Healthcare costs -- the Brill article

[Bigfatbillsfan]

No you didn't. You assumed. And assumed stupidly, because if you had even a shadow of a clue you'd know I've said multiple times before that I'm not against regulation, I'm against STUPID COUNTERPRODUCTIVE REGULATION that isn't and can't be enforced.

 

And GG's right...because he knows that both my wife and myself have worked in the industry, and I can't tell you how much fraud I've seen and she still sees at the small/independent business level. At least once a week, she sees a case of blatant fraud and violations of regulations (my favorite is still the all-too-common "We don't give the borrower the loan terms until after they sit down at the table, so they can't back out." HUD requires the paperwork be delivered 72 hours in advance of closing, by the way...that never happens, and HUD never does anything about it, going back more than ten years.) And the people who do that NEVER get investigated for it when she reports them (which she and I have both done - there's one company alone that she and I together have reported seven different times to three states and the federal government for multiple counts of insurance fraud, mortgage fraud, banking fraud, and tax fraud - ALL regulatory agencies refused to investigate, as it wasn't worth their time.)

 

So the bottom line is, again: you're a !@#$ing tool. I have direct knowledge, you have a vacuum between your ears. It's not Wells Fargo that screws people, it's the brokers, lawyers, and agents at the local level that never even get noticed.

 

 

And by the way...that HUD regulation that's never enforced? Rather than enforce it, they passed RESPA and changed the forms "to make them easier to read". As it turns out, the new form is five times longer, more confusing because it provides less detail (allowing parties to more easily hide additional fees), RESPA actually violates Treasury's lending regulations, meaning people are even more likely to get screwed over now and the regulations to protect them are too inconsistent to be enforced. So the next time you get confused about the difference between "advocating against all regulation" and "advocating against completely ****ty regulation," (which I expect will be in about ten minutes), you might want to keep that in mind.

 

 

 

Banning the advertising of drugs directly to consumers would probably make the single greatest contribution to reforming health care than anything other decision.

 

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that your sense of self importance is such that you think I should remember everything you've said as compared to the countless other idiots on this board as well as the idiots I listen to bashing regulation everyday in the course of my life.

 

So your main problem is with the fact that regulations are not being enforced by regulatory agencies that are being de-funded. You know what might help with that. Maybe some sort of consumer protection agency or some **** like that.

[birdog1960]

The Scooter Store will pay a fine that is a fraction of what they've bilked the public out of, and have the last laugh. And what did Obamacare do to Big Pharma?

 

Yep, I read it. The article says that $469/month is 20% of the couples' combined income. Doing the math, that's an annual salary of $28140. They would have qualified for Medicaid. Or they could have spent $800/month and gotten real insurance instead of gambling. Or they could have gone somewhere that took their bargain insurance, rather than choosing MD Anderson some 1,200 miles away. Still another option was to have one of them continue to work at his/her previous job and continue to get health insurance while the other started the company.

 

But yes, health care is expensive. Obamacare does NOTHING to remedy this. And the only government intervention that will is dictating that people live a certain way. Anything else is trying to put out a grease fire with water.

no. the point is healthcare is MORE expensive in the US...way MORE expensive. absolutely and relative to GNP. the pages after the first one make this point quite effectively. and where are all those extra dollars going? well, a bit more to you and me (we make more on average than our international colleagues) but way more to hospitals and health systems and suppliers (pharma, medical devices, medical sales, durable equipment sellers etc i.e.: businessmen). do we need businessmen to provide good care? maybe, but we could certainly get a better deal. actual providers and the people we serve (especially) are losing. and (crocodile tears here) insurers are starting to lose relatively as well. the game is a loser for all but a few. single payer was impossible this time around...but obamacare is a start.

 

 

Banning the advertising of drugs directly to consumers would probably make the single greatest contribution to reforming health care than anything other decision.

i'm thinking a national formulary with periodic bids to enter would be a bit more effective. Edited March 2, 2013 by birdog1960

[Alaska Darin]

keep laughing...the scooter store is big bucks but pales in comparison to big pharma.

You know, the one Obama cowed to so he could get his horrible leftislation passed...

 

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that your sense of self importance is such that you think I should remember everything you've said as compared to the countless other idiots on this board as well as the idiots I listen to bashing regulation everyday in the course of my life.

He wins. You lose. Stop playing.

So your main problem is with the fact that regulations are not being enforced by regulatory agencies that are being de-funded. You know what might help with that. Maybe some sort of consumer protection agency or some **** like that.

The problem in government has little to do with funding. That's an age old line of crap for politicians to reach deeper into people's pockets. Stop being part of the problem.

[B-Man]

IRS to Impose Excise Tax on Health Insurance Companies

 

On Monday, the IRS will propose imposing an excise tax under Obamacare, taxing health insurance companies billions each year. This extra cost of doing business will either be passed on to consumers, or if that is prohibited, it will undermine the financial stability of the companies.

 

And this helps keep health care costs down how?

 

 

.

[birdog1960]

And this helps keep health care costs down how?

 

 

.

removing the middle man.

[3rdnlng]

removing the middle man.

 

Involving the government, eliminates the middleman? In healthcare, yet?

[DC Tom]

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that your sense of self importance is such that you think I should remember everything you've said as compared to the countless other idiots on this board as well as the idiots I listen to bashing regulation everyday in the course of my life.

 

And I'm sorry I forgot you can't see beyond your own eyelids, and make the Westboro Baptist Church look open-minded.

 

So your main problem is with the fact that regulations are not being enforced by regulatory agencies that are being de-funded. You know what might help with that. Maybe some sort of consumer protection agency or some **** like that.

 

Yeah, because the best solution to bad regulations that can't be enforced by any regulatory body regardless of funding is YET ANOTHER regulatory body issuing counter-productive regulations that can't be enforced. Which is pretty much the description of the CFPB - little hint, since you seem to be new to reality: just because something SOUNDS like a good idea, doesn't mean it works. IMPLEMENTATION of a nice-sounding idea actually matters. That's why arguing "regulations" with you is such a complete waste of time: you're constitutionally incapable of understanding that while "Regulate it!" sounds like a solution to everything, it doesn't actually solve anything if the regulations and enforcement are half-assed, ignorant, and downright insane - which, incidentally, is an excellent description of the Dodd-Frank bill that created the CFPB.

 

Which, again, is something I've said repeatedly, but apparently I have to explain the same thing over and over because you're too obtuse to understand it. Which gets us back to: you're an idiot, shut the !@#$ up.

[DC Tom]

And this helps keep health care costs down how?

 

 

.

 

So the insurance companies are being charged a flat excise tax, industry-wide, prorated on each based on the portion of the collective premiums collected by all insurance companies. But the amount of the excise tax is irrespective of income or payout rate, and can be passed on to the consumer as a separate fee that is NOT considered part of the premium?

 

What psycho maniac put this idea together?

[meazza]

 

 

So the insurance companies are being charged a flat excise tax, industry-wide, prorated on each based on the portion of the collective premiums collected by all insurance companies. But the amount of the excise tax is irrespective of income or payout rate, and can be passed on to the consumer as a separate fee that is NOT considered part of the premium?

 

What psycho maniac put this idea together?

 

Conner and din were part of the committee.

[dayman]

all the prices are too damned high

Edited March 2, 2013 by SameOldBills

[birdog1960]

Involving the government, eliminates the middleman? In healthcare, yet?

yes. as stated in the piece, the gov't pays less for nearly everything in healthcare due to it's massive purchasing power. less than private insurers and much less than unfortunate uninsured individuals. what's needed is the political will to ramp down payment on everything in healthcare using this purchasing power and to not exclude things like drugs, devices and durable equipment...that, and for private insurers to get out of the way.

[Doc]

And I'm sorry I forgot you can't see beyond your own eyelids, and make the Westboro Baptist Church look open-minded.

 

 

 

Yeah, because the best solution to bad regulations that can't be enforced by any regulatory body regardless of funding is YET ANOTHER regulatory body issuing counter-productive regulations that can't be enforced. Which is pretty much the description of the CFPB - little hint, since you seem to be new to reality: just because something SOUNDS like a good idea, doesn't mean it works. IMPLEMENTATION of a nice-sounding idea actually matters. That's why arguing "regulations" with you is such a complete waste of time: you're constitutionally incapable of understanding that while "Regulate it!" sounds like a solution to everything, it doesn't actually solve anything if the regulations and enforcement are half-assed, ignorant, and downright insane - which, incidentally, is an excellent description of the Dodd-Frank bill that created the CFPB.

 

Which, again, is something I've said repeatedly, but apparently I have to explain the same thing over and over because you're too obtuse to understand it. Which gets us back to: you're an idiot, shut the !@#$ up.

So the insurance companies are being charged a flat excise tax, industry-wide, prorated on each based on the portion of the collective premiums collected by all insurance companies. But the amount of the excise tax is irrespective of income or payout rate, and can be passed on to the consumer as a separate fee that is NOT considered part of the premium?

 

What psycho maniac put this idea together?

Obviously a liberal, since liberals think that doing something, no matter how poorly executed, is better than doing nothing.

yes. as stated in the piece, the gov't pays less for nearly everything in healthcare due to it's massive purchasing power. less than private insurers and much less than unfortunate uninsured individuals. what's needed is the political will to ramp down payment on everything in healthcare using this purchasing power and to not exclude things like drugs, devices and durable equipment...that, and for private insurers to get out of the way.

Yes, this "massive purchasing power" sure is helping the USPS lose billions annually, while FedEx and UPS rake in the profits. Nevermind that Medicare/Medicaid and SS will all be insolvent within this decade.

[B-Large]

 

The Scooter Store will pay a fine that is a fraction of what they've bilked the public out of, and have the last laugh. And what did Obamacare do to Big Pharma?

 

Yep, I read it. The article says that $469/month is 20% of the couples' combined income. Doing the math, that's an annual salary of $28140. They would have qualified for Medicaid. Or they could have spent $800/month and gotten real insurance instead of gambling. Or they could have gone somewhere that took their bargain insurance, rather than choosing MD Anderson some 1,200 miles away. Still another option was to have one of them continue to work at his/her previous job and continue to get health insurance while the other started the company.

 

But yes, health care is expensive. Obamacare does NOTHING to remedy this. And the only government intervention that will is dictating that people live a certain way. Anything else is trying to put out a grease fire with water.

 

Sadly, so many innovators and business starters never venture because of the issue of health insurance... You have to wonde if people were not terrified of not having health insurance, would we have more job creators rather than drones going to jobs just for benefits...

[Keukasmallies]

Ah, the stimulation of observing a laser-focused, reason-based debate of issues of the day brings a tear to my eye. I know, I'll call my ophthalmologist as soon as I check the list of approved providers, get a referral from my primary care physician, and check with my insurance company's liaison (I think of her as my insurance concierge.) to see if the procedure is covered.

[TPS]

 

Yes, this "massive purchasing power" sure is helping the USPS lose billions annually, while FedEx and UPS rake in the profits. Nevermind that Medicare/Medicaid and SS will all be insolvent within this decade.

Don't lump in SS, as it is "funded" to 2030s.

 

Using the USPS is a strawman. Medicaid apparently is one of the few entities helping to restrain costs. The Brill article supports the argument made by people like Dean Baker and Krugman that rising costs is the main factor driving the M/M deficit going forward (obviously the # of retirees is the other). The article is appealing because he throws bones out for both sides--Medicare is more efficient than private insurers; and the need for tort reform.

[3rdnlng]

Sadly, so many innovators and business starters never venture because of the issue of health insurance... You have to wonde if people were not terrified of not having health insurance, would we have more job creators rather than drones going to jobs just for benefits...

 

Would you still be such a one trick pony if you didn't have a personal reason for wanting government backed insurance? What if the government provided health insurance for all people with existing conditions at let's say a premium of 20% over average health insurance costs? Would you then forego your constant advocation for everything Obamacare?

 

Don't lump in SS, as it is "funded" to 2030s.

 

Using the USPS is a strawman. Medicaid apparently is one of the few entities helping to restrain costs. The Brill article supports the argument made by people like Dean Baker and Krugman that rising costs is the main factor driving the M/M deficit going forward (obviously the # of retirees is the other). The article is appealing because he throws bones out for both sides--Medicare is more efficient than private insurers; and the need for tort reform.

 

So "funding" is now the equivalent of handing out a bunch of post dated checks on an account with no money in it?

[Doc]

Don't lump in SS, as it is "funded" to 2030s.

 

Using the USPS is a strawman. Medicaid apparently is one of the few entities helping to restrain costs. The Brill article supports the argument made by people like Dean Baker and Krugman that rising costs is the main factor driving the M/M deficit going forward (obviously the # of retirees is the other). The article is appealing because he throws bones out for both sides--Medicare is more efficient than private insurers; and the need for tort reform.

I find the concept of anything being "funded," when we have $16T in debt, to be funny. The point being, the gubment can't manage anything properly. Having to make exceptions/excuses doesn't help your counter-argument, TPS.

[B-Man]

Polls Show Opposition to ObamaCare Is on the Rise Again.

 

ObamaCare has always struggled in the court of popular opinion, and two new polls highlight the public’s continued lack of support for the law. Indeed, after a brief post-election rise in support, public opposition to ObamaCare is on the rise again.

 

Overall, the poll shows pessimism about the law. Asked about the law’s impact on the country, meanwhile, 37 percent responded that ObamaCare made the nation worse off, compared to 31 percent who said it made the country better off. Another 24 percent said it made no difference, which suggests a large strain of indifference in addition to the positive and negative reactions.

 

Since the law passed, Democrats have (not surprisingly) tended to be much more supportive of the law than Republicans. That’s still true, but Kaiser’s poll finds that Democratic support has dropped substantially since last year’s presidential election, from 72 percent in November to 57 percent in the February month’s poll. That’s the second weakest level of support Kaiser has found amongst Democrats since it began the monthly tracking poll in April 2010.

 

So much for the oft-repeated democrat mantra that ACA would become more popular after it passed.

 

 

.

[TPS]

 

I find the concept of anything being "funded," when we have $16T in debt, to be funny. The point being, the gubment can't manage anything properly. Having to make exceptions/excuses doesn't help your counter-argument, TPS.

If I told you I have debt of $250,000, would you think that I'm insolvent? Heinz has $9 billion in liabilities, why would Buffett want to buy them?

Regarding Medicare, it appears to be the most efficient entity in all of healthcare, but since it's government run, "it's bad"?

[Doc]

If I told you I have debt of $250,000, would you think that I'm insolvent? Heinz has $9 billion in liabilities, why would Buffett want to buy them?

Regarding Medicare, it appears to be the most efficient entity in all of healthcare, but since it's government run, "it's bad"?

If you had debt of $250,000, no assets and no way to ever pay it back, yes, I'd say you are insolvent. Heinz has $12B in assets. What should we do, sell $16T of the country off?

 

As for Medicare, what it appears to be and what it is are two entirely different things. Here is a good article showing how Medicare shifts it's costs to others.