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.
Im consistently surprised by some folks. Where to begin...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
And neither Obamacare nor Vermont's plan does anything to make that happen.
This is incorrect.
1. removing the middleman (ie insurance companies) saves money, witness the link here about the lowest increase in many years, and given that the overhead in the billing and profit of the insurance companies is estimated at 25% currently, and we now limit it to 20%, and later 15% I believe, I would argue that you should know better.
Quote:
Um, no, what many States have done is restructure their healthcare delivery system from the antiquated obsolete costly and inefficient Hospital Model used by English-speaking States, to the Clinic or Poli-Clinic Models, which cost less, are highly efficient, and which provide high quality healthcare.
If you want a system like Europe, then when do you plan to restructure your healthcare delivery system so that it is like Europe?
And your point is?
Quote:
You're equivocating, which is fallacious and disingenuous.
You keep saying "healthcare" and yet you have never said or done anything that suggests you are concerned about the costs of "healthcare." The ACA does absolutely nothing to address the high costs of healthcare, and you cannot cite even a single section or passage in the ACA that has the effect of lowering the cost of healthcare.
You are so wrong here its not even funny. There ARE a lot of things in the ACA that have the effect of lowering the cost of healthcare. This may surprise you since they are very rarely talked about. A good example is that there are now some incentives in place to avoid seeing a patient once a week to take their blood pressure. Before the more visits=more money...even if the prtext of the Dr's visit was extremely thin.
Theres stuff about electronic records. All sorts of stuff. That most people agree on. And no, Im not equivocating, im being pretty clear. I even tend to use simple words for people here in order to be more clear and concise. You should try it.
Quote:
When you say "healthcare" what you really mean is health plan coverage, what you and so many others erroneously call "insurance."
Case in point. Calling it insurance is perfectly acceptable. Its the common usage for it, arguing about that is something that I leave to others.
insurance-a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality.
I think that using that term is perfectly acceptable, as do the vast majority of people. And here you are going on and on about how everyone but you is wrong. Hmmmmm
Quote:
An analogy to your argument is that lowering the cost of homeowner's insurance will lower the price of housing and make housing affordable to everyone.
That is so stupid as to not even be remotely funny.
Comparing home owners insurance to this is so stupid it IS funny. (BTW generally calling people stupid, and then proceeding to compare apples to oranges is not the best choice).
And its funny for a couple reasons.
1. because raising the cost of home owners insurance WOULD raise the cost of housing, and make housing less affordable. Think that through. Thus lowering it....Point of fact, lowering my cost of insurance would lower my cost of owning a home.
2. You are comparing insuring a item of value, and insuring against possible economic or life loss due to illness. Funny that.
In a way it IS like fire insurance. If your house catches on fire (you get sick) the fire dept comes out and fights it. And fire depts are ran by communities generally. Hmmmm.
But I digress. your argument here is.....what were those words? "You're equivocating, which is fallacious and disingenuous."
Quote:
If you want to lower the cost of health plan coverage, then you must lower the cost of healthcare.
The cost of "health insurance" does not drive up the price of healthcare, but the price of healthcare does drive up the cost of "health insurance" in the exact same way that increasing the prices of homes causes the price of home insurance to rise.
So, do you ever intend to do something about the high cost of healthcare, or do you intend to continue equivocating?
Because, you see, Vermont switching to "single payer" will not reduce the cost of healthcare.
If the true real actual cost of open-heart surgery is $13,000 in Vermont, but hospitals there charge $26,000 to $41,000 because they operate as monopolies, then explain how single-payer in Vermont will cause the price of open-heart surgery to decrease from $41,000 to the true cost of $13,000?
No, what's insane is that you refuse to understand and recognize basic Contract Law.
Assuming your health plan coverage is through your employer, then by law, you cannot legally have insurance.
Additionally....and most importantly....if you have an employer based plan, who is the consumer?
Not you.
Sorry...basic Contract Law.....your employer is the consumer, and you are merely a beneficiary.
I mention that because so many people blame their "insurance" company.....like you are...when in fact it is their employer who is refusing to pay.
Functionally...
Mircea
Gah my test run on the server is about to end, so I don't have time to keep tearing up this stuff.
briefly-I don't have a employer based plan, I work as a tech based contract worker, I AM the consumer. trying to separate the definitions is foolish. No its not my employer refusing to pay, it is the insurance company. Saying otherwise is just a distraction from the topic at hand.
population of vermont 626,000
gdp of vermont....26,400,000,000
estimated cost of a sinlepayer for 626k population................3130000000 to.....9390000000 depending on whether they use a 80/20 medicare style or a 100% mediciad style of coverage
vermont is also one of seven states where the median age is over 40....and it has a higher than USA agerage of persons over 65
vermont is also the 3rd worst state for property taxes
number of workers (taxpayers) 335,000
cost per taxpayer 9.5k - 25k
can the taxpayers of vermont afford 10k-20k of ADDITIONAL TAXES each???
Good work.
There are two issues I would caution you to consider in costing.
The first issue is "pre-existing conditions."
They will cause the cost of healthcare to increase and consume larger amounts of healthcare services. Since they just joined, we don't have any hard data on the costs yet, and probably won't for another year or two, but your estimates may be a bit on the low side.
The second issue is no annual limits and no life-time limits. That will cause healthcare expenditures to rise, and consume even more healthcare resources that have not been consumed of late. Probably a year or two to collect hard data on that as well, meaning your cost estimates would be too low.
Just as an aside, I met with some colleagues yesterday discussing the "no limits" part of the ACA.
Since healthcare is intra-State Commerce, the federal government has no power or authority to enforce that section of the ACA. We were looking at potential legal strategies and remedies for that. You'll probably see litigation on it as soon as enough data is gathered to show damages and bring a cause of action.
Anyway, as part of the strategy session, I brought up something that HappyTexan mentioned a few posts back, and that is if insurers or employers were successful in getting a federal district court to strike that section of the ACA, my guess is the federal government will then punish the States, by withholding monies related to the ACA until the States enact laws that prohibit annual limits or life-time limits.
But as far as "pre-existing" conditions, you'll find that some States have higher percentages of the population, and that will be especially true in those States that are more heterogeneous.
One other thing, is who is backing Vermont?
Vermont will need "cash-up-front" or else it will be money-in/money-out from Day 1. Vermont will either have to levy a special tax to get it, slash spending in the current budget to cough it up, or buy insurance from an insurance company.
Just sayin'....
And since you're from the Lone Star State, could you enlighten me on what Governor Perry is proposing to do for his constituents, in a state that has the highest rate of uninsured people?
Encouraging them to move to Louisiana?
What good is 25% of the legal population who likely cannot afford healthcare insurance, when there is an endless supply of fresh meat arriving each day, willing to work for less comp and no benefits? Texas is the sole state that does not mandate Worker's Comp insurance.
So looks like Vermont is going to go single payer. The unsurprising thing is that they estimate this will save them 25% in costs from reduced overhead.
But a part of me thinks....If they have universal coverage, wont they get eaten alive by people going there for healthcare? What keeps that from happening?
Did you bother to vet this crap before you posted it?
I received first-class treatment – surgery, chemotherapy and radiation – at a fraction of what it would cost in the United States.
Yeah, well the exchange rate between the US Dollar and other currencies often gives that illusion.
Note that Europeans can come to the US since the Euro is more valuable than the US Dollar, so Europeans are saying....
I received first-class treatment – surgery, chemotherapy and radiation – at a fraction of what it would cost in the Britain or Germany.
And this....
The system will be fully operational by 2017, funded by Medicare, Medicaid, federal money for the ACA given to Vermont, and a slight increase in taxes.
How is "slight defined?"
To the Left, a 50% increase in taxes is a negligible tax increase.
Employers will suddenly be free to give raises to their employees instead of paying for increasingly expensive health benefits.
That's wrong....
"Amounts paid by an employer on account of premiums on insurance on the life of the employee...may not exceed five per cent of the employee’s annual salary or wages determined without the inclusion of insurance and pension benefits."
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board (Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, 4, 1943) LXIV.
Source: Office of Economic Stabilization, Regulations of the Part 4001 Relating to Wages and Salaries, Issued October 27, 1942; amended November 5 and November 30, 1942, Section 4001.1 (h) (2), War Labor Reports 4, XII.
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board, Section 1002.8, LXVIII.
This very bad government policy interfered in the Free Market and created a situation where it was economically beneficial to both the employer and employee to forgo a pay raise in lieu of health plan coverage.
In other words, your brilliant All-Wise All-Knowing government made it cheaper to increase your health plan benefits by $2hour than to increase your wages by $2/hour.
So what has changed? Nothing.
The [Obamacare] system makes it next to impossible to comparison shop for plans.
Comparison shopping is a Free Market activity.....leave it to government to interfere and make it a terribly trying ordeal.
The Affordable Care Act, for all the good it will be doing next year, still functions under the rules the insurance companies have established.
The American Hospital Association, not "insurance companies".....nothing like ill-informed Americans ranting about things they don't understand. ...there is no reason why the U.S. has to pay twice the amount per capita as the next most costly system in the world (Norway's)
Yes, there is a reason....
"As personal income increases, people demand more and better goods and services, including health care. This means that holding other factors constant, as higher personal income increases the quantity and quality of care demanded, overall health care spending increases as well. GDP is a good indicator of the effect of increasing income on health care spending."
Source: United States Government General Accounting Office GAO-13-281 PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, page 33.
Last update 25.10.11 Extracted on 06.01.13 Source of Data Eurostat UNIT Euro per inhabitant ICHA_HC Health care expenditure ICHA_HP All providers of health care
Gives new meaning to the state motto "Live Free or Die!!!!"
Not being a stickler. That is New Hampshire's motto. Vermont's is "Freedom and Unity". Still I repped you.
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.
