- #1
edpell
- 282
- 4
How do you think the U.S. will cut medical cost?
Proton Soup said:"cadillac" tax seems to be one plan on the table. encourage people to buy less coverage by making additional coverage progressively expensive.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/unions_get_pecial_treatment_in_health_AB053CwqPIJlIxXAm37DOM
WhoWee said: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?
WhoWee said: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?
Proton Soup said:are you comparing a base individual plan to a family cadillac plan?
WhoWee said:They're both tax payer subsidized - so yes.
Proton Soup said: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.
WhoWee said:They're both tax payer subsidized - so yes - except the $2,400 is for a family of 4 under the Senate plan.
The UK or Japan's ?WhoWee said:My question is this, what kind of medical care do you receive for $2,400
Proton Soup said: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.
edpell said:How do you think the U.S. will cut medical cost?
WhoWee said:Eliminate choice, ration care, and cut fee schedules.
WhoWee said:Eliminate choice, ration care, and cut fee schedules.
Eliminate choice, ration care, and cut fee schedules.
Skyhunter said:Surely there are other ways.
edpell said:We all hope so.
What are some of these?
Proton Soup said:the japanese have a fee schedule. docs may charge X for Y service, and not more.
edpell said:We all hope so.
What are some of these?
Skyhunter said: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.
Skyhunter said:Your provider doesn't?
Proton Soup said:the japanese have a fee schedule. docs may charge X for Y service, and not more.
edpell said:So does medicaid, medicare, and most employer health insurances.
...Many people, just as they become eligible for Medicare, discover that the insurance rug has been pulled out from under them. Some doctors — often internists but also gastroenterologists, gynecologists, psychiatrists and other specialists — are no longer accepting Medicare, either because they have opted out of the insurance system or they are not accepting new patients with Medicare coverage. The doctors’ reasons: reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle.
...
Proton Soup said: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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html
Skyhunter said:We pay twice as much for our system as the Japanese do for theirs.
Skyhunter said: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.
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.
AverageJoe said:My question is this: Why are we intending on spending $1t to $10t on bureaucracy when we can spend that on research grants and get far more tangible results?
Think of all the lives that could be saved for the entire world instead of just this one country. The whole health care bill as is just seems to me to be extravagantly bloated and selfish.
I don't know what system you're referring to but I'm obviously not a part of it. The actual affect of this health care bill for me and many others (who don't know it yet) is that any medical insurance I would ever be even remotely interested in buying will be outlawed, plus a nice tax penalty.Skyhunter said:We have that system now.WhoWee said:Eliminate choice, ration care, and cut fee schedules.
Who did you think would benefit from a law forcing everyone to buy the most expensive version of their product? The same version that they can't sell now because most people don't want or need it?Skyhunter said:So what we end up with will not please anyone but the insurance companies.
Honest debate would start with recognizing which side is the one seeking power here.Skyhunter said:It is sad that the Republicans have decided that power is more important than obligation and have refused to participate in an honest debate.
This is a good point. They are achieving their main goal of establishing government power over health care. The rest is details that can be tweaked later.Nebula815 said:It is a smart move by the Democrats for getting their way, if you can't create single-payer or a public option, then do the next best thing, regulate the insurers to the degree that you have essentially government healthcare through a group of "private" insurers.
Yes, but private companies are not agents of the government and neither am I. Government is an agent of the people, not the other way around.Skyhunter said:Ours is a government of the people and by the people.
That's such a straw man argument it's not even amusing. (This is a federal issue, not state. :P)jgens said:You're right! And we should also cut those emergency services provided by the government because that money could be put toward research grants and, after all, we don't want to be selfish. Oh, and while we're at it, we should probably cut the money our state governments use to pave roads, light streets, etc. because in many cases, they aren't even a matter of life and death.
Not to mention the fact that I sincerely doubt people will support a tax hike in order to fund scientific research grants, especially given the number of people that oppose a tax hike in order to provide universal healthcare!
Because he obviously thinks trusts are good if they're controlled by government. This whole health care bill is the creation of a giant single trust run by government. And they want to force people to buy their product? Rockefeller would be sooooo jealous.Proton Soup said:if democrats are so anti-corporation, then why did Obama backpedal and throw out the idea of removing the anti-trust exemption from insurance companies?