Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:The current bill does not match much of what Obama put forward and is likely not going to pass the Senate. So, talking about the "current" bill is a waste.

Night Strike wrote:Ok, two simple logic problems that make absolutely no sense for passing the current health care bills.

1) The current plans say up to $500 billion dollars will come from squeezing savings out of medicare and medicaid. If this is possible, why isn't it already being done? And, if one government program already has that much waste built into it, then how much waste will an even bigger government program accrue?

2) Reports are that the revenue generation will begin two years before the benefits kick in from any government program in order to begin the pool of funds. Therefore, the budget projections are currently running on 10 years of revenue for 8 years of payouts. Isn't that the definition of running a deficit? What will happen in the next 10 years when you're collecting and paying out money each for 10 years.

Titanic wrote:1) Because atm the insurance companies make the US government pick up a lot of the bill even if the citizens are covered by the insurers. Also, the excessive tests and profit motives and huge number of middle management or administrators is wasting a lot of money. It has not been done so far because the Republicans were in for the last 8 years, and they are controlled by the insurance companies. The new system would not have as much waste because it will be much harder for the insurance companies to fiddle the system and make the government pick up the bills whilst they take the profits.

2) Can you explain that in more detail, I don't fully follow.

Night Strike wrote:

Titanic wrote:1) Because atm the insurance companies make the US government pick up a lot of the bill even if the citizens are covered by the insurers. Also, the excessive tests and profit motives and huge number of middle management or administrators is wasting a lot of money. It has not been done so far because the Republicans were in for the last 8 years, and they are controlled by the insurance companies. The new system would not have as much waste because it will be much harder for the insurance companies to fiddle the system and make the government pick up the bills whilst they take the profits.

2) Can you explain that in more detail, I don't fully follow.

1) Are you sure about that? It's common knowledge that medicare does not pay 100 cents on the dollar for medicare patients, so the insurance companies have to pick up the tabs for those doctors who do take medicare patients. It's why so many doctors have stopped taking medicare patients.

Night Strike wrote:And if you want to cut excessive tests, limit malpractice suits. It's common sense: the more worried the doctor is about getting sued, the more likely they are to run every test possible.

Fear of lawsuits does drive added tests, but that does not necessarily mean that limiting lawsuits is the best way to control extra tests OR to drive down costs. Malpractice insurance really makes every decent doctor pay for the few screw-ups. Giving a pass on lawsuits will simply hamstring those who really have been harmed. A better approach on that is to not pay for mistakes, to require the hospital/doctor to pay. This works in many areas.

Also, malpratice is not really the biggest factor in costs and not necessarily even in extra tests. Right now, most doctors get paid more for doing more. Its not that doctors are intentionally padding the bills, but subconsciously there just is no incentive NOT to do extra work. Geisinger, (In Altoona, PA) among others, has begun to change that.

The BIGGEST cost increase, however, is pure paperwork. Each insurance company has their own forms, their own standards of approval. Approvals and forms even vary amongst different policies for the same company in many cases. I can remember when we went to a clinic with 3 doctors and 1 nurse who served as the the receptionist. They processed all their own bills. My kid's office has 2 doctors, a nurse practitioner, and about 9 other employees, only 2 of whom are any kind of nurse. (not Rn's, but they can give injections, etc.). Furthermore, they hire out billing. I faced collection notices on Thanksgiving weekend, while my father-in-law was dying in the hospital (literally), AND I had paid the bill. None of that mattered, I got 5 calls a day because some clerk could not be bothered to check records and could care less what the impact of their actions were.

Night Strike wrote:2) In legislation-speak, the taxes and other revenue generation start in Year 1 of the legislation, but benefits do not start until Year 3. Therefore, in the 10 year projections that get scored, it is taking 10 years of revenue to pay for only 8 years of services. That leaves the program already spending more on a yearly basis than it is taking in, which is the definition of a deficit.

GabonX wrote:There is an element of convenient fantasy as well in Obama's health care statements to date. We are going to save money by spending money. We are going to solve our fiscal problems with a program that will increase the national debt by $1,000,000,000,000 over a decade. We are going to guarantee you can keep your current insurance with a bill that encourages your employer to stop offering it.

The list goes on. We are going to improve health care for seniors by cutting $500,000,000,000 from Medicare. We aren't going to insure illegal aliens, except that we won't have any verification provisions to see that they can't apply and get benefits.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/colum ... 44217.html

GabonX wrote:There is an element of convenient fantasy as well in Obama's health care statements to date. We are going to save money by spending money. We are going to solve our fiscal problems with a program that will increase the national debt by $1,000,000,000,000 over a decade. We are going to guarantee you can keep your current insurance with a bill that encourages your employer to stop offering it.

The list goes on. We are going to improve health care for seniors by cutting $500,000,000,000 from Medicare.

GabonX wrote:[We aren't going to insure illegal aliens, except that we won't have any verification provisions to see that they can't apply and get benefits.

GabonX wrote:http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Michael_Barone/The-convenient-fantasies-of-President-Obama-57944217.html

Neoteny wrote:I mean, a million millions has to be a bajillion. That's a lot of zeroes.

Phatscotty wrote:we are finally dealing in reality.

thegreekdog wrote:And just to be fair:

This - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33480141/ns ... ealth_care

Neoteny wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:we are finally dealing in reality.

I seriously think your use of first person there is incorrect.

Phatscotty wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:And just to be fair:

This - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33480141/ns ... ealth_care

Garbage report, but thanks was fun to read

Nobunaga wrote:... An interesting fact check article on the obscene profits made by health insurers*

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html

...From the article:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

...

Phatscotty wrote:Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries.

I don't quite understand, this is your argument?

Nobunaga wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries.

I don't quite understand, this is your argument?

... It proves the falsehood of the following claims:

“I’m very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

“Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed.” Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

“Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe.” A MoveOn.org advertisement.

... Quite a valid argument, actually. Rather debunks the whole "evil insurance companies" rhetoric so often thrown around.

...

MoveOn.org wrote:“Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe.”