airdvr 200 #1 November 24, 2009 I guess my biggest frustration with the current bill is understanding how this will save money and make HC more affordable. According to this http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20090608_HPPv7n06_0609.pdf Since 1970, Medicare’s costs have risen 34 percent more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid. Thirty-four percent is a lot of money when talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. If Medicare’s per-patient costs had risen by only the same amount as per-patient NHE apart from Medicare and Medicaid, then, instead of costing $468 billion last year, Medicare would have cost $349 billion. That one-year savings of $119 billion is almost seven times the annual budget of NASA and is more than $1,000 per American family. Most Americans can probably think of things they’d rather do with that extra $1,000 each year than give it to the IRS to subsidize Medicare’s inefficiencies.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,681 #2 November 24, 2009 QuoteI guess my biggest frustration with the current bill is understanding how this will save money and make HC more affordable. According to this http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20090608_HPPv7n06_0609.pdf Since 1970, Medicare’s costs have risen 34 percent more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid. Thirty-four percent is a lot of money when talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. If Medicare’s per-patient costs had risen by only the same amount as per-patient NHE apart from Medicare and Medicaid, then, instead of costing $468 billion last year, Medicare would have cost $349 billion. That one-year savings of $119 billion is almost seven times the annual budget of NASA and is more than $1,000 per American family. Most Americans can probably think of things they’d rather do with that extra $1,000 each year than give it to the IRS to subsidize Medicare’s inefficiencies. Facile analysis. Old people always have more costly health care, and the population of old people is growing fast.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 200 #3 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteI guess my biggest frustration with the current bill is understanding how this will save money and make HC more affordable. According to this http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20090608_HPPv7n06_0609.pdf Since 1970, Medicare’s costs have risen 34 percent more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid. Thirty-four percent is a lot of money when talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. If Medicare’s per-patient costs had risen by only the same amount as per-patient NHE apart from Medicare and Medicaid, then, instead of costing $468 billion last year, Medicare would have cost $349 billion. That one-year savings of $119 billion is almost seven times the annual budget of NASA and is more than $1,000 per American family. Most Americans can probably think of things they’d rather do with that extra $1,000 each year than give it to the IRS to subsidize Medicare’s inefficiencies. Facile analysis. Old people always have more costly health care, and the population of old people is growing fast. Makes sense. Still trying to understand how spending 800+ billion will save money.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #4 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI guess my biggest frustration with the current bill is understanding how this will save money and make HC more affordable. According to this http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20090608_HPPv7n06_0609.pdf Since 1970, Medicare’s costs have risen 34 percent more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid. Thirty-four percent is a lot of money when talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. If Medicare’s per-patient costs had risen by only the same amount as per-patient NHE apart from Medicare and Medicaid, then, instead of costing $468 billion last year, Medicare would have cost $349 billion. That one-year savings of $119 billion is almost seven times the annual budget of NASA and is more than $1,000 per American family. Most Americans can probably think of things they’d rather do with that extra $1,000 each year than give it to the IRS to subsidize Medicare’s inefficiencies. Facile analysis. Old people always have more costly health care, and the population of old people is growing fast. Makes sense. Still trying to understand how spending 800+ billion will save money. It won't save money or make health care cheaper. the only thing that may help reduce cost is if they implement a standard code for filing. everything else will cause an increase in health care cost. these costs will be paid by those that pay the most taxes and have good insurance already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #5 November 24, 2009 QuoteI guess my biggest frustration with the current bill is understanding how this will save money and make HC more affordable. According to this http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20090608_HPPv7n06_0609.pdf Since 1970, Medicare’s costs have risen 34 percent more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid. Thirty-four percent is a lot of money when talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. If Medicare’s per-patient costs had risen by only the same amount as per-patient NHE apart from Medicare and Medicaid, then, instead of costing $468 billion last year, Medicare would have cost $349 billion. That one-year savings of $119 billion is almost seven times the annual budget of NASA and is more than $1,000 per American family. Most Americans can probably think of things they’d rather do with that extra $1,000 each year than give it to the IRS to subsidize Medicare’s inefficiencies. It's a completely ridiculous argument telling only a small fraction of the truth for the consumption of Ron Paulian kooks who believe: QuoteTHAT government is the negation of liberty; THAT voluntary action is the only ethical behavior; THAT respect for the individual's property is fundamental to a peaceful society; THAT violent action is only warranted in defense of one's property; THAT the individual owns his/her body and is therefore responsible for his/her actions; THAT society is a responsibility of the people, not the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #6 November 24, 2009 >I guess my biggest frustration with the current bill is understanding >how this will save money and make HC more affordable. It will save the ~2 billion that is currently lost treating uninsured/indigent patients in the current system. It will also make healthcare more affordable to those who can currently not afford it. However, overall it will cost more than our current system. >"Most Americans can probably think of things they’d rather do with >that extra $1,000 each year than give it to the IRS to subsidize > Medicare’s inefficiencies." True. Of course that's true for pretty much any government spending outside one's favorite projects. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
d16842 0 #7 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteI Facile analysis. Old people always have more costly health care. Well, you should know John. :) But following are issues that are quite difficult to refute. Today's US health care IS already the most expensive in the world, and is already constrained by capacity. And we already have delays here in many areas of the US. You simply can't add 30,000,000 to our health care system without exceeding the system's capacity to provide health care as those covered today know it. Ultimately, those with insurnce today must get less care. Defenders of the bill say that our system will not have the delays or limits chronic to other national systems. Yet no national health care system in the world has avoided it. Do you really think American's are smarter than the rest of the world John? Based on your post's, I don't think so. For example, my wife is an OR nurse. One of the doctors she works with is from Belgium. His father just had bypass surgery in that country. The doctor was greatly relieved, as his father was 64 and seven months of age. Had he been 65 he would not have been eligible for it. Limits like that, or delays like those in the Canadian or British systems, are purposely engineered to their limit national cost, and are required, lest they bankrupt the nation. I don't argue that our system is good today. Nor is it fair to the poor. But informed people saying we all can get the level of care today provided to the insured is a lie. When I started my career of engineering work on hospital imaging systems, one thing was clear. At that time, there were more CT and MRI machines in Cincinnati in ALL of Canada, hence their delays. That is how they limited their costs. It is how nearly all national health care systems limit their costs. We already demand far more health care than we are willing to pay for. And even today's system will bankrupt our kids. Somehow we must learn to say no to more care. This bill will greatly delay this process, and put the federal government, or kids, in massive debt, even more than we are headed for today.Tom B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #8 November 24, 2009 Because they're forcing young adults who usually don't NEED anything more than major medical to get full insurance and they're pulling half a trillion out of medicare. But, hey... Gramma didn't need that pacemaker anyway, remember? Just give her some pain pills instead.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 200 #9 November 24, 2009 QuoteIt will save the ~2 billion that is currently lost treating uninsured/indigent patients in the current system. So, all things being equal a 400 year wait to break even? QuoteHowever, overall it will cost more than our current system. And this makes it more affordable how?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #10 November 24, 2009 It will not But that has NEVER been the point has it! "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DavidB 0 #11 November 25, 2009 I don't suppose there's anything addressing the out of control litigation costs, is there? "Health Care" (doctors, nurses, hospitals, technicians, laboratories, laundries, janitors, everyone involved in patient care) is boxed in. On one side are insurance costs (malpractice insurance is outrageously, obscenely expensive), on the other is lawyers (ready to file papers at a moment's notice driving insurance costs up). Seems each already has it's voice in congress, so who can be looked to for help? The taxpayers, that seems to be who. Who is our voice? Congressmen & women, representatives we trust to be our voice but who seem more often to be the voice of special interest lobbyists. Seems easier to influence the taxpayer representatives than it does the lobbyist's, so we get yet more shell-game legislation, the root causes of the problem go ignored, & certain segments will undoubtedly gain great wealth while the taxpayers are left holding the bag (IOU's) again. Nope, for "real reform" both insurance & lawyers are going to have to give up money and power. Guess when that will happen?When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #12 November 25, 2009 QuoteI don't suppose there's anything addressing the out of control litigation costs, is there? "Health Care" (doctors, nurses, hospitals, technicians, laboratories, laundries, janitors, everyone involved in patient care) is boxed in. On one side are insurance costs (malpractice insurance is outrageously, obscenely expensive), on the other is lawyers (ready to file papers at a moment's notice driving insurance costs up). Seems each already has it's voice in congress, so who can be looked to for help? The taxpayers, that seems to be who. Who is our voice? Congressmen & women, representatives we trust to be our voice but who seem more often to be the voice of special interest lobbyists. Seems easier to influence the taxpayer representatives than it does the lobbyist's, so we get yet more shell-game legislation, the root causes of the problem go ignored, & certain segments will undoubtedly gain great wealth while the taxpayers are left holding the bag (IOU's) again. Nope, for "real reform" both insurance & lawyers are going to have to give up money and power. Guess when that will happen? When we finally adopt a single payer system, I suspect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 200 #13 November 25, 2009 Quote Nope, for "real reform" both insurance & lawyers are going to have to give up money and power. Guess when that will happen? Congress is chock full of lawyers. I'll bet there isn't 1 paragraph addressing that issue.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #14 November 25, 2009 Quote Since 1970, Medicare’s costs have risen 34 percent more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid. Assuming your information is correct, 2009 - 1970 = 39 years, so the 34% raise spread over 39 years is less than 1% a year. Looks like regular inflation adjustments, and most likely it doesn't even cover inflation. But considering that the price of the individual health plan I had went up 60% during just last four years, I would conclude from your post that the government did excellent job while managing Medicare costs. At least it was much better than private industry does - and note that Medicare does not have freedom to reject/dump patients who are too expensive, like private insurers do.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #15 November 25, 2009 QuoteQuote Since 1970, Medicare’s costs have risen 34 percent more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid. Assuming your information is correct, 2009 - 1970 = 39 years, so the 34% raise spread over 39 years is less than 1% a year. Looks like regular inflation adjustments, and most likely it doesn't even cover inflation. But considering that the price of the individual health plan I had went up 60% during just last four years, I would conclude from your post that the government did excellent job while managing Medicare costs. At least it was much better than private industry does - and note that Medicare does not have freedom to reject/dump patients who are too expensive, like private insurers do. No - they just set payments so low that doctors are refusing to take the patients, while having a higher claim refusal rate than private insurance.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #16 November 25, 2009 Quote No - they just set payments so low that doctors are refusing to take the patients, while having a higher claim refusal rate than private insurance. Some are, some aren't - it depends on doctor. But let's see your possible fixes for this situation: - If you try to increase the Medicare payments: aren't we already in debt?! Are you really want to enslave our grandchildren?? - If you somehow require some doctors to accept Medicare (like federally funded hospitals are): this is socialist and against the free market. What else? Everyone sees where the problems are, it's just hard to come up with a working solution.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #17 November 25, 2009 Quote But following are issues that are quite difficult to refute. Today's US health care IS already the most expensive in the world, and is already constrained by capacity. And we already have delays here in many areas of the US. You simply can't add 30,000,000 to our health care system without exceeding the system's capacity to provide health care as those covered today know it. You're not ADDING anyone into the system. Those people you mentioned are in the system already, and already using those services - they just do it the most expensive way by going to ER and not paying for it.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #18 November 25, 2009 QuoteQuote But following are issues that are quite difficult to refute. Today's US health care IS already the most expensive in the world, and is already constrained by capacity. And we already have delays here in many areas of the US. You simply can't add 30,000,000 to our health care system without exceeding the system's capacity to provide health care as those covered today know it. You're not ADDING anyone into the system. Those people you mentioned are in the system already, and already using those services - they just do it the most expensive way by going to ER and not paying for it. Some are - certainly not all.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #19 November 25, 2009 QuoteSome are - certainly not all. I wonder if the reason for that is just cost/reimbursement rate, or something else? Found interesting data. Basically, the average cost of health insurance more than doubled during last ten years. This is 219%(!) increase just during last ten years! Now I wonder how much of those went to doctors (after all, this is actual purpose of insurance), and how much contributed to 1M+ salaries - because according to "explanation of benefits" my doctor does not get a single penny more from the insurance after those last four year increases.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites d16842 0 #20 November 25, 2009 QuoteQuote But following are issues that are quite difficult to refute. Today's US health care IS already the most expensive in the world, and is already constrained by capacity. And we already have delays here in many areas of the US. You simply can't add 30,000,000 to our health care system without exceeding the system's capacity to provide health care as those covered today know it. You're not ADDING anyone into the system. Those people you mentioned are in the system already, and already using those services - they just do it the most expensive way by going to ER and not paying for it. Two points. First, those who go to the ER for general care don't make nearly as many trips to the ER as is suggested. Why? Because they will bill you, and when you don't pay, harass you. For many it hits their credit rating. It is not the free pass that many think. For those at rock bottom it become that though. Second I don't pay for it via taxes. Instead it is billed through overhead to my insurance, aka my company. My deductible won't change if this happens, and my taxes most assuredly will go up if this is passed. The most positive supporters are saying it is revenue neutral. What they don't say is that is based on 10 years of revenue, and 6 or 7 years of costs, because of its implementation delay. Generally most believe it will be a huge cost for the government, aka me. In the end, we will have to accept care rationing, just as every other nation with national health care has done, through delays or restrictions in service. I don't want that any sooner than we must. This is a terrible bill. I don't oppose the concept.Tom B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #21 November 25, 2009 Quote Two points. First, those who go to the ER for general care don't make nearly as many trips to the ER as is suggested. Why? Because they will bill you, and when you don't pay, harass you. For many it hits their credit rating. It is not the free pass that many think. For those at rock bottom it become that though. Those who are poor, and cannot afford insurance and go to ER generally are not worried about collector harassment - they have a lot of them already, their credit rating has been sank, and adding one more collector doesn't really matter to them. Even if it is, they do not have any other options anyway, as ER bills are quite expensive, and the person which can afford them should have no problems affording insurance either. Quote Second I don't pay for it via taxes. Instead it is billed through overhead to my insurance, aka my company. You are paying for it through premium increases - and since you're basically required to keep the coverage and will pay a fortune if you drop/lose it, you can consider it a kind of tax. Quote Generally most believe it will be a huge cost for the government, aka me. Unfortunately you do not provide any facts or even thoughts (aka cost analysis) to support your beliefs, so at the end they're no more trustworthy than fox "news". Quote In the end, we will have to accept care rationing, just as every other nation with national health care has done, through delays or restrictions in service. Yes if you're going to use government plan - this already happens with Medicare. If you can afford private healthcare, nothing would really change.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rookie120 0 #22 November 25, 2009 QuoteHow will the HC bill save money? Name ONE program that the Govt took over and saved money or did it cheaper?If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DavidB 0 #23 November 25, 2009 Quote Quote Nope, for "real reform" both insurance & lawyers are going to have to give up money and power. Guess when that will happen? Congress is chock full of lawyers. I'll bet there isn't 1 paragraph addressing that issue. And there, folks, is a major portion of our problem! Like doctors, who's on-going training is via TV commercials, politicians want to treat the symptoms & ignore the cause. Something like 9 out of 10 or OUR representatives have law degrees. Don't know about you, but that thought has always made me feel "oh so secure" because they can use "lawyer-speak" (double-talk) to make spending "just a little more" or take things "just a little further" & make it look to you & I like greatest thing since sliced bread.When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #24 November 25, 2009 Quote Quote How will the HC bill save money? Name ONE program that the Govt took over and saved money or did it cheaper? That's an endless argument waiting to happen Sometimes it's also important to do it BETTER. If the government takes over health care, it will cost more than it costs now. If we stay with the current system, however, health case costs will rise even more, and availability of basic health care (for middle class and lower income people) will decrease. No matter what we do, health care costs are going to increase. We are not going to find a solution which actually lowers the cost in the short term; insisting that we do is tantamount to insisting that we do nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #25 November 25, 2009 QuoteThat's an endless argument waiting to happen Sometimes it's also important to do it BETTER. Show one Govt program that was run BETTER after the Govt took over. Quote We are not going to find a solution which actually lowers the cost in the short term; insisting that we do is tantamount to insisting that we do nothing. Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing just to feel good about doing something."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnealtx 0 #8 November 24, 2009 Because they're forcing young adults who usually don't NEED anything more than major medical to get full insurance and they're pulling half a trillion out of medicare. But, hey... Gramma didn't need that pacemaker anyway, remember? Just give her some pain pills instead.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 200 #9 November 24, 2009 QuoteIt will save the ~2 billion that is currently lost treating uninsured/indigent patients in the current system. So, all things being equal a 400 year wait to break even? QuoteHowever, overall it will cost more than our current system. And this makes it more affordable how?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #10 November 24, 2009 It will not But that has NEVER been the point has it! "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DavidB 0 #11 November 25, 2009 I don't suppose there's anything addressing the out of control litigation costs, is there? "Health Care" (doctors, nurses, hospitals, technicians, laboratories, laundries, janitors, everyone involved in patient care) is boxed in. On one side are insurance costs (malpractice insurance is outrageously, obscenely expensive), on the other is lawyers (ready to file papers at a moment's notice driving insurance costs up). Seems each already has it's voice in congress, so who can be looked to for help? The taxpayers, that seems to be who. Who is our voice? Congressmen & women, representatives we trust to be our voice but who seem more often to be the voice of special interest lobbyists. Seems easier to influence the taxpayer representatives than it does the lobbyist's, so we get yet more shell-game legislation, the root causes of the problem go ignored, & certain segments will undoubtedly gain great wealth while the taxpayers are left holding the bag (IOU's) again. Nope, for "real reform" both insurance & lawyers are going to have to give up money and power. Guess when that will happen?When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #12 November 25, 2009 QuoteI don't suppose there's anything addressing the out of control litigation costs, is there? "Health Care" (doctors, nurses, hospitals, technicians, laboratories, laundries, janitors, everyone involved in patient care) is boxed in. On one side are insurance costs (malpractice insurance is outrageously, obscenely expensive), on the other is lawyers (ready to file papers at a moment's notice driving insurance costs up). Seems each already has it's voice in congress, so who can be looked to for help? The taxpayers, that seems to be who. Who is our voice? Congressmen & women, representatives we trust to be our voice but who seem more often to be the voice of special interest lobbyists. Seems easier to influence the taxpayer representatives than it does the lobbyist's, so we get yet more shell-game legislation, the root causes of the problem go ignored, & certain segments will undoubtedly gain great wealth while the taxpayers are left holding the bag (IOU's) again. Nope, for "real reform" both insurance & lawyers are going to have to give up money and power. Guess when that will happen? When we finally adopt a single payer system, I suspect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 200 #13 November 25, 2009 Quote Nope, for "real reform" both insurance & lawyers are going to have to give up money and power. Guess when that will happen? Congress is chock full of lawyers. I'll bet there isn't 1 paragraph addressing that issue.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #14 November 25, 2009 Quote Since 1970, Medicare’s costs have risen 34 percent more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid. Assuming your information is correct, 2009 - 1970 = 39 years, so the 34% raise spread over 39 years is less than 1% a year. Looks like regular inflation adjustments, and most likely it doesn't even cover inflation. But considering that the price of the individual health plan I had went up 60% during just last four years, I would conclude from your post that the government did excellent job while managing Medicare costs. At least it was much better than private industry does - and note that Medicare does not have freedom to reject/dump patients who are too expensive, like private insurers do.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 November 25, 2009 QuoteQuote Since 1970, Medicare’s costs have risen 34 percent more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid. Assuming your information is correct, 2009 - 1970 = 39 years, so the 34% raise spread over 39 years is less than 1% a year. Looks like regular inflation adjustments, and most likely it doesn't even cover inflation. But considering that the price of the individual health plan I had went up 60% during just last four years, I would conclude from your post that the government did excellent job while managing Medicare costs. At least it was much better than private industry does - and note that Medicare does not have freedom to reject/dump patients who are too expensive, like private insurers do. No - they just set payments so low that doctors are refusing to take the patients, while having a higher claim refusal rate than private insurance.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #16 November 25, 2009 Quote No - they just set payments so low that doctors are refusing to take the patients, while having a higher claim refusal rate than private insurance. Some are, some aren't - it depends on doctor. But let's see your possible fixes for this situation: - If you try to increase the Medicare payments: aren't we already in debt?! Are you really want to enslave our grandchildren?? - If you somehow require some doctors to accept Medicare (like federally funded hospitals are): this is socialist and against the free market. What else? Everyone sees where the problems are, it's just hard to come up with a working solution.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #17 November 25, 2009 Quote But following are issues that are quite difficult to refute. Today's US health care IS already the most expensive in the world, and is already constrained by capacity. And we already have delays here in many areas of the US. You simply can't add 30,000,000 to our health care system without exceeding the system's capacity to provide health care as those covered today know it. You're not ADDING anyone into the system. Those people you mentioned are in the system already, and already using those services - they just do it the most expensive way by going to ER and not paying for it.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #18 November 25, 2009 QuoteQuote But following are issues that are quite difficult to refute. Today's US health care IS already the most expensive in the world, and is already constrained by capacity. And we already have delays here in many areas of the US. You simply can't add 30,000,000 to our health care system without exceeding the system's capacity to provide health care as those covered today know it. You're not ADDING anyone into the system. Those people you mentioned are in the system already, and already using those services - they just do it the most expensive way by going to ER and not paying for it. Some are - certainly not all.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #19 November 25, 2009 QuoteSome are - certainly not all. I wonder if the reason for that is just cost/reimbursement rate, or something else? Found interesting data. Basically, the average cost of health insurance more than doubled during last ten years. This is 219%(!) increase just during last ten years! Now I wonder how much of those went to doctors (after all, this is actual purpose of insurance), and how much contributed to 1M+ salaries - because according to "explanation of benefits" my doctor does not get a single penny more from the insurance after those last four year increases.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
d16842 0 #20 November 25, 2009 QuoteQuote But following are issues that are quite difficult to refute. Today's US health care IS already the most expensive in the world, and is already constrained by capacity. And we already have delays here in many areas of the US. You simply can't add 30,000,000 to our health care system without exceeding the system's capacity to provide health care as those covered today know it. You're not ADDING anyone into the system. Those people you mentioned are in the system already, and already using those services - they just do it the most expensive way by going to ER and not paying for it. Two points. First, those who go to the ER for general care don't make nearly as many trips to the ER as is suggested. Why? Because they will bill you, and when you don't pay, harass you. For many it hits their credit rating. It is not the free pass that many think. For those at rock bottom it become that though. Second I don't pay for it via taxes. Instead it is billed through overhead to my insurance, aka my company. My deductible won't change if this happens, and my taxes most assuredly will go up if this is passed. The most positive supporters are saying it is revenue neutral. What they don't say is that is based on 10 years of revenue, and 6 or 7 years of costs, because of its implementation delay. Generally most believe it will be a huge cost for the government, aka me. In the end, we will have to accept care rationing, just as every other nation with national health care has done, through delays or restrictions in service. I don't want that any sooner than we must. This is a terrible bill. I don't oppose the concept.Tom B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #21 November 25, 2009 Quote Two points. First, those who go to the ER for general care don't make nearly as many trips to the ER as is suggested. Why? Because they will bill you, and when you don't pay, harass you. For many it hits their credit rating. It is not the free pass that many think. For those at rock bottom it become that though. Those who are poor, and cannot afford insurance and go to ER generally are not worried about collector harassment - they have a lot of them already, their credit rating has been sank, and adding one more collector doesn't really matter to them. Even if it is, they do not have any other options anyway, as ER bills are quite expensive, and the person which can afford them should have no problems affording insurance either. Quote Second I don't pay for it via taxes. Instead it is billed through overhead to my insurance, aka my company. You are paying for it through premium increases - and since you're basically required to keep the coverage and will pay a fortune if you drop/lose it, you can consider it a kind of tax. Quote Generally most believe it will be a huge cost for the government, aka me. Unfortunately you do not provide any facts or even thoughts (aka cost analysis) to support your beliefs, so at the end they're no more trustworthy than fox "news". Quote In the end, we will have to accept care rationing, just as every other nation with national health care has done, through delays or restrictions in service. Yes if you're going to use government plan - this already happens with Medicare. If you can afford private healthcare, nothing would really change.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #22 November 25, 2009 QuoteHow will the HC bill save money? Name ONE program that the Govt took over and saved money or did it cheaper?If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DavidB 0 #23 November 25, 2009 Quote Quote Nope, for "real reform" both insurance & lawyers are going to have to give up money and power. Guess when that will happen? Congress is chock full of lawyers. I'll bet there isn't 1 paragraph addressing that issue. And there, folks, is a major portion of our problem! Like doctors, who's on-going training is via TV commercials, politicians want to treat the symptoms & ignore the cause. Something like 9 out of 10 or OUR representatives have law degrees. Don't know about you, but that thought has always made me feel "oh so secure" because they can use "lawyer-speak" (double-talk) to make spending "just a little more" or take things "just a little further" & make it look to you & I like greatest thing since sliced bread.When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #24 November 25, 2009 Quote Quote How will the HC bill save money? Name ONE program that the Govt took over and saved money or did it cheaper? That's an endless argument waiting to happen Sometimes it's also important to do it BETTER. If the government takes over health care, it will cost more than it costs now. If we stay with the current system, however, health case costs will rise even more, and availability of basic health care (for middle class and lower income people) will decrease. No matter what we do, health care costs are going to increase. We are not going to find a solution which actually lowers the cost in the short term; insisting that we do is tantamount to insisting that we do nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #25 November 25, 2009 QuoteThat's an endless argument waiting to happen Sometimes it's also important to do it BETTER. Show one Govt program that was run BETTER after the Govt took over. Quote We are not going to find a solution which actually lowers the cost in the short term; insisting that we do is tantamount to insisting that we do nothing. Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing just to feel good about doing something."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
