14
   

How Will Health Care Reform Control Costs and Reduce the Deficit?

 
 
JPB
 
  3  
Tue 26 Jun, 2012 04:30 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
High deductable health insurance policies that don't cover routine costs of medical exams and ordinary care, but do offer protection for high cost treatments are available and at much more reasonable prices than the HMP and PPO policies that most folks depend on.


Available to whom? Not to me. I've been deemed uninsurable in the free market due to my medical history even though I'm healthier than many people I know. I am not unusual or unique. You do realize that one of the basics of health care reform is to allow the uninsurable to get coverage that is otherwise unavailable, yes?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Tue 26 Jun, 2012 04:49 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Quote:
High deductable health insurance policies that don't cover routine costs of medical exams and ordinary care, but do offer protection for high cost treatments are available and at much more reasonable prices than the HMP and PPO policies that most folks depend on.


Available to whom? Not to me. I've been deemed uninsurable in the free market due to my medical history even though I'm healthier than many people I know. I am not unusual or unique. You do realize that one of the basics of health care reform is to allow the uninsurable to get coverage that is otherwise unavailable, yes?


Not only that, but many 'high deductible' insurance policies actually suck when it comes to complex or expensive medical procedures.

You don't get something for nothing; you don't get insurance that will cover dozens or hundreds of thousands in charges for just a few bucks a month.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 26 Jun, 2012 05:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't get something for nothing; you don't get insurance that will cover dozens or hundreds of thousands in charges for just a few bucks a month.

Cycloptichorn


That applies to government handouts as well.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Tue 26 Jun, 2012 05:30 pm
@georgeob1,
damned poor people, anyway...

always asking for food and shelter and healthcare.

we should just shoot them...
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 26 Jun, 2012 05:32 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Hmmm... are you capable of performing mathematical operations? Are you familiar with the concept of percentages?

Perhaps you should revisit your calculations.

Additionally, try performing your calculations on a monthly basis. I won't dispute your $1000/year figure. To make it easy, let's make it $1,200/year.

$100/month. (since you seem somewhat mathematically challenged)

Can you calculate a 90,000% increase?


You are dead wrong !

A 90,000% increase to an initial cost of $19,200 is given by
90,000/100 x 1,19,200, which, including the original cost, yields a new cost of 901 x 19,200, which equals $17,299,200.

It must be tough being both stupid and eager to criticize.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Tue 26 Jun, 2012 05:33 pm
of course they should have to pay for the bullet...
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 26 Jun, 2012 05:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:


Well let's see. Assuming that a single person spends (say) $350/month on food and (say) $1,250/month for rent


Haha, that's a Bay Area estimate for sure!

Cycloptichorn


Yeah ! It's even worse down the peninsula in Palo Alto.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Tue 26 Jun, 2012 05:36 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You don't get something for nothing; you don't get insurance that will cover dozens or hundreds of thousands in charges for just a few bucks a month.

Cycloptichorn


That applies to government handouts as well.


Sure, but I think we are in agreement that people NEED insurance that covers them for expensive, catastrophic injuries. Either that, or our society suffers a series of catastrophic interruptions to the norm - families who are impacted by large medical bills are often thrown into an expensive chaos, as people lose houses, lose jobs, lose everything... it's a gigantic net loss for us all.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  0  
Tue 26 Jun, 2012 05:43 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:


Sure, but I think we are in agreement that people NEED insurance that covers them for expensive, catastrophic injuries. Either that, or our society suffers a series of catastrophic interruptions to the norm - families who are impacted by large medical bills are often thrown into an expensive chaos, as people lose houses, lose jobs, lose everything... it's a gigantic net loss for us all.

Cycloptichorn


I agree. However government programs are not like the relatively simple problem of (say) designing a bridge over a river. To make the analogy with human affairs, you would have to give the river the ability to observe the construction and then change its course.

Tax rules spawn exotic devices to evade taxes and tax havens offshore to evade tax collectors. Government subsidies stimulate chislers of various kinds who usually become very adept at milking the system and well-organized in order to preserve the subsidies long after their original purpose has disappeared. I doubt seriously that any private health insurers have experienced the wholsale frauds of the degree that have occurred with Medicare.

I suspect the Greek government is struggling mightily with these issues now. After decades of evading taxes and benefitting from padded government payrolls and social programs funded with borrowed money, the people are finding it very hard to accept and adapt to ordinary reality.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Wed 27 Jun, 2012 06:03 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:

Well let's see. Assuming that a single person spends (say) $350/month on food and (say) $1,250/month for rent, that's $19,200/year. A "90,000% jump" wold raise the price to $17,299,200 per year. That's a lot.

On the other hand, assuming the average healthy person spends $1,000/ year on routine preventive medical costs the same "jump" would yield a cost of $0.9 Billion , and I don't know of any medical procedures that cost that much.

????
A 90,000% jump of $19,200 is only .017 billion
but a 90,000% jump of $1,000 is .9 billion?

You are using some strange math there george.
0 Replies
 
inhomecaretx
 
  0  
Wed 19 Dec, 2012 01:37 am
@jpn of Seattle,
For decades, rising health care costs have hurt American competitiveness, forced too many families into bankruptcy to get their families the care they need and driven up our nation’s long-term deficits. That’s why, after years of inaction in Washington, President Obama took on the insurance companies to pass comprehensive health insurance reform. Health insurance reform ends the worst practices of insurance companies, which will reduce health care costs and make coverage more affordable for all Americans. And by curbing the cost of uncompensated care, and ending unwarranted subsidies, health reform reduces the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next two decades.

In keeping with the President’s pledge that reform must fix our health care system without adding to the deficit, the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit, saving over $200 billion over 10 years and more than $1 trillion in the second decade. The law reduces health care costs by rewarding doctors, hospitals and other providers that deliver high quality care and making investments to fund research into what works.

Rising health care costs are a major driver of our long-term deficits, and getting them under control is crucial if we want to grow the economy, create jobs and compete in the world economy. The Affordable Care Act helps us achieve that goal, improving the quality and affordability of health care while preventing many of the worst insurance industry abuses. The law is improving our economic competitiveness by:

Extending coverage to 34 million Americans: For the first time in the nation’s history, the Affordable Care Act ensures that every American has access to quality affordable health coverage. By offering support to purchase coverage in newly created marketplaces or Exchanges and expanding Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act will extend health coverage to 34 million Americans. Access to health coverage is more than a safeguard from hardship that every citizen deserves. It means that instead of foregoing doctors’ visits and other preventive measures because of cost, Americans will get the care they need to prevent chronic diseases, improving their health and reducing burdens on our health care system. And the security of health coverage not tied to a job means that entrepreneurs will no longer fear striking out on their own to start a small business, helping create jobs and boosting economic growth. In short, coverage expansion in the Affordable Care Act will benefit the nation’s personal and economic health.

Addressing insurance industry abuses: In addition to the important coverage expansions described above, the Affordable Care Act immediately begins to prevent many of the worst insurance industry abuses, correcting market failures and securing coverage for Americans who might otherwise go uninsured. For example, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, insurers are already prohibited from canceling coverage when someone gets sick and are no longer permitted to impose lifetime limits on coverage. Preventive benefits are provided without cost sharing in new plans, and insurance must let young adults up to age 26 stay on their parents’ plan. When fully implemented, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny millions of Americans coverage or charge higher premiums for a pre-existing condition.

Bending the growth curve of health care spending: In keeping with President Obama’s pledge that reform must fix our health care system without adding to the deficit, the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit, saving more than $200 billion over 10 years and more than $1 trillion in the second decade. The law reduces health care costs by rewarding doctors, hospitals and other providers that deliver high quality care, making investments to fund research into what works, and cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse.

The Obama Administration has developed new initiatives and expanded successful existing initiatives to build on the successes of the Affordable Care Act:

The Partnership for Patients: A new public-private partnership using tools and $1 billion in new resources provided by the Affordable Care Act will help improve the quality, safety, and affordability of health care for all Americans. The two goals of this new partnership are: (1) keeping patients from getting injured or sicker; and (2) helping patients heal without complication. Achieving these goals will save lives, reduce injuries to millions of Americans, and save billions of dollars that will help put the nation on the path toward a more sustainable health care system. This could reduce Medicare costs by up to $50 billion over the next decade.

Improving health care through health information technology: Widespread adoption of health information technology ensures patients and providers have access to accurate, private, and secure information. It can improve care quality, prevent medical errors, cut paperwork, and reduce costs—all goals of the Affordable Care Act. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act invests nearly $20 billion over five years for health information technologies. And the Affordable Care Act saves over $20 billion over 10 years on administrative simplification in the health system.

Curbing waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid and other health care programs: The Obama Administration has taken strong action to fight waste, fraud, and abuse by providing critical new tools to crack down on entities and individuals attempting to defraud health care programs. For example, the Affordable Care Act makes it easier to screen providers who want to join Medicare so we can determine if they’re legitimate providers or criminals trying to scam the system. The new law also enhances penalties for anyone who commits fraud, and increases the federal sentencing guidelines by 20 to 50 percent for major health care fraud offenses. We know these efforts to fight waste and fraud are working. The Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control program has already returned $10.7 billion to the Medicare Trust Funds. The number of individuals charged with criminal fraud increased from 797 in FY 2008 to 1,430 in FY 2011 — an increase of more than 75 percent. One initiative, the HHS/DOJ Strike Force, has charged more than 1,000 individuals who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for more than $2.3 billion. The Affordable Care Act also provides additional tools to help prevent fraud and abuse that will achieve $1.8 billion in savings through 2015.

While the Affordable Care Act was an historic step toward getting health care costs under control, there is still more that we can do to realize efficiencies, cut waste, and improve Federal health care programs. Most importantly, we can make modest adjustments to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid in a way that does not undermine the fundamental compact they represent to our nation’s seniors, children, people with disabilities, and low-income families. For this reason, the President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction included proposals to save approximately $320 billion in federal health spending over the next decade. As these reforms save money, they also will strengthen these vital programs so that they are robust and healthy to serve Americans for years to come.

The $248 billion in proposed Medicare savings extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by roughly three years. The $73 billion in savings proposed in Medicaid and other health program include phased-in reforms and targeted savings and flexibility for States. More specifically, the President’s proposals:

Create payment incentives for skilled nursing facilities to improve their care to prevent avoidable hospital readmissions.
Include incentives for people with Medicare to choose high-value health services.
Reform Medicare payments to better align with patient care costs.
Accelerate the availability of lower-cost generic drugs.
Take steps to make Medicaid more efficient, accountable, and flexible.
Taken together, the President’s plan is the most fair and effective way to keep the promises made to all Americans while achieving the deficit reduction needed to win the future.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Sat 22 Dec, 2012 04:02 pm
@inhomecaretx,
Quote:
How Will Health Care Reform Control Costs and Reduce the Deficit?


It won't do either. The legislation created large new demands for services, without doing anything to increase the availability of willing service providers. Moreover it will emesh a complex industry involving numerous autonomy-seeking professionals in a tangle of bureaucratic mandates that will reduce the quality of services and ultimately raise the cost of quality care.We will soon see reduced innovation and improvement in the effectiveness of services; longer waiting times for paid access to specialists; reduced patient control over his/her medical care; and higher taxes & government borrowing to pay for it all.

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Sun 23 Dec, 2012 06:58 am
@jpn of Seattle,


It won't reduce the deficit, it will increase costs!

ObamaCare needs to be killed with fire.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Sun 23 Dec, 2012 09:54 am
@jpn of Seattle,


Obamacare: A Hoax on the American People
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Fri 23 May, 2014 12:30 pm
"HOW WILL HEALTH CARE REFORM CONTROL COSTS AND REDUCE THE DEFICIT?"

It won't do either. Centrally managed top-down management of human economic activity yields only scarcity and poverty.
AugustineBrother
 
  -1  
Wed 20 Jul, 2016 08:59 am
@jpn of Seattle,
It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it. Thomas Sowell
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Wed 20 Jul, 2016 09:27 am
@georgeob1,
Now that is classic conservstive ideology triumphing over reality. The REALITY is that govrrnment managed health care in every other developef country delivers better csre at a fravyion of the cost we pay, with higher patient satisfaction, better health care metrics, and greater life expectsncy. Youve posted your falsehood before geotgeob, it isstill wrong .
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 26 Jul, 2016 11:31 am
@MontereyJack,
That's a rather sweeping statement. "better care...fraction of the cost ... higher patient satisfaction ... better health metrics... longer life expectancy every other developed country in the world.

Can you back it up with facts?

Government accounting has its own unique features - many of which would be illegal for publicly traded commercial firms. The real overhead costs for government spending in most countries usually doesn't show in the budget figures. The perennial political debates in the UK about NHS funding don't sugest to me that satisfaction there is at a very high level, though I suspect that the many people there fearing nothing at all would support the continuance of their meager handouts. The slaves often end up loving their chains.

The easiest way to extend life expectancy atat low total cost is to ration care to the sick and old. This is a common practice in the countries to which you refer. Moreover the survival data there for those with chronic diseases like cancer confirms the specualtion above.
parados
 
  3  
Tue 26 Jul, 2016 01:06 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:

The easiest way to extend life expectancy atat low total cost is to ration care to the sick and old.

That doesn't even make sense unless you are arguing that medical care is killing people off and they would be far better off if they simply didn't get it once they got old or sick.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 26 Jul, 2016 04:15 pm
@parados,
I fear that you are not only pedantic and deceptive but stupid as well.

Saving money on health care for people who already have a low remaining life expectancy is an obvious way to reduce expenditures by far more than life expectancy statistics. The relative delay times to see a specialist and the ensuing survival rates for cancer and heart disease patients in this country and Canada confirm this.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 01:03:49