How Health Care Should Be Provided - Page 9 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

How Health Care Should Be Provided

...

Page 9 of 61

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 29 59

Last

Page 9 of 61

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 29 59

Last

09-07-2009 , 05:01 PM

#201

kidpokeher

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,859

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthegreat

Yeah until they start reducing payment rates in order to remain competitive. Still haven't seen any details on those payment rates or who sets them. And once a significant voter base is on the public option, it will never go away. No matter what. They'll just change the rules if they have to.

The problem with your argument is hospital networks already sign rate schedules as part of the agreement with insurance companies to service their customers. In other words, insurance companies are already reducing payment rates to doctors and pharmacies right at this moment so what's the difference if a public option enters the mix?

I'm unsure if doctors have to take the public option or they can elect not to. If doctors are forced to take the public option then your concerns have merit I suppose but we'll have to see what's in the final bill.

09-07-2009 , 06:49 PM

#202

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidpokeher

I'm unsure if doctors have to take the public option or they can elect not to. If doctors are forced to take the public option then your concerns have merit I suppose but we'll have to see what's in the final bill.

In the House bill, doctors who take Medicare are automatically in the public plan network unless they opt out (there is no penalty for opting out.) Also, doctors who do not take Medicare can opt in to the public plan without having to accept Medicare patients. If a large enough percentage of doctors decide that reimbursement rates are too low and opt out, this will cause fewer people to enroll in the public plan.

09-07-2009 , 07:45 PM

#203

kidpokeher

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,859

Right, so assuming that ends up in the final bill all this talk about the government price setting is moot since everyone else does this, including insurance companies. As long as doctors have the choice of whether or not to accept the public plan, what's wrong with extra competition?

09-07-2009 , 08:19 PM

#204

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

The argument then shifts to whether the government will subsidize the public plan in order to keep premiums low, thus driving private plans out of business (forgetting that there will only be something like 30M people total on the exchange by the end of the decade.)

09-07-2009 , 08:59 PM

#205

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 17,339

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Eagle

It is quite possible that if they subsidize and keep the premiums low the result will not be that private plans go out of business, but that the private plans become more competitive and offer lower premiums themselves to...ya know...compete.

I would happily have a few insurance companies go out of business if the net cost was lowered as all the insurance companies tried to compete at a new, lower, equilibrium point

09-07-2009 , 09:02 PM

#206

TomVeil

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,374

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Or that the program will run wildly in the hole and still be propped up by the government, just like every other program that they run.

09-07-2009 , 09:29 PM

#207

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanDyer

Given that the US spends the MOST per capita on health care and still has 40x million uninsured people, i'm gonna have to ask you to cite some sources.....

wtf

You are making the claim that public option saves money, please explain.

09-07-2009 , 09:30 PM

#208

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

BTW, Tibetan monks spend less per capita on cars.

09-07-2009 , 09:33 PM

#209

Nielsio

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 23,398

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

BTW, Tibetan monks spend less per capita on cars.

Time for a stimulus package imo.

09-07-2009 , 09:36 PM

#210

Ineedaride2

Politics Court Jester

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 25,080

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomVeil

Or that the program will run wildly in the hole and still be propped up by the government, just like every other program that they run.

Except the military, which runs at a perfect margin.

09-07-2009 , 10:40 PM

#211

AlanDyer

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,680

Uh, actually a preliminary CBO estimate said the public option would save $150 billion. Yes, save.

09-07-2009 , 10:46 PM

#212

lewdjunglist

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 544

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ineedaride2

Except the military, which runs at a perfect margin.

A ginormous LULZ! Thanks for that one, although I'm sure that's what you intended.

09-07-2009 , 11:03 PM

#213

lewdjunglist

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 544

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanDyer

Uh, actually a preliminary CBO estimate said the public option would save $150 billion. Yes, save.

Numbers magic. The government never underestimates either. What is this cost savings compared to? That 150 is over 10 years, which is a drop in the bucket really. Babysteps I guess. I'd like to know how they come up with these numbers. Are they ignoring certain things, like duties performed by other agencies? I don't like that they will be giving the IRS more power, and opening up more paths for private information.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...-56781377.html

Edit: Don't they ignore the costs past the 10 year mark, when they are supposed to increase a lot? I can't remember where I read that =\

09-07-2009 , 11:08 PM

#214

AlanDyer

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,680

Quote:

Originally Posted by lewdjunglist

Were you trying to see how many different talking points can you fit without a single citation?

09-07-2009 , 11:09 PM

#215

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanDyer

Uh, actually a preliminary CBO estimate said the public option would save $150 billion. Yes, save.

You're not answering the question.

What is the magic mechanism here?

09-07-2009 , 11:15 PM

#216

lewdjunglist

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 544

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanDyer

Were you trying to see how many different talking points can you fit without a single citation?

Were you just citing talking points? I don't listen to Rush or watch Fox, so your rebuttal with no evidence was crushed...tyvm.

09-07-2009 , 11:22 PM

#217

AlanDyer

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,680

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

You're not answering the question.

What is the magic mechanism here?

Beats me ask the freaking CBO...

09-07-2009 , 11:26 PM

#218

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

So I'm supposed to just accept the numbers the government spits out without question?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/....irq.war.cost/

BTW, when CBO says "public option will save $X" what exactly are they saying? Total US expenditures on healthcare will drop $X?

09-07-2009 , 11:40 PM

#219

AlanDyer

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,680

Stop asking me to explain the CBO's mission and estimates and go check them for yourselves, i've already made multiple posts on this topic.

09-07-2009 , 11:50 PM

#220

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

Alan-

I'm pretty sure PVN knows this, but the $150b figure from the CBO is a measure of the amount of the savings in subsidies for lower income people in the exchange with a public plan vs. the exchange without a public plan. In other words, the public plan makes the 10 year cost of the plan $150b less, by itself it doesn't save us anything over what we are spending today.

PVN-

The CBO is by its nature very conservative when trying to estimate the effects of cost saving measures and has undershot in this regard in the last two major revisions to Medicare.

09-07-2009 , 11:57 PM

#221

AlanDyer

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,680

Quote:

Originally Posted by lewdjunglist

Were you just citing talking points? I don't listen to Rush or watch Fox, so your rebuttal with no evidence was crushed...tyvm.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ngton_Examiner

09-08-2009 , 12:04 AM

#222

lewdjunglist

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 544

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanDyer

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ngton_Examiner

Touche. That's what I get for not knowing my source. You should've followed that with, "would you like some grapes, bitches?"

09-08-2009 , 01:11 AM

#223

lewdjunglist

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 544

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanDyer

Stop asking me to explain the CBO's mission and estimates and go check them for yourselves, i've already made multiple posts on this topic.

The bill will cost 239 billion:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc...mmProposal.pdf

Here it says the deficit will increase 65 billion over the next ten years, taking into account other adjustments....except administrative costs and other things not discussed:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

09-08-2009 , 01:46 AM

#224

Maso777

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 6,961

Sorry if this question is out of place.

Just now I started feeling pain in my lower back when I take a deep breath

Tomorrow I'm thinking of going to a doctor if the problem is still there. Would an American with no health insurance be able to see a doctor for free? if it does cost money, how much would it cost? If you have health insurance does it pay for the doctors visit in full?

09-08-2009 , 01:46 AM

#225

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

Quote:

Originally Posted by lewdjunglist

No, the reforms in the bill are scored as a small surplus, the reason that it looks like a $239B deficit is that the bill rolls in a permanent repeal of the Sustained Growth Rate formula for Medicare reimbursement (that would cut physician reimbursement rates) which Congress has overridden every year since 2002. The hope is that the proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Council will prove to be a better model for controlling reimbursement costs (and rebalancing rates back towards primary care and away from specialists) than giving that control directly to Congress.

Page 9 of 61

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 29 59

Last

...

Page 9 of 61

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19 29 59

Last