Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Bang]

I have to offer health insurance, or my company would have no employees but myself. My competition offers it, so I must offer it.

So you mean that companies offering crappy coverage would end up putting them out of business?

Seems that wisdom was needed a few pages ago.

If there's one thing I've learned over the years running businesses and working with others, the most important asset is good people.

You can cut as many corners as you want, but if you lose good people, you won't last long.

~Bang

Edited June 29, 2012 by Bang

[JMS]

2. I'm dubious of "forced" groups because they seem like an invitation for corruption. If you don't have choice to join the group, then the leaders of the group don't have much incentive to deliver good service.

Corruption is codified into our healthcare system. The entire rational for insurance is that a large group of people pay for "insurance" si they will be taken care off when they need it. Or system doesn't support this model for many consumers. Our system still works if you are with a large enough company or organization which can protect you / itself in case they need to draw on benifits. If you aren't with a large umbrulla organization you can see your rates double, tripple your benifits reduced, and your "protections" evaperate. When that occurs to small businesses it is very dificult to replace the original lower cost insurance, and it's hard to join up with higher priced umbrulla organizations after the fact too.

To your other point. Employee's rarely have the "right" to seek their best deal, rather they sometimes they get to pick from a sampling of choices offered by an insuror. Companies don't always have a real choice either. Real choices are severely limited under Mccarran Ferguson (1945) which is designed to restrict competiton. It outlaws competition between states, and legalizes collusion within states between would be compeditors. The net effect is a company will have the "choice" between say 20 policies from 20 different companies... but all those policies come from 2 or even 1 providers operating under different names; and are legally mirrors of each other. You can not have choice without competition, and no company with an existing anti trust exemption such as Mccarran Ferguson experiences competion.

That's how you get states which are essentially one insurer monopolies for healthcare. Opponents of a private public plan say that they’re trying to defend market competition, what they’re actually doing is defending lucrative local monopolies.

Edited June 29, 2012 by JMS

[LadySkinsFan]

The one huge problem with the pre-existing conditions clauses is that there is no restriction on the premiums, so insurance companies are free to name all sorts of things pre-existing condition and charge outrageous premiums. For example, I have had a C-section, tubal ligation and an appendectomy, all considered pre-existing conditions, even though all procedures were uneventful and I suffered no ill effects from them. But I have been told by friends in the insurance business that if I were to apply, my pre-existing conditions would kick in and I'd pay higher premiums. I don't have high blood pressure, diabetes and I don't take any prescription drugs on a regular basis, but I'd still pay higher premiums. So I'm not going to buy health insurance and will wait for Medicare to kick in, lucky for me in 4 years.

[JMS]

So I'm not going to buy health insurance and will wait for Medicare to kick in, lucky for me in 4 years.

So what you are saying is the existing healthcare system has given you every incentive to make a really bad choice, a bad choice for you because you are without insurance for the next 4 years. A bad choice for all of us too, because if you do need services, you will no doubtedly go to a hospital, and the general public will almost certainly have to cover your expenses...

Here you are a person who can afford insurance, wants insurance, but is being forced down the worst possible avenue..

Good news is "The Afordable Care Act" eliminates pre-existing conditions.

Edited June 29, 2012 by JMS

[chipwhich]

So you mean that companies offering crappy coverage would end up putting them out of business?

Seems that wisdom was needed a few pages ago.

If there's one thing I've learned over the years running businesses and working with others, the most important asset is good people.

You can cut as many corners as you want, but if you lose good people, you won't last long.

~Bang

You can't keep good people without taking care of them.

[Thiebear]

Obamacare offers what? Theres a list somewhere that shows how close it is to becoming real in 2014??

Edited June 29, 2012 by Thiebear

[Koolblue13]

Yes, the old insurance system worked perfectly for you, huh?

No, didn't work at all. The system in place now is just god awful.

Why would I oppose UHC?

I worry about what happens to the cost, if the government takes over the job of the middle man, as it's already completely corrupt.

[JMS]

Obamacare offers what? Theres a list somewhere that shows how close it is to becoming real in 2014??

Pros

1. The Act was designed to reduce healthcare costs by making services available to the 32 million who currently can't get insurance. They often use a hospital emergency room as their primary care physician, increasing costs for everyone.
   
2. The Federal government will pay states to add more low income people to Medicaid.
   
3. The states will be required to set up insurance exchanges to make it easier to shop for private health insurance coverage.
   
4. Insurance companies can no longer deny children coverage for pre-existing conditions. This benefit applies to adults in 2014.
   
5. If a company denies someone coverage, that person can go to an external appeals process.
   
6. Insurance companies can no longer drop anyone from coverage once they get sick.
   
7. Parents can put their children up to age 26 on their health insurance plans. This will bring more profit for health insurance companies, since they will receive more premiums without higher costs for these healthier individuals.
   
8. The Medicare "doughnut hole" gap in coverage will be eliminated by 2020.
   
9. The Act will lower the budget deficit by $143 billion for the next 10 years by raising some taxes and shifting more cost burdens. (Source: CBO CBO Report on Health Care Reform and the Budget) Over a Trillion dollars over the second ten years.
   

http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcarereform/f/What-Is-Obama-Care.htm

Edited June 29, 2012 by JMS

[Tulane Skins Fan]

No, didn't work at all. The system in place now is just god awful.

Why would I oppose UHC?

I worry about what happens to the cost, if the government takes over the job of the middle man, as it's already completely corrupt.

Its very interesting what people are concerned about to me. It seems to me like even in a single payer system the COST can be controlled easily by the government. They just set the cost and make it cheaper. I would have thought the concerns with this would have been the QUALITY of health care, and also a concern from doctors that they would not get paid as much.

But I think the cost to consumers would only go down if the government actually took over health care. (Again, the government is not doing that with ACA. We still get that private insurance middle man.)

[Koolblue13]

Its very interesting what people are concerned about to me. It seems to me like even in a single payer system the COST can be controlled easily by the government. They just set the cost and make it cheaper. I would have thought the concerns with this would have been the QUALITY of health care, and also a concern from doctors that they would not get paid as much.

But I think the cost to consumers would only go down if the government actually took over health care. (Again, the government is not doing that with ACA. We still get that private insurance middle man.)

I understand this. I guess I expect quality to remain high. I also expect cost to remain high.

Although, I'm also moving closer to thinking that the government should take over. Only reason I'm against that, is because we need a better government.

[JMS]

Its very interesting what people are concerned about to me. It seems to me like even in a single payer system the COST can be controlled easily by the government. They just set the cost and make it cheaper. I would have thought the concerns with this would have been the QUALITY of health care, and also a concern from doctors that they would not get paid as much.

But I think the cost to consumers would only go down if the government actually took over health care. (Again, the government is not doing that with ACA. We still get that private insurance middle man.)

Our system is about twice per capita what other countries with better rankings spend. It is by far the most expensive system being employed.

The "savings" in ACA do not come from reducing costs, but reducing the growth of costs. Our system's cost is also growing at the fastest pace in the industrialized world.

I think/hope this is partially due to how the non partisan Congressional Budget Office calculates savings and costs of the program.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Our system is about twice per capita what other countries with better rankings spend. It is by far the most expensive system being employed.

The "savings" in ACA do not come from reducing costs, but reducing the growth of costs. Our system's cost is also growing at the fastest pace in the industrialized world.

I think/hope this is partially due to how the non partisan Congressional Budget Office calculates savings and costs of the program.

The most aggrevating thing about what you wrote is that you're probably right, per capita costs are higher, but then all we hear is the same empty-headed nonsense about "we're not Europe" or "in Canada people die waiting", which forces us to develop a different system which isn't as efficient. Add to that the reason that our per capita costs are so high is due to the fact that we get charged 1000% more for the same coverage as what people are charged in other countries.

But no we have to cowtow to the idiots and the multi-billion dollar corporations rather than bilding a good system that works for people.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I understand this. I guess I expect quality to remain high. I also expect cost to remain high.

Although, I'm also moving closer to thinking that the government should take over. Only reason I'm against that, is because we need a better government.

The question then becomes "what part does government take over?"

Do you want a Canadian single payer system? A British NHS system?

[AsburySkinsFan]

The question then becomes "what part does government take over?"

Do you want a Canadian single payer system? A British NHS system?

I wanted a Public Option (government Medicaid type system for the poor). Canadians can get other insurance above the state insurance as well, I'd be fine with that.

[Kilmer17]

Single payor is the only way to make a govt health care law work.

[JMS]

The most aggrevating thing about what you wrote is that you're probably right, per capita costs are higher,

Not just higher... astronomically higher based upon our how it performs for our population..

United States--------------------$ 7,164 per capita -------------------- 15.2% GDP

Germany--------------------------$ 3,922----------------------------------- 10.5

Canada--------------------------- $ 3,867----------------------------------- 9.8

France---------------------------- $ 3,851----------------------------------- 11.2

Italy ------------------------------- $ 3,137----------------------------------- 9.5

Costa Rica ----------------------$ 1,059 ----------------------------------- 9.4

Cuba --------------------------------$495 ------------------------------------ 12.0

World Health Organization Rankings of Healthcare Systems by Country.

France ---------------------------------- #1

Italy -------------------------------------- #2

Germany ------------------------------- #25

Canada ------------------------------- #30

Costa Rica ----------------------------#36

United States -------------------------#37

Cuba -------------------------------------#39

all we hear is the same empty-headed nonsense about "we're not Europe" or "in Canada people die waiting", which forces us to develop a different system which isn't as efficient.

Which seems to be more fiction than actual reality... Canadians and Europeans love their healthcare systems. The politician who inplemented Canada's system was recently voted most admired politician. Those countries can't believe the US still has a for profit system.

[HBnotBlades]

Single payor is the only way to make a govt health care law work.

Well, we're going to give the single payer system a shot up here in Vermont. If it's successful, I'd expect it to be held up as an example for a nationwide single payer system.

If it doesn't go well, it will make pushing for a national single payer system nearly impossible.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Single payor is the only way to make a govt health care law work.

Agree. Either go all the way to a single payer system, or go the exact opposite, tax health benefits and allow people to show for their own insurance.

This current system is a mixed bag of crap

Edited June 29, 2012 by SkinsHokieFan

[JMS]

The question then becomes "what part does government take over?"

Do you want a Canadian single payer system? A British NHS system?

Do you know who set up the World Health Organization? We did. Do you know why? To be a resource for countries looking to improve their healthcare delivery systems.

Why not copy ideas from the top ranked system... hell in france doctors still make house calls. and they are saving about 50% of the cost per capita while covering every citizen.

[Kilmer17]

Agree. Either go all the way to a single payer system, or go the exact opposite, tax health benefits and allow people to show for their own insurance.

This current system is a mixed bag of crap

Yep.

[HBnotBlades]

When looking at costs per capita, we have to figure in the fact that we have the least healthy population in the world as well...

Not just higher... astronomically higher based upon our how it performs for our population..

United States--------------------$ 7,164 per capita -------------------- 15.2% GDP------30.6% (2005 obesity rates)

Germany--------------------------$ 3,922----------------------------------- 10.5 -----------------12.9%

Canada--------------------------- $ 3,867----------------------------------- 9.8 ------------------14.3%

France---------------------------- $ 3,851----------------------------------- 11.2-------------------9.4%

Italy ------------------------------- $ 3,137----------------------------------- 9.5------------------8.5%

Costa Rica ----------------------$ 1,059 ----------------------------------- 9.4-----------------Couldn't find

Cuba --------------------------------$495 ------------------------------------ 12.0-------------------8.0%

[JMS]

Well, we're going to give the single payer system a shot up here in Vermont. If it's successful, I'd expect it to be held up as an example for a nationwide single payer system.

If it doesn't go well, it will make pushing for a national single payer system nearly impossible.

I'm not sure a state could do it by themselves. There are lots of federal regulations and issues which come up even in our existing system which is heavily supported with federal dollars.

Good luck though.

Agree. Either go all the way to a single payer system, or go the exact opposite, tax health benefits and allow people to show for their own insurance.

Yeah because extremism is usually the best answer.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Single payor is the only way to make a govt health care law work.

Is that an endorsement of single payer?

I can't see it ever getting passed though because of the AMA.

[PokerPacker]

Agree. Either go all the way to a single payer system, or go the exact opposite, tax health benefits and allow people to show for their own insurance.

This current system is a mixed bag of crap

exactly. I would prefer the more private direction, but right now we have a ****ization that is the worst of both worlds and going purely one way or the other would be better than what we have now.

[JMS]

When looking at costs per capita, we have to figure in the fact that we have the least healthy population in the world as well...

Americans don't consult with doctors twice as much as the french, Germans or Italians. Nor do we get 2 or 3 times more services per capita than do these other countries... Our spending per capita difference is entirely based upon the fact that our services cost more, not that our institutions provide more services.

Our healthcare services cost more souly because it's to the benifit of our service providers to charge us more, and in the absense of competiton that's an easy way too high profits, which is the primary goal of any corporation.

Edited June 29, 2012 by JMS