Healthcare Reform Thread II

[Drake Tungsten]

I thought about posting that, but I figured we'd thoroughly dismantled Ramo's arguments already. The idea that healthcare reform as proposed by the Dems will save the government money is simply ridiculous.

[DinoDoc]

My bad. I don't usually like to dogpile.

[Dr Strangelove]

Quote:
Looking ahead to the decade beyond 2019, CBO tries to evaluate the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories would be likely to change over time. The net cost of the coverage provisions would be growing at a rate of more than 8 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; we would anticipate a similar trend in the subsequent decade. The reductions in direct spending would also be larger in the second decade than in the first, and they would represent an increasing share of spending on Medicare over that period; however, they would be much smaller at the end of the10-year budget window than the cost of the coverage provisions, so they would not be likely to keep pace in dollar terms with the rising cost of the coverage expansion. Revenue from the surcharge on high-income individuals would be growing at about 5 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; that component would continue to grow at a slower rate than the cost of the coverage expansion in the following decade. In sum, relative to current law, the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.

Yet most countries with national universal health care plans pay half of what we do for health care AND they get universal coverage. What's the solution? Simple: Stop trying to concoct a plan that favors insurance companies. Bypass them completely. Nationalize the hospitals, laboratories and radiology services. Have each region form its own health care planning committee to oversee the management of services.

People point to the innovativeness of American medicione and claim that if the system is nationalized it will kill creativity. I've got news for you. Insurance companies don't fund research. The vast majority of medical research (not including drug development and testing ) is paid for by the Federal government or NGOs.

[MikeH]

I guess people would rather pay twice as much (or more considering some people don't have insurance) rather than have any of their money go to treating someone who's poor!

[Arrian]

Simple: Stop trying to concoct a plan that favors insurance companies. Bypass them completely.

That would be nice, but enough Dems have taken enough money from said companies that they won't do it. So we're getting the Rube Goldberg system that is supposed to cut costs via some sort of magic.

-Arrian

[Drake Tungsten]

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with private insurance companies playing a major role in our healthcare system. With proper reforms, such a system should perform at least as well as a government-run public system.

[notyoueither]

What would be the proper reforms?

[Drake Tungsten]

A mandate. Ending the employer-based insurance regime and making insurance coverage portable. Requiring private insurers to offer a basic plan to anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. That's a good start.

[notyoueither]

Would employers continue to sponsor healthcare?

[Drake Tungsten]

You can't seriously be asking that...

[Arrian]

A mandate. Ending the employer-based insurance regime and making insurance coverage portable. Requiring private insurers to offer a basic plan to anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. That's a good start.

That would be acceptable to me.

-Arrian

[notyoueither]

You can't seriously be asking that...

Why not?

If you have employees with all sorts of plans, and costs, when they arrive as employees, I'm wondering how employers would administer something like that. Or maybe I misunderstand 'portable'.

Keep in mind I only have an environment of a single, universal plan as a reference, and employers don't pay directly for it. They do commonly pay for supplementary plans for their workers.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I believe the intention that Drake was referring to makes clear that health care would to not have to be provided by the employer but that the employer would provide equivalent compensation to the employee that they (The employer) were otherwise paying towards providing health care bennies.

Or perhaps I misread the intention. Currently HSA's exist giving a measure of portability but are married to basic/catastrophic type coverage plans.

As for Drakes incredulous response it is a certainty that if a low premium public plan is provided (assuming government either subsidizes or cuts services to make it so) it is a certainty that employers will dump private providers in order to cut costs and remain competitive with all others who will do so. Thus the great migration away from private to public becomes a certainty and largely out of the hands of the majority of the public regardless of their wishes. One of the obvious solutions is to allow/make the choice directly by the consumer rather than forcing the provision onto employers who will by default choose the least expensive alternatives regardless of the quality of service.

[DaShi]

I agree. Unions play no role in the type of health care that employers provide.

[Drake Tungsten]

I believe the intention that Drake was referring to makes clear that health care would to not have to be provided by the employer but that the employer would provide equivalent compensation to the employee that they (The employer) were otherwise paying towards providing health care bennies.

Exactly.