Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Because it's not going to cost 50% less but 10% less, and it's going to be less service.http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/07/14/cbo...5-of-americans/ From said article: Of course, the CBO itself notes that its “estimate is subject to an unusually high degree of uncertainty,” which means that the actual number of people who enroll in a public plan could be significantly higher Anyone know what the gubmint thought Social Security was going to cost when it was first implemented? I'd wager it was a mite less than it's costing us now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 From said article: Anyone know what the gubmint thought Social Security was going to cost when it was first implemented? I'd wager it was a mite less than it's costing us now. It's the best info we have to work on. The CBO costs also don't include enormous sums of money that will be saved that aren't measurable now so they just (rightfully) don't attach dollar figures to it. Besides, the number you referred to was the amount of people who will sign up for it. Explain to me why all of America is going to intentionally want this crappy care when they could get good care for 10% more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 It's the best info we have to work on. The CBO costs also don't include enormous sums of money that will be saved that aren't measurable now so they just (rightfully) don't attach dollar figures to it. And that's the problem. If they built into the law a cap on how much could be spent, I'd be somewhat OK with it. Somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 And that's the problem. If they built into the law a cap on how much could be spent, I'd be somewhat OK with it. Somewhat. The bill, in broad terms, is going to cost 100 billion a year (1 trillion for 10 years). 465 million is expected to be paid for with Medicare cuts (in costs not in benefits). The rest of the 500 or so billion is what needs to be paid for, say 50 bil a year. But we pay 2.5 trillion every single year in health care. There was a study that came out recently that HALF than money (1.2 trillion i think) is waste. There are ways to take out wasteful care easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 There are ways to take out wasteful care easily. Who decides what care is "waste?" This is where the "death board" argument comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Who decides what care is "waste?" This is where the "death board" argument comes from. The vast, vast majority of waste people are talking about removing has nothing at all to do with sick people needing treatment that will not be paid for. 30-40% are administrative costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The vast, vast majority of waste people are talking about removing has nothing at all to do with sick people needing treatment that will not be paid for. 30-40% are administrative costs. And wasteful testing... helping Doctors, Hospitals and Specialists communicate better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 465 million is expected to be paid for with Medicare cuts (in costs not in benefits). Gee, we've never heard that before! It's amazing how much free money there is out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 And the number of doctors will go down when the govt. controls the reimbursement. Maybe not, but the quality of doctors will because smart people (like doctors) will go into other businesses. Also, don't kid yourself: Medicare already sets most of the price points in medicine already. Whet the doc charges you for procedure X is what medicare will reimburse him for, even though you aren't using medicare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Maybe not, but the quality of doctors will because smart people (like doctors) will go into other businesses. Also, don't kid yourself: Medicare already sets most of the price points in medicine already. Whet the doc charges you for procedure X is what medicare will reimburse him for, even though you aren't using medicare. Wasn't it discussed that reimbursement levels would be leveled out from Specialists to Primary Care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Gee, we've never heard that before! It's amazing how much free money there is out there. In health care there surely is, it can't even be argued, IMO. What we can't trust is either the government or the private sector to really weed out the bad stuff. Some weeding out seems pretty easy, like the 177 billion tax reimbursement to insurers for care that is already covered elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The vast, vast majority of waste people are talking about removing has nothing at all to do with sick people needing treatment that will not be paid for. 30-40% are administrative costs. Ah, so you're PRO putting administrative people out of work. Got it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Ah, so you're PRO putting administrative people out of work. Got it! well, you're all for shipping factories out of the country to maintain a level of competitiveness, so i guess you're the one calling the kettle black. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Nice hyperbole, there. Let's say I own a widget business. I employ 20 people at $10 an hour. How in the heck can I possibly compete with the MooShu widget company out of YangYang China when their workforce is employed at $.15 an hour? I have a competitive disadvantage, especially when the quality of MooShu's widgets are equivalent to mine. So what am I to do? Go bankrupt because I want to feel good about keeping people employed or do what I can to remain competitive? Now guess what...the same thing is going to happen when the gubmint leans in on the insurance business. because the gubmint isn't forced to turn a profit, cost means nothing to them. Therefore, their product will have cheaper upfront costs to the public. Now what person in their right mind will pay more for something that they can get for 50% or more less? right, because the insurance industry requires absolutely no oversight and has been working far and above board in matters particularly pertaining to health. that damn government. you make one hell of a case for anarchy, it seems. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Ah, so you're PRO putting administrative people out of work. Got it! Only if they suck at their jobs. And if they are simply doing a poor to average job, which all indications lead me to believe, I would want them to become more efficient and proficient and be given the tools and incentives to do so, wouldn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Wasn't it discussed that reimbursement levels would be leveled out from Specialists to Primary Care? Solving what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The bill, in broad terms, is going to cost 100 billion a year (1 trillion for 10 years). 465 million is expected to be paid for with Medicare cuts (in costs not in benefits). The rest of the 500 or so billion is what needs to be paid for, say 50 bil a year. But we pay 2.5 trillion every single year in health care. There was a study that came out recently that HALF than money (1.2 trillion i think) is waste. There are ways to take out wasteful care easily. I will believe it when I see it. There is very little that this administration has done that instills confidence in me to believe that they will execute their plan the way they intend it to be, the miscalculations and "unintended consequences" of their actions are piling up by the day. Everything for the most part that they have done up to now has not gone according to plan, and you would have to be awfully naive to think that this miraculously will be the "one", the one piece of legislation that will provide coverage to more people, lower overall health costs, provide better coverage and not add to the deficit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Solving what? One thing would be more Doctors wanting to practice Primary Care with the knowledge that they will be paid a bit better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I will believe it when I see it. There is very little that this administration has done that instills confidence in me to believe that they will execute their plan the way they intend it to be, the miscalculations and "unintended consequences" of their actions are piling up by the day. Everything for the most part that they have done up to now has not gone according to plan, and you would have to be awfully naive to think that this miraculously will be the "one", the one piece of legislation that will provide coverage to more people, lower overall health costs, provide better coverage and not add to the deficit. Could have just said that you will never believe in this administration no matter what happens. Nothing wrong with that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 In health care there surely is, it can't even be argued, IMO. What we can't trust is either the government or the private sector to really weed out the bad stuff. Some weeding out seems pretty easy, like the 177 billion tax reimbursement to insurers for care that is already covered elsewhere. As opposed to what - the military? HUD? Welfare? Politicians have come and gone, promising to balance their budgets through elimination of waste in various places. Show me one program where a politician promised significant savings through the elimination of waste, and then actually delivered. Or are you saying Obama will be the first ever to deliver on this economic feat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts