Obama Care Yet Again

[noah way]

Shock fact: the US spends more per person on healthcare in the world, yet 30% of people or under/not insured, and life expectancy is lower in countries that spend HALF AS MUCH (PPP %GDP)

The US spends a rediculous amount on healthcare bureaucracy (25% of spending)
I'm not aware of countries that surpass that

Eliminate private insurance and the cost of care would drop close to 50%. Not only would we save the cost of profit and overhead paid to insurance companies, we'd save the cost of care that wouldn't be necessary if people had proper preventative care that insurance doesn't pay for, and the tens of billions (official estimate $31 billion annually) in insurance paperwork costs imposed on providers by insurers.

In addition, escalation of health care costs would be radically restrained. The major driving force in health care costs is insurance. Insurers pay so little to health care providers that they have to continuously raise their rates to be adequately compensated. This in turn gives insurers an excuse to raise premiums even more in a never-ending spiral.

With all those savings we could provide care - not insurance! - for every citizen, have a healthier and more productive society and have more money available to stimulate the economy rather than pad the already overstuffed pockets of insurance execs and wealthy investors and corporate shills like Bill Frist.

Eliminate the corporate death panels. You'd still have private doctors providing care. Eliminating insurance "networks" (which are simply another device for denying payment for care) would provide more competition among doctors, the way it is supposed to be in a free society.

 

[log1c]

in most countries, healthcare is not provided by the government UK style, but is regulated by it
Usually everyone is forced to get insurance, with the government subsidizing premiums and managing insurance companies
While IMO the socialist system is best, the system described is cheap to implement in the short term, and is obviously cheaper than what the the US has now in the long term
I think Ireland is the last very rich country without UHC apart from the US, however the conservative party are implemting it to reduce costs and to end the unfair two twirling system

Ireland actually does have a Universal health care system that was actually implemented in 2005. All persons resident in Ireland are entitled to receive health care through the public health care system, which is managed by the Health Service Executives and funded by general taxation. There is still a huge market for health insurance provided by private companies though.

 

[anexanhume]

This is why the US healthcare system sucks, with cited sources. Unfortunately I can't insert a TIMG, but the wall of text to explain it would take up this much space anyway.

And a comparison of costs between 6 other first world nations that feature some form of UHC.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Great point, another reason why the governments role in our lives should be limited, as the founders designed it to be.

Universal Healthcare requires Government involvement even it its simplest form
It certainly necessitates Government negotiation with insurers, or the government running its own insurance schemes (like in Germany)

 

[ElasticNinja]

Ireland actually does have a Universal health care system that was actually implemented in 2005. All persons resident in Ireland are entitled to receive health care through the public health care system, which is managed by the Health Service Executives and funded by general taxation. There is still a huge market for health insurance provided by private companies though.

the HSE is only a Socialist Universal Healthcare provider in theory
It provides care for about 50% of the population, and is only capable of that

I have private healthcare which means I get treated faster and get rebate on doctor and medicinal cost

The system costs so much due to its two teir nature and the fact the previous administration solution to everything was to throw money at it

 

[mdram]

Eliminate private insurance and the cost of care would drop close to 50%. Not only would we save the cost of profit and overhead paid to insurance companies, we'd save the cost of care that wouldn't be necessary if people had proper preventative care that insurance doesn't pay for, and the tens of billions (official estimate $31 billion annually) in insurance paperwork costs imposed on providers by insurers.

In addition, escalation of health care costs would be radically restrained. The major driving force in health care costs is insurance. Insurers pay so little to health care providers that they have to continuously raise their rates to be adequately compensated. This in turn gives insurers an excuse to raise premiums even more in a never-ending spiral.

With all those savings we could provide care - not insurance! - for every citizen, have a healthier and more productive society and have more money available to stimulate the economy rather than pad the already overstuffed pockets of insurance execs and wealthy investors and corporate shills like Bill Frist.

Eliminate the corporate death panels. You'd still have private doctors providing care. Eliminating insurance "networks" (which are simply another device for denying payment for care) would provide more competition among doctors, the way it is supposed to be in a free society.

ok the reason insurance companies have to pay high prices is because the government plans (medicaid, medicare) dont pay enough to cover the doctors cost, so they pass it on.
doctors graduate medical school with hundreds of thousands in loans, add to that the cost of insurance, then other overhead of an office, and you get high costs
and please name 1 thing the goverment has ever ran that has lowered costs, taxes ect

what you will end up with is rationing, plain and simple. doctors will refuse to take obamacare, and go to a cash business, then you will get reimbursed for what the government thinks the visit was worth

 

[anexanhume]

ok the reason insurance companies have to pay high prices is because the government plans (medicaid, medicare) dont pay enough to cover the doctors cost, so they pass it on.

The government is simply refusing to overpay for care. Please see above infographics that detail how high salaries and bloated infrastructure costs distort medical costs.

doctors graduate medical school with hundreds of thousands in loans, add to that the cost of insurance, then other overhead of an office, and you get high costs
and please name 1 thing the goverment has ever ran that has lowered costs, taxes ect

Taxes aren't relevant in this case. Government lowers private costs anytime they break up a monopoly, regulate an industry or provide a public option. You see this in utilities and other areas. You also see this in the industry in question in all other countries that have UHC systems. They lower costs across the board.

what you will end up with is rationing, plain and simple. doctors will refuse to take obamacare, and go to a cash business, then you will get reimbursed for what the government thinks the visit was worth

Rationing is already a problem. It's just the private insurance companies who do it. They've been deciding who and what to cover for decades.

What you also don't understand is that this program creates a mandate for coverage. It mandates people buy into a private healthcare insurer, they're not becoming part of medicaid or medicare. There is merely a hope that this will lower costs overall, not a guarantee, and that's one of the plan's main flaws. It was a compromise since UHC had no chance of being passed.

 

[mdram]

The government is simply refusing to overpay for care. Please see above infographics that detail how high salaries and bloated infrastructure costs distort medical costs.

those infographs are distorted, as an example a smoker dies sooner therefore costs the industry less.
Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows - The New York Times

Taxes aren't relevant in this case. Government lowers private costs anytime they break up a monopoly, regulate an industry or provide a public option. You see this in utilities and other areas. You also see this in the industry in question in all other countries that have UHC systems. They lower costs across the board.

taxes are relevent when they go up
allow insurance companies to sell across state lines, increase the pool, and you will lower costs

Rationing is already a problem. It's just the private insurance companies who do it. They've been deciding who and what to cover for decades.

rationing is not a problem, i can get in to see a doctor in 24hour notice

What you also don't understand is that this program creates a mandate for coverage. It mandates people buy into a private healthcare insurer, they're not becoming part of medicaid or medicare.

but its opening medicaid to many people

Section 2001(a) of PPACA requires states to increase Medicaid eligibility to cover all Americans below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) beginning January 1, 2014.[3] At that time, the FPL will be about $33,000 for a family of four, excluding the value of any welfare benefits. Section 1201 of the reconciliation bill (H.R. 4872) specifies that the federal government will pick up 100 percent of the cost of providing coverage for the expansion population (those who qualify under the new requirements but were ineligible under the previous state eligibility criteria) between 2014 and 2016. The federal reimbursement for the newly eligible will gradually decline thereafter until 2020, when the federal share of the cost will stay at 90 percent.

 

[noah way]

ok the reason insurance companies have to pay high prices is because the government plans (medicaid, medicare) dont pay enough to cover the doctors cost, so they pass it on.

Profits drive the cost of private insurance, not reimbursement rates for Medicare/Medicaid. Doctors across the country are refusing both Medicare and private insurance because of the low reimbursement rates.

doctors graduate medical school with hundreds of thousands in loans, add to that the cost of insurance, then other overhead of an office, and you get high costs

I agree that the cost of a medical education is astounding, and that the cost of medical insurance is unbelievable - but this is yet another "insurance" cost added to the cost of health care. Add to that over $30 billion spent each year by doctors on insurance paperwork (over $300 worth of paperwork - by the doctor, not the insurer - for every privately insured person).

and please name 1 thing the goverment has ever ran that has lowered costs, taxes ect

The government runs Medicare/Medicaid for less than the private insurers charge for health insurance (on a per-person basis).

The government has radically reduced taxes on the wealthy and pretty much eliminated taxes on corporations (2/3 of corporations pay NO taxes).

what you will end up with is rationing, plain and simple. doctors will refuse to take obamacare, and go to a cash business, then you will get reimbursed for what the government thinks the visit was worth

... instead of what the private, for profit corporations decide to pay (or not).

Health care IS rationed. If you don't qualify for Medicare/Medicaid then you have to be able to afford private insurance or the direct cost of care or BOTH. 2/3 of all US bankruptcies are medical bankruptcies for people with private insurance. Insurers decide what to pay based on maximizing profit, not need for care.

Government of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the Profit of Corporations

 

[anexanhume]

those infographs are distorted, as an example a smoker dies sooner therefore costs the industry less.
Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows - The New York Times

All that article does is answer for why costs are lower in countries with higher incidence of those behaviors. The problem is end of life care, which happens regardless of when a person dies. This is the part that has spawned the sensationalist talk of death panels. The problem is that doctors are encouraged to only talk about the options for prolonging life. Is it worth an additional 100k to live another week, and perhaps still in pain? Those are the questions everyone is afraid to ask.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/05/60minutes/main6747002.shtml

taxes are relevent when they go up
allow insurance companies to sell across state lines, increase the pool, and you will lower costs

Taxes are not relevant to medical costs unless you start providing a specific tax related to the medical industry that goes up for consumers.

Allowing companies to sell across state lines is a stop gap. Sure, it will probably help, but it's still inferior to a UHC system.

rationing is not a problem, i can get in to see a doctor in 24hour notice

Because you have insurance willing to pay for it. John Doe with cut rate insurance that drops him because he has a genetic disorder that they list as a pre-existing condition, that's rationing. Peggy Sue with cancer that gets dropped by her provider because of high costs. That's rationing. People cannot afford to pay because their insurer drops them so they die or go bankrupt. Medical costs are the number one cause of bankruptcies in this nation.

but its opening medicaid to many people

Section 2001(a) of PPACA requires states to increase Medicaid eligibility to cover all Americans below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) beginning January 1, 2014.[3] At that time, the FPL will be about $33,000 for a family of four, excluding the value of any welfare benefits. Section 1201 of the reconciliation bill (H.R. 4872) specifies that the federal government will pick up 100 percent of the cost of providing coverage for the expansion population (those who qualify under the new requirements but were ineligible under the previous state eligibility criteria) between 2014 and 2016. The federal reimbursement for the newly eligible will gradually decline thereafter until 2020, when the federal share of the cost will stay at 90 percent.

And the text you cite explicitly states that the government will cover 100% of costs.

 

[noah way]

What you also don't understand is that this program creates a mandate for coverage. It mandates people buy into a private healthcare insurer, they're not becoming part of medicaid or medicare. There is merely a hope that this will lower costs overall, not a guarantee, and that's one of the plan's main flaws. It was a compromise since UHC had no chance of being passed.

Which is essentially exactly what the corporations want: privatization of health insurance and elimination of protections for the consumer. Think of it like Wall Street taking over your Social Security.

Whoops!. Your retirement savings just went bust. But don't worry, we made a couple hundred billion on the deal ...

 

[lordofthereef]

I am not so sure that is true. Unless you are talking about hospitals in GB. Not sure, so feel free to clarify if I am wrong.

It might be, but suppose I had an emergency and the only hospital close by was a private hospital, and they turned me away? I would sue them, and that is one reason I think I would get immediate attention. They fear a crushing law suit.

Then again, I am not sure about private hospitals and the rules that apply.

Here is the thing. They must stabilize you. They don't need to treat you beyond that point. I am referring to the USA, not GB. As sue happy as our nation is though (not only saying that because you mentioned a suit), I wouldn't doubt that they go above and beyond to treat nearly anything and everything.

 

[noah way]

"OK, he's stable now. Roll him out to the curb and dump him off the gurney."

 

[mike114]

So far, the Obama administration has approved more than 1,300 wavers to his health care plan.

How do you all feel about that?

Bob

What a shocker Bob, the federal gov't picking winners and losers again?? I'm sure no one saw this coming. Our almighty overlords are always so fair when making judgements for us, the little people.

This bankrupt gov't needs to stay out of our lives and bring back some fiscal sanity. The best way to start is: If it's not Constitutional, you can't enforce it or tax it.

 

[mdram]

And the text you cite explicitly states that the government will cover 100% of costs.

and where does the goverment get it money?

 

[mdram]

heres a question for ya

let say bob and jim both work for widget inc
bob has 1 child, jim has 6

who pays more for insurance?

 

[anexanhume]

and where does the goverment get it money?

From taxes, just the way it always has. That's also the way that UHC would function, and that's exactly what a lot of people want. That's not a negative thing because the government is not a for profit entity. The success of other nations' implementations demonstration that the idea that private industry will do it much more efficiently is a myth in the case of medical insurance.

 

[mdram]

From taxes, just the way it always has. That's also the way that UHC would function, and that's exactly what a lot of people want. That's not a negative thing because the government is not a for profit entity. The success of other nations' implementations demonstration that the idea that private industry will do it much more efficiently is a myth in the case of medical insurance.

but the problem is by moving people to this method, taxes must go up to pay for it, placing an undue burden on many
why should i have to pay for something i am already getting, and not only do i pay for mine, but i must help pay for those that wont work, and prefer to sit home on thier duff. as well as those who are already breaking the law by simply being in the country.

private industry can do it more efficiently, but they need to be allowed to establish a competition between themselves

the bill as written is severely flawed and makes assumptions that are never going to happen

 

[anexanhume]

but the problem is by moving people to this method, taxes must go up to pay for it, placing an undue burden on many
why should i have to pay for something i am already getting, and not only do i pay for mine, but i must help pay for those that wont work, and prefer to sit home on thier duff. as well as those who are already breaking the law by simply being in the country.

private industry can do it more efficiently, but they need to be allowed to establish a competition between themselves

the bill as written is severely flawed and makes assumptions that are never going to happen

Taxes going up to pay for it is wholly misleading. The overall cost for medical coverage will not go up. In the long run, it would go down under a UHC system. If a UHC system is implemented, employers would no longer have to supply you insurance as part of your benefits package. That means more money in your pocket unless your employer decides to cheat you out of that compensation, which is a problem of your job market, not the government's.

In a government/private hybrid, everyone is still getting care one way or another, and you're supplementing their care partly through your taxes and partly through your premiums.

It's likely that you are a healthy adult and bill your insurance very little each year. There are others on your plan that are dealing with hundreds of thousands in bills for cancer or a heart transplant. You subsidize their care through higher premiums. How do you feel about that?

In either case, you are paying for the overblown minority of people that refuse to work and require a lot of medical care (people like to imagine there are droves of people out there just looking to cheat the government and never work. They do exist, but not in the numbers one would have you believe). Like I said above, your taxes and insurance has to cover the care those people require somehow. In many cases, it's worse because the people who cannot afford care wait until their problem is worse and then make an expensive ER visit that costs much more and diverts necessary emergency medical resources.

Finally, the idea that the industry can do it more efficiently is simply not true. Some of the innovations to lower cost like electronic records are coming from the government, not the other way around. All insurance coverage is is paper pushing. What makes you think that a private company is going to do that so much better than the government? This is a government that processes millions of social security checks, millions of medicare and medicaid payments already.

 

[mdram]

Taxes going up to pay for it is wholly misleading. The overall cost for medical coverage will not go up. In the long run, it would go down under a UHC system. If a UHC system is implemented, employers would no longer have to supply you insurance as part of your benefits package. That means more money in your pocket unless your employer decides to cheat you out of that compensation, which is a problem of your job market, not the government's.

In a government/private hybrid, everyone is still getting care one way or another, and you're supplementing their care partly through your taxes and partly through your premiums.

It's likely that you are a healthy adult and bill your insurance very little each year. There are others on your plan that are dealing with hundreds of thousands in bills for cancer or a heart transplant. You subsidize their care through higher premiums. How do you feel about that?

In either case, you are paying for the overblown minority of people that refuse to work and require a lot of medical care (people like to imagine there are droves of people out there just looking to cheat the government and never work. They do exist, but not in the numbers one would have you believe). Like I said above, your taxes and insurance has to cover the care those people require somehow. In many cases, it's worse because the people who cannot afford care wait until their problem is worse and then make an expensive ER visit that costs much more and diverts necessary emergency medical resources.

Finally, the idea that the industry can do it more efficiently is simply not true. Some of the innovations to lower cost like electronic records are coming from the government, not the other way around. All insurance coverage is is paper pushing. What makes you think that a private company is going to do that so much better than the government? This is a government that processes millions of social security checks, millions of medicare and medicaid payments already.

but you see i currently have a plan where i pay 0, and my employer covers my family. so therefore i would lose out on that

 

[anexanhume]

but you see i currently have a plan where i pay 0, and my employer covers my family. so therefore i would lose out on that

You don't pay 0. Your employer pays your premiums on behalf of you. Instead of your employer doing that, the government will simply take those funds in taxes and give you the same amount of coverage. And here's the kicker; if you lose your job, you don't lose your coverage!

 

[mdram]

You don't pay 0. Your employer pays your premiums on behalf of you. Instead of your employer doing that, the government will simply take those funds in taxes and give you the same amount of coverage. And here's the kicker; if you lose your job, you don't lose your coverage!

but those taxes will come from me, thereby reducing my income

 

[anexanhume]

but those taxes will come from me, thereby reducing my income

You still don't get it. The money your employer was giving in compensation in the form of medical insurance premiums will now be given to the government as taxes. The amount that your employer compensates you stays exactly the same. Your actual income goes up because the new funds are treated as compensation. Your overall tax % goes up, but your take home pay stays the same.

This is the simplest scenario. Since UHC saves money in other countries, if your employer keeps your compensation the same, your take home pay would actually rise.

Insisting on seeing the increase in income as an increase in taxes, reducing the newly raised income is like going from a 4 door 1989 buick to a new BMW Z4 and maligning the fact they took 2 seats away from you.

 

[mdram]

You still don't get it. The money your employer was giving in compensation in the form of medical insurance premiums will now be given to the government as taxes. The amount that your employer compensates you stays exactly the same. Your actual income goes up because the new funds are treated as compensation. Your overall tax % goes up, but your take home pay stays the same.

This is the simplest scenario. Since UHC saves money in other countries, if your employer keeps your compensation the same, your take home pay would actually rise.

Insisting on seeing the increase in income as an increase in taxes, reducing the newly raised income is like going from a 4 door 1989 buick to a new BMW Z4 and maligning the fact they took 2 seats away from you.

no, im looking at it as reality. companies pass the tax burden along, one way or another i will end up paying for it.
your looking at it through rose colored glasses as the saying goes.
in theory what you say is nice, but its not how economics work in the real world

 

[anexanhume]

no, im looking at it as reality. companies pass the tax burden along, one way or another i will end up paying for it.
your looking at it through rose colored glasses as the saying goes.
in theory what you say is nice, but its not how economics work in the real world

...

There is no tax burden to pass along. Under a UHC system, the tax burden is directly on the tax payer in the case of medical coverage. It is never on the company. A lot of US companies don't even pay taxes through creative accounting, never mind the fact they aren't responsible for medical coverage. They get to write off any and all compensation to you as an employee as a business expense. No taxes on compensation for labor, in any form. Google only pays a 2% rate, for instance.

You end up paying for it in ANY scenario. The question is whether you want a private entity profiting off of your medical care or the government paying for it, covering the cost of its employees to do so, and that's the end of the story.