The US has the best health care in the world?

[WhoWee]

No offense, but I am getting REALLY tired of people throwing the word "socialist" around like that. Universal healthcare is definitely not just a "socialist" idea. you can find supporters for some form of government funded healtcare system is just about every major political ideology; socialism (obviously), conservatism (definitely modern paternal conservatism, but most branches would support it to some degree) and most branches of liberalism. That modern social-liberalism supports it goes without saying but even some forms of classical liberalism would potentially support a scheme like this.

The only political ideologies that could not (because of underlying principles) support UH are classical liberalism (a'la Spencer and other forms of "extreme" laissez-faire liberalism), probably libertarians and obviously anarcho-minimalists.
Anarchists would not support it simply because they don't believe in any form of government so they are not really relevant here.

I'm not sure which ideologies are relevant to this discussion, but "The total cost for this family of 4 would be $22,224 per year, plus the $1,000 deductible and the $25 co-pay per each doctor visit. For the record, this cost is in line with the so called "Cadillac Plans" the large unions typically enjoy." the specific costs of these health care initiatives are relevant to everyone. The $22,224 equates to $5,556 per person per year - or face a fine to be enforced by the IRS.

I don't feel very "free" this morning.

 

[Wax]

On the flip side, $0 deficit spending is laughable and no/low deductible, mandated testing, no limit to coverage, pre-existing inclusion, and elimination of the approval process is unrealistic as per cost. All of these things will increase premiums.

No, zero deficit spending is the truth. The problem is he doesn't explain this part which is a big gap into why the American people don't trust him. He either doesn't know himself or he doesn't want the conservatives on the right to use it against him as a scare tactic that he might be cutting benefits for seniors. When people are talking about zero deficit spending, they are referring the future deficit.

Medicaid will run the American Financial system into the red because of one extremely large liability; the liability of taking care of 70 million baby boomers that are turning 65 in the next ten years. Ages 65 and over is the most expensive age group to insure. It is estimated to cost 4.9 trillion dollars in the next ten years to cover this age group with no health care reform. Obama doesn't have many options. He could cut medicaid all together, do nothing, or he can reform the system so that seniors will still be covered.


CUMULATIVE SPENDING ON MEDICAID BENEFITS PROJECTED TO REACH $4.9 TRILLION OVER 10 YEARS
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=3311

 

[WhoWee]

No, zero deficit spending is the truth. The problem is he doesn't explain this part which is a big gap into why the American people don't trust him. He either doesn't know himself or he doesn't want the conservatives on the right to use it against him as a scare tactic that he might be cutting benefits for seniors. When people are talking about zero deficit spending, they are referring the future deficit.

Medicaid will run the American Financial system into the red because of one extremely large liability; the liability of taking care of 70 million baby boomers that are turning 65 in the next ten years. Ages 65 and over is the most expensive age group to insure. It is estimated to cost 4.9 trillion dollars in the next ten years to cover this age group with no health care reform. Obama doesn't have many options. He could cut medicaid all together, do nothing, or he can reform the system so that seniors will still be covered.


CUMULATIVE SPENDING ON MEDICAID BENEFITS PROJECTED TO REACH $4.9 TRILLION OVER 10 YEARS
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=3311

Let me get this straight. He told the truth - there will be $0 deficit spending. But he can't explain how that's possible because he either doesn't understand or it will be used against him? Can you explain - at the risk of it being used against him?

 

[Wax]

Let me get this straight. He told the truth - there will be $0 deficit spending. But he can't explain how that's possible because he either doesn't understand or it will be used against him? Can you explain - at the risk of it being used against him?

He's restructuring the benefits for senior citizens which can easily be viewed as cutting benefits for senior citizens.

 

[WhoWee]

He's restructuring the benefits for senior citizens which can easily be viewed as cutting benefits for senior citizens.

And this will cover a $900,000,000,000 package?

 

[Wax]

And this will cover a $900,000,000,000 package?

I already showed you the data. He's talking about future liabilities. You know what a liability is right? If you really want him to spend ZERO then he'd have to cut the program all together.

 

[WhoWee]

I already showed you the data. He's talking about future liabilities. You know what a liability is right? If you really want him to spend ZERO then he'd have to cut the program all together.

Please highlight the specific data that you are referring to - I don't see ANY evidence that Obama can cover a $900,000,000,000 spending plan.

As for my personal knowledge of business, my first corporate position was in 1982 as Vice President of Operations for a public company with 800 retail locations and more than 20,000 employees in the US and Canada. I know what a liability is - present and future. What is your business experience?

As for what I want him to do - I want him to eliminate the fraud that he's apparently aware of right now. I want him to fire the officials in the Government that are responsible for monitoring these agencies and allowing these hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud to continue and further direct the Attorney General to look into the case immediately. I want him to fix the broken parts of our system before haphazardly applying his ideological agenda to satisfy his special interest groups.

Above all, I want him to be honest. If he has to cut the program because he lied or didn't understand (as you suggested) or mis-spoke - then he needs to cut the program, move out of the way and allow people with business experience solve the problem.

 

[humanino]

Why are people arguing ? There are other countries which do better than the US while spending less money to protect their citizen's health. Obviously what's happening is simple : if the US system is changed, a few people will make less money out of the health of all other people. Why is that bad ? Other countries do it better than you for less money than you : why would you refuse change ?

 

[Wax]

Please highlight the specific data that you are referring to - I don't see ANY evidence that Obama can cover a $900,000,000,000 spending plan.

I also don't see any evidence that the country can sustain a 4,900,000,000,000 liability.

 

[Wax]

Above all, I want him to be honest. If he has to cut the program because he lied or didn't understand (as you suggested) or mis-spoke - then he needs to cut the program, move out of the way and allow people with business experience solve the problem.

Medicare/Medicaid is an existing government program. What did he lie about? So you actually think insurance companies want to cover age groups 65 and over? Now, you're just being naive...

 

[WhoWee]

Medicare/Medicaid is an existing government program. What did he lie about? So you actually think insurance companies want to cover age groups 65 and over? Now, you're just being naive...

I really don't understand your position. The system is broken and needs fixed. Obama's plan is naive and ideological - it won't work. Obama is inexperienced and it shows.

We need a better strategy. I challenge you to apply the Scientific Method to this problem and come to the conclusion Obama has reached.

Start with mandating more expensive coverage than people are currently choosing to purchase will make health care more affordable to everyone. Next, factor in unlimited lifetime caps on coverage - insurance companies will have open ended agreements and will no longer have a voice in the approval process - no chance for corruption in that scenario. Now, include everyone with pre-existing conditions into the mix (regardless of the cost) and mandate they purchase only approved coverage.

I posted the results of an actual insurance quote for a family of 4 last evening - $22,224 per year. If one of them had a pre-existing condition (heart attack or stroke for instance) the cost could easily be more than $3,000 per month. Best of all, if they elect to purchase a lesser plan of coverage, they would be fined over $3,000 and the fine would be enforced by the IRS.

Obama is either naive or doesn't care what will happen to struggling families under his burden.

 

[jreelawg]

Somehow I think that Obama's plan would be a huge success. You have to realize that his opposition wants to win an Election. Perhaps have an idiot like Sarah Palin elected president next term. The easiest way to make this happen would be to let Obama pull off his health care reform, watch it fail, and rake in votes for Sarah palin.

I think that his opposition knows the plan will work, and that is part of why they need it defeated. They have stated they are determined to make the president fail. If they truly thought Obama's plan will fail, they would let it happen.

 

[WhoWee]

Somehow I think that Obama's plan would be a huge success. You have to realize that his opposition wants to win an Election. Perhaps have an idiot like Sarah Palin elected president next term. The easiest way to make this happen would be to let Obama pull off his health care reform, watch it fail, and rake in votes for Sarah palin.

I think that his opposition knows the plan will work, and that is part of why they need it defeated. They have stated they are determined to make the president fail. If they truly thought Obama's plan will fail, they would let it happen.

Somehow?

Are you aware that Obama doesn't need a single Republican vote? He can pass his entire agenda with only Democrat votes.

This is his problem - he doesn't have the full support of his own party.

As for Sarah Palin - SOMEHOW I don't think she's going to be elected President beacuse Obama can't sell his plan.

 

[jreelawg]

Somehow?

Are you aware that Obama doesn't need a single Republican vote? He can pass his entire agenda with only Democrat votes.

This is his problem - he doesn't have the full support of his own party.

As for Sarah Palin - SOMEHOW I don't think she's going to be elected President beacuse Obama can't sell his plan.

Corruption is a bipartisan phenomena.

The price you came up with is the cost of insurance pre health care reform. You haven't considered the whole picture. In order to be convinced, I would need to know how much profit insurance companies would make off of the plan, because after reform, profits will be forced down as competition sets in.

Secondly, reform goes deeper than just these regulations. For example, a lot of the spending goes into making health care more efficient. For example, electronic records, which will save a lot of money. When you add up and account for all the factors which will save money, adjust the profit margin to a realistic level, and throw in the money earned by those who currently don;t have insurance who will be forced to, there would be a difference.

If the plan works, insurance companies will pay less because care will be cheaper, and they will lower their rates accordingly. The competition of a public option will enforce this.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Best of all, if they elect to purchase a lesser plan of coverage, they would be fined over $3,000 and the fine would be enforced by the IRS.

It looks like the rational thing to do is to buy cheap insurance, pay the $3000 fine, and then if you get really sick, then opt-in.

 

[Wax]

At the moment, electronic records doesn't save any money. It's more expensive to have someone monitor the system then to pull a document.

 

[WhoWee]

Corruption is a bipartisan phenomena.

The price you came up with is the cost of insurance pre health care reform. You haven't considered the whole picture. In order to be convinced, I would need to know how much profit insurance companies would make off of the plan, because after reform, profits will be forced down as competition sets in.

Secondly, reform goes deeper than just these regulations. For example, a lot of the spending goes into making health care more efficient. For example, electronic records, which will save a lot of money. When you add up and account for all the factors which will save money, adjust the profit margin to a realistic level, and throw in the money earned by those who currently don;t have insurance who will be forced to, there would be a difference.

If the plan works, insurance companies will pay less because care will be cheaper, and they will lower their rates accordingly. The competition of a public option will enforce this.

The cost of health insurance will increase due to Obama's mandates.

Obama has specified that policies will no longer have maximum lifetime limits. Currently, insurance purchasers can typically choose from $1 million, $3 million, $5 million, or $7 million per person on individual policies. The insurance companies consider their potential exposure and price accordingly. Now, assume you are the CEO of XYZ insurance, if the President mandates that you may not set a limit and tells you that you're no longer allowed to pre-approve procedures (which means doctors and patients are free to do whatever they want) and you realize your exposure could be $20 million, $50 million (who knows) - would you raise your rates?

Next, Obama has specified that people with pre-existing conditions will have to be accepted and can not be dropped. This means a person with a (bad heart, strokes, cancer, diabetes) has to be covered. You know their care will cost more. Would you charge them more than a health person?

 

[WhoWee]

It looks like the rational thing to do is to buy cheap insurance, pay the $3000 fine, and then if you get really sick, then opt-in.

That is one of the reasons why the President's estimate that only 5% of the people will be on the Government program is nonsense.

 

[Wax]

The cost of health insurance will increase due to Obama's mandates.

Obama has specified that policies will no longer have maximum lifetime limits. Currently, insurance purchasers can typically choose from $1 million, $3 million, $5 million, or $7 million per person on individual policies. The insurance companies consider their potential exposure and price accordingly. Now, assume you are the CEO of XYZ insurance, if the President mandates that you may not set a limit and tells you that you're no longer allowed to pre-approve procedures (which means doctors and patients are free to do whatever they want) and you realize your exposure could be $20 million, $50 million (who knows) - would you raise your rates?

Next, Obama has specified that people with pre-existing conditions will have to be accepted and can not be dropped. This means a person with a (bad heart, strokes, cancer, diabetes) has to be covered. You know their care will cost more. Would you charge them more than a health person?

That works fine for me. The doc can give me the best treatment possible without having to worry about what my insurance pays for.

There is no such thing as a pre-existing condition in any other industrialized country. Why must we have it? Every single developed country in the world has some type of nationalized health care system; everyone is covered which means there is no such thing as a pre-existing condition.

Costs will not rise with a public option. Insurance companies can't raise prices if they want to compete.

 

[WhoWee]

That works fine for me. The doc can give me the best treatment possible without having to worry about what my insurance pays for.

There is no such thing as a pre-existing condition in any other industrialized country. Why must we have it? Every single developed country in the world has some type of nationalized health care system; everyone is covered which means there is no such thing as a pre-existing condition.

Costs will not rise with a public option. Insurance companies can't raise prices if they want to compete.

If insurance premiums don't increase to cover the costs - then TAXES will increase or DEFICITS will increase.

 

[Wax]

If insurance premiums don't increase to cover the costs - then TAXES will increase or DEFICITS will increase.

Not of you restructure the payment plan. One of the main points of the bill is to reduce costs by restructuring the billing option. The concept of paying individually for an MRI, X-Ray, and checkups are being thrown out the door. The bill is being restructured so that you will be paying for your illness and not for the individual procedures. There will be no incentive to do extra procedures but there will be incentives to get it right the first time around.

 

[WhoWee]

Not of you restructure the payment plan. One of the main points of the bill is to reduce costs by restructuring the billing option. The concept of paying individually for an MRI, X-Ray, and checkups are being thrown out the door. The bill is being restructured so that you will be paying for your illness and not for the individual procedures. There will be no incentive to do extra procedures but there will be incentives to get it right the first time around.

Can you please reference the specific section of the Bill you are describing?

 

[Wax]

Can you please reference the specific section of the Bill you are describing?

Section 224
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

 

[mheslep]

In the Wed night speech I'm happy to see the US President vanquished the '47 million' uninsured figure he and other Democrats have used again and again, and again. Instead he nhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/09/text-barack-obamas-speech-joint-session//print/" :

There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage.

That's still overstated by ~twenty million, but at least he's now taking pains to subtract illegals from the former hyperbole.

 

[WhoWee]

Not of you restructure the payment plan. One of the main points of the bill is to reduce costs by restructuring the billing option. The concept of paying individually for an MRI, X-Ray, and checkups are being thrown out the door. The bill is being restructured so that you will be paying for your illness and not for the individual procedures. There will be no incentive to do extra procedures but there will be incentives to get it right the first time around.

This is the section you referenced.

"3 SEC. 224. MODERNIZED PAYMENT INITIATIVES AND DELIV4
ERY SYSTEM REFORM.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.—For plan years beginning with Y1,
6 the Secretary may utilize innovative payment mechanisms
7 and policies to determine payments for items and services
8 under the public health insurance option. The payment
9 mechanisms and policies under this section may include
10 patient-centered medical home and other care manage11
ment payments, accountable care organizations, value12
based purchasing, bundling of services, differential pay13
ment rates, performance or utilization based payments,
14 partial capitation, and direct contracting with providers.
15 (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR INNOVATIVE PAYMENTS.—
16 The Secretary shall design and implement the payment
17 mechanisms and policies under this section in a manner
18 that—
19 (1) seeks to—
20 (A) improve health outcomes;
21 (B) reduce health disparities (including ra22
cial, ethnic, and other disparities);
23 (C) provide efficent and affordable care;
24 (D) address geographic variation in the
25 provision of health services; or
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
F:\P11\NHI\TRICOMM\AAHCA09_001.XML
f:\VHLC\071409\071409.140.xml (444390|2)
126
1 (E) prevent or manage chronic illness; and
2 (2) promotes care that is integrated, patient3
centered, quality, and efficient.
4 (c) ENCOURAGING THE USE OF HIGH VALUE SERV5
ICES.—To the extent allowed by the benefit standards ap6
plied to all Exchange-participating health benefits plans,
7 the public health insurance option may modify cost shar8
ing and payment rates to encourage the use of services
9 that promote health and value.
10 (d) NON-UNIFORMITY PERMITTED.—Nothing in this
11 subtitle shall prevent the Secretary from varying payments
12 based on different payment structure models (such as ac13
countable care organizations and medical homes) under
14 the public health insurance option for different geographic
15 areas."

I don't see the level of specifics you've outlined - very vague - and seems to be focused on the public option.

Even if your interpretation is correct, the cost of individual tests must be paid somewhere - not just thrown out the door as you stated.

 

[Al68]

No offense, but I am getting REALLY tired of people throwing the word "socialist" around like that.

I realize many people are offended by the word, but I'm using it generically, not as an insult or reference to infamous past socialists, or any official party.

Could you suggest an alternative to the word "socialist" that could be used, that would mean a belief in government control of economic matters?

I simply don't know an alternative that isn't either confusing because of multiple definitions (like "left", "liberal", "statist", etc.) or impractical because it takes too many words to explain.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The price you came up with is the cost of insurance pre health care reform. You haven't considered the whole picture. In order to be convinced, I would need to know how much profit insurance companies would make off of the plan, because after reform, profits will be forced down as competition sets in.

One can get an idea by looking at what the insurance companies are making now. According to their 10-K's, United Health Care has earnings that are 3.6% of revenues and Wellpoint has earnings that are 4.7%.

So, even in a world where health care profit is illegal, we'd expect the cost to be of order 4% cheaper overall.

 

[WhoWee]

I realize many people are offended by the word, but I'm using it generically, not as an insult or reference to infamous past socialists, or any official party.

Could you suggest an alternative to the word "socialist" that could be used, that would mean a belief in government control of economic matters?

I simply don't know an alternative that isn't either confusing because of multiple definitions (like "left", "liberal", "statist", etc.) or impractical because it takes too many words to explain.

Don't complicate things, just say "Tax and Spend Democrats" - nothing new here. Giving them control is like letting your kids do the shopping - lot's of junk, nothing you need, and very expensive.

 

[humanino]

One can get an idea by looking at what the insurance companies are making now. According to their 10-K's, United Health Care has earnings that are 3.6% of revenues and Wellpoint has earnings that are 4.7%.

So, even in a world where health care profit is illegal, we'd expect the cost to be of order 4% cheaper overall.

I'm not sure it's that simple at all. Yesterday I heard that the non-profit "rocky mountain health plans" is 30% cheaper than the average in the US. The documentary was in french and I did not find numbers in an english reference. One explanation was that with much better coverage, illnesses are detected at earlier stages making the costs eventually less.

Anyway, the US spends 16% of GDP and the US average citizen has worse coverage than Germany of France spending 10% for instance, I guess everybody agrees on those numbers., whichever theory explains the difference, the US can do better for sure. The comparison is even similar with Canada.

 

[WhoWee]

One can get an idea by looking at what the insurance companies are making now. According to their 10-K's, United Health Care has earnings that are 3.6% of revenues and Wellpoint has earnings that are 4.7%.

So, even in a world where health care profit is illegal, we'd expect the cost to be of order 4% cheaper overall.

Now you want to make profits illegal?

What kind of industry (other than state-controlled) is funded and operated with no potential profits?

Are hospitals going to be allowed to earn profits? How about pharmaceutical companies and testing labs? While we're eliminating profits, don't forget about those manufacturers that build all of the custom fixtures and equipment.

Also, to be "fair", maybe the utility companies should supply power at their cost, food should be sold in the cafeteria at cost, all Government workers involved in healthcare paid minimum wage and everyone must sign a waiver before obtaining services (to protect from lawsuits- new age tort reform).

Last, the doctors and nurses should be taxed at 90% - to redistribute their wealth.

Insurance companies have investors that took a risk (like the bond holders in GM) in expectation of a return on investment - that's how business works. If profits are forbidden, the insurance companies will refocus on to other lines - leaving only a Government run insurance program.

The bottom line is this, how much do YOU want to pay in taxes - 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, or 90%? The Government has mismanaged the Social Security funds, admits to $900,000,000,000 waste and fraud in medicare and medicaid, is scheduled to lose $7,000,000,000 at the post office this year and next, and let's not forget about Amtrak. Do YOU honestly believe they will be able to lower costs (and not spend that money somewhere else and still tax you more)?

 

[Al68]

I realize many people are offended by the word, but I'm using it generically, not as an insult or reference to infamous past socialists, or any official party.

Could you suggest an alternative to the word "socialist" that could be used, that would mean a belief in government control of economic matters?

I simply don't know an alternative that isn't either confusing because of multiple definitions (like "left", "liberal", "statist", etc.) or impractical because it takes too many words to explain.

Don't complicate things, just say "Tax and Spend Democrats" - nothing new here. Giving them control is like letting your kids do the shopping - lot's of junk, nothing you need, and very expensive.

"Tax and Spend Democrats" doesn't convey the meaning I want to convey. I do notice that whenever I use the word "socialist", there is no confusion about what I mean. Some object to the word, yet know exactly what is meant by it with no confusion. Why object to the use of a word when its use accurately conveys the intended meaning? It's just a word.

 

[Al68]

One can get an idea by looking at what the insurance companies are making now. According to their 10-K's, United Health Care has earnings that are 3.6% of revenues and Wellpoint has earnings that are 4.7%.

So, even in a world where health care profit is illegal, we'd expect the cost to be of order 4% cheaper overall.

Are you assuming that the existence of profit actually makes things cost more in general? What do you think things would cost if they weren't profitable?

This is why basic economics should be taught better in school. A little knowledge would keep people from being so easily mislead.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure it's that simple at all. Yesterday I heard that the non-profit "rocky mountain health plans" is 30% cheaper than the average in the US. The documentary was in french and I did not find numbers in an english reference. One explanation was that with much better coverage, illnesses are detected at earlier stages making the costs eventually less.

Anyway, the US spends 16% of GDP and the US average citizen has worse coverage than Germany of France spending 10% for instance, I guess everybody agrees on those numbers., whichever theory explains the difference, the US can do better for sure. The comparison is even similar with Canada.

Have you adjusted for elective procedures such as cosmetic surgery and doctor supervised diet programs? How about ALL of the "happy pills" that are prescribed? Plus, let's not forget our sports medicine programs. Also, let's not overlook the cost associated with regulations such as HIPPA and the cumulative legal and administrative. Last, consider the amount of money spent on marketing per year.

A system with no competition, no choices, no innovation, no re-investment incentives, and no profit/capped wages should cost less in the short term. But, have you ever chosen to stay in an old and run down hospital if you could have chosen to stay in a nice new and modern one? Do you choose your doctor based on the lowest price?

 

[turbo]

In the Wed night speech I'm happy to see the US President vanquished the '47 million' uninsured figure he and other Democrats have used again and again, and again. Instead he nhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/09/text-barack-obamas-speech-joint-session//print/" :
That's still overstated by ~twenty million, but at least he's now taking pains to subtract illegals from the former hyperbole.

The Congressional Budget Office has a different take on the number of uninsured.

Analysts warned that increases in the overall numbers of the uninsured were likely to be just the beginning. Based on current job losses, some researchers estimate the present-day number of uninsured is closer to 50 million. That's the number now cited by the Congressional Budget Office and it could continue to grow without meaningful reform.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090911/ap_on_go_ot/us_census_uninsured;_ylt=AshwU8hhGyvHi5JZEcGhL11p24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTJxZGdhZW5lBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwOTExL3VzX2NlbnN1c191bmluc3VyZWQEcG9zAzEwBHNlYwN5bl9wYWdpbmF0ZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA2dyb3d0aG9mZ292dA--

 

[Vanadium 50]

Now you want to make profits illegal?

I'm not advocating anything. The argument was advanced that there would be cost savings with lower profits, and I am pointing out how much of an effect this is.