Will technology accomplish what the GOP could not?

[DinoDoc]

In your own words, what specific disaster does that article indicate we are careening towards?

Here's a better site for you to go to in order to improve your posts and reading comprehension: https://www.hookedonphonics.com/

 

[JollyRoger]

So the disaster we are careening towards is my impending improvement in reading comprehension?

 

[DinoDoc]

Sure if you say so. I don't have the time or desire to explain it to you further given that I've already given you the information you asked for.

 

[JollyRoger]

I asked for a one or two sentence summary of the impending disaster you think we are careening towards. Your links seems at bit unrelated, but the second one was actually kind of comprehensible, so thanks. Is Bloomberg checking into that for their opinion writers?

 

[Berzerker]

I thought the impending disaster was Obamacare, not its collapse

 

[Cutlass]

No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: But what would you replace it with? When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? - Thomas Sowell

Is this actually a serious question, Azale? Do you respond like this to everyone who points out a public policy that is careening toward disaster?

Private sector healthcare is destroying the US economy. How does destroying Obamacare help with that?

 

[Lord Baal]

So I learnt today that DinoDoc can't think critically enough to give his own views on a topic he feels strongly about, even if all that would take is to briefly summarise one of his talking heads.

 

[DinoDoc]

So I learnt today that DinoDoc can't think critically enough to give his own views on a topic he feels strongly about, even if all that would take is to briefly summarise one of his talking heads.

I don't really care to do so for someone not interested in the answer anyway.

 

[JollyRoger]

I am actually interested on learning what specific impending disaster you could make out of that mess of an opinion piece. Given it's Bloomberg, perhaps there was some coded reference to 17 ounce colas or 31 capacity magazines.

 

[Lord Baal]

I don't really care to do so for someone not interested in the answer anyway.

JollyRoger isn't the only person in the thread interested in the answer.

 

[Azale]

Obamacare is, according to the available evidence, lowering premiums (for most, except for the healthiest) and lowering the deficit and it's "careening towards disaster" because the website is glitchy. The largest state in the country is doing a pretty good job getting its people signed up, the problem is not enthusiasm for the program but technical issues.

It's a little embarrassing for Obama, but hey millions of deserving Americans will hopefully be able to have affordable health insurance. We won't be the laughing stock of the developed world anymore, which honestly is much more embarrassing

Like, no one is ignoring that these are serious issues, but "careening towards disaster" is a bold claim that requires some kind of actual argumentation. I think most of the points where Obamacare could have crashed and burned have passed. There will be no sticker shock, there will be no gutting of cost-saving conditions through "compromise" with the GOP.

In perhaps another two decades, this program will be successful enough that people will wonder why the government just doesn't take over the whole thing. Maybe the government will even run the insurance companies out of the market, though I have a feeling their hands in crafting the ACA likely prevent that from happening.

 

[DroopyTofu]

Maybe the government will even run the insurance companies out of the market, though I have a feeling their hands in crafting the ACA likely prevent that from happening.

What happens to the industry built around the healthcare industry then? I can see economic repercussions from hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs in the healthcare industry.

 

[DinoDoc]

(for most, except for the healthiest)

Aren't those the people the program needs to sucker into joining the program to keep costs down?

The largest state in the country is doing a pretty good job getting its people signed up, the problem is not enthusiasm for the program but technical issues.

a) I would be interested in seeing the numbers out of CA.
b) This thread is referring to the exchange in 36 states which as it stands now is largely unusable with deadlines for purchasing a plan before they face punishment from the government for not purchasing a product they were unable to purchase.
c) The longer this goes on the less likely it is the Admin will me the sign-up targets they said they need to keep the costs down to what they imagined they'd be which threatens the entire enterprise.

 

[JollyRoger]

In what specific way is the entire enterprise threatened by mere cost overruns? Is this the thing that has us all careening towards disaster?

 

[DinoDoc]

Link to video.

 

[Berzerker]

Private sector healthcare is destroying the US economy. How does destroying Obamacare help with that?

private sector health care is subsidizing government health care

 

[Kaitzilla]

What is your solution to ballooning healthcare costs and lack of coverage unbefitting a developed country? Giggle at technical errors and make quips about big government?

Well, since you asked, how about make health care cheaper?

How we got to where we are:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/health-care-and-the-profit-motive

Over the years, employer-sponsored fourth-party insurance brought health-care coverage to hundreds of millions of Americans. But the tax exemption for employer-sponsored plans also created massive problems that have endured to this day. For one thing, employer-sponsored insurance makes many workers reluctant to leave unsatisfactory jobs for fear of losing their coverage. Those who fall ill while between jobs are burdened with the additional concern that a new insurance company might refuse to accept them, or raise their premiums beyond what they can afford. Insurers also face less competition and are less consumer-oriented, since they are at less risk of losing their customers. And, as noted above, because workers do not choose their own insurance, they are less likely to have plans that suit their needs.

Moreover, because employer-sponsored insurance is tax exempt, employers have a major incentive to provide generous benefi t packages. For example, a worker who pays federal and state income taxes at a combined rate of 30% will receive $7,000 for every $10,000 his employer provides in gross salary. But the same employee will receive $10,000 in benefits for every $10,000 his employer spends on health insurance — a 43% improvement.

Similar inefficiencies are fomented by government-run fourth-party insurance. Medicare and Medicaid are both designed in ways that encourage excess expenditures. Medicare pays providers on a fee-for-service basis that rewards doctors for doling out more and more care and resources. Medicaid costs, meanwhile, are shared by the states and the federal government in a way that makes limits on spending grossly unappealing to state politicians (since they bear the full political burden of cuts, but only part of the financial burden of spending). By significantly boosting demand for health care, the perverse incentives in these government programs end up increasing costs for everyone.

In this way, federal tax policy and federal entitlement programs combine to radically distort the health-insurance market. The results are predictable: Health-care costs have been galloping out of control, rising by an average of 7% in each of the last ten years — far faster than price and wage inflation — and eating up an increasing portion of Americans' incomes (not to mention the federal budget). This cost explosion also puts health insurance out of the reach of a growing number of American families — the people who do not qualify for government health entitlements, do not receive coverage from an employer, and cannot afford to purchase insurance on the individual market. And because the individual market is effectively home only to those excluded from fourth-party coverage, it is plagued by its own inefficiencies and high prices.

We can start by stripping Health Insurance Industry of their exemption from the Sherman Act.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/60107-reid-picks-his-battles-on-health
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/why-would-we-let-them-rig_b_302480.html

Reid has long argued that health insurance companies are able to gouge consumers because they are not subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act, which outlaws trusts and monopolies that stifle competition.


“They could be conspiring to fix prices as they do every day and not a single thing could be done about it because they are not subject to the law like everybody else,” Reid told a crowd of healthcare workers at a Tuesday rally.


“The only business that has a sweetheart [deal such as] they have is Major League Baseball. So is it any wonder that the biggest burden we have to fight [on] the healthcare reform issues that we have is the insurance industry? Of course not.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran–Ferguson_Act


Next, pass a law that hospitals have up front pricing and can't overcharge more than 10% unless there are complications.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/june/29/hospital-prices.aspx

Every doctor does it differently," says Dr. Steve Neeleman, a surgeon at Intermountain Healthcare in Utah. Doctors, who are usually not hospital employees, may not be thinking about costs when they choose treatments, he says. Complications may also lead to bigger bills, though Rose's surgeon noted there were none in his case.

Estimates Are Unreliable

Patients can't depend on estimates because they're often based on a hospital's average charges for treatments. For instance, Tampa General Hospital charged as little as $48,631 and as much as $89,969 for gall bladder removals between July 2008 and June 2009, according to a Florida state website created under a 2004 price transparency law.

When bills come in above the estimate, patients have little recourse. Rose's attorney pointed out in a letter to the Ohio attorney general that state law protects car owners from mechanics' charges that exceed estimates by 10 percent but does nothing for patients. Rose, 63, who has recovered, says the hospital could have consulted his surgeon about the treatment plan and calculated a more accurate estimate.

Upfront pricing IS possible. Check out this place. Pay in cash, and a lot cheaper than other places. No insurance company.
http://www.surgerycenterok.com/pricing/

Pass a law outlawing price discrimination for the same procedure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/19/heres-why-hospitals-set-high-prices/

At least, until this year. In April, the Internal Revenue Service issued new regulations under the Affordable Care Act that change the way hospitals demonstrate "community benefit." Among other changes, the new regulations requires hospitals to charge uninsured patients a rate that not more than the "amounts generally billed" to patients with insurance coverage.

Whoa, Obamacare did something good? :suicide:
Also, what a mess! All those wacky prices for non-profit tax purposes.


When someone uses EMTALA to get free emergency room help, bill the Federal Government. Let the person make a partial repayment to Uncle Sam based on their income+procedure.
http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/index.html?redirect=/emtala/


Repeal the 1987 Prescription Drug Marketing Act so we can get the same drugs from Canada at 1/3rd the cost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_Drug_Marketing_Act


Reform the 2006 Prescription Drug Benefit Act so the Federal Government CAN negotiate on prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D


Cap malpractice lawsuit damages and get malpractice insurance prices under control.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/08/06/reduce-the-high-cost-of-medical-malpractice/

This article is pretty interesting.
http://truecostofhealthcare.org/conclusion

So is this one.
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/0...-for-sucking-your-financial-blood-dry-part-1/
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/03/health-insurance-scams-leave-people-high-and-dry/
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/0...lies-like-aspirin-and-q-tips-as-much-as-1000/
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/03/hospitals-to-us-citizens-your-money-or-your-life/

Perhaps make a new class of sub doctors who specialize in one thing?
Bone setters could have a 2 year degree.
Baby deliverers could have a 1 year degree.

Maybe pay for 100% of Doctor's educations so they can leave school and start doing charity work right away?
Break the AMA's stranglehold on the doctor pipeline somehow.
Do some reform so doctors don't have to go to school their whole lives practically.


I'm sure I left out tons of options.
And I'm way more wiki warrior on this subject than expert, so probably wrong in a few areas

Mainly it's:
Increase supply of doctors and cheaper doctor alternatives.
Make the medical industry more subject to the same laws other industries follow.
And help get people and doctors mindful of costs.

Now that insurance covers 60% of stuff and the deductibles are skyrocketing, they should be doing it anyway.

 

[Lord Baal]

Some good ideas there. Now, quickly explain how you're going to get Congress to implement them.

 

[Cutlass]

private sector health care is subsidizing government health care

But it's still the private sector part which is the cause of the problem.

 

[JollyRoger]

These drapes:

Cap malpractice lawsuit damages and get malpractice insurance prices under control.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/08/06/reduce-the-high-cost-of-medical-malpractice/

Do not match this carpet:

Make the medical industry more subject to the same laws other industries follow.

The specific proposals in that blog post give the medical industry preferential treatment compared others on the defendant end of a lawsuit.

I do not see why malpractice should be capped - bad doctors and those that insure them should take some personal responsibility. They should also not be demanding to distort free market transactions between lawyers and their clients.