Obamacare will do nothing but increase healthcare costs. (attorney, solution, lobbyists)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Afterall, how many average American's actually rack up $4,500 - $6,250 in medical bills every year?
I have spent one tenth of that over the course of my ENTIRE life (not just a year), if even that, and I've never filed an insurance claim -- even though I've had it before through employers; I don't believe in paying for services before they are rendered or that may never be rendered.
And THAT is what I was getting at, not the specific nature of the medical care. I think that's where we (the nation), as related to medical care, ran off the tracks, so to speak.
Our difference, then, is how we believe it can be corrected. You feel it is government meddling. I feel it is a return to direct doctor-patient correspondence in both treatment and billing. I suppose the only thing we might agree upon is the government power being used to implement the "cure." But we are polar opposites on what the cure is. I say it's a legislated direct link between doctor and patient with NOBODY else involved; you say it's a bureaucracy controlling the doctor and patient (I'm assuming).
I don't say it's a bureaucracy controlling the doctor an patient. I'm as leary as anyone could be about the bureaucracy of a single-payer system. But I think the situation is urgent, and in order to control healthcare costs, that having 1 middleman instead of 20,000 middlemen, is the only way to swiftly address the emergency in our healthcare system.
I think the problems of our healthcare system were already becoming apparent in the 1970's. But we ignored them or focused on access to healthcare as a problem. For forty years we've let the problems fester. Time is running out. We've got to choose the path with the best chance of effectively controlling healthcare costs. It's the critical urgency which governs my preferences on this issue, not my ideology.
Your right, only thing that would have lowered costs is a single payer. Its funny how many people say government interference drives up costs. Why do other countries that have more government involved in their healthcare have a lower cost per capita? As well, through the power of bulk buying, the government shall purchase all the necessary rx drugs, which will dramatically lower costs. As well getting rid of the bureaucracy that the insurance company has created, we would also save money. From what I understand, in Canada and other forms of socialized healthcare, one medical biller can cover three doctors, were as here, it takes about 3-5 people for each doctor, some for medical billing and some as referral specialist. Sorry bud, but the health insurance company is a huge part of the problem. The sooner we get rid of the parasite that is health insurance companies, the better. I mean seriously, look at the following stories about the BS they will put people through, just so they can have a "profit"
If your auto insurance had to cover the eventual catastrophic costs of not changing your oil, preventative maintenance wouldn't just be covered, it would be encouraged. Just like my health insurance is forever badgering me to get annual checkups and whatnot - early detection is a win/win, in that it may save my life and them a lot of money.
The point isn't what may or may not be an excluded risk on your auto policy...it's the utilization of a risk mitigator for something that most would deem minor. Oil may not be the best example....lets use floor mats or the knob on your radio. Relatively trivial and inexpensive parts but if your auto insurer were obligated to cover them it would lead to the parts increasing in costs because the market will be artificially inflated by the active parties. The same can be said for policy costs in states that have more regulations. Health insurance costs more in Virginia, Maryland, New York, and most other eastern and northeastern states because the regulations require more risks and treatments (most of which are useless) to be covered, whereas in some of the mountain west states (Utah, Idaho, Nevada) the regulatory bodies don't have the clout..thus the coverage costs considerably less yet still covers all major catastrophes. Sure you may lose out on unlimited chiro treatments or mountains of specialist consultations (unless merited) but you have insurance for a VERY affordable cost to most people...less than 60 dollars monthly.
That is sustainability in medicine. That doesn't result in mounting deficits and unsustainable budgets.
The point isn't what may or may not be an excluded risk on your auto policy...it's the utilization of a risk mitigator for something that most would deem minor. Oil may not be the best example....lets use floor mats or the knob on your radio. Relatively trivial and inexpensive parts but if your auto insurer were obligated to cover them it would lead to the parts increasing in costs because the market will be artificially inflated by the active parties. The same can be said for policy costs in states that have more regulations. Health insurance costs more in Virginia, Maryland, New York, and most other eastern and northeastern states because the regulations require more risks and treatments (most of which are useless) to be covered, whereas in some of the mountain west states (Utah, Idaho, Nevada) the regulatory bodies don't have the clout..thus the coverage costs considerably less yet still covers all major catastrophes. Sure you may lose out on unlimited chiro treatments or mountains of specialist consultations (unless merited) but you have insurance for a VERY affordable cost to most people...less than 60 dollars monthly.
That is sustainability in medicine. That doesn't result in mounting deficits and unsustainable budgets.
Most of these are $10,000 deductible policies that could end up with as much as $15,000 out of pocket. In some state these catastrophic policies are still available for people under 30. In the real world of high medical costs what do you do with 50 million Americans on Medicare where the total bill is $580 billion and with seniors having very little skin in the game? The ACA is only 1/6th the size of Medicare.
Most of these are $10,000 deductible policies that could end up with as much as $15,000 out of pocket. In some state these catastrophic policies are still available for people under 30. In the real world of high medical costs what do you do with 50 million Americans on Medicare where the total bill is $580 billion and with seniors having very little skin in the game? The ACA is only 1/6th the size of Medicare.
That's what newberry is telling you. COSTS are the problem in healthcare. It doesn't matter if it's Medicare or ACA or single-payer or open market. COSTS are the problem. What newberry is pointing out is that the more things that are covered by insurance, the more those things cost. Insurance builds up the prices, because the cost of insurance becomes part of the cost of the device or procedure. And because in a system where there is no transparency, where providers are expected to recoup their costs for treating the uninsured by overcharging others, where competition isn't able to keep costs down (no transparency equals no competition), once something is insured and there is a guarantee of payment, then people will charge as much as they can for that device or procedure. They will bilk the system.
ACA doesn't stop providers from bilking the system. ACA has very few cost-control measures. That's the problem with the ACA. It says it's addressing access by requiring more people to be insured. But access wasn't the problem. What ACA is doing by mandatory insurance, and opening a government-operated means to that mandatory insurance, is getting us one step closer to single-payer. When we have single-payer (and I do think it's just a matter of time), the government will have the leverage and power to control healthcare costs. But the ACA doesn't address the real problem of healthcare costs at all.
That is my issue with it. If we had some way to manage costs...I'd support it. Obamacare simply doesn't do it. I think that they are noble in their attempt to insure everyone...they are just going about it in the wrong way and in their error...they're going to make their own system unsustainable.
Totally agree with you here (and with your excellent original post). Not ONCE was there a discussion in the pre-Obamacare discussions about WHY health insurance was so expensive. They only focused on who was going to pay for it.
Since you are in that industry, have you read the Time Magazine article called "The Bitter Pill"? I don't even like Time, and I have read that article literally 10 times now. It was all about the skewed costs for health care, and how it impacts the economy as well as all of us.
Totally agree with you here (and with your excellent original post). Not ONCE was there a discussion in the pre-Obamacare discussions about WHY health insurance was so expensive. They only focused on who was going to pay for it.
Since you are in that industry, have you read the Time Magazine article called "The Bitter Pill"? I don't even like Time, and I have read that article literally 10 times now. It was all about the skewed costs for health care, and how it impacts the economy as well as all of us.
I've not read that particular article but one that has circled my office is by Michael D. Tanner and was published in the NY Post and few other magazines/newspapers. The author writes for the Cato Institute and I am not always a major fan of Cato but I think this article is pretty exceptional. If you choose to read the article pay particular attention to the first and second suggestions to make it more affordable. To me they are pretty solid pieces.
1. ACA is affordable
And
B. Buying insurance is the same as paying for healthcare
But were the costs misrepresented? I know for a fact that the president absolutely did misrepresent the cost to the individual. He low balled it to make it sound attractive. This is his MO. His immigration reform push is another example of misrepresentation. The old bait and switch which if done by private business can land the perpetrator in court for false advertising.
Nothing about the ACA addresses the soaring costs of healthcare. What it does do and successfully is impose the burden upon others. If the ACA is so great why do the authors of it require waivers and exemptions?
If it is so affordable then why do Elected reps need to be protected from it?
Why were the Dems willing to shut the FED down rather than pass a bill that would end the waivers/ exemptions for themselves and their staff?
The soaring cost of healthcare is addressed by the rebates given to consumers or the Co. which pay for the healthcare. I understand some Co. are giving employees rebates or not deducting costs for them over the last month or 2 of the year..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As well, through the power of bulk buying, the government shall purchase all the necessary rx drugs, which will dramatically lower costs. As well getting rid of the bureaucracy that the insurance company has created, we would also save money. From what I understand, in Canada and other forms of socialized healthcare, one medical biller can cover three doctors, were as here, it takes about 3-5 people for each doctor, some for medical billing and some as referral specialist. Sorry bud, but the health insurance company is a huge part of the problem. The sooner we get rid of the parasite that is health insurance companies, the better. I mean seriously, look at the following stories about the BS they will put people through, just so they can have a "profit"
