Bush's Health Plan--merged threads

[tomz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)