Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread >Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: As Predicted...

Maximum Peach





Posts: 8392
(8393 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/9/2016 at 09:51 PM
Oh, the glory of big-govt solutions!

The massive money and time wasted on this ludicrous scheme, and it seems it will barely survive it's namesake's term. But consider the benefits: hospitals and insurers have consolidated, treating consumers even more like a number instead of as individuals.

quote:
Editorial: Why Obamacare failed

Come November, the grim trudge across the increasingly barren Obamacare landscape begins anew. Illinois consumers likely face staggering price hikes for individual insurance policies. Some types of plans could cost an average of 43 percent to 55 percent more. Ditto across the country: A first tranche of states approved 2017 rates with similarly cardiac-arrest-inducing premium increases.

Many Illinois consumers will find fewer choices because major carriers fled this market. UnitedHealthcare bolted. So did Aetna. Land of Lincoln Health collapsed mid-year, leaving policy holders to scramble for coverage that could cost them plenty. In many places across Illinois and the nation, people will find drastically fewer choices of plans than they did last year.

Those insurers fled because they didn't want to lose more money on a government-run market that is so far out of whack — a market they think likely will never be profitable for them. That isn't surprising, as we enumerate below.

But by diagnosing Obamacare, all of us can see the mistakes that any repair or replacement can avoid. So let's look at the failings and how they can drive solutions:

Obamacare failed because it flunked Economics 101 and Human Nature 101. It straitjacketed insurers into providing overly expensive, soup-to-nuts policies. It wasn't flexible enough so that people could buy as much coverage as they wanted and could afford — not what the government dictated. Many healthy people primarily want catastrophic coverage. Obamacare couldn't lure them in, couldn't persuade them to buy on the chance they'd get sick.

Obamacare failed because the penalties for going uncovered are too low when stacked against its skyrocketing premium costs. Next year, the penalty for staying uninsured is $695 per adult, or perhaps 2.5 percent of a family's taxable household income. That's far less than many Americans would pay for coverage. Financial incentive: Skip Obamacare.

Obamacare failed because insurance is based on risk pools — that is, the lucky subsidize the unlucky. The unlucky who have big health problems (and big medical bills) reap much greater benefits than those who remain healthy and out of the doctors' office. But Obamacare's rules hamstring insurers. They can't exclude people for pre-existing conditions, and can't charge older customers more than three times as much as the young. Those are good goals, but they skew the market in ways Obamacare didn't figure out how to offset. Result: Young and healthy consumers pay far more in premiums than their claims (probably) would justify in order to subsidize the unexpectedly large influx of older, sicker customers who require expensive care. Too many unlucky people, too few lucky people: That will collapse any insurance scheme.

Obamacare failed because it allowed Americans to sign up after they got sick and needed help paying all those medical bills. Insurance should be structured so that, although you don't know if you'll need it, you pay for it anyway, just in case; your alternative is financial doom. But if you can game the system and, for example, buy auto coverage after you crash into your garage, then you have no incentive to buy insurance beforehand.

Obamacare failed because it hasn't tamed U.S. medical costs. Health care is about supply and demand: People who get coverage use it, especially if the law mandates free preventive care. Iron law of economics: Nothing is free; someone pays. To pretend otherwise was folly. Those forces combined to spike the costs of care, and thus insurance costs.

Obamacare failed because too many carriers simply can't cover expenses, let alone turn a profit, in this rigidly controlled system. Take Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, the state's dominant Obamacare insurer. Last year, for every dollar the carrier collected, it spent $1.32 buying care and providing services for customers, according to BCBS President Maurice Smith. No wonder BCBS is proposing rate increases from 23 percent to 45 percent for its individual plans.

A question looms: Is Obamacare plunging in a so-called insurance death spiral? Is the market so unstable that plans are doomed to get more and more expensive, driving more Americans and more insurers out of the market until ... Obamacare thuds to the pavement?

We won't predict that, but neither do we see a mathematical alternative. What's clear is that the solutions to Obamacare are implicit in its failures. A repaired or replaced system has to be more flexible, letting insurers offer a wider range of plans so that consumers, not lawmakers or bureaucrats, dictate what's best for them. That system should protect those who carry continuous coverage, not coddle those who duck in and out of plans when their health needs change.

A new system also should scrap the job-killing Obamacare mandates that discourage companies from hiring and discourage workers from adding hours. Instead of gearing subsidies to incomes, let Americans not covered via an employer reap tax credits to help finance their insurance purchases on the open market. And tell us again: Why can't insurers sell policies across state lines? Imagine the pricing competition that would unleash.

We can deny the current system's failings, or we can parlay our evolving knowledge into something much better.

Put another way: The next president and Congress either reckon with Obamacare's failures or ... wait for the thud.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-obamacare-fail-hea lth-care-insurance-medicine-0911-jm-20160909-story.html


 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 
Replies:

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1958
(1961 all sites)
Registered: 5/12/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/9/2016 at 10:09 PM
As predicted, the Chicago Tribune, which has a strong conservative editorial board, would continuously critique Obamacare.

I guess with the speculated collapse of Obamacare we can forget about the health needs of the lower class you were bemoaning about in another thread.

The only real humane option for the US is a single player. Insurers are for profit and health care is about needs and these two factors are not in the least bit compatible.

[Edited on 9/10/2016 by Swifty]

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8392
(8393 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/9/2016 at 10:43 PM
Search for news on the topic and you'll find that pretty much every news outlet has the same story. Failure this obvious doesn't require a political slant.

As to single payer, you'll be surprised that I agree in principal. However, since our real world is one with a massively corrupt and inept govt, I don't believe it would work here. I've always liked what the Swiss do, as it combines free-market options with govt guidelines.

Go back to the years where we were debating Obamacare here every day. I always argued that controlling cost was the first and foremost issue, and the only way the lower classes and uninsured would benefit. Obama moved the goalposts from initially stating it would lower the percentage of GDP spent on health care to just not increasing the budget, and never tried to lower costs in any serious way. They were two very different things that predictably the media let him get away with without question. Remember that $2,500/yr savings? Just another lie from an economic incompetent.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured

uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,

so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5032
(5027 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/9/2016 at 11:00 PM
Why don't I know one single person whose health insurance was negatively affected? I know there are some, but what is the percentage to overall workers? I have yet to come across one person, whether standard W2 or business owner.

[Edited on 9/10/2016 by BoytonBrother]

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8392
(8393 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/9/2016 at 11:12 PM
quote:
Why don't I know one single person whose health insurance was negatively affected?
Maybe its how "negatively affected" is judged? I know plenty of people who have had down-grades in their coverage, increases in their deductibles, increases in their costs - or combinations of all three. Friends who work for P&G here have reported their coverage has been down-graded quite a bit. Coverage through my company is constantly changing in recent years, with higher costs borne by employees for less coverage. Obamacare hasn't saved anyone a cent, and only helped those who can pay nothing by putting them under Medicare, hastening problems for that troubled program as well.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured

uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,

so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1958
(1961 all sites)
Registered: 5/12/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/10/2016 at 01:03 PM
quote:
Search for news on the topic and you'll find that pretty much every news outlet has the same story. Failure this obvious doesn't require a political slant.

As to single payer, you'll be surprised that I agree in principal. However, since our real world is one with a massively corrupt and inept govt, I don't believe it would work here. I've always liked what the Swiss do, as it combines free-market options with govt guidelines.

Go back to the years where we were debating Obamacare here every day. I always argued that controlling cost was the first and foremost issue, and the only way the lower classes and uninsured would benefit. Obama moved the goalposts from initially stating it would lower the percentage of GDP spent on health care to just not increasing the budget, and never tried to lower costs in any serious way. They were two very different things that predictably the media let him get away with without question. Remember that $2,500/yr savings? Just another lie from an economic incompetent.


Obamacare has been opposed by republicans from the start. It is difficult--if not impossible--to set up a national program with this type of persistent opposition and the overt obstructionism that came from Congress. The Chicago Tribune was involved in this pernicious attack on Obamacare. Try and set up a weekly volleyball game in your neighborhood and it would soon fail under these conditions.

We have gone over this before so I will be brief about it. If you look at any evolutionary diagram of human progress, the top tier is always represented by states that have a government of some sorts. If the US is to retain its current size and complexity it needs to have a government. One would think that at this stage we would be smart enough to look at history and the past failure of state societies and devise a type of government that is not corrupt and that functions in the interests of the general population and not select corporate groups etc.

We should think about how to fix government and not indulge in these constant diatribes over how useless government is and how we can get rid of certain departments to cut the budget. The natural tendency to inflate programs, departments, etc., would need to be controlled for a start. The country needs a working health care system and the government should be the organizational apparatus that administers it. Rather than reinvent the wheel it would be more productive to try and make Obamacare work. The insurance companies, for example, should be eliminated for a start as they do not function well within Obamacare. The government can become the insurer.

There could still be private alternatives but the profits from these services should be used to subsidize the public sector. This is the system France uses for cardiac procedures. A procedure for an ablation in Bordeaux costs $20 thousand and a touch up is free. In the US each ablation is $120 thousand including the touch up. Might be a good idea to simply copy what the French are doing.

Allopathic medicine, which is the dominant type in the US, has become totally dependent on pharmaceutical interventions, which are very expensive. Europe and a lot of the world has turned to homeopathic medicine which is a lot less expensive and much more effective for many illnesses plus it works preventively. There are also alternative therapies like acupuncture, etc. Using these types of alternative modes brings down costs and expands coverage. There is no need to go extreme and tear down the government.


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19769
(20235 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/10/2016 at 01:16 PM
quote:
Oh, the glory of big-govt solutions!

The massive money and time wasted on this ludicrous scheme, and it seems it will barely survive it's namesake's term. But consider the benefits: hospitals and insurers have consolidated, treating consumers even more like a number instead of as individuals.

quote:
Editorial: Why Obamacare failed

Come November, the grim trudge across the increasingly barren Obamacare landscape begins anew. Illinois consumers likely face staggering price hikes for individual insurance policies. Some types of plans could cost an average of 43 percent to 55 percent more. Ditto across the country: A first tranche of states approved 2017 rates with similarly cardiac-arrest-inducing premium increases.

Many Illinois consumers will find fewer choices because major carriers fled this market. UnitedHealthcare bolted. So did Aetna. Land of Lincoln Health collapsed mid-year, leaving policy holders to scramble for coverage that could cost them plenty. In many places across Illinois and the nation, people will find drastically fewer choices of plans than they did last year.

Those insurers fled because they didn't want to lose more money on a government-run market that is so far out of whack — a market they think likely will never be profitable for them. That isn't surprising, as we enumerate below.

But by diagnosing Obamacare, all of us can see the mistakes that any repair or replacement can avoid. So let's look at the failings and how they can drive solutions:

Obamacare failed because it flunked Economics 101 and Human Nature 101. It straitjacketed insurers into providing overly expensive, soup-to-nuts policies. It wasn't flexible enough so that people could buy as much coverage as they wanted and could afford — not what the government dictated. Many healthy people primarily want catastrophic coverage. Obamacare couldn't lure them in, couldn't persuade them to buy on the chance they'd get sick.

Obamacare failed because the penalties for going uncovered are too low when stacked against its skyrocketing premium costs. Next year, the penalty for staying uninsured is $695 per adult, or perhaps 2.5 percent of a family's taxable household income. That's far less than many Americans would pay for coverage. Financial incentive: Skip Obamacare.

Obamacare failed because insurance is based on risk pools — that is, the lucky subsidize the unlucky. The unlucky who have big health problems (and big medical bills) reap much greater benefits than those who remain healthy and out of the doctors' office. But Obamacare's rules hamstring insurers. They can't exclude people for pre-existing conditions, and can't charge older customers more than three times as much as the young. Those are good goals, but they skew the market in ways Obamacare didn't figure out how to offset. Result: Young and healthy consumers pay far more in premiums than their claims (probably) would justify in order to subsidize the unexpectedly large influx of older, sicker customers who require expensive care. Too many unlucky people, too few lucky people: That will collapse any insurance scheme.

Obamacare failed because it allowed Americans to sign up after they got sick and needed help paying all those medical bills. Insurance should be structured so that, although you don't know if you'll need it, you pay for it anyway, just in case; your alternative is financial doom. But if you can game the system and, for example, buy auto coverage after you crash into your garage, then you have no incentive to buy insurance beforehand.

Obamacare failed because it hasn't tamed U.S. medical costs. Health care is about supply and demand: People who get coverage use it, especially if the law mandates free preventive care. Iron law of economics: Nothing is free; someone pays. To pretend otherwise was folly. Those forces combined to spike the costs of care, and thus insurance costs.

Obamacare failed because too many carriers simply can't cover expenses, let alone turn a profit, in this rigidly controlled system. Take Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, the state's dominant Obamacare insurer. Last year, for every dollar the carrier collected, it spent $1.32 buying care and providing services for customers, according to BCBS President Maurice Smith. No wonder BCBS is proposing rate increases from 23 percent to 45 percent for its individual plans.

A question looms: Is Obamacare plunging in a so-called insurance death spiral? Is the market so unstable that plans are doomed to get more and more expensive, driving more Americans and more insurers out of the market until ... Obamacare thuds to the pavement?

We won't predict that, but neither do we see a mathematical alternative. What's clear is that the solutions to Obamacare are implicit in its failures. A repaired or replaced system has to be more flexible, letting insurers offer a wider range of plans so that consumers, not lawmakers or bureaucrats, dictate what's best for them. That system should protect those who carry continuous coverage, not coddle those who duck in and out of plans when their health needs change.

A new system also should scrap the job-killing Obamacare mandates that discourage companies from hiring and discourage workers from adding hours. Instead of gearing subsidies to incomes, let Americans not covered via an employer reap tax credits to help finance their insurance purchases on the open market. And tell us again: Why can't insurers sell policies across state lines? Imagine the pricing competition that would unleash.

We can deny the current system's failings, or we can parlay our evolving knowledge into something much better.

Put another way: The next president and Congress either reckon with Obamacare's failures or ... wait for the thud.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-obamacare-fail-hea lth-care-insurance-medicine-0911-jm-20160909-story.html





It failed because of a greedy insurance system. It is true that people should be able to buy only what they need in a policy and have flexibility to add to it or change it as the need arises. Many people who do not need to go to the Dr. very often, just need some reasonably priced co-pay office visits (not more than $25) for the few times they go. Most people just want hospital coverage in case they get very sick. Others may just want ambulatory surgery care and some supplemental Dr. visits. People should be able to get the insurance in quarterly increments, that is more reasonable.
yes people should get tax credits to find affordable care, no huge $5,000 calendar year deductibles to meet before the policy pays 60-80% of the charges, no huge monthly premiums. Obamacare could not deliver affordable care, and the subsidies people got were only for one year, then the insurance companies would charge participants the regular rate which up here is anywhere from $450- 600+ per month. People cannot afford to do that.

France, Canada and other countries provide FREE coverage to their citizens, why can't the US?

Why can't the insurance companies stop being thugs? Remember when the oil companies were making 400% profits? That's what the insurance companies want, as much as they can get. (by the way oil is slated to go back up to over $60 per barrel in 2017, so get ready to be hosed at the pumps again too). If you're smart, lock in a home heating oil price/contract NOW.



 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8392
(8393 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/10/2016 at 05:25 PM
quote:
quote:
Search for news on the topic and you'll find that pretty much every news outlet has the same story. Failure this obvious doesn't require a political slant.

As to single payer, you'll be surprised that I agree in principal. However, since our real world is one with a massively corrupt and inept govt, I don't believe it would work here. I've always liked what the Swiss do, as it combines free-market options with govt guidelines.

Go back to the years where we were debating Obamacare here every day. I always argued that controlling cost was the first and foremost issue, and the only way the lower classes and uninsured would benefit. Obama moved the goalposts from initially stating it would lower the percentage of GDP spent on health care to just not increasing the budget, and never tried to lower costs in any serious way. They were two very different things that predictably the media let him get away with without question. Remember that $2,500/yr savings? Just another lie from an economic incompetent.
Obamacare has been opposed by republicans from the start. It is difficult--if not impossible--to set up a national program with this type of persistent opposition and the overt obstructionism that came from Congress. The Chicago Tribune was involved in this pernicious attack on Obamacare. Try and set up a weekly volleyball game in your neighborhood and it would soon fail under these conditions.

We have gone over this before so I will be brief about it. If you look at any evolutionary diagram of human progress, the top tier is always represented by states that have a government of some sorts. If the US is to retain its current size and complexity it needs to have a government. One would think that at this stage we would be smart enough to look at history and the past failure of state societies and devise a type of government that is not corrupt and that functions in the interests of the general population and not select corporate groups etc.

We should think about how to fix government and not indulge in these constant diatribes over how useless government is and how we can get rid of certain departments to cut the budget. The natural tendency to inflate programs, departments, etc., would need to be controlled for a start. The country needs a working health care system and the government should be the organizational apparatus that administers it. Rather than reinvent the wheel it would be more productive to try and make Obamacare work. The insurance companies, for example, should be eliminated for a start as they do not function well within Obamacare. The government can become the insurer.

There could still be private alternatives but the profits from these services should be used to subsidize the public sector. This is the system France uses for cardiac procedures. A procedure for an ablation in Bordeaux costs $20 thousand and a touch up is free. In the US each ablation is $120 thousand including the touch up. Might be a good idea to simply copy what the French are doing.

Allopathic medicine, which is the dominant type in the US, has become totally dependent on pharmaceutical interventions, which are very expensive. Europe and a lot of the world has turned to homeopathic medicine which is a lot less expensive and much more effective for many illnesses plus it works preventively. There are also alternative therapies like acupuncture, etc. Using these types of alternative modes brings down costs and expands coverage. There is no need to go extreme and tear down the government.
It was only a mater of time before the R's resistance to this would be brought up, but that alone does not account for polls that consistently showed more than 50% of the country opposed to the action. If the R's were pushing for something that over 50% of the country didn't want from the start, I can only imagine what sort of fury and outrage would come from most of the left media and supporters. And let's not revisit the whole "if you asked the questions another way" canard. One could probably poll-test the rewording of nuclear attack as a "landscape rearrangement" project and get better numbers, but it doesn't change the destructive nature of the act.

I had no reference or wish for anarchy or no-govt, just an observation on the obvious: our Federal system is not set up to manage large-scale social programs in an efficient manner. Take away the ability to create massive deficit spending that our currency status offers us, and both SS and Medicare would have been closed already. They will suffer that fate sooner if the dollar falters in any significant way, or later as we eventually reach insolvency.

One other note about govt - we have a system to deal with these issues and it failed us. With Roberts side-stepping his duty to declare this an un-Consitituional expansion of Federal authority ("the mandate") he let this mess continue by re-configuring it as a tax - something the Administration long argued it was not.

The whole calculus of removing insurers from the equation fails horribly because it assumes they do something that's unnecessary within the process of providing care. Nothing could be more wrong. The administration of heath care is a huge portion of the process that isn't just going away. We know from numerous studies that the insurers admin costs are roughly 10-15%, while govt's is 25-30%. Add in profits for the private insurers at +/-10%, and govt still comes out costing the customer more. Our govt, that is.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured

uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,

so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5032
(5027 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/10/2016 at 07:30 PM
Fujirich, you have a lot of good ideas. If Obamacare isn't the answer, what should the US be doing to improve our healthcare system. Surely we have to do something. We can't continue to have some Americans unable to afford the care they need, and more importantly, we can't allow insurance companies to avoid paying for care, despite paying for monthly premiums b/c of "pre-existing conditions" or whatever other lame excuse they come up with.
 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 13886
(13940 all sites)
Registered: 7/17/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/11/2016 at 08:32 AM
quote:
Why don't I know one single person whose health insurance was negatively affected? I know there are some, but what is the percentage to overall workers? I have yet to come across one person, whether standard W2 or business owner.

[Edited on 9/10/2016 by BoytonBrother]


Uhhh ... have you sat in a waiting room, conversed with a doctor (asked him/her what their feeling are) or tried to get a senior with a long-preexisting condition enrolled?

FYI: I am all for EVERYBODY having insurance. I'm even willing to pay a little extra so that those less fortunate can have insurance. Any negative comment that I might have should not be taken or bent into a slam against president Obama. But I have heard many stories from patients - whose costs DID INDEED go up - and who (some cases) could not use the doctor that they wanted. Most every doctor that I employ has or had some negative comments - especially in areas of billing and in the fees that they could charge for services.

I'm not trying to be snide, nasty or smart-a$$ed here. But you've never met a SINGLE person with negative experiences (real or perceived) when it comes to the "Affordable" Health Care Act? You're leading a very sheltered life!

 

____________________
Music is love, and love is music, if you know what I mean.
People who believe in music are the happiest people I've ever seen.

Bill Ector, Randy Stephens, Dan Hills and a guy named BobO who I never met - Forever in my heart!

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5032
(5027 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/11/2016 at 09:18 AM
Good thing you aren't trying to be snide or nasty by telling me I'm sheltered.

The only improvement I need to see is having our monthly premiums cover EVERYTHING. To this day, no matter what the excuse, I can't justify paying additional medical bills if I'm already paying a premium.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4124
(4130 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/11/2016 at 10:16 AM
quote:
Good thing you aren't trying to be snide or nasty by telling me I'm sheltered.

The only improvement I need to see is having our monthly premiums cover EVERYTHING. To this day, no matter what the excuse, I can't justify paying additional medical bills if I'm already paying a premium.


Premiums, deductibles, coinsurance, copayments....whatever. It's all baked in for the insurance companies to turn greater profits, provide returns for investors, and pay bonuses to the high ups.

Yet a company like Anthem gets hacked into its data base of millions of those insured seeing their SSN's and birthdays stolen. Bonuses well earned.


 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1958
(1961 all sites)
Registered: 5/12/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/11/2016 at 11:09 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Search for news on the topic and you'll find that pretty much every news outlet has the same story. Failure this obvious doesn't require a political slant.

As to single payer, you'll be surprised that I agree in principal. However, since our real world is one with a massively corrupt and inept govt, I don't believe it would work here. I've always liked what the Swiss do, as it combines free-market options with govt guidelines.

Go back to the years where we were debating Obamacare here every day. I always argued that controlling cost was the first and foremost issue, and the only way the lower classes and uninsured would benefit. Obama moved the goalposts from initially stating it would lower the percentage of GDP spent on health care to just not increasing the budget, and never tried to lower costs in any serious way. They were two very different things that predictably the media let him get away with without question. Remember that $2,500/yr savings? Just another lie from an economic incompetent.
Obamacare has been opposed by republicans from the start. It is difficult--if not impossible--to set up a national program with this type of persistent opposition and the overt obstructionism that came from Congress. The Chicago Tribune was involved in this pernicious attack on Obamacare. Try and set up a weekly volleyball game in your neighborhood and it would soon fail under these conditions.

We have gone over this before so I will be brief about it. If you look at any evolutionary diagram of human progress, the top tier is always represented by states that have a government of some sorts. If the US is to retain its current size and complexity it needs to have a government. One would think that at this stage we would be smart enough to look at history and the past failure of state societies and devise a type of government that is not corrupt and that functions in the interests of the general population and not select corporate groups etc.

We should think about how to fix government and not indulge in these constant diatribes over how useless government is and how we can get rid of certain departments to cut the budget. The natural tendency to inflate programs, departments, etc., would need to be controlled for a start. The country needs a working health care system and the government should be the organizational apparatus that administers it. Rather than reinvent the wheel it would be more productive to try and make Obamacare work. The insurance companies, for example, should be eliminated for a start as they do not function well within Obamacare. The government can become the insurer.

There could still be private alternatives but the profits from these services should be used to subsidize the public sector. This is the system France uses for cardiac procedures. A procedure for an ablation in Bordeaux costs $20 thousand and a touch up is free. In the US each ablation is $120 thousand including the touch up. Might be a good idea to simply copy what the French are doing.

Allopathic medicine, which is the dominant type in the US, has become totally dependent on pharmaceutical interventions, which are very expensive. Europe and a lot of the world has turned to homeopathic medicine which is a lot less expensive and much more effective for many illnesses plus it works preventively. There are also alternative therapies like acupuncture, etc. Using these types of alternative modes brings down costs and expands coverage. There is no need to go extreme and tear down the government.
It was only a mater of time before the R's resistance to this would be brought up, but that alone does not account for polls that consistently showed more than 50% of the country opposed to the action. If the R's were pushing for something that over 50% of the country didn't want from the start, I can only imagine what sort of fury and outrage would come from most of the left media and supporters. And let's not revisit the whole "if you asked the questions another way" canard. One could probably poll-test the rewording of nuclear attack as a "landscape rearrangement" project and get better numbers, but it doesn't change the destructive nature of the act.

I had no reference or wish for anarchy or no-govt, just an observation on the obvious: our Federal system is not set up to manage large-scale social programs in an efficient manner. Take away the ability to create massive deficit spending that our currency status offers us, and both SS and Medicare would have been closed already. They will suffer that fate sooner if the dollar falters in any significant way, or later as we eventually reach insolvency.

One other note about govt - we have a system to deal with these issues and it failed us. With Roberts side-stepping his duty to declare this an un-Consitituional expansion of Federal authority ("the mandate") he let this mess continue by re-configuring it as a tax - something the Administration long argued it was not.

The whole calculus of removing insurers from the equation fails horribly because it assumes they do something that's unnecessary within the process of providing care. Nothing could be more wrong. The administration of heath care is a huge portion of the process that isn't just going away. We know from numerous studies that the insurers admin costs are roughly 10-15%, while govt's is 25-30%. Add in profits for the private insurers at +/-10%, and govt still comes out costing the customer more. Our govt, that is.


There are very legitimate issues on the D side as well. I focused on the R side because of the opposition to a national health care plan in general.

quote:
Nothing could be more wrong. The administration of heath care is a huge portion of the process that isn't just going away. We know from numerous studies that the insurers admin costs are roughly 10-15%, while govt's is 25-30%.


Below is a study that compared private hospital costs in the US with public hospitals in Canada. This extends to insurance as well. The national management of healthcare by governments is just more cost effective than private management. You have a very profound bias against government. Switzerland is too small, as well as too homogeneous, to use as an example for the US, which is very large and extremely diverse.

quote:

The average U.S. hospital devoted 24.3 percent of spending to administration. Hospital administration consumed $87.6 billion, or $315 per capita (Table 1). In Canada, hospital administration cost $3.1 billion — 12.9 percent of hospital spending, or $103 per capita.
Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada ...
www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033
The New England Journal of Medicine


Anyway, the discussion of budget and costs takes away from the other points I was making. The monopoly of allopathic medicine in the US is costing us dearly. There are certain specialties that are worth any buck. There are other allopathic specialties like family medicine that are a waste of money and should be phased out. Homeopathic medicine and acupuncture and massage all heighten immunity which allows one to combat general viruses like colds, the flu, gastrointestinal issues and the aches and pains of old age. These are precisely the maladies that cause the majority of people to crowd out emergency rooms. Turning to these options would also reduce pharmaceutical costs.

The Rs in general also don't believe in evolution and from this it is hard to see how they can make any contribution to health care management. Viruses mutate and evolve as do systems and to declare one dead as the Rs did from the outset for Obamacare shows the limitations of this world view.

We may be talking in the past tense here as the Rs have been replaced by the Ts and we really don't know Trump's position on health care yet. He is a big spender and may go for a government plan.


 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1958
(1961 all sites)
Registered: 5/12/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/11/2016 at 12:00 PM
quote:
quote:
Why don't I know one single person whose health insurance was negatively affected? I know there are some, but what is the percentage to overall workers? I have yet to come across one person, whether standard W2 or business owner.

[Edited on 9/10/2016 by BoytonBrother]


Uhhh ... have you sat in a waiting room, conversed with a doctor (asked him/her what their feeling are) or tried to get a senior with a long-preexisting condition enrolled?

FYI: I am all for EVERYBODY having insurance. I'm even willing to pay a little extra so that those less fortunate can have insurance. Any negative comment that I might have should not be taken or bent into a slam against president Obama. But I have heard many stories from patients - whose costs DID INDEED go up - and who (some cases) could not use the doctor that they wanted. Most every doctor that I employ has or had some negative comments - especially in areas of billing and in the fees that they could charge for services.

I'm not trying to be snide, nasty or smart-a$$ed here. But you've never met a SINGLE person with negative experiences (real or perceived) when it comes to the "Affordable" Health Care Act? You're leading a very sheltered life!


Most of my problems with the healthcare system predate Obamacare. The complaints I have heard from doctors are related to the not for profit management of the systems that they work in. The organization that covers us now is the one that has raised our costs. Previously when we were privately owned and under Obamacare we paid no annual cost.

There are definitely still problems with the way the overall system is run. The objective though is to get everyone enrolled and there are going to be growing pains no matter what kind of system you have.




 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1958
(1961 all sites)
Registered: 5/12/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/13/2016 at 05:29 PM
Obama is having quite the run this week with his popularity increase, the rise of middle class incomes and now this:

quote:
Uninsurance rate drops to the lowest level since before the Great Recession

About 4 million Americans gained health insurance last year, decreasing the nation’s uninsured rate to 9.1 percent, the lowest level since before the Great Recession, according to new federal figures.

The figures, released Tuesday from a large annual Census Bureau survey, show that the gains were driven primarily by an expansion of coverage among people buying individual policies, rather than getting health benefits through a job. This includes, but is not limited to, the kind of coverage sold on the insurance exchanges that began in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act.

The decrease in the share of people who were uninsured slowed from the year before. Between 2013 and 2014, some 9 million people gained coverage — more than twice the increase as from 2014 to last year. Some 29 million people were uninsured in 2015

Taken together, the Census Bureau findings provide evidence that “the ACA is continuing to decrease” the ranks of the uninsured, said Chris Sloan, a senior manager at Avalere, a health-care consulting firm. “It’s not as fast as 2014. Nobody expected it to be as fast” as during the first year that the law created the new insurance marketplaces and expanded Medicaid in states that chose to do so.

Over the two-year period from 2013 to 2015, the figures show, the nation’s Medicaid rolls expanded by two percentage points, while the share of Americans buying private coverage on their own swelled by nearly five percentage points. In contrast, employer-based insurance — still the dominant form of health coverage in the United States — did not change significantly, the figures show.

Around the country, improvements in insurance coverage last year were greater in the 31 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have expanded their Medicaid programs, compared with those that have not. Originally, the health-care law envisioned a nationwide expansion of Medicaid to include people with slightly higher incomes than were eligible before, but a 2012 Supreme Court decision gave each state the latitude to decide whether to participate.

Health insurance improves consumers’ ability to get medical care when they need it, and the proportion of people without insurance is influenced by a variety of factors, including economic trends. But during the past few years, the uninsured rate has come to be regarded, by proponents and detractors alike, as a measuring stick for how well the controversial health-care law, enacted in 2010 to revise the U.S. health care system, is working. One of the law’s main intentions has been to make affordable health coverage more available.

Within an hour of the Census Bureau figures’ release, a trio of White House economic advisers issued a joint statement that said: “Every State has seen declines in its uninsured rate since 2013 as the major coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act have taken effect.”

Six years after its creation, the law still is a defining partisan issue, and it has filtered into this year’s presidential politics. Like many Republicans, GOP nominee Donald Trump says he would repeal the law. He would like to remove the requirement that most Americans carry health insurance and convert Medicaid into state block grants.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton says she would “defend and expand” the law. She says she would, for instance, try to constrain consumers’ out-of-pocket costs for health care and prescription drugs, and create a public insurance alternative in every state to compete with private insurers in the ACA marketplaces.

From 2014 to last year, the uninsured rate decreased by 1.3 percentage points — compared with a drop of nearly three percentage points the year before.


The slower pace of improvement is line with the trajectory of enrollment in the ACA marketplaces, which has been growing more slowly after 8 million people signed up for the first year. For 2015, nearly 13 million signed up, but, as happens every year, some dropped or lost their insurance as the year progressed. The Obama administration predicted slight enrollment growth for the current year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/uninsurance-rate-dro ps-to-the-lowest-level-since-before-the-great-recession/2016/09/13/73ed3f64 -7908-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_wb-income -1040am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory






The striking difference between states that expanded Medicaid and the ones that didn’t

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/13/the-difference-betwe en-states-that-expanded-medicaid-and-the-ones-that-didnt/?tid=a_inl

 
 


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com