Yay Government health care:(

[tyflier]

Chris, in your infinite wisdom, can you please explain how it will be made "affordable"?

Thanks.

Well, I imagine they will lower the monthly payments... :shrugs:


Wade-
Ask and ye shall recieve.... Just out of curiosity, how many hours have you been biting your fingernails at the computer, just waiting to see my name there in response to the drivel in this thread?

Uhoh!! Tyflier posted. Everybody run and jump over there, see if you can get him riled up!!

Have fun with that...

 

[wade]

Well, I imagine they will lower the monthly payments... :shrugs:


Wade-
Ask and ye shall recieve.... Just out of curiosity, how many hours have you been biting your fingernails at the computer, just waiting to see my name there in response to the drivel in this thread?

Uhoh!! Tyflier posted. Everybody run and jump over there, see if you can get him riled up!!

Have fun with that...

No nail biting here, you signed on riled little dude.

To follow up on Mike's question, how will they make it affordable, you said they will lower the payments. Great answer! I hadn't thought of that. Wait, that means that somebody who used to get those high payments will now be getting low payments. Do you follow my line of thinking here? So that would mean somebody will be making less money than they used to. Right? Oh wait, I have an idea, lets take it from the Fat-Cats. Everyone knows big business has been stealing from America. Yea that's it we'll take their money.

 

[wstphal]

In all seriousness, folks, "affordable" is what I am worried about. Let's step back from .gov vs free enterprise, OK, and just talk about "affordable".

The cost of actual health care, not insurance premiums, but actual health care, is rising rapidly. The .gov version doesn't worry about making a profit, and private insurers do, but either they have to collect A LOT OF MONEY to pay for the actual health care or they have to pay for LESS health care.

So how do we stop the rapid increases in the actual cost of health care so that people can afford insurance, EITHER thru taxes.gov or thru private.enterprise? Let's not talk about freeloaders and producers for a minute. I understand there are people who are considering going Galt here and people who would be happy to live in a European-style system, and I don't want to fight about that set of philosophical issues, although they are important and interesting.

Where are the rapidly increasing costs coming from?

Technology is one place. We have more MRIs per capita than other countries, and we use them a lot. People seem to be scared that they are going to die unless they have an advanced imaging study like an MRI to tell them that their distressing symptoms are not evidence of a fatal disease.

Care of frail people is another place. It used to be that frail elders did not survive the first or second case of pneumonia. Now they go to the ICU, get put on the ventilator, etc, and survive. Medicare data show that much of all Medicare spending is in the last year of life, much of that in the last 6 months. Can we do that differently without talking about "death panels"?

Expectations are a third place. That is, if you have a bad disease like cancer, then someone must be responsible for not detecting it sooner. Physicians do a lot of tests "just in case" the patient ends up with a bad disease, so that if the patient sues, the physician can show that they did everything possible to detect it quickly. This is reasonable if there is any reasonable likelihood of a bad disease, but what if the chances of a bad disease are 1 in a million? I read about a 16 year old girl who ended up with breast surgery because she had a lump and everyone got freaked out that she might have breast cancer, and they ended up taking out the lump but along the way they ended up causing the side that had the surgery to look, let's say, less than normal! That's kind of over the top, isn't it? The chances she had breast cancer at 16 were 1 in a million or 1 in ten million. Couldn't they have done less? They did all that because the patient was scared, the parents were scared and the doctors were scared. Good survey data indicates that 15-25% of all blood tests, x-rays, CAT scans and MRIs are ordered "just in case". That's a lot of $$.

Then there are tests that are repeated because nobody can find the last results. That probably isn't as big a $ issue, but we could do something about that, couldn't we? And what about fraud? Medicare is on the look-out for it, but it's out there. Maybe there's a target.

So what are we going to do to change these issues? Are we going to shout back and forth about producers-and-parasites and taxes.gov vs free.enterprise? Or can we talk about affordability in either system?

Edit: Because affordability is going to come from controlling the rate of increase in costs, whether you get your health care paid for by taxes.gov or paid for by private.enterprise.

 

[tyflier]

No nail biting here, you signed on riled little dude.

Wade, you lack of intellectual discourse leaves me flat. You can't get me riled with your antics anymore. When I had a modicum of respect for you, it was easy. Now...you're wasting everyone's time

To follow up on Mike's question, how will they make it affordable, you said they will lower the payments. Great answer! I hadn't thought of that. Wait, that means that somebody who used to get those high payments will now be getting low payments. Do you follow my line of thinking here? So that would mean somebody will be making less money than they used to. Right? Oh wait, I have an idea, lets take it from the Fat-Cats. Everyone knows big business has been stealing from America. Yea that's it we'll take their money.

Well, to start with, the government doesn't have to record a profit as an insurance corporation. This eliminates a HUGE cost margin for the consumer. While that is likely to be enough on it's own to make it affordable, I am well aware that you won't accept that as an answer.

Since nobody in this topic has that answer at this juncture in time, I will do something you have yet to learn how to do, and refrain from making broad-based assumptions and predictions based on zero information. I will actually wait and see how it is going to be done, instead of jumping to illogical conclusions based on partial information, and made-up garbage.

Your mileage, I am quite certain, will vary...greatly...

 

[tyflier]

In all seriousness, folks, "affordable" is what I am worried about. Let's step back from .gov vs free enterprise, OK, and just talk about "affordable".

The cost of actual health care, not insurance premiums, but actual health care, is rising rapidly. The .gov version doesn't worry about making a profit, and private insurers do, but either they have to collect A LOT OF MONEY to pay for the actual health care or they have to pay for LESS health care.

So how do we stop the rapid increases in the actual cost of health care so that people can afford insurance, EITHER thru taxes.gov or thru private.enterprise? Let's not talk about freeloaders and producers for a minute. I understand there are people who are considering going Galt here and people who would be happy to live in a European-style system, and I don't want to fight about that set of philosophical issues, although they are important and interesting.

Where are the rapidly increasing costs coming from?

Technology is one place. We have more MRIs per capita than other countries, and we use them a lot. People seem to be scared that they are going to die unless they have an advanced imaging study like an MRI to tell them that their distressing symptoms are not evidence of a fatal disease.

Care of frail people is another place. It used to be that frail elders did not survive the first or second case of pneumonia. Now they go to the ICU, get put on the ventilator, etc, and survive. Medicare data show that much of all Medicare spending is in the last year of life, much of that in the last 6 months. Can we do that differently without talking about "death panels"?

Expectations are a third place. That is, if you have a bad disease like cancer, then someone must be responsible for not detecting it sooner. Physicians do a lot of tests "just in case" the patient ends up with a bad disease, so that if the patient sues, the physician can show that they did everything possible to detect it quickly. This is reasonable if there is any reasonable likelihood of a bad disease, but what if the chances of a bad disease are 1 in a million? I read about a 16 year old girl who ended up with breast surgery because she had a lump and everyone got freaked out that she might have breast cancer, and they ended up taking out the lump but along the way they ended up causing the side that had the surgery to look, let's say, less than normal! That's kind of over the top, isn't it? The chances she had breast cancer at 16 were 1 in a million or 1 in ten million. Couldn't they have done less? They did all that because the patient was scared, the parents were scared and the doctors were scared. Good survey data indicates that 15-25% of all blood tests, x-rays, CAT scans and MRIs are ordered "just in case". That's a lot of $$.

Then there are tests that are repeated because nobody can find the last results. That probably isn't as big a $ issue, but we could do something about that, couldn't we? And what about fraud? Medicare is on the look-out for it, but it's out there. Maybe there's a target.

So what are we going to do to change these issues? Are we going to shout back and forth about producers-and-parasites and taxes.gov vs free.enterprise? Or can we talk about affordability in either system?

Edit: Because affordability is going to come from controlling the rate of increase in costs, whether you get your health care paid for by taxes.gov or paid for by private.enterprise.

Outstanding post!

Finally, a post that addresses the real issues and problems within the healthcare system, rather than attacking people with different opinions.

Wstphal, I wish I could answer some of those questions, but I can't. All I can say is thank you very much for shining some much needed light onto a scenario that has become increasingly clouded by personal attacks and paranoia...on ALL sides.

 

[wstphal]

Wstphal, I wish I could answer some of those questions, but I can't. All I can say is thank you very much for shining some much needed light onto a scenario that has become increasingly clouded by personal attacks and paranoia...on ALL sides.

Chris, you can answer some of these questions for YOU. And you can talk to your neighbors, your loved ones, your friends about your answers. Especially if you have older relatives or friends who are still healthy & with it. How much is enough? If everyone talks about it with their own circles of contact, in a sensible way, and THINKS about it, and answers the question for him or herself accordingly, we can change this.

 

[mike17l]

Well, to start with, the government doesn't have to record a profit as an insurance corporation. This eliminates a HUGE cost margin for the consumer. While that is likely to be enough on it's own to make it affordable, I am well aware that you won't accept that as an answer.

So your answer as to making it more affordable is for the country to go into more debt?

Who and when will that debt be paid?

 

[kathylove]

Thanks Betsy!

Those are important, logical questions to ask! And they are some of the same questions I am asking. I have not read the whole HCR law myself. Unfortunately, I suspect that many legislators who voted on it probably did not read it entirely, either. And I have seen other laws that SEEM to read one way, but get interpreted by lawyers and the government some other way. But from what I have read about it so far, many of your (and my!) questions about TRUE cost control were not answered in this law.

Whether politicians are addressing issues of "pythons gone wild" or health care reform, they often have a habit of passing "feel good" laws that SOUND good and make for good news stories, but often exacerbate problems, rather than truly help. As Chris has said, nobody really knows what the true costs and benefits will be from this huge piece of legislation. Even the people who wrote it can't know how it will actually be implemented. All I can hope for is that the execution will show more wisdom than I have seen in the past from our "Congress Critters". Believe me, I really hope I am wrong in my misgivings about this enormous undertaking! If it turns out to be mostly positive for most people, I will be among the first to sing its praises! But that is a big IF...

 

[tyflier]

So your answer as to making it more affordable is for the country to go into more debt?

Who and when will that debt be paid?

I'm done. These baseless questions with baseless answers. I'll let you, KJUN, and Wade talk about it amongst yourselves. I prefer to stand with Kathy and wstphal, and work on actually addressing the real issues, without resorting to paranoia or propoganda to make a point that doesn't really matter.

Thanks for the invite, though!

 

[mike17l]

I'm done. These baseless questions with baseless answers. I'll let you, KJUN, and Wade talk about it amongst yourselves. I prefer to stand with Kathy and wstphal, and work on actually addressing the real issues, without resorting to paranoia or propoganda to make a point that doesn't really matter.

Thanks for the invite, though!

Chris, in response to my question of "how will it be made more affordable?"
You said, "the gov does not need to make a profit"
That implies that they will lose money, a loss of money is called debt.
So my question remains, "Who will pay for that debt, and when?"

 

[wstphal]

Chris, in response to my question of "how will it be made more affordable?"
You said, "the gov does not need to make a profit"
That implies that they will lose money, a loss of money is called debt.
So my question remains, "Who will pay for that debt, and when?"

Well, in theory, if taxes.gov ran it right, they could break even. No debt. But really that's not the issue. Even if you eliminate profits, and even if you assume that health insurers make 10% profits (they don't, the data I have seen are more like 3-4%), that savings only happens once and then the inexorable upward march of health CARE costs takes over again. What can we do to change the upward cost?

We can make changes to reduce cost increases one by one as good libertarians. We can make changes one by one as good going-Galt folks. We can do it family by family as good traditional Americans. But we GOTTA DO IT, and we need to start by talking amongst ourselves about what drives the upward cost spiral and what can I do about it. Taxes.gov can't really do this for us, neither can private.enterprise. It has to come from us.

 

[wade]

There have been many good points along the way in this thread. Betsy speaks from a more knowledgeable standpoint than most of us and I appreciate you input. Most of us are afraid of what we don’t understand. Many of us are alarmed at the National Debt. Many of us feel like more government will only complicate the mess we are already in. Many people apparently think the government is the answer and the elected officials will handle this better than private enterprise has. I guess time will only tell.

But lets not loose site of why this thread has run 130 posts. I looked this morning and this thread had more readers than any other thread with the exception of DYK. Why so much interest? I think we can all agree that there hasn’t been 130 good points made. Why do so many people keep coming back to see what’s been said and to add their two cents?

Bottom-line, admit it or not, we enjoy the verbal jousting. We enjoy the debate and the mental exercise of throwing cyber rocks at each other. Chris hates me, he says he does anyway. But I think deep down in side he loves me. The fact that some people have chosen to ignore him breaks his heart. I enjoy making him squirm and he enjoys baiting me. And everyone else enjoys reading the antics. He isn’t going to change his opinion nor am I. Neither of expects that. Mike and KJ are passionate about their beliefs and are frustrated that others can’t see what appears plain to them.

Honest truth, some of the level headed people like Kathy and Betsy and Danielle have made points that have made me think and opened my eyes to new lines of thought. But for the most part this thread has been entertainment.

 

[kathylove]

Many excellent points and posts - thanks!

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to wstphal again."

 

[wstphal]

Mike and KJ are passionate about their beliefs and are frustrated that others can’t see what appears plain to them.

I'm pretty passionate about my beliefs too. Fundamentally, I believe in Americans, and their ability to use common sense if you get them pointed at facts and what they need to think about without telling them what conclusions to draw, and that we can one by one or family by family change the underlying cost issues that neither taxes.gov nor private.enterprise can change by force or propaganda.

 

[tsst]

In all seriousness, folks, "affordable" is what I am worried about. Let's step back from .gov vs free enterprise, OK, and just talk about "affordable".

The cost of actual health care, not insurance premiums, but actual health care, is rising rapidly. The .gov version doesn't worry about making a profit, and private insurers do, but either they have to collect A LOT OF MONEY to pay for the actual health care or they have to pay for LESS health care.

So how do we stop the rapid increases in the actual cost of health care so that people can afford insurance, EITHER thru taxes.gov or thru private.enterprise? Let's not talk about freeloaders and producers for a minute. I understand there are people who are considering going Galt here and people who would be happy to live in a European-style system, and I don't want to fight about that set of philosophical issues, although they are important and interesting.

Where are the rapidly increasing costs coming from?

Technology is one place. We have more MRIs per capita than other countries, and we use them a lot. People seem to be scared that they are going to die unless they have an advanced imaging study like an MRI to tell them that their distressing symptoms are not evidence of a fatal disease.

Care of frail people is another place. It used to be that frail elders did not survive the first or second case of pneumonia. Now they go to the ICU, get put on the ventilator, etc, and survive. Medicare data show that much of all Medicare spending is in the last year of life, much of that in the last 6 months. Can we do that differently without talking about "death panels"?

Expectations are a third place. That is, if you have a bad disease like cancer, then someone must be responsible for not detecting it sooner. Physicians do a lot of tests "just in case" the patient ends up with a bad disease, so that if the patient sues, the physician can show that they did everything possible to detect it quickly. This is reasonable if there is any reasonable likelihood of a bad disease, but what if the chances of a bad disease are 1 in a million? I read about a 16 year old girl who ended up with breast surgery because she had a lump and everyone got freaked out that she might have breast cancer, and they ended up taking out the lump but along the way they ended up causing the side that had the surgery to look, let's say, less than normal! That's kind of over the top, isn't it? The chances she had breast cancer at 16 were 1 in a million or 1 in ten million. Couldn't they have done less? They did all that because the patient was scared, the parents were scared and the doctors were scared. Good survey data indicates that 15-25% of all blood tests, x-rays, CAT scans and MRIs are ordered "just in case". That's a lot of $$.

Then there are tests that are repeated because nobody can find the last results. That probably isn't as big a $ issue, but we could do something about that, couldn't we? And what about fraud? Medicare is on the look-out for it, but it's out there. Maybe there's a target.

So what are we going to do to change these issues? Are we going to shout back and forth about producers-and-parasites and taxes.gov vs free.enterprise? Or can we talk about affordability in either system?

Edit: Because affordability is going to come from controlling the rate of increase in costs, whether you get your health care paid for by taxes.gov or paid for by private.enterprise.

Very good post with a common sense look at cost control etc. Unfortunately I think we are far past cost control now. If there is one thing many should agree on it's that the fedgov does a very poor job of cost and budget control.

In 1967 the gov officially estimated the projected annual cost of medicare in 1990 would be $12bil. In 1990 it actually cost $98bil. Today it costs $500bil annually. :shrugs:

 

[wade]

I'm pretty passionate about my beliefs too. Fundamentally, I believe in Americans, and their ability to use common sense if you get them pointed at facts and what they need to think about without telling them what conclusions to draw, and that we can one by one or family by family change the underlying cost issues that neither taxes.gov nor private.enterprise can change by force or propaganda.

Well, now you have hit my hot button. I believe in Americans too. The current state of affairs scares the pants right off me. I believe this country is on the verge of a financial melt down such as the world has never seen. The reason I still get up every morning and go to work is because I believe the American people will figure it and and work together and make it right. The people of this country are too strong to lie down and die. And you are absolutely correct that one by one, family by family, we will fix it.

I can't rep you either Betsy, but you are a smart lady. I respect what you have to say.

 

[Drizzt80]

The people of this country are too strong to lie down and die.

Most (Some?) of the people of this country are too strong to lie down and die. What scares me is most/some of the people of this country are content to let the gov take over everything they can.

As for costs, I've spoken about that time and time again since last summer. $3800 to identify a kidney stone? That I already knew I had?! How's the new system going to solve that real problem?

D80

 

[Drizzt80]

PS. There is ONE government agency that has been successful: NASA.

And now obama wants to ruin that! Big surprise.
http://www.freep.com/article/201004...NEWS/Obama-to-make-his-case-for-NASA-overhaul

 

[tyflier]

Chris, in response to my question of "how will it be made more affordable?"
You said, "the gov does not need to make a profit"
That implies that they will lose money, a loss of money is called debt.
So my question remains, "Who will pay for that debt, and when?"

No. It does NOT imply they will lose money. It ONLY implies that the government doesn't need to make a profit.

What that means is that the government ONLY needs to cover expenses. This does NOT mean that a debt will automatically be generated, it does NOT mean that the government will lose money, and it does NOT mean that the system will fail devestatingly so. It ONLY means that the government is required to cover the actual cost of the medical procedures that it's insured require.

What it means, Mike, is that the government ONLY has to cover the actual cost, rather than covering the actual cost plus profits.

It also means that they do not need to average a 30% monthly rate increase every year, drop insured individuals when the profit margin will suffer due to the cost of procedures, and refuse services based on an individual's life value vs cost analysis, like insurance corporations currently do.:nope:

 

[tyflier]

There have been many good points along the way in this thread. Betsy speaks from a more knowledgeable standpoint than most of us and I appreciate you input. Most of us are afraid of what we don’t understand. Many of us are alarmed at the National Debt. Many of us feel like more government will only complicate the mess we are already in. Many people apparently think the government is the answer and the elected officials will handle this better than private enterprise has. I guess time will only tell.

But lets not loose site of why this thread has run 130 posts. I looked this morning and this thread had more readers than any other thread with the exception of DYK. Why so much interest? I think we can all agree that there hasn’t been 130 good points made. Why do so many people keep coming back to see what’s been said and to add their two cents?

Bottom-line, admit it or not, we enjoy the verbal jousting. We enjoy the debate and the mental exercise of throwing cyber rocks at each other. Chris hates me, he says he does anyway. But I think deep down in side he loves me. The fact that some people have chosen to ignore him breaks his heart. I enjoy making him squirm and he enjoys baiting me. And everyone else enjoys reading the antics. He isn’t going to change his opinion nor am I. Neither of expects that. Mike and KJ are passionate about their beliefs and are frustrated that others can’t see what appears plain to them.

Honest truth, some of the level headed people like Kathy and Betsy and Danielle have made points that have made me think and opened my eyes to new lines of thought. But for the most part this thread has been entertainment.

Now...why you gotta go and make me agree with you? That's just not fair...