Bush's Health Plan--merged threads

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by Helena

" Initially, only 20 percent of those who are covered through work will see a tax increase, according to White House estimates. But that number will go up over time, because while the deduction cap would be indexed to inflation, health care costs rise much more quickly. Hence, your plan costs could exceed the deduction cap within a few years of the cap's implementation, depending on your circumstance.

Ten years after the proposal is in effect, 40 percent of plans will exceed the standard deduction, according to a preliminary analysis of the proposal by the Tax Policy Center. "

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/23/pf/t...ion=2007012321

I wonder if anyone has considered the possibility that the inflation rate might slow once people become more in tune with the cost of their care - thereby leading to lower demand for brand name drugs and wasted and unnecessary services

[sgeeeee]

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa

. . . It appears that a cold which will go away by itself does better when an MD does nothing that when a NP does nothing, at least in the eyes of some patients. . .

I would be willing to do nothing for patients at half the cost of either the MD or the NP. Next time one of you has a cold, send me any amount of money you see fit and I promise to do nothing.

[Helena]

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

I wonder if anyone has considered the possibility that the inflation rate might slow once people become more in tune with the cost of their care - thereby leading to lower demand for brand name drugs and wasted and unnecessary services

You want to bet the farm on that ?

[brewer12345]

Originally Posted by Brat

Frankly I would like to see 'community rating' for health insurance, that way those with pre-existing conditions could purchase a policy.

We have this in the individual health market in NJ. Its not a panacea. Everyone can get access to insurance with very few restrictions allowed related to one's health status, which is good. The downside is that a lot of insurers won't play in the state's market, so there isn't much competition. As a result, there isn't a lot of choice on the structure of the policy and the companies to buy it from. Insurance is also very expensive. I suspect that most of this is due to the fact that everything is expensive in "God's Country" (NJ), but it is no doubt exacerbated by the lack of competition.

I suppose I am happier knowing that I can always buy a policy here no matter what happens to me. But the price is pretty hefty and clearly knoks a lot of people out of the market. Its just not clear that it would be much better with more competition.

[lets-retire]

Brewer--That is why I believe universal coverage by private insurance won't work. Even if the government splits the contract up into regions to allow for some competition there will not be enough to keep the prices low similar to the gas industry. If they go with one company there will be no competition for the contracts. I think this will result in one of three things. 1) the government pays whatever the companies want, resulting in an expensive and probably inferior system. 2) The government dictates the price to the companies, resulting in an inferior system. Or 3) the government taking it over, also resulting in an inferior system.

I know it's been stated, but I can't recall the thread, but maybe if there was some way to increase the number of doctors. Maybe increasing the number of medical schools. This has to taken into consideration. Failure to do so will result in an increase in demand without any appreciable increase in supply, resulting in price increases or severe rationing. Now we have rationing based on ability to pay, so they say, but if the number of health care providers is not addressed rationing will be based on the availability of service not pay. Either way there will be rationing.

[tomz]

Originally Posted by lets-retire

Now we have rationing based on ability to pay, so they say, but if the number of health care providers is not addressed rationing will be based on the availability of service not pay. Either way there will be rationing.

There already is rationing (as you've indicated). It's just not implemented in any sort of rational way.

I agree with you on health care providers. The medical community has very high barriers to entry. Nurse practitioners can provide a lot of "routine" services at less cost than MDs.

Also, as discussed on other threads, end of life care issues need to be rationalized. We spend a fortune on heroic, end-of-life care that doesn't make any sense.

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by ladelfina

MKLD the insurance lady just showed us a list of what'll get you rejected...
HEARTBURN will get you rejected, my friend..
WAKE UP!!!

Nexium, prilosec and protonix are very expensive ( $150/mo), which in many cases is more than the insurance premium costs in the individual and family market. In a few states, particulary California, the Democratic party thought it would be a great idea to prohibit insurance carriers from excluding particular pre-existing conditions from coverage. Therefore, instead of excluding the condition from coverage and extending coverage to the rest of the body, insurance carriers just decline altogether. Especially when meds cost more than the premium!

I don't blame the insurance company for this problem. I blame the government. In states where insurance companies are allowed to exclude certain conditions from coverage, it is easier to get individual coverage. In the case of heartburn, many will accept the exclusion and switch to over the counter treatment!

[brewer12345]

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

I don't blame the insurance company for this problem. I blame the government.

That's pretty much all your posts say, isn't it?

[FIRE'd@51]

Right now we are spending $2 trillion annually on healthcare (about 16% of GDP). There are 300 million people in the US. That works out to $6,666 per person. So even if we could cut overhead costs by 25% with universal coverage (I doubt we could), it's still $5,000 per person ($20,000 per family of four), on average. Is this affordable? These numbers are very depressing to me. I'm afraid serious choices are going to have to be made.

[ladelfina]

Is this affordable?

It must be.. since we're spending it already, right?

[lets-retire]

Fire'd--where'd you get those numbers? The last ones I saw were on this forum from last summer. They put the average spending at about 4500.

[FIRE'd@51]

Originally Posted by ladelfina

It must be.. since we're spending it already, right?

We're spending it, but I don't know who is paying for it - do you? It's also growing at something like twice the inflation rate (CPI).

[FIRE'd@51]

Originally Posted by lets-retire

Fire'd--where'd you get those numbers? The last ones I saw were on this forum from last summer. They put the average spending at about 4500.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by FIRE'd@51

Right now we are spending $2 trillion annually on healthcare (about 16% of GDP). There are 300 million people in the US. That works out to $6,666 per person. So even if we could cut overhead costs by 25% with universal coverage (I doubt we could), it's still $5,000 per person ($20,000 per family of four), on average. Is this affordable? These numbers are very depressing to me. I'm afraid serious choices are going to have to be made.

I'm pretty sure you are correct on that. I've seen my husband use that figure many times during his presentations. If I'm not mistaken, about 1/2 of those dollars are spent by Medicare and Medicaid and the other half are spent by the private sector. I think (not sure of the exact number), but between Medicare and Medicaid, I think they pay about .30 cents for every dollar billed by healthcare providers.

[lets-retire]

Cool. Thanks.

[Brat]

Discussion of Bush proposal particularly regarding early retirees: http://tinyurl.com/2uj72k




MODERATOR EDIT: Corrected 'broken' link

[Tadpole]

Originally Posted by Brat

Discussion of Bush proposal particularly regarding early retirees: http://tinyurl.com/2uj72k




MODERATOR EDIT: Corrected 'broken' link

It has a point. Since some early retirees already face health care insurance costs, a tax break should be welcome for their particular circumstance. (This assumes that people voluntarily early retired can afford insurance but I think that is probably the case.)