CBO Doubles the Cost for Obamacare

Status
Not open for further replies.
godelsmetric said:
Maybe the moment has passed for single-payer in the US
Perhaps the pharmaceutical companies and healthcare legal aid is too powerful now

I think most European countries set up their healthcare systems in the 50s
Click to expand...

Itll have to come from the states. Change will start that way once they see how that system is so much more infinitely superior to the one we have now
 
ezrarh said:
I use to think it wasn't financially feasible to provide care for everybody in the US because of how unhealthy people are generally but it's the most cost efficient way. You're already paying for the uninsured in hidden costs.

Lowering cost of healthcare by treating neediest patients
and

why healthcare can cost way more in certain areas than others:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

Nobody's saying it easy but I recommend you inform yourself before spouting that it's impossible.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it's impossible I said I don't think it's feasible today or for the foreseeable future.
 
How is that misleading? The 940b is for the first ten years, everyone knew that. Frankly Kosmo, you work in the health industry and should know this stuff..
 
Wow, Kosmo, you really are factually challenged. And the best you can do after you're proved to be spewing bullshit? Fall back on a one-liner shit sentence that basically boils down to "bu bu bu OBAMACARE!"

Man.
 
Kosmo said:
All right, looks like the $1.76B number is high. And if I can be so inclined to move the goalposts slightly (LOL) - $45B in penalty payments by uninsured individuals? Let me take that with a huge grain of salt, LOL.
Click to expand...
What's so LOL about it? Cities take revenue from traffic violations into consideration too.
 
PhoenixDark said:
How is that misleading? The 940b is for the first ten years, everyone knew that. Frankly Kosmo, you work in the health industry and should know this stuff..
Click to expand...

Of course I knew it, and knew it was a bullshit estimate to make. That the media actually let them get away with it and wasn't like "Look, this is bullshit. You're counting 6 years of costs over the first ten years. If we talk about a 10 years period when this is fully implemented, we're talking well over $1T every decade, right Mr. President?" was what was criminal.

I'm not even saying I'm totally against it - I'm cool with not allowing insurance companies to not offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions to a certain extent.

What's so LOL about it? Cities take revenue from traffic violations into consideration too.
Click to expand...

There's no penalty for not paying the penalty if you don't carry insurance.

Ordinarily, the penalty would be treated as a tax, and you could be prosecuted for income tax evasion if you didn’t pay it. But the new health law explicitly says that there will be no criminal sanctions for failing to pay the penalty, and no liens or levies on your property, said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. The government could come after your tax refund to pay the penalty, but since you say you don’t get a refund, that won’t be an option.
Click to expand...
 
PhoenixDark said:
How is that misleading? The 940b is for the first ten years, everyone knew that. Frankly Kosmo, you work in the health industry and should know this stuff..
Click to expand...
Kosmo has been proven to be a troll many times over, and yet he still is permitted to make his disingenuous threads. I guess when you're an American right winger it's acceptable to push disingenuous positions because if you didn't; you wouldn't really be a modern American right winger. And of course it would make GAF look bad and of course liberally biased if they were to only persecute only right wingers for their positions on things.

Also, calling it "Obamacare" is getting really fucking old. If it was "Obamacare" there would be a public option in it at least. A more accurate name would be "Blue Dogcare", "Dolecare" or even "Newtcare" if you want to be technical.
 
ChanHuk said:
You try providing healthcare for 300 million people on the cheap.
Click to expand...

Single payer government run health insurance. It's cheaper, that's a fact, every other western democracy in the world has it and it's cheaper per capita in every single one of those countries than in the US.
 
What's so great about health care anyway? If people want to stay alive, they should work for it instead of expecting the socialists to bail them out. Sick is another word for lazy. We could make like a whole new fleet of fighter jets with the money Obama is throwing away.

hurr
 
perryfarrell said:
The insurance companies are actually not the reason why health care is so pricey in the US. They have profit margins of about 2 percent. Whereas some drug and medical devices companies hover around 20%.

What I'm curious about is WHY, in the current system, the insurance companies seem to have so little power in negotiating health care pricing. If you buy something in bulk, you should be able to negotiate, right? Buying something in bulk should give you the power to exercise some control over the pricing, right?

Why do insurance companies just pass the cost onto employers who then pass the cost onto the employee who sees more and more of his salary disappear due to insurance costs?

(And this doesn't even address the amount of unnecessary medical care that's wasted--another problem that needs fixing.)
Click to expand...

People tend to advocate single payer in part because insurance benefits greatly from economies of scale and it streamlines and simplifies the administration process.

It's not just profit margins - which vary from company to company. Some low, some higher.

It's also the costs embedded to pay for enormous salaries. We're talking multi million dollar salaries in some instances( in comparison Switzerland, a country that has private insurers but legislated them to operate as basically non profits, caps CEO salary at around 400,000). All costs that provide no value to the consumer but raise the costs to the consumer nonetheless.

Throw in the added costs of the uninsured that get passed on to insurers when the uninsured end up in the ER and unable to pay their bills. Or the complex administration departments that need to be funded to wade through all the different billing codes and policy coverages at both the insurer and the care providers.

And large insurers do get bulk discounts from care providers and unfortunately those costs tend to get passed on to the smaller insurers in a given state. Same with pharmaceuticals. I forgot the state but one state actually legislates a stable pricing system that has brought down costs compared to the national average.

It's a broken system all around - insurers, care, pharmaceutical companies, regulatory environment.

My impression is the healthcare bill is a step in the right direction but mostly a very small step.
 
thetechkid said:
We need avatar quoting back so bad.
Click to expand...


Hey man, don't be hatin' yo.

One thing that HCR did was put a lot of money into the hands of companies that manage all this data. I don't agree with Obamacare, but at least its helping out the firm financials and guaranteeing that my raises and bonuses get better every year.
 
polyh3dron said:
Kosmo has been proven to be a troll many times over, and yet he still is permitted to make his disingenuous threads. I guess when you're an American right winger it's acceptable to push disingenuous positions because if you didn't; you wouldn't really be a modern American right winger. And of course it would make GAF look bad and of course liberally biased if they were to only persecute only right wingers for their positions on things.

Also, calling it "Obamacare" is getting really fucking old. If it was "Obamacare" there would be a public option in it at least. A more accurate name would be "Blue Dogcare", "Dolecare" or even "Newtcare" if you want to be technical.
Click to expand...

Or maybe, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
 
Kosmo said:
...It's the same reason we'll never get a flat/simplified tax system - a lot of accountants and lawyers out of work.
Click to expand...

Wow...do you really think that's why we don't have a flat tax? Do you have any idea what the country would look like with a fucking flat tax?

You are so consistently proven wrong in these threads...do you ever think your worldview might be off? That you get your news from sources that are of poor quality?
 
Liberals want to stick their head in the sand over the cost of implementing it...conservatives want to stick their head in the sand over the cost of not implementing it....

Maybe we as a nation should rethink about providing treatment for 80 year old and up people for hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend life by a few years. And focus our resources on making it as peaceful and painless as possible.
Maybe this makes me cruel, but people get old and die, nothing will change that.
 
Zzoram said:
Single payer government run health insurance. It's cheaper, that's a fact, every other western democracy in the world has it and it's cheaper per capita in every single one of those countries than in the US.
Click to expand...

godelsmetric said:
Maybe the moment has passed for single-payer in the US
Perhaps the pharmaceutical companies and healthcare legal aid is too powerful now

I think most European countries set up their healthcare systems in the 50s
Click to expand...

France's health care system isn't single payer, but is universal, and it works pretty well.
 
AiTM said:
Liberals want to stick their head in the sand over the cost of implementing it...conservatives want to stick their head in the sand over the cost of not implementing it....

Maybe we as a nation should rethink about providing treatment for 80 year old and up people for hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend life by a few years. And focus our resources on making it as peaceful and painless as possible.
Maybe this makes me cruel, but people get old and die, nothing will change that.
Click to expand...

Healthcare isn't a zero sum game.

You can reduce costs, improve care and not have to kill off all old people.
thatbox said:
France's health care system isn't single payer, but is universal, and it works pretty well.
Click to expand...
No two universal healthcare systems are the same but the one thing they all have in common is they are cheaper, more efficient and cover more people than americas system, now and after the full implementation of the affordable care act
 
Salvor.Hardin said:
Getting a tooth pulled is hardly cosmetic. Paid £15 for it here in the UK. Hadn't even made an appointment for that. I went in for a regular check up, and the dentist told me she had to pull a half cracked tooth out, which I hadn't noticed right in the back of my mouth. A few minutes later, and she pulled it out. Was a pretty smooth and painless experience.
Click to expand...

But, see, that's socialism so that's bad.
 
ronito said:
Problem is the system not who pays for it. Duh.
Click to expand...

I work in healthcare and I have to say... "who pays for it" IS the system.

Health care companies (insurance companies and others) are always coming up with new programs on changing the way providers are paid, all so everyone involved can make more money. These programs work in the short run, but eventually the consumers pay for it.
 
Please stop blaming Kosmo for not being able to find better sources, assimilate data into a coherent argument, or to be better informed about his own professed industry.
 
shadowsdarknes said:
Name another first world nation with a universal health care system with over 300 million people. How about even 100 million.
Click to expand...

Germany has some 82M people. Unless something changes drastically at 100M, I'm sure they'll be fine. You can also take the whole EU with well over 300M people all on universal healthcare. If anything, having all these different "states" run their own systems leads to a less efficient system, something you wouldn't necessarily have in the US.

I also don't get your underlying issue. There's obviously already a system in place that covers a fair number of people. So it's clearly not a problem of size. All your doing is changing the way it's funded. And considering that US healthcare is vastly more expensive than in any other country, that might not be such a bad thing. Plus, you know, the whole medicare/medicaid/va thing.
 
zou said:
Germany has some 82M people. Unless something changes drastically at 100M, I'm sure they'll be fine. You can also take the whole EU with well over 300M people all on universal healthcare. If anything, having all these different "states" run their own systems leads to a less efficient system, something you wouldn't necessarily have in the US.

I also don't get your underlying issue. There's obviously already a system in place that covers a fair number of people. So it's clearly not a problem of size. All your doing is changing the way it's funded. And considering that US healthcare is vastly more expensive than in any other country, that might not be such a bad thing. Plus, you know, the whole medicare/medicaid/va thing.
Click to expand...
As someone who's trying to become a doctor, I would love single payer and be willing to take a hit in salary, IF it meant REAL tort reform and FREE medical school. That's how it's done in other countries, not just single payer.
 
SoulPlaya said:
As someone who's trying to become a doctor, I would love single payer and be willing to take a hit in salary, IF it meant REAL tort reform and FREE medical school. That's how it's done in other countries, not just single payer.
Click to expand...

Free medical school? They're called scholarships. Earn it.
 
Kosmo said:
Not entirely true - Medicare and Medicaid rates are the lowest reimbursed to providers.

If you want a prime example of how they actually fuck things up, look up Acthar Gel - it's a prime example of how the government hurts our healthcare costs. This is a drug for infantile spasms that used to sell for about $1,000 a vial. The company was not making profits, so what they decided to do was jack the price to $23,000 a vial, but for Medicaid, it gives the government a 100% rebate. Consequently, the government looks the other way, since they don't pay for it, and everyone else is left holding the bag. Don't even get me started on the FDA approving allowing a company to get approval for colchicine, which sold for pennies a pill, and is now over $100 a month or a Makena - a drug that used to be compounded by pharmacies for $20 a shot to prevent premature labor that was given a patent and now is $1,500 a dose.
Click to expand...

You actually blame the government for insurance company & pharmaceutical price gouging. "But, but, look what the gubmint made them do!"

AiTM said:
Maybe we as a nation should rethink about providing treatment for 80 year old and up people for hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend life by a few years. And focus our resources on making it as peaceful and painless as possible.
Maybe this makes me cruel, but people get old and die, nothing will change that.
Click to expand...

Have you told your grandparents how you feel?
 
RiccochetJ said:
Free medical school? They're called scholarships. Earn it.
Click to expand...
What? There are no scholarships that I know of that pay for all of medical school.

EDIT: BTW, you can't have single payer, lower doctor's salaries, and still expect them to graduate with 300K in debt. You would kill any motivation to go through the hell to become one. We already have a shortage, which would be made much worse. And I say this as someone who's all for Single payer.
 
Oh look it's a typical Kosmo thread where he comes in with a starting post the moves the goal posts again.

I'm surprised anyone on GAF seriously replies to him anymore.
 
Kosmo said:
Of course I knew it, and knew it was a bullshit estimate to make. That the media actually let them get away with it and wasn't like "Look, this is bullshit. You're counting 6 years of costs over the first ten years. If we talk about a 10 years period when this is fully implemented, we're talking well over $1T every decade, right Mr. President?" was what was criminal.

I'm not even saying I'm totally against it - I'm cool with not allowing insurance companies to not offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions to a certain extent.
Click to expand...

that's a dick thing to think.
 
Zzoram said:
Single payer government run health insurance. It's cheaper, that's a fact, every other western democracy in the world has it and it's cheaper per capita in every single one of those countries than in the US.
Click to expand...

Well, not every other. But those who don't use single payer (like Switzerland) typically have much, much, much smarter and more fair implementations of private health care than the US.
 
SoulPlaya said:
What? There are no scholarships that I know of that pay for all of medical school.

EDIT: BTW, you can't have single payer, lower doctor's salaries, and still expect them to graduate with 300K in debt. You would kill any motivation to go through the hell to become one. We already have a shortage, which would be made much worse. And I say this as someone who's all for Single payer.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by real tort reform, but I do sympathize with the need to make medical school more affordable.

Most countries do have some sort of subsidization or method to lower expenditures and costs and I think that should go hand in hand with any sort of large scale reform of the system.

Though I personally think the entire college system should be overhauled in this country but that's another topic.
 
Jonm1010 said:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by real tort reform, but I do sympathize with the need to make medical school more affordable.

Most countries do have some sort of subsidization or method to lower expenditures and costs and I think that should go hand in hand with any sort of large scale reform of the system.

Though I personally think the entire college system should be overhauled in this country but that's another topic.
Click to expand...
The college debate is honestly not a separate debate. In order for single payer to be implemented in the US, it would require a drastic shift in the mindset of this country that would cheaper education, as well. Most countries that I'm familiar with, and have been to that have single payer (Norway, Sweden) have free medical education and they also give students allowances to live off of (you can't work and go to medical school), and that's how it works there. Their regular college education is dirt cheap too. The entire mindset of this country needs to change for these types of implementations.
 
SoulPlaya said:
What? There are no scholarships that I know of that pay for all of medical school.

EDIT: BTW, you can't have single payer, lower doctor's salaries, and still expect them to graduate with 300K in debt. You would kill any motivation to go through the hell to become one. We already have a shortage, which would be made much worse. And I say this as someone who's all for Single payer.
Click to expand...

I don't think that because you were accepted into medical school automatically absolves you of all cost. There are Engineers who design bridges, buildings, and a multitude of things with the caveat that they don't kill the people on or inside them. Most of them pay tuition
There are teachers that make sure our offspring don't wind up idiots. They pay tuition.

There are police that keep me from being shot. They pay tuition.

There are firemen that will carry me out of a burning building. They pay tuition.

I could go on and on.

They are all amazing. They are all special. A lot of them are people who make it so I won't have to come see you. Who directly are the fuck are you to demand that your occupation and training is better than the fireman who carried me out of that burning building?

Scholarships are like supply and demand. If there is something lacking in our society, like clockwork there are incentives to pull people in.

Don't get me wrong... I want there to be means so that doctors coming out of college aren't hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. I think it's wrong, and I think we need to subsidize areas of healthcare and education.

I also know that once you're actually practicing, that you will eventually get paid a lot more than the professions I mentioned earlier. That is unless you are a quack.

If it's not clear, I'm annoyed at your feelings of entitlement.
 
RiccochetJ said:
I don't think that because you were accepted into medical school automatically absolves you of all cost. There are Engineers who design bridges, buildings, and a multitude of things with the caveat that they don't kill the people on or inside them. Most of them pay tuition
There are teachers that make sure our offspring don't wind up idiots. They pay tuition.

There are police that keep me from being shot. They pay tuition.

There are firemen that will carry me out of a burning building. They pay tuition.

I could go on and on.

They are all amazing. They are all special. A lot of them are people who make it so I won't have to come see you. Who directly are the fuck are you to demand that your occupation and training is better than the fireman who carried me out of that burning building?

Scholarships are like supply and demand. If there is something lacking in our society, like clockwork there are incentives to pull people in.

Don't get me wrong... I want there to be means so that doctors coming out of college aren't hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. I think it's wrong, and I think we need to subsidize areas of healthcare and education.

I also know that once you're actually practicing, that you will eventually get paid a lot more than the professions I mentioned earlier. That is unless you are a quack.

If it's not clear, I'm annoyed at your feelings of entitlement.
Click to expand...
My feelings of entitlement? Where did you get off making that assumption? All education should be free, and I never said otherwise. If you read my last post, you would understand that. BTW, if you think the heavy debt doctors are under is wrong, then how do you fix it? If it's by making education cheap, then we agree. And doctors salary would go down in a single payer system, which like I said I'm fine with in a free education system.

EDIT: BTW, the whole scholarships line is one of the biggest piles of BS lies that has been pushed on young people in this country. Most scholarships are for pennies.
 
RiccochetJ said:
I don't think that because you were accepted into medical school automatically absolves you of all cost. There are Engineers who design bridges, buildings, and a multitude of things with the caveat that they don't kill the people on or inside them. Most of them pay tuition
There are teachers that make sure our offspring don't wind up idiots. They pay tuition.

There are police that keep me from being shot. They pay tuition.

There are firemen that will carry me out of a burning building. They pay tuition.

I could go on and on.

They are all amazing. They are all special. A lot of them are people who make it so I won't have to come see you. Who directly are the fuck are you to demand that your occupation and training is better than the fireman who carried me out of that burning building?

Scholarships are like supply and demand. If there is something lacking in our society, like clockwork there are incentives to pull people in.

Don't get me wrong... I want there to be means so that doctors coming out of college aren't hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. I think it's wrong, and I think we need to subsidize areas of healthcare and education.

I also know that once you're actually practicing, that you will eventually get paid a lot more than the professions I mentioned earlier. That is unless you are a quack.

If it's not clear, I'm annoyed at your feelings of entitlement.
Click to expand...

I think you are putting words into his mouth. He feels that if single payer is implemented, then the high debt burden of medical school will crush future practitioners. You also need to realize that education is a win win for society no matter how you cut it. Smarter people end up having higher paying jobs and end up paying more taxes, either through consumption (state) or income (state or federal), to the government in the long run. So investing in education by making it practically free should result in short term costs up front, but greater revenue for everyone later down the road.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

which would cost more to build
33
1K
Hawk The Slayer replied
The search for MH370 is back
18
1K
Hookshot replied
Question for the weebs
2
60
2K
jason10mm replied
What is the best animes for adults
2 3
102
5K
rubik's dude replied
Extremely Normal and Well Adapted Adults Go to COSTCO to Buy Pokemon Cards (for their kids, of course)
2
93
5K
GateofD replied
Top Bottom