PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Health Care Reform - how it saves money


chiefforlife
03-21-2010, 11:13 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235246

How Health Care Reform Reduces the Deficit in 5 Not-So-Easy Steps

Americans think the bill is too expensive because they don't understand its cost controls.


This article really opened my eyes, I think everyone should read it...

There is a lot of misinformation out there, what do you think.

ChiefaRoo
03-21-2010, 11:46 AM
no

Taco John
03-21-2010, 11:55 AM
The only thing I'm interested is in how to fight it.

RINGLEADER
03-21-2010, 12:27 PM
I understand the bill. And I understand that the CBO and even the bill's supporters in Congress don't make claims that it will reduce costs,

It pretends to reduce the debt with tricks and gimmicks that unfortunately will soon prove to be deficit busters.

Iowanian
03-21-2010, 12:27 PM
I guess I'm going to not give a shit about that when it's result is taking MORE money out of my F'ing pocket to pay for non-producer-Americans.


I see this bill as a game of Chutes and Ladders.

chiefforlife
03-21-2010, 12:52 PM
I liked that competition for customers will drive prices down, thats the kind of reform I was hoping for.
I also liked that congress will have to buy from the same pool as the rest of us.

WoodDraw
03-21-2010, 01:51 PM
In general, I think it's a good bill. Fairly moderated. As soon as it passes and the rhetoric dies down, it will enjoy bipartisan popularity outside of DC.

Glad the Democrats finally accomplished something.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2010, 03:39 PM
There is a lot of misinformation out there, what do you think.

I think you don't understand basic economics.
I think you have no clue as to the record of the govt on cost projects—they're always higher. The never wind up where the politicians say they will.
Example, is RomneyCare in Mass where premiums went up 27%. Some people, Utopians, like living in the Truman Show.

Entitlements, all of them, are going to go belly up. The economy will tank again by 2012.

chiefforlife
03-21-2010, 04:26 PM
I think you don't understand basic economics.
I think you have no clue as to the record of the govt on cost projects—they're always higher. The never wind up where the politicians say they will.
Example, is RomneyCare in Mass where premiums went up 27%. Some people, Utopians, like living in the Truman Show.

Entitlements, all of them, are going to go belly up. The economy will tank again by 2012.

Basic economics, when business' compete for the same customer, prices go down or quality goes up. Sometimes both.

I do understand that government costs are always higher than predicted.

Dont know anything about Romneycare. If you want to inform me, I will listen.

I hate the word, entitlements, when applying it to something we have paid for.

Most of all, I am trying to figure out why so many people WANT this to happen. It cant be all bad?
For the record, I am against it but I dont feel like I know enough to make a good decision.

patteeu
03-21-2010, 04:34 PM
I liked that competition for customers will drive prices down, thats the kind of reform I was hoping for.
I also liked that congress will have to buy from the same pool as the rest of us.

Here's what the article says on that point:

Create a competitive insurance market:
This is the bill's first, and most important, step. Right now, the insurance market's version of competition is pretty brutal. Companies compete to avoid the sickest people and sign up the healthiest people. Offering the best coverage for the lowest cost isn't much of a priority, because most consumers don't know whose coverage is best, and the ones who really do know are probably sick customers who spend their days researching this stuff.

Outlawing the bad kind of competition while enabling the good kind, which the bill does, is more than just a humanitarian measure. It's a cost control. The insurance "exchanges" imitate the market in which federal employees (including congressmen) purchase their health care insurance. Participating insurers can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, they have to answer to regulators if they attempt to jack up premiums, and consumers will be able to rate their insurers, a rating that everyone else will see when shopping for their insurance.

The so-called "bad" type of competition was an effort by insurance companies to avoid the bad risks out there. How is outlawing that "bad" type of competition going to reduce costs. Answer, it isn't.

The "good" type of competition described may be a useful cost containment measure, but is there really any reason to think that it will reduce costs enough to make up for the increase in costs brought on by the requirement that bad risks be covered? Or is this just hand waving that sounds nice? My bet is on the latter.

In addition to forcing insurance companies to take on bad risks, the legislation extends coverage to 32 million new customers. What are the chances that these people will use less rather than more medical services once they have health care insurance? I'd say that chance is about zero. What happens when demand goes up? Prices typically rise.

chiefforlife
03-21-2010, 04:40 PM
Thanks Pat, I appreciate a good response.

Can you think of anything good about this bill? How is it that 224 reps feel it is a good thing? Pretty much anyone I talk to says its horrible, I am just trying to look at the other side, there isnt much, so far.

Guru
03-21-2010, 04:55 PM
Sure, after it rips the middle class off when we see our premiums go up.

orange
03-21-2010, 05:02 PM
What happens when demand goes up? Prices typically rise.

... Which causes supplies to go up in response and bring prices back down.

That's how capitalism is supposed to work, isn't it?

http://bookcoverarchive.com/images/books/the_invisible_hand.large.jpg

headsnap
03-21-2010, 05:17 PM
... Which causes supplies to go up in response and bring prices back down.


before that will have a chance to happen the Govt will step in and control the costs(prices) we will be then left with shortages and long waiting lists...




basic economics...

orange
03-21-2010, 05:20 PM
before that will have a chance to happen the Govt will step in and control the costs(prices) we will be then left with shortages and long waiting lists...




basic economics...


You mean... health care providers can't anticipate new customers will mean more money and act ahead to grab their share? They must be pretty stupid, eh?

Iowanian
03-21-2010, 05:38 PM
Another tax someone who earns less than $250k will be paying....3.8% on any rental income.

The Obamunism of this country is sickening.

tmax63
03-21-2010, 05:38 PM
And if you have too good of an insurance plan they are gonna tax the sh!t out you to the tune of 40%. I guess the idea works. Lower quality health care mandated by lower costs means shorter life spans which means social security is saved because you'll die quicker. And when medicare is hatcheted to save money and everyone stops taking medicare (Walgreens stops new enrollees Apr 16) and elderly can't get the drugs they need, they'll die off sooner and the savings will multiply. Not only that when a quarter of the Drs. retire because of mandated lower fees and the health care workforce is run by lesser-trained cheaper personnel then more people will die sooner as well.

Iowanian
03-21-2010, 05:47 PM
Wait to see how many doctors retire because of this nonsense.

headsnap
03-21-2010, 05:48 PM
You mean... health care providers can't anticipate new customers will mean more money and act ahead to grab their share? They must be pretty stupid, eh?

It won't be their fault there is a shortage of Doctors and Nurses...



pretty stupid indeed!

chiefforlife
03-21-2010, 05:58 PM
There must be something good in this bill? Anyone?

I know my health insurance for a family of 4, went from 452.00 per month to 665.00 per month at the beginning of March. Thats a lot to me and its a crappy plan with a 2500.00 deductible.
I am not a poor person but thats a big hit to my family, what do poor people do? Something has to be done and at least someone is trying.

Brainiac
03-21-2010, 06:02 PM
There must be something good in this bill? Anyone?

I know my health insurance for a family of 4, went from 452.00 per month to 665.00 per month at the beginning of March. Thats a lot to me and its a crappy plan with a 2500.00 deductible.
I am not a poor person but thats a big hit to my family, what do poor people do? Something has to be done and at least someone is trying.
Tell me again what this bill does to contain health care costs?

I know there's a lot of rhetoric thrown around that it will force the insurance companies to cut costs. But guess what: even if that were true, the insurance companies don't determine how much your doctor's visits and medical procedures and drugs cost. They already try like hell to get the health care providers to cut those costs.

This bill does nothing to address that. It will be about as effective as a bill to repeal the law of gravity.

chiefforlife
03-21-2010, 06:12 PM
Tell me again what this bill does to contain health care costs?

I know there's a lot of rhetoric thrown around that it will force the insurance companies to cut costs. But guess what: even if that were true, the insurance companies don't determine how much your doctor's visits and medical procedures and drugs cost. They already try like hell to get the health care providers to cut those costs.

This bill does nothing to address that. It will be about as effective as a bill to repeal the law of gravity.

The first thing that comes to mind is that we will be adding 30-40 million people to the pool of insured. I know thats not bringing down health care costs but it should bring down insurance costs. Yes those people will now be using the health care system more than before. I doubt they will come anywhere near what they pay in however, looking at my family's 665 per month, thats nearly 8000.00 a year and we dont come close to spending that on health care in a year.
Now add 30-40 million people to that pool and insurance should be cut in half.

donkhater
03-21-2010, 06:26 PM
Once again, the cost containment measures refer to the costs to the consumer, NOT the provider.

This is more commonly refered to as price fixing. A tactic that has NEVER worked and always leads to shortages and rationing.

headsnap
03-21-2010, 06:27 PM
Once again, the cost containment measures refer to the costs to the consumer, NOT the provider.

This is more commonly refered to as price fixing. A tactic that has NEVER worked and always leads to shortages and rationing.

BINGO!!!!

Brainiac
03-21-2010, 06:34 PM
The first thing that comes to mind is that we will be adding 30-40 million people to the pool of insured. I know thats not bringing down health care costs but it should bring down insurance costs. Yes those people will now be using the health care system more than before. I doubt they will come anywhere near what they pay in however, looking at my family's 665 per month, thats nearly 8000.00 a year and we dont come close to spending that on health care in a year.
Now add 30-40 million people to that pool and insurance should be cut in half.
You're right. Adding 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 people to the pool of insured is not going to bring down health care costs.

That was my point.

|Zach|
03-21-2010, 06:40 PM
GOP posts FAQ. Q: What will tomorrow be like? A: A blue sun, lava on ground, and demons flying around everywhere.

headsnap
03-21-2010, 06:43 PM
GOP posts FAQ. Q: What will tomorrow be like? A: A blue sun, lava on ground, and demons flying around everywhere.

Holy SHit!!! Seriously?!?!?

|Zach|
03-21-2010, 06:48 PM
lol @ T0m Cash still repping from purgatory.

RINGLEADER
03-21-2010, 07:42 PM
... Which causes supplies to go up in response and bring prices back down.

That's how capitalism is supposed to work, isn't it?

http://bookcoverarchive.com/images/books/the_invisible_hand.large.jpg

Capitalism doesn't typically have performance requirement thrust upon it.

This is not a capitalistic endeavor, it will not reduce the rate of insurance costs, nor will it reduce the deficit unless the politicians do a number of things that they've never shown the courage to do before.

WoodDraw
03-21-2010, 07:43 PM
Wait to see how many doctors retire because of this nonsense.

LOL - why? For getting to treat more patients AND get paid. I'll open the line at 0.

RINGLEADER
03-21-2010, 07:43 PM
You're right. Adding 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 people to the pool of insured is not going to bring down health care costs.

That was my point.

Especially when the US government is subsidizing them.

donkhater
03-21-2010, 07:53 PM
LOL - why? For getting to treat more patients AND get paid. I'll open the line at 0.

I'll take the over.

Bwana
03-21-2010, 08:01 PM
How it saves money? :doh!:

WoodDraw
03-21-2010, 08:01 PM
I'll take the over.

Why? Maybe I'm missing something, but why would a doctor possibly retire over this bill?

tmax63
03-21-2010, 08:04 PM
Increasing workload and cutting payments, doesn't everyone including Drs want to work harder for less.

WoodDraw
03-21-2010, 08:06 PM
Increasing workload and cutting payments, doesn't everyone including Drs want to work harder for less.

How would it increase workload or decrease payments?

tmax63
03-21-2010, 08:10 PM
Adding 30 million folks to the insurance rolls. Medicare is getting cut to show the big savings. Walgreens is already going to stop accepting medicare patients Apr 16 and I'd bet that is only the beginning.

WoodDraw
03-21-2010, 08:14 PM
Adding 30 million folks to the insurance rolls. Medicare is getting cut to show the big savings. Walgreens is already going to stop accepting medicare patients Apr 16

Yes, we know when people in most businesses get an influx of new paying customers, the general thought is to retire.

Wait, no. That's the opposite thought.

I just searched through a few polls and articles, and the overwhelming majority of evidence I found points towards doctors being in favor of these reforms. There is some evidence of distrust with a public option, but the lack of a public option makes that moot.

chiefforlife
03-21-2010, 08:15 PM
Screw Walgreens! There is one on every freakin corner. They are obviously making a ton of money.

headsnap
03-21-2010, 08:16 PM
How would it increase workload or decrease payments?

you really can't be serious!!

ClevelandBronco
03-21-2010, 08:17 PM
Another tax someone who earns less than $250k will be paying....3.8% on any rental income.

The Obamunism of this country is sickening.

That's okay. My tenants will simply have to adjust their budgets because they'll be paying that tax for me.

I'm not sure that's what was intended, but then again, I don't think the government gives a **** who gives them the money.

patteeu
03-21-2010, 08:17 PM
There must be something good in this bill? Anyone?

I know my health insurance for a family of 4, went from 452.00 per month to 665.00 per month at the beginning of March. Thats a lot to me and its a crappy plan with a 2500.00 deductible.
I am not a poor person but thats a big hit to my family, what do poor people do? Something has to be done and at least someone is trying.

The democrats could have focused on trying to bend the cost curve down, but instead they focused on expanding coverage. That's good for people who weren't already paying for coverage, but it does nothing to reduce your costs. People like Ezra Klein will try to tell you that by expanding coverage, costs will come down, but what evidence does he provide? If it were that easy, it would have been done a long time ago.

Dylan
03-21-2010, 08:22 PM
There she is -- House Speaker of the House -- Ms Botox

We helped pay for for those shots, in addition to all her plastic surgery. Nice.

IRS --they're coming ... The bullies are on there way

that alone should scare the hell out of the America people

patteeu
03-21-2010, 08:22 PM
The first thing that comes to mind is that we will be adding 30-40 million people to the pool of insured. I know thats not bringing down health care costs but it should bring down insurance costs. Yes those people will now be using the health care system more than before. I doubt they will come anywhere near what they pay in however, looking at my family's 665 per month, thats nearly 8000.00 a year and we dont come close to spending that on health care in a year.
Now add 30-40 million people to that pool and insurance should be cut in half.

WTF? So you don't think it's really going to bring health care costs down, but you're satisfied because you believe that some schlub might be forced to subsidize your insurance costs?

Believe it or not, I'm not against trying to get everyone into the insurance pool, but not for the selfish reason that you are. I want them in so that when they get sick, the insurance companies can cover them without taking a bath because the government is forcing coverage only after they get sick.

Costs must be addressed at the cost level, not through redistributive gimmicks. That's just a bandaid and if health care inflation continues at it's current pace it's only going to be temporary relief.

patteeu
03-21-2010, 08:24 PM
How would it increase workload or decrease payments?

You don't believe the medicare cuts that the CBO was asked to use when scoring the bill will materialize? You think there will be a doctor fix afterall?

orange
03-21-2010, 08:25 PM
Walgreens is already going to stop accepting medicare patients Apr 16 and I'd bet that is only the beginning.

I suggest you look into that a little closer.


It's the STATE OF WASHINGTON MEDICAID, right?

It's NOT 50 states. Right?
It's NOT Federal. Right?
It's NOT Medicare. Right?
It's NOT Obamacare. Right?


Thought so.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6612511


What does today's Bill do for MEDICAID reimbursements?

A raise for doctors: Primary care doctors would get a Medicaid payment boost in the reconciliation bill. Beginning in 2013 and 2014, the doctors' payment rates would be on par with Medicare rates, which typically are about 20 percent higher than Medicaid. The goal is to ensure that there will be a sufficient number of doctors willing to care for the millions of additional people who would become eligible for Medicaid under the health care overhaul.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35947758/ns/health-health_care/

WoodDraw
03-21-2010, 08:25 PM
you really can't be serious!!

The question was more to get specifics I could address.

I understand the Medicare cuts, but how many doctors would retire when Medicare went bankrupt? Insurers have cut rates too.

I question the reasoning that large amounts of doctors will retire because of this bill that otherwise wouldn't have retired.

ChiefaRoo
03-21-2010, 08:28 PM
This reform bill strikes at the core of our liberty. It's a one sized fits all monstrosity that puts big brother squarely in the life of every American.

We must purge the Congress of these parasites. These people are not acting as our representatives.

orange
03-21-2010, 08:28 PM
That's okay. My tenants will simply have to adjust their budgets because they'll be paying that tax for me.

Or they could move elsewhere.

I'm sure you're charging as much as is practical right now.

ClevelandBronco
03-21-2010, 08:32 PM
Or they could move elsewhere.

It wouldn't matter in this rental market. Hell, I thought you lived here.

I'm sure you're charging as much as is practical right now.

Yes. And soon I'll be charging as much as practical +3.8%.

chiefforlife
03-21-2010, 08:35 PM
WTF? So you don't think it's really going to bring health care costs down, but you're satisfied because you believe that some schlub might be forced to subsidize your insurance costs?

Believe it or not, I'm not against trying to get everyone into the insurance pool, but not for the selfish reason that you are. I want them in so that when they get sick, the insurance companies can cover them without taking a bath because the government is forcing coverage only after they get sick.

Costs must be addressed at the cost level, not through redistributive gimmicks. That's just a bandaid and if health care inflation continues at it's current pace it's only going to be temporary relief.

No, he asked me how this bill was going to bring down health care costs. I said that it should bring down health insurance costs. Either way it saves people money. Im not sure why you think that was a selfish answer??

Giving people much needed coverage who have preexisting conditions is one of the best benefits I can see. I was waiting for someone to bring that up as a positive for the bill. In a way, I guess you did. Thank You.

patteeu
03-21-2010, 08:45 PM
No, he asked me how this bill was going to bring down health care costs. I said that it should bring down health insurance costs. Either way it saves people money. Im not sure why you think that was a selfish answer??

Giving people much needed coverage who have preexisting conditions is one of the best benefits I can see. I was waiting for someone to bring that up as a positive for the bill. In a way, I guess you did. Thank You.

I actually think that some form of pre-existing coverage fix was in order (and most Republicans in Congress do too) although I don't know enough about how they do it in this bill to know whether I agree or disagree. It's not as big of a problem as you might think since there are already mechanisms in the group insurance arena that allow those with pre-existing conditions to get coverage. But those with individual insurance and those with group insurance need to be put on the same level on this and other issues.

If the goal is reduced costs though, spreading the risk is only a short term fix (at best) because cost inflation won't be reduced and it will eventually overwhelm the redistributive effects that *might* be gained by forcing healthy people into the system. The truth is that we don't know whether the benefit of bringing healthy people into the system will come close to compensating for the increased demand for services (and resulting upward pressure on prices) though so there might not even be a short term fix here.

chiefforlife
03-21-2010, 09:02 PM
I actually think that some form of pre-existing coverage fix was in order (and most Republicans in Congress do too) although I don't know enough about how they do it in this bill to know whether I agree or disagree. It's not as big of a problem as you might think since there are already mechanisms in the group insurance arena that allow those with pre-existing conditions to get coverage. But those with individual insurance and those with group insurance need to be put on the same level on this and other issues.

If the goal is reduced costs though, spreading the risk is only a short term fix (at best) because cost inflation won't be reduced and it will eventually overwhelm the redistributive effects that *might* be gained by forcing healthy people into the system. The truth is that we don't know whether the benefit of bringing healthy people into the system will come close to compensating for the increased demand for services (and resulting upward pressure on prices) though so there might not even be a short term fix here.

I am glad I'm not the only one who doesnt understand this bill and how its going to do most of what its said to.
No doubt everyone needs health care, its just that it comes at a time when the country is broke, there is no way people can afford more taxes with the current economy. Not that I am ever for raising taxes.
I too, think we could solve many of these problems by re-writing the insurance laws, such as pre-existing conditions and allowing companies to drop people once they are sick. That wouldnt cost anywhere near a trillion dollars, either.

Brainiac
03-21-2010, 09:09 PM
I am glad I'm not the only one who doesnt understand this bill and how its going to do most of what its said to.
No doubt everyone needs health care, its just that it comes at a time when the country is broke, there is no way people can afford more taxes with the current economy. Not that I am ever for raising taxes.
I too, think we could solve many of these problems by re-writing the insurance laws, such as pre-existing conditions and allowing companies to drop people once they are sick. That wouldnt cost anywhere near a trillion dollars, either.
I agree with your post, although I would state the first sentence a little differently: We understand that this bill WON'T do what they claim it will.

But at least Obama got his political victory. That's the important thing.

donkhater
03-21-2010, 09:11 PM
Largest tax increase in history. During a recession. Brilliant.

ChiefaRoo
03-21-2010, 09:16 PM
http://senateconservatives.com/repeal

Iowanian
03-21-2010, 09:55 PM
LOL - why? For getting to treat more patients AND get paid. I'll open the line at 0.

We'll see what happens when they are receiving 21% less for those visits.

Like Dentist offices, many will be not accepting new patients....

Iowanian
03-21-2010, 09:56 PM
Largest tax increase in history. During a recession. Brilliant.

That cannot be true, during the campaign and after, Hoperah made it very clear that anyone earning under $250,000 wouldn't see any tax increases under Obamunism.

donkhater
03-21-2010, 10:12 PM
That cannot be true, during the campaign and after, Hoperah made it very clear that anyone earning under $250,000 wouldn't see any tax increases under Obamunism.

Lawrence O'Donnell was bragging about it all week on Countdown.