| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Needy sick or terminally ill may have to wait before... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| seeker... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:40:17 -0800, seeker wrote:
[quote]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_bi_ge/
us_health_care_uninsurables[/quote]
It is called _*INSURANCE*_ it is not a government bailout for the
_*FREE_RIDERS*_ that will forgo insurance until they have a problem. It
should be obvious that in order to eliminate the preexisting conditions
element that _ALL_ must be required to participate. And that requirement
will not exist for the next 3 years.
So what is everyone whining about? The plan is a stop gap effort to
address the most pressing problems prior to full on implementation that
does away with refusals due to preexisting conditions.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Les Cargill... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:40:17 -0800, seeker wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_bi_ge/
us_health_care_uninsurables
It is called _*INSURANCE*_ it is not a government bailout for the
_*FREE_RIDERS*_ that will forgo insurance until they have a problem. It
should be obvious that in order to eliminate the preexisting conditions
element that _ALL_ must be required to participate. And that requirement
will not exist for the next 3 years.
So what is everyone whining about? The plan is a stop gap effort to
address the most pressing problems prior to full on implementation that
does away with refusals due to preexisting conditions.
[/quote]
We're waiting to see if it's revenue neutral. *This being said* - health
care costs will exacerbate budget deficits in a few years unless
something is done.
--
Les Cargill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:54:30 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
[quote]Michael Coburn wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:40:17 -0800, seeker wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_bi_ge/
us_health_care_uninsurables
It is called _*INSURANCE*_ it is not a government bailout for the
_*FREE_RIDERS*_ that will forgo insurance until they have a problem.
It should be obvious that in order to eliminate the preexisting
conditions element that _ALL_ must be required to participate. And that
requirement will not exist for the next 3 years.
So what is everyone whining about? The plan is a stop gap effort to
address the most pressing problems prior to full on implementation that
does away with refusals due to preexisting conditions.
We're waiting to see if it's revenue neutral. *This being said* - health
care costs will exacerbate budget deficits in a few years unless
something is done.
[/quote]
But the "something" that will be done can be rational and reasonable or
it can be left to the markets. We have left it to the markets for many,
many years and the markets have utterly failed to hold down the cost of
health care. Monopsony control seems to be the only viable solution.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Les Cargill... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:54:30 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Michael Coburn wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:40:17 -0800, seeker wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_bi_ge/
us_health_care_uninsurables
It is called _*INSURANCE*_ it is not a government bailout for the
_*FREE_RIDERS*_ that will forgo insurance until they have a problem.
It should be obvious that in order to eliminate the preexisting
conditions element that _ALL_ must be required to participate. And that
requirement will not exist for the next 3 years.
So what is everyone whining about? The plan is a stop gap effort to
address the most pressing problems prior to full on implementation that
does away with refusals due to preexisting conditions.
We're waiting to see if it's revenue neutral. *This being said* - health
care costs will exacerbate budget deficits in a few years unless
something is done.
But the "something" that will be done can be rational and reasonable or
it can be left to the markets. We have left it to the markets for many,
many years and the markets have utterly failed to hold down the cost of
health care.
[/quote]
Booh rah. Agreed, 100%. What I am doing is paraphrasing ( badly )
Peter Orszag on "Charlie Rose" on Nov-03 who thinks that if the Federal
Government can get health costs more under control, that will change
the curvature of the deficit.
[quote]Monopsony control seems to be the only viable solution.
[/quote]
Perhaps. It is anything but clear how much admin cost
can be driven out. After all, the big driver for admin
cost is things like HIPAA and other regulatory regimes.
I just hope the timing of all this isn't really off. The
big defect in Hillarycare was that it really didn't make a place
for working people to replace regular, employer-provided insurance,
and at the time, the cost was quite a bit higher than doing nothing.
It was drawing to a model that said that getting the uninsured into
the system would take care of everything. But a careful person would
notice that it wouldn't change the aggregate cost - if anything, it
would raise demand.
Still, in hindsight now, it might have thwarted the incredible growth
in cost we *have* seen.
--
Les Cargill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:06:21 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
[quote]Michael Coburn wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:54:30 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
Michael Coburn wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:40:17 -0800, seeker wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_bi_ge/
us_health_care_uninsurables
It is called _*INSURANCE*_ it is not a government bailout for the
_*FREE_RIDERS*_ that will forgo insurance until they have a problem.
It should be obvious that in order to eliminate the preexisting
conditions element that _ALL_ must be required to participate. And
that requirement will not exist for the next 3 years.
So what is everyone whining about? The plan is a stop gap effort to
address the most pressing problems prior to full on implementation
that does away with refusals due to preexisting conditions.
We're waiting to see if it's revenue neutral. *This being said* -
health care costs will exacerbate budget deficits in a few years
unless something is done.
But the "something" that will be done can be rational and reasonable or
it can be left to the markets. We have left it to the markets for
many, many years and the markets have utterly failed to hold down the
cost of health care.
Booh rah. Agreed, 100%. What I am doing is paraphrasing ( badly ) Peter
Orszag on "Charlie Rose" on Nov-03 who thinks that if the Federal
Government can get health costs more under control, that will change the
curvature of the deficit.
[/quote]
The deficit will be reduced as people have less fear of losing their
jobs. Worker mobility is a real key in creating higher wages and
prices. As wages and prices increase then so too do tax proceeds.
[quote]Monopsony control seems to be the only viable solution.
Perhaps. It is anything but clear how much admin cost can be driven out.
After all, the big driver for admin cost is things like HIPAA and other
regulatory regimes.
I just hope the timing of all this isn't really off. The big defect in
Hillarycare was that it really didn't make a place for working people to
replace regular, employer-provided insurance, and at the time, the cost
was quite a bit higher than doing nothing.
It was drawing to a model that said that getting the uninsured into the
system would take care of everything. But a careful person would notice
that it wouldn't change the aggregate cost - if anything, it would raise
demand.
Still, in hindsight now, it might have thwarted the incredible growth in
cost we *have* seen.
[/quote]
The administrative costs would be lower in a single payer system which
this plan IS NOT. But by making the insurance companies compete in the
delivery of certain basics and then by providing an alternative we have
changed a lot. This STILL does not speak to the possible extension of
market power toward monopsony. There are about 40 million medicare
patients. If you add another 10 million to that number by a Public
Option then there will be even more market power to reduce prices. Those
reductions have been being shifted to the insurance companies and then
through the employers on to the non Medicare consumers. As the number of
non government insured (Medicare plus Public Option) increases, then the
costs of not participating in the refusal to pay high fees (solidarity)
will become very extreme indeed. The insurance companies must join in
the cost reduction program or lose their customers and go out of business.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 12:52 pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:40:17 -0800, seeker wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_bi_ge/
us_health_care_uninsurables
It is called _*INSURANCE*_ it is not a government bailout for the
_*FREE_RIDERS*_ that will forgo insurance until they have a problem. It
should be obvious that in order to eliminate the preexisting conditions
element that _ALL_ must be required to participate. And that requirement
will not exist for the next 3 years.
So what is everyone whining about? The plan is a stop gap effort to
address the most pressing problems prior to full on implementation that
does away with refusals due to preexisting conditions.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
[/quote]
It's too bad the pre-existing condition issue wasn't tackled ASAP.
THere is no reason that it couldn't have been. What are your
thoughts. By the way, I love your reply. My small group premium for
three people has increased 40% a year over the last 5 years. I don't
know if I can wait until 2013. It increases that much because my
pool, a good product that is no longer available, gets smaller as
healthy people drop out and get cheaper plans leaving me with a pool
of sick people, and because of pre-ex, I cannot get new coverage. I am
still stuck for three years. THink I am going to go to a high
deductible plan and make HSA contributions for my employees. I am
elated that it has happened but I sure wish it could have happened
thirty years ago or I don't think we'd be in this mess.
Tom - St. Louis, Missouri |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:41 pm
|
|