Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- ********0
So lucky how does this bill lower costs of medical care. Kind of a rhetorical question because it does nothing too lower it. It only gives the impression of lowering it by subsidizing it. It does nothing to address the costs of care vs what an insurance companies pays out for care, which raises the actual costs. it only give the insurance companies a larger risk pool to pull profit from and to monopolize on. unless im missing something.
- < To be fair, this is the one issue with the bill that is valid. I'm looking forward to the next bill that fixes this.luckyorphan
- ukit0
What you're missing deathboy is the ability to think objectively with an open mind. You're so religious about this free market libertarian philosophy that you can't possibly imagine how any problem can be solved by government action or a change in regulations.
- so how does it cut costs besides subsidizing them while keeing the forces driving costs in play?********
- please dont question my objectivity of the situation it says far too much about yours.********
- so how does it cut costs besides subsidizing them while keeing the forces driving costs in play?
- mathinc0
^^ So what does the bill do to lower healthcare costs?
- T.B.D. This bill ain't supposed to deal with that. It's more about access than cost.luckyorphan
- Isn't it the cost that is limiting the access? So we're just going to pretend that the problems been solved now that people havemathinc
- insurance?mathinc
- Up to a point, maybe. But why would insurance companies ever cover people with terminal diseases that cost them millions of dollars? It's never going to be cost efficient no matter what.ukit
- of dollars? At some point, it's never going to be cost efficient no matter how many efficiency reforms you introduce.ukit
- Why do you guys always run to the least common denominator to prove your point in these situations. Whats the larger number,mathinc
- number.. the people who can't afford health ins.. or the people with terminal diseases?mathinc
- BuddhaHat0
^^ From Paul Krugman's article:
"..... the Senate Democrats’ plan does say that average payments for insurance would go up. But it also makes it clear that this would happen only because people would buy more and better coverage. The “price of a given amount of insurance coverage” would fall, not rise — and the actual cost to many Americans would fall sharply thanks to federal aid."
- so purely through being subsidized? which begs the question if thats the case, who subsidizes next?********
- 4th paragraph http://query.nytimes…BuddhaHat
- the 4th paragraph doesnt address anything. it basically says if an employer doesnt subsidize cost your screwed********
- and if employers didnt subsidize insurance wages would be higher and would put the power of consumer back in place. social taboos.********
- so purely through being subsidized? which begs the question if thats the case, who subsidizes next?
- luckyorphan0
deathboy, here's a line from that NY Times article that I think sums up the issue:
"And it is still unclear what effect, if any, the legislation would have on rising out-of-pocket medical costs and premiums."
Like I said above, it's a valid point. But this is hardly a reason to vote no on this bill. It does so much to help the disadvantaged and less healthy citizens. And everyone knows that dealing with the rising costs in addition to access to care is key to providing adequate care to all who need it.
In the end (to speak to your earlier question about how this saves money at all), according to an article in The Hill:
"The comprehensive health reform legislation will cost $940 billion over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Thursday."
"The nonpartisan budget office told lawmakers that the health bill set for a vote this weekend would cut the deficit by $130 billion over the next decade, and $1.2 trillion in the second decade of the plan’s implementation."
That is a social program that lowers the deficit. That is a cost savings. Period.
- Don't fuck with the CBO.omgitsacamera
- That's the same CBO that the GOP cites whenever they back up their arguments.luckyorphan
- the CBO says what theyre told. still no idea of how. and it is unclear if there is any help to reduce costs... thats politics for ya********
- ya********
- i read a nytimes article today explaing how the numbers were likely manipulated, and it actaully adds to deficit about 560KKK.. how many k's is billions?********
- No, db. That is not politics. They are independent and non-partisan. You are incorrect.luckyorphan
- 560 billion. which im mor einclined to believe since its the first thign ive read that has reasons********
- something about a ponzi scheme with a 6yr collection before payout. cuts come out of education and medicare. those cuts are********
- cutas are called gains, but still theyre expenditures to another program. its quite twisted********
- how is it not partisan? and all the other number manipulation. you cant have your cake and eat it too********
- Please share the link to this story.luckyorphan
- explain how a expenditure of 940 billion turns into a 140 billion in profit. its really simple.********
- will do if i can find it... let me check********
- http://opinionator.b…********
- wait that doesnt seem right dont remember all the text pullouts... but i ahte looking for answers to the question i ask********
- the whole point of dialogue sis to improve your insights through other peoples perspectives. not to convince you of mine********
- All good. I'll read it. Thanks for the link.luckyorphan
- you of mine or my resources. im simply curious on the how spending near a trillion, has a profit margin of 1/5.********
- hey lucky this is the article. http://www.nytimes.c… didnt read theat other one thoguht it looked weird********
- deathboy that is one scary article. :(mathinc
- luckyorphan0
More good analysis, this time from David Frum, former speech writer for W:
"No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?"
"We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat."
- luckyorphan0
For deathboy:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government. It is a government agency that provides economic data to Congress. The CBO was created as an independent nonpartisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con…
Some things aren't a conspiracy.
- It is possible to have a nonpartisan office in the gov't.luckyorphan
- theyre non partisan in the effect they repeat the dominant parties words. a parrot for an owner.********
- im just trying to rationally figure out where the numbers came from.********
- questioning the integrity of a government office that is merely a symbol of the times and who is involved is futile********
- mathinc0
Thanks Buddahhat, I'm actually asking about the cost of healthcare not insurance coverage. What's in this bill that that, as ukit puts it, 'solves the problem of rising healthcare costs through government action or a change in regulations'? Anything to keep pharma costs down? Keep doctors from providing more costly procedures simply because they get paid more, i.e. insurance pay structure issues? Tort reform? I'm just wondering if any of the actual problems that have made healthcare too expensive for most of us were addressed.
Don't get me wrong, it's a great thing that people will be insured. But to me the fact that they weren't insured in the first place is because health care simply costs too much. It's a symptom of a bigger problem. All I've read that this bill does is mandate that the symptom goes away.
- Then I assume you're for stronger controls on health care costs, right T?luckyorphan
- I'm for figuring out where we've gone completely wrong and fixing that. To me this bill does nothing but make the problem bigger.mathinc
- more pronounced down the road. Trust me, I want everyone to have access to medical care, but the costs are out of control.mathinc
- That's what needs to be fixed. There was a really great two part show on This American Life that you might be interested in luckymathinc
- that you might be interested in. Let me find some links.mathinc
- More Is Less:
http://www.thisameri…mathinc - Someone elses Money:
http://www.thisameri…mathinc - That was an awesome couple of episodes. Loved it. And it explained how f'ed up things are...luckyorphan
- ...and that the two problems are 1. cost, and 2. access. This bill deals with #2, because that was what's possible today.luckyorphan
- The President wanted a single payer system or a public option, which would address the cost issue...luckyorphan
- ...pretty directly, but no one wanted it. So, they pass what they can. Representative gov't at work.luckyorphan
- Unfortunately, I think you're viewing this too simply. I don't see how you think a single payer system addresses cost.mathinc
- This bill could have included cost saving solutions, but they didn't.. because that would involve levying a dose of realitymathinc
- on big money industries (pharma, insurance, doctors, lawyers) who all donate.mathinc
- But I like your optimism! ;)mathinc
- Also, I'm not faulting them for not including the cost cutting solutions. To be honest that's not even possible since all thesemathinc
- crooks are in the pockets of corporations and special interests. We're cooked.mathinc
- Sorry for the pessimism. :(mathinc
- ha math incs got good ?'s. i personally look at the taboo employer based insurance as the main culprit of costs********
- tax incentives promote it, social pressure and that too. takes the man away from the care. cant have cost control with 100% insurance coverage.********
- insurance coverage. i think when you see hospitals openly advertise prices and such you will know things are working********
- ukit0
One detail you are missing is that people who don't have insurance right now still end up costing us billions of dollars. They just put their medical problems off until they get to the point of serious crisis at which time they head to the ER. Hospitals are not allowed, legally, to turn away a dying patient. But they will turn away anyone with a preventable disease if they don't have insurance.
Now think about that, what kind of sense does that make? If we make the decision that we are not going to let people die (which I guess you could agree or disagree with), is it smarter to spend money upfront to treat people's medical problems early, or later, when they are beyond the point of no return? It's the difference between solving a problem preventively and sweeping it under the rug, then being hit by the bill when it's too late.
I mean, you don't have to believe me, listen to Mitt Romney, I mean here's a guy who ran a capital fund and started up several businesses, he's not exactly a socialist. He saw the obviousness of this solution back before he had to pretend to be against it for political reasons:
"Gov. Romney, a Republican and a former businessman, bases his support on economics. When Romney became governor three years ago, a business colleague urged him to do something about the 500,000 or more Massachusetts residents without health insurance. Nearly nine out of ten are in working families.
After studying the problem, Romney says, he came away with a key insight: "People who don't have insurance nonetheless receive health care. And it's expensive."
"We're spending a billion dollars giving health care to people who don't have insurance," Romney says. "And my question was: Could we take that billion dollars and help the poor purchase insurance? Let them pay what they can afford. We'll subsidize what they can't."
- I agree, we need to get people living healthier before catastrophe.mathinc
- Also read my post below - there are plenty of process reforms in the bill. Media just doesn't like to spend time on that boring stuff;)ukit
- kind of stuff;)ukit
- and those who cost us billions cost us why...? Gov regulation. If i was poor i would choose a big screen tv over hc anyday with the gov at the helm********
- subsidization has limits. think lenin. this subsidization only increases costs but looks like less relatively becuase more bought in********
- bought in. its a philosophy of poverty for all, or at least those without political ties. but stil HOW does it decrease********
- luckyorphan0
deathboy just shared an article that, once opening, I remembered reading yesterday as well. While I'm not entirely sure I agree with his conclusions, it's worth reading because it is from one of the more recent directors of the CBO:
The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/2…"The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt."
While I have to respect his conclusion as coming from someone who has galaxies more experience than all of us combined, I can't help by disagree with the overall thrust of his article—that doing nothing to repair access to health care in America is better than affecting the deficit. In other words, even if Holtz-Eakin is right, I'd still think it's worth it. The bill certainly helps more people than two questionable wars.
I guess that's why I'm on the left-ish side of the independent spectrum.
But the article is definitely worth a read. Makes one think. Which, contrary to some people's suggestions on here, I like to do quite a bit.
- I'm gonna research this fella a bit more. Holtz-Eakin, that is.luckyorphan
- cool because im jsut trying to figure out the math. its not liek i dont want reduced deficit with increased care. i just dont buy it********
- it.********
- BattleAxe0
In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.
Six months after enactment, insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition.
Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions.Closes the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" by 2020. Seniors who hit the donut hole by 2010 will receive a $250 rebate.
and
no public option !so who won
- Not entirely correct.luckyorphan
- The fine is either 1% of your income or $95, and increases over time to $695, if income supports the increase.luckyorphan
- ukit0
Take a look at this site, it spells out a detailed proposal for reforming the health care delivery system.
http://www.americanprogress.org/…
This was put together by Obama's policy team, The Center For American Progress, before the legislative process even began. There is an entire 100 page book that is only talking about these kinds of efficiency reforms.
Now obviously not 100% of this made it into the final bill, but my understanding is that a large part of it did. These weren't super contentious issues after all, they were overshadowed by the argument over the bill as a whole.
- hmm i could read it all. but i wont bc i dont expect much. looking for a answer from someone who supports what they read in it********
- they read in it.********
- That doesn't even make sense.ukit
- im asking for you who read it (?). how does it cut the price of medical care?********
- your next post. assumign you read the doc u listed. says there is no plan for cost control. ill take a hyptohesis with reason********
- but you sayign that makes me nelive even more their is no plan in your redirect post.********
- i mean if there was a plan wouldnt u simply state it? how it decreases costs overall, which would make subsidizing invalid********
- I didn't say that at all, I said no one knows with total certainty what the outcomes will be.ukit
- But since you asked, here are five concrete cost controls that are in the bill. http://www.newsweek.…ukit
- hmm i could read it all. but i wont bc i dont expect much. looking for a answer from someone who supports what they read in it
- ukit0
I mean listen at the end of the day, in terms of cost control no one really knows what the outcomes will be. There is no way some guy sitting in an office somewhere can project 20 years into the future and know for sure. I'm not even sure the government can do all that much to massively drive down costs short of radically reshaping the industry, which of course would be even more politically untenable than what just got passed.
But when you compare the site above, where you've got a 100-page document which ONLY covers the subject of reforming the HC delivery process, to this kind of shit:
for me that basically sums up the reason why I'll vote for Democrats. It's not a matter of being liberal, it's just that Republicans are not serious at all. Even the bill they proposed, was rated by the CBO as costing MORE than the Democratic one. So if there are some magical ideas out there that aren't being considered, they were not ones that the Republicans put in their bill.
- but theyre projecting a cut in the deficit. how can you buy into what you cant buy into? im just asking questions needed to be addressed
********
- be addressed. the whole point was to lower hc costs i thought so that more peopel could consume. yet it turned out to mandate coverage without cost control********
- mandate or subsidize total coverage instead of cost control. its just upsetting********
- upsetting that this will be liek a fdr win. when in reality were still payign for fdr's ability to see things long term.********
- but if long term projections are pointless using reasons then whatever you cant argue against it. well you can but theres deaf ears********
- only get deaf ears. i find it more interesting to understand how peopel refuse to except what is common sense if it meets there desires********
- to meet what they want that cake and eat it too scenario. i blame that more then all the politics. maybe its genetic********
- but im rambling. let me salute the victory of higher costs to all unconcerned********
- but theyre projecting a cut in the deficit. how can you buy into what you cant buy into? im just asking questions needed to be addressed
- GeorgesII0
GET THE FUCK OUT!!!!!
-
images chosen for their high photoshopable qualities
- ********0
Price: Obamacare Means 159 New Goverment Agencies
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/t…--------------
Smaller government!?!?
- ...sigh...newsmax... the sources you use, JazX.luckyorphan
- ********0
Republicans rarely get it their way these days.
- give it some time, Dems will f*ck this all up...********
- There's a good likelihood of that, but nowhere near as much as the GOP has.luckyorphan
- give it some time, Dems will f*ck this all up...
- ********0
Boyd's massive f*cked up assumptionhttp://www.newsherald.com/articl…
The United States already is on an unsustainable fiscal path, facing mounting debt and three existing entitlements — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — whose spending growth needs to be curtailed. It would be madness to create yet another mammoth entitlement.Even if the fiscal numbers were reliable, the legislation still would expand government power and restrict individual liberty. It would force Americans to purchase health insurance coverage or pay a penalty, with government controlling the kind of insurance that could be purchased. It would create new taxes on businesses and investment income that will retard economic growth.
-------------
Hey, but that fits right in with the "Entitlement Generation", oops I mean "Millenials". Perrrrrrrrrrrrrfect!- so they tax you into getting health ins, what a win win for big businessBattleAxe
- DrBombay0
Less people using the ER should* reduce costs. Rumor has it Obama is going to pursue a public option next year. That would reduce costs by competing directly with for -profit insurance companies. You have to start somewhere. If nothing was passed our country would have made no progress. If you are unhappy with the bill, blame the republicans for watering it down and then not voting for it.
- TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX for this Obamacare plan. You ain't gettin' water from a rock, son.********
- It's funny that you think that all the costs are happening in the insurance level of healthcare. Show's just how much you know.mathinc
- No point in debating with you people.DrBombay
- Public Option is dead dead dead, no one will ever touch it for 100 yearsBattleAxe
- TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX for this Obamacare plan. You ain't gettin' water from a rock, son.
- DrBombay0
So if losing this fight would have been Obama's Waterloo, winning it is his ________ then?