The last several Republican administrations have not reduced the costs of government; in fact, the Bush administration precipitated the largest deficit increase in history. Republicans are no longer fiscal conservatives. They may say they are, but their voting patterns speak louder than words, and are far more damaging. The Republican party has become only a mouthpiece for regressive social values. So as long as we're spending the money, regardless of which party is in power, we might as well use the money for social good, and increase the standard of living for the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of every teeming shore, the homeless and tempest-tossed.
Requiring insurance companies to cover "high-risk" individuals will increase their costs.
No exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays No cost-sharing for preventive care
Making individuals pay less on a case by case basis will make everyone pay more.
No dropping of coverage if you become seriously ill
This will likewise increase costs similar to the first point, but even I think this should be law.
No gender discrimination
Child bearing women cost more than me. Why shouldn't they pay more? I pay more car insurance because I'm a young male.
No annual or lifetime caps on coverage
Well meaning, but will increase costs like everything else so far.
Extended coverage for young adults
I got nothing on this one. Technically it'll increase costs, but young adults are a pretty low risk group in general. Unless you crash your motorcycle like my friend.
Guaranteed insurance renewal so long as premiums are paid
Again, requiring insurance to cover high risk individuals will drive up costs.
Now, I'm not against all of these things. In fact, I support a lot of them as my mom is a cancer survivor and getting insurance is hard for her. But I fail to see how this is going to reduce the cost of health care.
@ gedavids: What you aren't seeing is that overhead and administrative costs for private insurance is more than double that of a public insurance program (Medicare). Source.
*bangs head on desk* Sorry for that. I can't believe I did that, I'm a terrible American.
@ gedavids: What you aren't seeing is that overhead and administrative costs for private insurance is more than double that of a public insurance program (Medicare).
Ok, but what does that have to do with these reforms actually reducing costs?
Those are a lot of assertions with no credible sources to back you up. The data, you needs it.
I feel the assertions I'm making are basic math. If A + B = C and you make A smaller, B must become larger for C to remain the same. I will look for datas later, as I have works to do right now.
Obama is having this problem in his health care reform that he isn’t exactly stating what he envisions the new health care deal to be. He gives allot of general statements but he doesn’t get into the dirty exact details.
The major theory I’ve heard tossed around is that if you institute a large public owned private insurance option it would be able to force down the price of all services via its bargaining power. This would allow for the benefits stated above and lowering costs. Also, if the claim that the majority of difference between the cost in say Canada vs. U.S is the overhead due to private ensures, the public option would provide competition needed to force the private players to become more efficient and lower their cost or go extinct.
The other options would be to go completely public or have heavy law reform on what private insurers can do and try to promote more competition to drive down prices. I don’t see how the pure public plan would ever be passed, there are too many actors that have a vested interest against it and it’s incredibly politicaly dangerous during the likely painful transition time from private to public health care. (The partially public method is likely vulnerable to the same flaws but on a smaller scale)
The law reform method may involve things like vouchers for health care to those that can’t afford it (including handicapped and diseases that may affect those at a young age before they can get into an insurance pool), removal of health care responsibility from employers, laws implemented to prevent the nasty things that can occur when private insurers’ profit seek to avoid costly procedures, possibly laws to force/heavily encourage people to buy health insurance since in many cases the young and healthy may choose not too and become a burden on society in old age. The hope would be to put the dollars in the people’s hands and allow normal market factors to force down costs. The worry about this plan is that individuals may be prone to make allot of bad choices on how to spend their health care dollars. This method may also be prone too lobbies affecting bills being passed to ensure the new deal exactly the same as the old deal.
Ok, but what does that have to do with these reforms actually reducing costs?
Possibly by providing a public option which is, by virtue of lower overhead alone, cheaper and creating greater competition for the private insurers will help lower costs. I would need to see the specifics of the public option and any new mandates/guidelines for the private insurers before I could say how the costs would break down. It is odd that without these details you seem ready to deem the plan as being more expensive. Based on that rather vague letter alone, no one can make any informed estimation of costs.
EDIT: You can think your assertions are valid, but without any detailed and sourced information, they essentially mean nothing.
The major theory IÂ’ve heard tossed around is that if you institute a large public owned private insurance option it would be able to force down the price of all services via its bargaining power.
That's an awful idea. The way insurance works right now is that in order for you, a health care practitioner, to accept it you have to agree to their cost scale. A procedure you might charge $200 for you now only get $50.
The idea here is that insurance companies will reduce their profits to be more competitive. What I likely see happening is insurance companies trying to bleed more from the doctors, nurses, and hospitals that actually do all the work. Insurance companies are going to do everything they can to maintain their bottom line. Eventually the health care workers are going to say no more and refuse to take the insurance. Then you have people with insurance who can't afford care because no takes their insurance anymore.
The health care industry is already stretched pretty hard, I don't see how increasing market pressures is really going to help the matter.
EDIT:
Possibly by providing a public option which is, by virtue of lower overhead alone, cheaper and creating greater competition for the private insurers will help lower costs. I would need to see the specifics of the public option and any new mandates/guidelines for the private insurers before I could say how the costs would break down. It is odd that without these details you seem ready to deem the plan as being more expensive. Based on that rather vague letter alone, no one can make any informed estimation of costs.
EDIT: You can think your assertions are valid, but without any detailed and sourced information, they essentially mean nothing.
I'm deeming the plan more expensive right now. There is a dearth of information on all sides of this debate. If Obama comes out with more details and statistics on cost I will re-evaluate my position at that time. However, I do believe the burden of proof lies with Obama here. He's the one trying to change a well established system, he needs to prove his plan is better beyond all reasonable doubt.
I'm deeming the plan more expensive right now. There is a dearth of information on all sides of this debate. If Obama comes out with more details and statistics on cost I will re-evaluate my position at that time. However, I do believe the burden of proof lies with Obama here. He's the one trying to change a well established system, he needs to prove his plan is better beyond all reasonable doubt.
You are passing judgment on a non-existent (as it is still being worked out), unpublished plan that will then be modified by Congress? Wow. If that isn't an uninformed knee-jerk opinion, I do not know what is. EDIT: You also make this "well" established system seem like it is working. It simply isn't. The costs for health care go higher every year, life expectancy in the U.S. is far below that of many other industrialized nations (and there are some indications that it is actually going down), there a millions without health insurance (including me - a two time cancer survivor that takes all reasonable preventative health measures I can), etc. I do not care if a Democrat, Republican, or Martian comes up with a plan that can fix those issues (even with a slight increase in costs), then I am for it.
You are passing judgment on a non-existent plan that will then be modified by Congress? Wow. If that isn't an uninformed knee-jerk opinion, I do not know what is.
I think that's fairly harsh. I said I'd look at it again when things have changed. And it's easier to change a bill that hasn't been written yet. The sooner you catch a problem, the easier it is to fix.
You are passing judgment on a non-existent plan that will then be modified by Congress? Wow. If that isn't an uninformed knee-jerk opinion, I do not know what is.
I think that's fairly harsh. I said I'd look at it again when things have changed. And it's easier to change a bill that hasn't been written yet. The sooner you catch a problem, the easier it is to fix.
You can think it is harsh, but to make up your mind on something that doesn't exist is simply foolhardy and that is what you have done. I am not saying you are an evil person or a fool in general. In this instance, you have biased yourself against a proposed plan that doesn't yet exist based on assumptions and vagaries.
EDIT: You also make this "well" established system seem like it is working. It simply isn't. The costs for health care go higher every year, life expectancy in the U.S. is far below that of many other industrialized nations (and there are some indications that it is actually going down), there a millions without health insurance (including me - a two time cancer survivor that takes all reasonable preventative health measures I can), etc. I do not care if a Democrat, Republican, or Martian comes up with a plan that can fix those issues (even with a slightincreasein costs), then I am for it.
I didn't say it was a good system, but it's what we have and it works for the majority of people.
However, this is a very complicated situation. What a lot of people don't understand (not saying you specifically) is that the insurance companies and the health care industry are two mostly separate entities. We have to find a way to make insurance affordable for everyone, but at the same time not screw over the health care industry by accident. Decreased quality of healthcare would suck for everyone.
You can think it is harsh, but to make up your mind on something that doesn't exist is simply foolhardy and that is what you have done. I am not saying you are an evil person or a fool in general. In this instance, you have biased yourself against a proposed plan that doesn't yet exist based on assumptions and vagaries.
I'm sorry Obama hasn't sold me on the awesome-ness of his plan. I'm holding out for the love and kittens. I don't see the problem with me saying, "here are the issues I have with Obama proposed health care reform." And I'd like to point out that I'm not opposed to a lot of these things, I just think it will cost more not less like he claims. I'm in favor of health care reform, the system is screwed up. I don't like lying to get buy in from the American people. Cost is not an immediate disqualifier here.
Obama is having this problem in his health care reform that he isnÂ’t exactly stating what he envisions the new health care deal to be. He gives allot of general statements but he doesnÂ’t get into the dirty exact details.
Yea, he's taken a page from Lyndon Johnson, who set out a loose plan for his Great Society and gave congress the reins to create the bill that he loosely laid out, and functioned as pretty much a deal maker and cheer leader while they ironed out the details.
The idea here is that insurance companies will reduce their profits to be more competitive. What I likely see happening is insurance companies trying to bleed more from the doctors, nurses, and hospitals that actually do all the work. Insurance companies are going to do everything they can to maintaintheirbottom line. Eventually the health care workers are going to say no more and refuse to take the insurance. Then you have people with insurance who can't afford care because no takes their insurance anymore.
If all things being equal the only difference between the public and private player is overhead, (the public player reducing overhead while the private player attempting to cut fees paid to practitioners) and the private player is unwilling to reduce its overhead, then there will be pressure to go to the public insurer and the private player will lose business. If the insurance companies were unwilling to find innovative ways to reduce costs in the new environment they would lose market share to the public option. Possibly eventually resulting in a nearly completely public insurer environment, welcome to Canada. This is unlikely to occur and it is more likely the private players would attempt to find ways to remain competitive in the market.
I donÂ’t necessarily think this is the best option but I donÂ’t see your example as valid.
The health care industry is already stretched pretty hard, I don't see how increasing market pressures is really going to help the matter.
Well if it is the case that the prices are artificially higher than they could be due to lack of competition and inefficient practices then market pressure could reduce cost. The U.S pays twice as much as many other countries to receive basically the same health outcomes. This tells of either incredibly inefficiency OR there is something fundamentally different about the U.S that causes prices to be higher. I haven't seen many good arguments supporting the fundamental difference hypothesis and would like to think with a better system things could become cheaper.
Obama is having this problem in his health care reform that he isnÂ’t exactly stating what he envisions the new health care deal to be. He gives allot of general statements but he doesnÂ’t get into the dirty exact details.
Yea, he's taken a page from Lyndon Johnson, who set out a loose plan for his Great Society and gave congress the reins to create the bill that he loosely laid out, and functioned as pretty much a deal maker and cheer leader while they ironed out the details.
I see his tactic as good in the sense that he is able to test the waters and see how far he can push the reform to healthcare. Instead of making a statement of his vision and either getting less then what he could have or over shooting and scaring everyone away from reform. The problem is this is bad for P.R as it allows everyone to think of worst case scenarios and demonize his position. If the public image becomes bad enough he could lose all his momentum and be worse of then if he just simply made a position statement. It is a dangerous game he plays.
You are passing judgment on a non-existent (as it is still being worked out), unpublished plan that will then be modified by Congress? Wow. If that isn't an uninformed knee-jerk opinion, I do not know what is.
Is it equally uninformed and knee-jerk to offer support for said non-existent plan?
I belong to a union and I have a damn good health insurance plan. Unless Obama is proposing a plan as good as the one he and the members of Congress get I'm not interested.
You are passing judgment on a non-existent (as it is still being worked out), unpublished plan that will then be modified by Congress? Wow. If that isn't an uninformed knee-jerk opinion, I do not know what is.
Is it equally uninformed and knee-jerk to offer support for said non-existent plan?
I belong to a union and I have a damn good health insurance plan. Unless Obama is proposing a plan as good as the one he and the members of Congress get I'm not interested.
Well that's good, your not the person who needs help. I have a great health plan as well but I know other people who need help. The people who are PRO-healthcare reform just recognize that we need to do something, there is not a bill yet but we hear certain items come up and can decide if we like what we are hearing from that.
I mean there are crowds telling congressmen to "read the bill first" before voting, but there isn't a bill to vote on let alone people not in the three groups writing seperate bills to read...
Well that's good, your not the person who needs help. I have a great health plan as well but I know other people who need help. The people who are PRO-healthcare reform just recognize that we need to do something, there is not a bill yet but we hear certain items come up and can decide if we like what we are hearing from that.
Yeah, I have great health-care too, but this shit is broken for too many people. I don't see the private sector fixing this so it has to be the government that does something.
I mean there are crowds telling congressmen to "read the bill first" before voting, but there isn't a bill to vote on let alone people not in the three groups writing seperate bills to read...
Then why was the President pushing Congress to vote on a bill that was not even written before the August recess?
My concern is that with the creation of a "govt option/plan" my employer will stop offering the plan I like and instead only offer the govt plan. I'm in a tight spot here because I am a union member. How do you bargain with a company for better health insurance when all they have to do is show how your union supported the govt plan? The company will just say, "you wanted the govt option, now you have it!"
Who are the uninsured?
From what I have heard about the current bills being discussed all health insurance providers will have to have their plans approved by the govt. There will be coverage mandates that all insurance providers will have to carry. If your plan does not have these minimum coverages you can't keep your plan.
I see there is no category for "I have a minor pre-existing condition and the insurance companies won't insure me." Or for "I had insurance until I got sick, and then the insurance companies dropped me."
Whoever drew that cartoon knows nothing about fighting with insurance companies. They have completely disregarded the group that wants health care and is actively denied by the companies.
Also, as long as the "Birther" movement exists, I have a really hard time taking the critical Obama parodies seriously. I cannot do anything but mutter, "Seriously...SERIOUSLY?" when I see them. I am willing to listen to and discuss legitimate concerns, but lies that have been spread to make people afraid of the administration have no place in intelligent discussion.
I see there is no category for "I have a minor pre-existing condition and the insurance companies won't insure me." Or for "I had insurance until I got sick, and then the insurance companies dropped me."
This actually raises an interesting question in my mind, how large actually is this group?
Larger than you'd think. The things that qualify as pre-existing conditions vary from company to company, but some of them have really ludicrous things. And there are also those of us that *probably* have a condition that would disqualify us, so we put off getting tested for it because our insurance would drop us if it was confirmed.
I haven't seen any actual numbers, so I can't give a definitive answer.
It's true because as an 18-25 year old who is currently working freelance every day I wake up and punch myself in the kidneys while wearing a suit and sipping tea simply because I can because nothing bad ever happens to me and insurance is for suckers. Please neglect the fact that I do not receive a tax-break on my health care like I would going through a company, and my current state of residence does not allow medical underwriting, taking my old rate of $350/mo (MD) and bumping it up to around $1K/mo (NY).
On that note: traveling between states and retaining coverage would be nice. I spent my 4 college years in limbo, thanks to my parents restrictive policy that limited care exclusively to PA.
Also: should 10 million people not be able to receive medical care because they're unemployed? With a 10% unemployment rate, that seems pretty precarious, not only for the individual, but for their families as well. Maybe that's where the 8 million kids come from?
There will be coverage mandates that all insurance providers will have to carry.
Like: "you need to treat people who are sick?" This seems to be the big point of contention, but it seems like a good one to me. Arbitrarily modifying the risk pool to maximize profits is not a good way to make sure the country stays healthy, and setting limits on how private firms operates at this point seems like a necessity, thanks in no small part to the points Nuri mentioned.
When your company sells a service, but your profit depends on denying that service whenever possible, there is something wrong. We have laws that limit predatory lending practices. Why is limiting predatory insurance practices any different?
You are passing judgment on a non-existent (as it is still being worked out), unpublished plan that will then be modified by Congress? Wow. If that isn't an uninformed knee-jerk opinion, I do not know what is.
Is it equally uninformed and knee-jerk to offer support for said non-existent plan?
I belong to a union and I have a damn good health insurance plan. Unless Obama is proposing a plan as good as the one he and the members of Congress get I'm not interested.
To your first point: YES! That is exactly the point I was making. Making any determination at this point if foolhardy. I specifically said in an earlier post that I neither supported nor disliked the plan as it DOES NOT EXIST YET and I would need specifics to make a judgment. That was all I was asking from gedavids.
As to your specific plan, that is great that you have coverage. For those that do not (like me) having the option of health insurance at all would be an improvement.
Comments
You're right, this doesn't tell you much of anything, but you're not telling me anything either.
go to Whitehouse.gov and find me a specific example.
Now, I'm not against all of these things. In fact, I support a lot of them as my mom is a cancer survivor and getting insurance is hard for her. But I fail to see how this is going to reduce the cost of health care.
Source.
The major theory I’ve heard tossed around is that if you institute a large public owned private insurance option it would be able to force down the price of all services via its bargaining power. This would allow for the benefits stated above and lowering costs. Also, if the claim that the majority of difference between the cost in say Canada vs. U.S is the overhead due to private ensures, the public option would provide competition needed to force the private players to become more efficient and lower their cost or go extinct.
The other options would be to go completely public or have heavy law reform on what private insurers can do and try to promote more competition to drive down prices. I don’t see how the pure public plan would ever be passed, there are too many actors that have a vested interest against it and it’s incredibly politicaly dangerous during the likely painful transition time from private to public health care. (The partially public method is likely vulnerable to the same flaws but on a smaller scale)
The law reform method may involve things like vouchers for health care to those that can’t afford it (including handicapped and diseases that may affect those at a young age before they can get into an insurance pool), removal of health care responsibility from employers, laws implemented to prevent the nasty things that can occur when private insurers’ profit seek to avoid costly procedures, possibly laws to force/heavily encourage people to buy health insurance since in many cases the young and healthy may choose not too and become a burden on society in old age. The hope would be to put the dollars in the people’s hands and allow normal market factors to force down costs. The worry about this plan is that individuals may be prone to make allot of bad choices on how to spend their health care dollars. This method may also be prone too lobbies affecting bills being passed to ensure the new deal exactly the same as the old deal.
I would need to see the specifics of the public option and any new mandates/guidelines for the private insurers before I could say how the costs would break down. It is odd that without these details you seem ready to deem the plan as being more expensive. Based on that rather vague letter alone, no one can make any informed estimation of costs.
EDIT: You can think your assertions are valid, but without any detailed and sourced information, they essentially mean nothing.
The idea here is that insurance companies will reduce their profits to be more competitive. What I likely see happening is insurance companies trying to bleed more from the doctors, nurses, and hospitals that actually do all the work. Insurance companies are going to do everything they can to maintain their bottom line. Eventually the health care workers are going to say no more and refuse to take the insurance. Then you have people with insurance who can't afford care because no takes their insurance anymore.
The health care industry is already stretched pretty hard, I don't see how increasing market pressures is really going to help the matter.
EDIT: I'm deeming the plan more expensive right now. There is a dearth of information on all sides of this debate. If Obama comes out with more details and statistics on cost I will re-evaluate my position at that time. However, I do believe the burden of proof lies with Obama here. He's the one trying to change a well established system, he needs to prove his plan is better beyond all reasonable doubt.
EDIT: You also make this "well" established system seem like it is working. It simply isn't. The costs for health care go higher every year, life expectancy in the U.S. is far below that of many other industrialized nations (and there are some indications that it is actually going down), there a millions without health insurance (including me - a two time cancer survivor that takes all reasonable preventative health measures I can), etc. I do not care if a Democrat, Republican, or Martian comes up with a plan that can fix those issues (even with a slight increase in costs), then I am for it.
However, this is a very complicated situation. What a lot of people don't understand (not saying you specifically) is that the insurance companies and the health care industry are two mostly separate entities. We have to find a way to make insurance affordable for everyone, but at the same time not screw over the health care industry by accident. Decreased quality of healthcare would suck for everyone.
I donÂ’t necessarily think this is the best option but I donÂ’t see your example as valid. Well if it is the case that the prices are artificially higher than they could be due to lack of competition and inefficient practices then market pressure could reduce cost. The U.S pays twice as much as many other countries to receive basically the same health outcomes. This tells of either incredibly inefficiency OR there is something fundamentally different about the U.S that causes prices to be higher. I haven't seen many good arguments supporting the fundamental difference hypothesis and would like to think with a better system things could become cheaper.
I belong to a union and I have a damn good health insurance plan. Unless Obama is proposing a plan as good as the one he and the members of Congress get I'm not interested.
I mean there are crowds telling congressmen to "read the bill first" before voting, but there isn't a bill to vote on let alone people not in the three groups writing seperate bills to read...
My concern is that with the creation of a "govt option/plan" my employer will stop offering the plan I like and instead only offer the govt plan. I'm in a tight spot here because I am a union member. How do you bargain with a company for better health insurance when all they have to do is show how your union supported the govt plan? The company will just say, "you wanted the govt option, now you have it!"
Who are the uninsured?
From what I have heard about the current bills being discussed all health insurance providers will have to have their plans approved by the govt. There will be coverage mandates that all insurance providers will have to carry. If your plan does not have these minimum coverages you can't keep your plan.
Whoever drew that cartoon knows nothing about fighting with insurance companies. They have completely disregarded the group that wants health care and is actively denied by the companies.
Also, as long as the "Birther" movement exists, I have a really hard time taking the critical Obama parodies seriously. I cannot do anything but mutter, "Seriously...SERIOUSLY?" when I see them. I am willing to listen to and discuss legitimate concerns, but lies that have been spread to make people afraid of the administration have no place in intelligent discussion.
I haven't seen any actual numbers, so I can't give a definitive answer.
On that note: traveling between states and retaining coverage would be nice. I spent my 4 college years in limbo, thanks to my parents restrictive policy that limited care exclusively to PA.
Also: should 10 million people not be able to receive medical care because they're unemployed? With a 10% unemployment rate, that seems pretty precarious, not only for the individual, but for their families as well. Maybe that's where the 8 million kids come from? Like: "you need to treat people who are sick?" This seems to be the big point of contention, but it seems like a good one to me. Arbitrarily modifying the risk pool to maximize profits is not a good way to make sure the country stays healthy, and setting limits on how private firms operates at this point seems like a necessity, thanks in no small part to the points Nuri mentioned.
When your company sells a service, but your profit depends on denying that service whenever possible, there is something wrong. We have laws that limit predatory lending practices. Why is limiting predatory insurance practices any different?
As to your specific plan, that is great that you have coverage. For those that do not (like me) having the option of health insurance at all would be an improvement.