Healthcare reform article

[Stevewc]

Here's a somewhat interesting article about health care.

Mitchell Bard: When It Comes to Health Care, Why Do Republicans (and Some Centrist Democrats) Hate Americans?

[Stevewc]

I actually didn't intend to start a new thread on health care.
Thought I was only replying to the on going one.
Guess I hit the wrong button.
Sorry,
Steve

[Independent]

I don't see that you posted this in a different thread, did you?

I can't help expressing an opinion. My attitude toward the "public option" depends on whether it is subsidized.

Suppose the gov't sets up an insurance company that provides doctors and hospitals the same reimbursement rates as the average private insurer. Further, suppose that the premiums collected fully fund the benefits and administrative expenses. So the only goal is to see if it's possible to cut premiums by cutting admin, marketing, and profits. That would be okay with me.

OTOH, if the "public option" saves money by cost shifting (like Medicare does) or gets a tax subsidy, then I think it's a bad idea.

At this point, I haven't seen the proponents guarantee that they are planning to take the "no subsidy" approach.

[Stevewc]

I didn't post it any where else, just let it go once I realized I goofed.
It will be interesting to see where this whole thing winds up indeed.
Hope good things for all, but with congress involved, who knows ?
Steve

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent I don't see that you posted this in a different thread, did you? I can't help expressing an opinion. My attitude toward the "public option" depends on whether it is subsidized. Suppose the gov't sets up an insurance company that provides doctors and hospitals the same reimbursement rates as the average private insurer. Further, suppose that the premiums collected fully fund the benefits and administrative expenses. So the only goal is to see if it's possible to cut premiums by cutting admin, marketing, and profits. That would be okay with me. OTOH, if the "public option" saves money by cost shifting (like Medicare does) or gets a tax subsidy, then I think it's a bad idea. At this point, I haven't seen the proponents guarantee that they are planning to take the "no subsidy" approach.

I like this idea, but I wonder if it would fly without some subsidy for low income folks.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevewc I actually didn't intend to start a new thread on health care. Thought I was only replying to the on going one. Guess I hit the wrong button. Sorry, Steve

Steve, you didn't hit the wrong button, we moved this post to this forum due to the very strong political tone of the article. I intended to leave a 'redirect' on the original thread but it appears as though I was the one who hit the wrong button...

[Stevewc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Steve, you didn't hit the wrong button, we moved this post to this forum due to the very strong political tone of the article. I intended to leave a 'redirect' on the original thread but it appears as though I was the one who hit the wrong button...

No problem ReWahoo.
I guess it is dificult to discuss this issue without it getting political.
The more I read about health care, the more I wonder which side I'm supposed to be on?
The main thing is: Prices have sky rocketed over the years !!!
I hope all the attention will moderate cost, leave us with good health insurance and protect all of us from losing everything we own if a major medical event should occure during life/retirement.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevewc I guess it is dificult to discuss this issue without it getting political.

No question about that, but the tone of the article you posted seems more interested in bashing one party or the other than it is in having reasoned debate about the subject itself.

I think there are better articles about health care reform to quote (and some already have been) if we are to have a serious discussion. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that THIS thread be closed, and would ask that the OP start one (if he wishes) with an article that addresses the issues instead of all the supposed problems with one specific party.

Disclosure: I'm an independent, I have no trouble with criticizing either party when warranted (like shooting fish in a barrel), but IMO that article is *about* criticizing a party, not so much about discussing the issues of health care reform.

JMHO.


-ERD50

[Stevewc]

There are two parties addressed in the article.
But I don't really care about the parties. So lets not even go there.
What I am very interested in is health care issues and the Party I'll have if it allows me to retire early with coverage <smile>. This could mean a lot to all people, retired or still working.
Steve

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR I like this idea, but I wonder if it would fly without some subsidy for low income folks.

Sure, if they want to give poor people a subsidy regardless of which insurer they pick, that would be okay. I just don't think we gain anything by having a "public option" that gets some special subsidies.

[Gone4Good]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent At this point, I haven't seen the proponents guarantee that they are planning to take the "no subsidy" approach.

This is exactly what Robert Reich argues for in an op-ed article in today's Wall Street Journal.

My own view is that the economics of health care are such that if your primary goal is to make sure everyone has access to affordable care than you inevitably come back to a single payer, government run system. The bottom line is that really sick people can't afford to pay for their health care and no insurance company will willingly subsidize them. Trying to make companies service money losing customers is like trying to prevent water from moving down hill. The only way to do it is to build an impenetrable dam of regulations around them. At which point the benefits of "free" markets become marginal at best. So why bother?

[youbet]

Free, top-notch health care for everyone!

[Sevo]

I think this discussion really is mute because we are going to get socialized medicine whether we like it or not. Delivering FREE health care is the ultimate legal way to directly buy votes. At the same time when the government gets involved in the delivery of health care the unintended consequences are simply astronomical. One of many many examples that I can give you is this. I am in south Texas. Approximately 80 % of the children born in our two hospitals are born to unwed mothers. For all practical purposes all of those mothers and children are on Medicaid and a whole gamut of other "Social Services". It is all free to the recipients as long as they don't get married, find gainful employment and report income and pay taxes etc. Medicare Medicaid and Social Security are the greatest risk to insolvency for our country. Once we put the entire country on a Government health program I'm afraid that the unintended consequences are simply going to be economically insurmountable.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevo Once we put the entire country on a Government health program I'm afraid that the unintended consequences are simply going to be economically insurmountable.

One of the factors seldom considered in these discussions is the fact that the USA is more open to providing ongoing services to illegals and has a more liberal immigration policy (increasing legal consumers of services) than most other countries. Compare policies of Canada and Australia for example. Once we're providing "free" ongoing health care, we'll likely find the number of consumers is greater than anticipated.

Not saying we shouldn't have a national system........ Just pointing out that our relatively liberal policies for allowing immigration and for providing services for illegals may lead to costs greater than anticipated and we need to be prepared for that.

[Sevo]

Just pointing out that our relatively liberal policies for allowing immigration and for providing services for illegals may lead to costs greater than anticipated and we need to be prepared for that.[/quote]

I'm A voice crying in the wilderness but You have to remember that when LBJ started Medicare and Medicaid the he gave his word the both programs would only cost at the most a 100 million or so.

I personally, and I make my living practicing medicine, wish that there was some way to get the government totally out of practice of medicine. I would lose at least half of my income over night and I would dance in the street screaming "FREEDOM ". It would be so wonderful to just practice medicine and get paid by patients with out the federal government manipulating every aspect of what we do according to how a particular group votes.

The idea that every one needs any kind of insurance other than for catastrophic illness is mass insanity. you have to remember that the concept that you have to have a insurance policy to go see a doctor only started when the federal government got involved in providing free health care for groups of special people in order to manipulate their voting patterns. Prior to that you went to see your Doctor and you paid a very reasonable amount for an office visit. If you needed it you went to the hospital. The hospitals were all run by truly non profit organization, counties, states, and churches. The cost was as reasonable as possible and there were NO insurance executives, Doctors, Hospital administrators, or investors in health care flying around in their private planes or living in their McMansions prior to the advent of FREE health care mandated by the Feds.

If you think that health care is expensive now....... You just wait till it is FREE. OH well! rant off. Frankly I don't see any hope. We are tooo far down the road to true socialism to turn back now.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevo Approximately 80 % of the children born in our two hospitals are born to unwed mothers.

What is your source for this claim?

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevo The idea that every one needs any kind of insurance other than for catastrophic illness is mass insanity.

That is one reason I'd prefer a voucher system to "single payer" - individuals can go get the coverage that fits their needs. Maybe you would have to provide some evidence that you can handle the deductible, keep it simple, maintain $5,000 in a "health account".

-ERD50

[Sevo]

Discussions with the administrators who are trying to keep the hospitals open and and the Obstetricians that are delivering these babies. I know that it is hard to understand. And certainly painful to accept. And I sincerely wish that the numbers that we are seeing were not true.
There is this old saying that if you are going to tell the truth you better have one foot in the stirrups. I suppose this certainly applies to this situation.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevo Discussions with the administrators who are trying to keep the hospitals open and and the Obstetricians that are delivering these babies. I know that it is hard to understand. And certainly painful to accept. And I sincerely wish that the numbers that we are seeing were not true. There is this old saying that if you are going to tell the truth you better have one foot in the stirrups. I suppose this certainly applies to this situation.

Maybe so, but I'd rather see hard numbers. It is always so easy to remember the "negative" situations over the positive.

Depending on what you mean by catastrophic, insuring only for the big dollar catastrophic claims does not help for those with chronic conditions. Without insurance, my spouse and I would pay well in excess of $500 a month for drugs. And who knows how much for other medical services. The problem is that you often don't know in advance what kind of insurance you might need a year or two from now. And once you develop a problem, try to buy insurance on the private market.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevo Discussions with the administrators who are trying to keep the hospitals open and and the Obstetricians that are delivering these babies. I know that it is hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand, just hard to believe.

Anecdotal evidence without the birth-certificate data to back it up.