The Press Conference

[DC Tom]

Not paying them for the quantity of services they order, but the quality of their care.

 

That can be awfully hard to measure, particularly when many of the services are often from third parties (e.g. medical imaging), who set their own rates, AND when many procedures are ordered unnecessarily to cover their asses from possible malpractice accusations.

 

Until the punitive amounts on malpractice awards are capped, that loss risk will continue to be priced into the cost of health care no matter what else is done. In fact, until that happens, it's probably not possible to accurately identify any other areas of cost savings, the risk price of malpractice is so high.

[Kelly the Dog]

Okay. So let me get this straight. The new plan will only cover 10-15% of the public. The other 90% will stay on their current plan and, for all intents and purposes, that 90% WON'T qualify for the government plan. So approximately 30 million will be on the government plan and the other 270,000,000 of us will keep what we've got.

 

And this is going to drop costs, pay for itself and lead to reform...how exactly?

1] The public plan is one of numerous ways it could help curtail costs. Not the only way.

2] 10-15% of the public is, say, 40 million people. The insurance companies want those 40 million people because they are not going to be making nearly as much money per person as they used to. So they will lower some of their costs to be close enough to the government plan to attract a lot of the potential customers.

3] If people have a choice between a really cheap government plan and an expensive private plan, they may easily choose the public plan. If the amounts are close, they may very well choose the private plan. So it incentivizes the private companies to lower their costs as close to the public as possible.

4] The 270 million are not necessary going to keep what they got. There will be all kinds of new private plans now available that may be a better option in the "online marketplace" that werent available before. Individuals and companies.

5] There are dozens of other plans and options and pilot projects designed to help costs down the line, which may or may not help out in the future. But there are a lot of them.

[Adam]

Why not create certain criteria that allow for 100% tax breaks for insurance companies that cover preventative measures as well as covering things that benefit health- and increase taxes proportionately on companies that don't cover that stuff.

[DC Tom]

Why not create certain criteria that allow for 100% tax breaks for insurance companies that cover preventative measures as well as covering things that benefit health- and increase taxes proportionately on companies that don't cover that stuff.

 

I think that last part might amount to a Bill of Attainder, and hence be unconstitutional. At least, one could certainly argue that.

[Adam]

I think that last part might amount to a Bill of Attainder, and hence be unconstitutional. At least, one could certainly argue that.

You could argue that the second part isn't even needed, since the first part would force the other to comply to remain competitive.

[VOR]

I will be going the HSA/high-deductible health insurance route next year (have been trying to get it the past 2 years, but that's another discussion). That's how it should be done.

[Nanker]

Not paying them for the quantity of services they order, but the quality of their care.

Do you think that would be an idea that would find application for teachers in say... public schools?

[VOR]

I didn't mention this before, primarily because the Gates thread sort of covers it, but I thought Obama made a HUGE mistake saying the cop in the Gates case "acted stupidly," and then went onto talk about how Black and Latinos have been discriminated. While there might have been truth to it, he basically alienated most of the law enforcement community, as well as a good portion of the white community who merely turn off when race enters into things.