Obamacare, Healthcare, etc.

[Pirian]

1) I don't think you understand slippery slope argument. Just because you don't put a definite on it doesn't mean it isn't a slippery slope argument.
2) You clearly aren't in business. Healthy workers are productive workers. It's cheaper to pay their insurance than it is to find/recruit another "them" AND pay the fine. Especially because there will be so many people entering the market, premiums should come down for everything (never mind the fact that big businesses that negotiate prices with insurance companies pay much less due to them providing a large chunk of otherwise unavailable clients)
4) Oh really? You know enough accounting to work out how it is all done and recognize that it is going on? It sounds more like this is what you heard someone say and then took their word on it because "of course the numbers don't work out".

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

4) you don't need be an accountant to understand why it's implementation was delayed for 6 years. If it was implemented right away it wouldn't cost less than a trillion dollars in the first 10 years. It was hard enough passing it as it was, it probably never would have passed it if it cost in excess of 2 trillion in the first 10 years.

[Pirian]

4) Yes, yes that's why it was delayed 6 years. Not to give the system adequate time to prepare and work out all the legal matters that would inevitably come up. That is just preposterous!

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Go back and read news reports at the time, how the CBO would score it was a huge issue.

[Pirian]

It was a huge issue because republicans needed any reason to attack it that they could find. You can find faults in anything the CBO does, but that is because of the nature of their work, and not necessarily because of the content.

[Dantrag]

It's simple really. Without an individual mandate you can't cover preexisting conditions. There would not be enough money in the pool to cover those with PC if healthy people aren't covered as well.

[Demosthenes11]

Your are smart enough to know that "accounting gimmicks" and "slippery slope, the government costs a lot hurrr" are neither constructive arguments nor valid arguments when you have nothing specific to say or contend. It's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming. Man the fuck up.

admit that you don't like it because obama did it, or say it's a pretty good bill. or admit something specific you dont like or disapprove of that makes some fucking sense, though you have already proven incapable of doing so.

[MaachaQ]

Really the biggest thing that insurance companies (and the government via Medicaid/Medicare) need to do in order to cut costs is to modernize their record & billing systems. Simply by installing a nationwide database for prescription drugs millions or billions of dollars could be saved by ensuring records are properly kept and companies are paid properly. There would be no more "thousand dollar crutches" because that kind of abuse would be much easier to spot. Yes, installing modern computerized record keeping systems will cost doctors, medical supply companies, and insurance companies a decent amount of money at first, but the savings it would provide by preventing fraud and streamlining billing would pay for itself many times over in just a few years.

The same goes for the so-called "death panels," which are really just doctor consultations about if it's really a good idea to put a 90 year old who is dying of cancer through million dollar chemotherapy that even if it works they'll be miserable and maybe only gain another year or two of life. I read a good article about this on NPR the other day, let me see if I can find it... Hmm, this article is mostly about unneeded testing rather than unhelpful treatment, but it's all part of the same problem.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...orthless-tests

Harvard economist David Cutler estimates that a third of what this country spends on health care could safely be dispensed with.

"That's certainly the number we use," Dr. Steven Weinberger, CEO of the American College of Physicians, tells Shots. "Most of us feel something like $750 billion or so could be eliminated from the system out of the $2.5 trillion or so that we spend on health care."

*blahblah rationing blahblah socialism*

[Tyche]

It's simple really. Without an individual mandate you can't cover preexisting conditions. There would not be enough money in the pool to cover those with PC if healthy people aren't covered as well.

Even with the mandate it's likely there will not be enough money due to the elimination of underwriting. The CEO of Aetna stated that with obamacare, health insurance (as we know it) is untenable. With that said, he (the CEO of one of the largest health insurers) also says obamacare is actually good and admits the current model is a damned nightmare for patients.

Good read

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...ty-good-thing/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-are-we-ready/

[Coren]

I'm hoping the entire for-profit insurance system comes crashing down and that the gov't has no choice but to go single payer.

By the way, it turns out that Romneycare (obamacare light) works pretty well up in Mass. There is 98% coverage (highest in the country) and they're saving money as well. Oops.

[Dotsudoku]

Does anyone have a link or a moment to explain the differences between "Obamacare" and "Romneycare", and if possible, the main grievances people tend to have with such systems? Healthcare talk is a pretty dark area for me.

[Demosthenes11]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ll-difference/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...tial-ways.html

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...-ObamaCare.pdf

[Dotsudoku]

Thanks a lot.

[Coren]

Here's the news I was referring to:

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/...3201334422081/

Key takeaways:
Premiums are down 5%
Mass has highest rate of insured, at over 98%
For the second year, premiums are down, while they are up in many other states
Mass ranks as 48th lowest in healthcare expenditures
Last year and this year the state saves $91mil with NO benefit reductions or co-pay increases
For non-urgent care, it takes longer to see a PCP, however internist wait times decreased 5 days from last year.

To recap:
Romney's and Obama's plans are nearly identical.
Romney's plan in Mass is doing pretty damn well.
Therefore republicans hate Romney and Obama.

I honestly think the ONLY thing that would make republicans happy is if the entire earth just plummeted straight into the sun.

[Darus Grey]

You say that jokingly...

[Drex]

Here's the news I was referring to:

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/...3201334422081/

Key takeaways:
Premiums are down 5%
Mass has highest rate of insured, at over 98%
For the second year, premiums are down, while they are up in many other states
Mass ranks as 48th lowest in healthcare expenditures
Last year and this year the state saves $91mil with NO benefit reductions or co-pay increases
For non-urgent care, it takes longer to see a PCP, however internist wait times decreased 5 days from last year.

To recap:
Romney's and Obama's plans are nearly identical.
Romney's plan in Mass is doing pretty damn well.
Therefore republicans hate Romney and Obama.

I honestly think the ONLY thing that would make republicans happy is if the entire earth just plummeted straight into the sun.

Yes if you ignore the 70% increase in healthcare costs, as forbes does since it's federally subsidized. In other words, it's cheaper because someone else is paying for it. But what will happen when it is implemented at the federal level and you can't cook the books anymore? That's the issue.

There are other issues of course, like how the number of people buying insurance policies and dumping them less than a year later (after they receive care at the artificially low premium) has quadrupled, leaving the hospitals with tens of millions each year in shortfalls because the gov can't afford the full cost either. But at least they were "insured". Romneycare is shit propped up by federal funding.

[Talint]

There are other issues of course, like how the number of people buying insurance policies and dumping them less than a year later (after they receive care at the artificially low premium) has quadrupled, leaving the hospitals with tens of millions each year in shortfalls because the gov can't afford the full cost either. But at least they were "insured". Romneycare is shit propped up by federal funding.

How does that work, exactly? If you're uninsured in MA, you get smacked with a tax penalty, so I don't get how "dumping" a policy is doable, let alone viable.

[Acturus]

I'm hoping the entire for-profit insurance system comes crashing down and that the gov't has no choice but to go single payer.

By the way, it turns out that Romneycare (obamacare light) works pretty well up in Mass. There is 98% coverage (highest in the country) and they're saving money as well. Oops.

The Blue Cross association of plans is nearly entirely not-for-profit, and they represent the largest insurer in many states. Kaiser Permanente is also not-for-profit.

The current system of health insurance challenges doesn't have as much to do with greedy for-profit companies as one might think. There are all of the greedy not-for-profit companies to think about too. Most of them do it better because they get tax breaks and have no obligation to shareholders, so they can reinvest a larger portion of money back into the business.

[kuronosan]

Made-up-statistic percentage of businesses out there are all about pleasing the greedy shareholders, which is why we have such a colossal problem across the world. Decisions used to be in the hands of consumers deciding for the companies what was profitable and what was not. Before, if a product was a failure, it was the company's fault for not properly meeting the needs of the consumer. Now businesses are forcing services down everyone's throat and if they are failures it's the consumer's fault. I think health care is no different. I do strongly believe that health care costs are rising in part because of irresponsible behavior and improperly taking care of one's self (obese people lol) but I also believe a larger part of that cost is out of control greed that, when confronted, is made to sound like rising cost is a direct function of America's health.

They do this same thing with rent, mortgage, financing, wages, benefits, and bonuses. Any time it's questioned the answer is always "staying competitive with the market" or "this is based on the market" or they're "examining the market trends" to find "possible areas to stay competitive".

To me, if a free market really works, you should always be able to stay significantly lower than your competition and still make somewhat of a profit. If your product is doing its job and you're not losing money then you're doing something right. If your competitors are raising prices (good example is X insurance company raises premium from $250 to $450) there is NOTHING, other than the desire for more money, saying that you have to do the same thing if your model is totally viable.

I love the way that business works but it still makes me sick to see that companies across the board raise prices on everything but no rise on compensation is seen. This tells me that most every company out there is happy to make more money but never happy to pay its employees, the ones who make them the money, any sort of higher wage.

As far as what that means for health care, I'm sick of seeing insurance premiums go up while the benefits garnered from them go down. There isn't really a point to health insurance if the only people that can afford the real benefits are the ones who never use them.

[hey]

Huh, i've never had a company hold me at gunpoint before forcing me to hand over my money.