election, he'll probably protect the program until he is out of office. At that time his replacement will enact major cost saving reforms.

Either the reforms will involve reducing the covered pool to less than 30 million or the average cost of the benefits will be reduced to less than the benefits provided by the average plan.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or I suppose we could sensibly nationalize healthcare, which is far and away the superior option.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Our Talking Point in Chief clearly outlined the fiscal unsustainability of our current insurance system.
Do you understand the difference between the fiscal unsustainability of our insurance system and the national deficit? The two problems, while both financial, are not in fact the same and do not have the same solution.
I always love when you get willfully obtuse. It means I struck a nerve. I'll type slow for you. He has specifically said in this and many speeches that the payments in Medicare and Medicaid were going to bankrupt the nation if we don't do exactly what he wants to do.

Is that a clear enough connection between healthcare and deficits for you? Or are you going to put your blinders on some more?

quote:

quote:
These two ideas are extraordinarily hard to reconcile.
Not if you've been paying attention. Something that people don't seem to understand -- even people on this board, despite having been linked to several studies demonstrating the effect -- is that regular doctor's visits dramatically reduce the total cost of healthcare.
Ah. The old 'if we give 100% expensive tests, with the false positives, somehow it won't be as expensive as the one percent or less who actually gets ill' meme.

I have studies which show that is a bunch of hooey. In fact, the entire mammogram thing was that entire argument in miniture. The doctors looked at the facts of breast cancer and said that the '100% tests at a young age' thing was the wrong route.

(It also showed the folly of trying to mandate cutting back on healthcare without the public having skin in the game re market forces, something eschewed and mocked by Obamacare supporters)

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The old 'if we give 100% expensive tests, with the false positives, somehow it won't be as expensive as the one percent or less who actually gets ill' meme.
I don't see how Tom's "regular doctor's visits" equates with "giving expensive cancer screenings."
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If we give everyone even inexpensive tests for everything we are still not lowering demands or holding down costs. Plus we are clogging up the already overscheduled doctors with more people. What do you think that is going to do to pricing until Obama starts price fixing?

[ January 29, 2011, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: flydye ]

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
fly,

If your point is that we need to start price fixing, I agree.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This bill will cost far more than advertised. The costs will run up, just like they traditionally do in Federal run programs.
Like the $700 billion bailout that is coming in close to $700 billion less than anticipated?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
This bill will cost far more than advertised. The costs will run up, just like they traditionally do in Federal run programs.
Like the $700 billion bailout that is coming in close to $700 billion less than anticipated?
Are you referring to the Bush emergency loans to banks? Those were always loans with interests. They were never anticipated to actually cost $700 billion. But of course you already knew that.

Are you willing to go on record stating that the Obama Health care reform will come in under budget?

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Personally, I'm not willing to predict anything about the bills until I know how much of them is going to be gutted by this Congress.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Around the minute mark. He specifically says 'Control Costs' for personal, federal and business.
Sure. That's still not "reduce total spending" like you are trying to claim.

From http://feeds.voices.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=aaaa8962b10b07c0419173eb849d1f46

quote:
That's where the legislation's delivery-system reforms come in. And this gets us to the right question, which isn't "are the Medicare cuts sustainable?" but "will the delivery-system reforms work?" If the answer to that question is "no," and if we can't think of some set of delivery-system reforms that do work, then the Medicare cuts are not sustainable -- and neither is Medicare, or the rest of the health-care system, or the American economy.

The delivery-system portion of the legislation is thick with experiments and ideas, so I'm not going to go through all of it. But here are a few of the basic ones: Converting the health-care system to electronic records makes it much easier to track patient outcomes and then use that data to make the system more efficient, not to mention offer an infrastructure where providers can easily look up the most cost-effective treatments for different conditions. Bundling care -- where a provider gets a lump sum to treat a diabetic for a year, as opposed to getting paid for every new thing they do to the diabetic -- will encourage more efficient care, as the hospital makes money when it doesn't overtreat, as opposed to when it does. Accountable Care Organizations would act as sophisticated care managers for their patients, making more money when the patients get top-flight care and, in particular, care that's coordinated (There's a lot of money wasted because the hospital doesn't know what the ER did for a patient). The hospitals that have the highest rate of infections and unnecessary readmittance will lose Medicare funding.

Then there's the hope of synergies: Health IT makes ACOs more effective, as it's a lot easier to share data and track outcomes. The flood of new research on what treatments work best make it much easier to do bundled care payments, as providers have a much better idea of what will work and what's a waste of money. The effort to record and punish high infection rates is backed up by the ACOs, which will be penalized for sending patients to providers who underperform. The Independent Payment Advisory Board has the power to take experiments that are proving effective and quickly spread them through the Medicare system.

And your poll doesn't show any thing, because it asks about deficit reduction, not absolute spending. "Deficit Reduction" and "Spending Reduction" are not even remotely synonymous and your complaints are meaningless until you stop trying to push that false equivalence.

quote:
The average cost of medical insurance in the US is $5K per year. Roughly 30 million un-insured. 30 million * $5K = $150 Billion per year.

The average plan for a family of four is about $10K. The subsidy, at it's highest level (for a family making a little over 30K, otherwise they'd be eligible for Medicaid instead) would cover about 9K of that, so you're looking at 2,250K/person at most.

So cutting your number in half, we find that the cost is significantly less than the guaranteed savings from ending the Medicare Advantage subsidies that were being funneled directly into corporate profits and not actually lowering premium costs as was their intent.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye:
If we give everyone even inexpensive tests for everything we are still not lowering demands or holding down costs.

Too much unrealized demand is the problem that needs to be fixed; of course we wouldn't be lowering demand to try to fix that problem and more than the right solution to 30 millions people starving because they can't afford food would be to reduce food stamp programs to lower the realized demand for food; you'd just end up with even more people starving and less motivation for people to become farmers.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
The average cost of medical insurance in the US is $5K per year. Roughly 30 million un-insured. 30 million * $5K = $150 Billion per year.

The average plan for a family of four is about $10K. The subsidy, at it's highest level (for a family making a little over 30K, otherwise they'd be eligible for Medicaid instead) would cover about 9K of that, so you're looking at 2,250K/person at most.

So cutting your number in half, we find that the cost is significantly less than the guaranteed savings from ending the Medicare Advantage subsidies that were being funneled directly into corporate profits and not actually lowering premium costs as was their intent.

My original estimate was wrong:
quote:
The U.S. Census Bureau reported that a record 50.7 million Americans—16.7% of the population—were uninsured in 2009.
It's possible that the numbers will be lower than $5K, but you make an estimate based on a family of 4 and then assume the rest of the population is identical. Clearly not all uninsured Americans live in a family group of precisely four people.

Furthermore, Medicare Advantage does not cost anywhere near your estimate of $75++ Billion.

quote:
These subsidies (which added an additional $14 billion to the Medicare program last year alone) will gradually be reduced until they are eliminated altogether.
Link

So let's look at some better numbers:

51 Million uninsured
Average US Healthcare cost: $5,711

So that's 51M*$5.711K = $291 Billion per year in additional costs

Subtract out the Medicare Advantage cost and you get:

$291B - $14B = $277 Billion in additional costs to cover the uninsured. Of course, that assumes that a significant number of people who are self insured don't drop their current coverage and jump onto the US government subsidized plan. Also, it doesn't factor in the fact that subsidies aren't 100%.

But none the less it's completely absurd to assume that the costs above are going to somehow be absorbed into the current health care system without any additional costs or affects. We're almost certainly going to see a combination of significantly higher costs and/or more rationing.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We're almost certainly going to see a combination of significantly higher costs and/or more rationing.
When you say "significantly higher costs," do you mean to the government, or to the public, or overall, or what?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
When you say "significantly higher costs," do you mean to the government, or to the public, or overall, or what?

[DOH]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We're almost certainly going to see a combination of significantly higher costs and/or more rationing.
When you say "significantly higher costs," do you mean to the government, or to the public, or overall, or what? [/QUOTE]

I meant to the US Government, but it's assumed there will be higher costs for the individuals. I don't think that's in doubt. Anyone among the uninsured not eligible for a 100% subsidy will of course have to pay the difference.

Among those 26 and under who were previously uninsured, they now will be (if their parents choose). The insurer will raise rates on the policies to compensate for the extra cost. So their parents will probably cover the additional costs. It's virtually certain that family plans will go up in cost to cover this additional group.

Among those over 26 without health care coverage, they will have to purchase a policy or pay the Individual Mandate fine. Either way their out of pocket expenses will go up.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1