Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News How do people envision cutting medical cost?

  1. Jan 17, 2010 #1
    How do you think the U.S. will cut medical cost?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 17, 2010 #2
  4. Jan 17, 2010 #3
    About 2 weeks ago, estimates of costs of $2,400 per year for a 4 person family were being discussed. Now, last week, Obama raised the "Cadillac tax" base to begin at $24,000 per year (not counting dental and vision) for union members.

    My question is this, what kind of medical care do you receive for $2,400 versus a $24,000 union plan?
  5. Jan 17, 2010 #4
    are you comparing a base individual plan to a family cadillac plan?
  6. Jan 17, 2010 #5

    http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/does_the_new_senate_health_care_bill_get_the_job_done_pt_1 [Broken]

    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  7. Jan 17, 2010 #6
    They're both tax payer subsidized - so yes - except the $2,400 is for a family of 4 under the Senate plan.
  8. Jan 17, 2010 #7
    that's not the point. one plan has more people in it, so it makes the discrepancy in cost wider. if you don't compare an individual to an individual plan, the comparison is invalid.
  9. Jan 17, 2010 #8
    Our posts have over-lapped. Both plans cover a family of 4 persons.
  10. Jan 17, 2010 #9
    oooohhh, OK. yeah, from what i understand, the Senate has a MAJOR cadillac plan and are ridiculously well-covered.

    fwiw, i think it's a bit silly that they're doing this. all it does really is highlight that government workers are the worst "offenders" when it comes to spending "too much" on healthcare. so... let's ration healthcare not by government fiat, but by using a sin tax (like we do with cigarettes and alcohol) and while we're at it, let's exempt all our political friends. it's just a big disaster in the making, IMO.
  11. Jan 17, 2010 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The UK or Japan's ?
  12. Jan 17, 2010 #11
    Actually, the $24,000 per year plans I'm referring to are the UAW plans that Obama has agreed not to tax. The $2,400 per year plans are the ones being offered to families making less than $88,000 per year and subsidized under pending Senate legislation.

    As for the plans the Senators enjoy - I don't know their cost - has to be VERY high.
  13. Jan 17, 2010 #12
    Eliminate choice, ration care, and cut fee schedules.
  14. Jan 17, 2010 #13
    How about asking for prof of insurance or citizenship to provide anything over stabilization care (they do this in Europe). Also changing HIPA rules so first responders all the way up to specialists can report fraud in any government health assistance program. And the last big one tort reform.
  15. Jan 18, 2010 #14
    We have that system now. I think they have a new plan.

    Individual mandates, salaried doctors, digital records, focus on regular healthcare and maintenance instead of reacting to health crisis', etc.
  16. Jan 18, 2010 #15
    It seem obvious to me that this is the one and only way to lower cost.

    And then there would be the free system that you pay for yourself in parallel. That is beggars have no choice.

    So the question is how low do we want to lower government medical cost? 5% of GPD? Higher? Lower?
  17. Jan 18, 2010 #16
    Japan spends ~8% of GDP on healthcare. And they have a much higher life expectancy than the US, which spends ~16%

    If we can get it to 12% GDP, which is closer to average, that would be a $500 billion a year reduction.

    It is quite telling that when the prescription drug bill was passed by the Republicans, I don't recall much of a conservative outcry. Not only did they not pay for it, they didn't tell us the true cost until after it became law.

    So after giving a trillion dollars away to the drug companies, now they argue that the only way to save money is to:
    Surely there are other ways.

    It is sad that the Republicans have decided that power is more important than obligation and have refused to participate in an honest debate. The true conservatives are moderate Democrats, and IMO they are getting their way. The progressive Democrats made the initial compromise, substituting a public option for single payer. Then the Senate moderates eliminated the public option.

    So what we end up with will not please anyone but the insurance companies. But it will cover more people and should help, but it is IMO a minor retrofit, when what is required is a major overhaul.
  18. Jan 18, 2010 #17
    We all hope so.

    What are some of these?
  19. Jan 18, 2010 #18
    the japanese have a fee schedule. docs may charge X for Y service, and not more.
  20. Jan 18, 2010 #19
    Your provider doesn't?
  21. Jan 18, 2010 #20
    I hate having to repeat myself in a thread.
  22. Jan 18, 2010 #21
    nope. doctors don't have to accept your insurance plan.
  23. Jan 18, 2010 #22
    So does medicaid, medicare, and most employer health insurances.
  24. Jan 18, 2010 #23
    Skyhunter, yes salaried doctors. What is the point of digit records? Is it just fraud detection? Personally I like the federal government having as little information as possible (need to know basis). And since I get no government money for health care I see no reason that they need any information on my health or health spending.
  25. Jan 18, 2010 #24
    How about a free market for medical services? Regulated in the sense that you must honestly state your qualifications (and the truthfulness of these claims is monitored and checked by a government agency). Free in the sense any with any qualification or in fact with zero qualification my enter the market.

    For example if I cut my arm and need stitches I would like to have the option to go to a low cost nurse at $40 who knows how to clean a wound and knows how to sew rather than a Harvard med school grad at $400 for showing his/her face plus nurses fees and facility fees.
  26. Jan 18, 2010 #25
    doctors can choose to accept that, or not. japan is different, because there is only one system, and only one fee that can be charged. here, the government or insurance company either has to adapt to the realities of the market, or fail to provide the services. so you've got two different systems, each with its own dynamics.


Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook