Anyone stiill want to tell me Obamacare is about cutting costs?

[ladyliberal]

Do you use the same system for routine car maintenance and accident coverage? Insurance is designed to cover unexpected expenses, forcing it to cover routine expenses does not reduce cost, it does the opposite. With contraception now paid for by everyone, even the half of the population that does not use it, there will be no incentive to reduce cost, or to develop an effective birth control for men. Personally, I think the latter should have every feminist in the country up in arms protesting the patriarchal system forcing women to forever be responsible for something that should be entirely on men. That is what feminists used to say in the old days, before they were corrupted the system.

I understand your point about the word "insurance" often referring to a method of dealing with unusual rather than routine expenses. However, still don't understand why you seem to feel that having the same system deal with both is necessarily a bad thing. You also seem to feel that expanding routine coverage necessarily drives up costs. As my references argue, however, it can instead decrease them dramatically by reducing the need for more costly treatments later.

I believe that you are drastically understating the usage of contraception. Given that both men and women have an interest (financial as well as personal) one could say that men make use of contraceptives just as much as women do. I believe you are misstating the feminist position-- my understanding is that mainstream feminists hailed the advent of the (female) birth control pill and believe that contraception should be a shared responsibility (as opposed to "entirely on men").

Saying that feminists should try to make it more difficult for women to obtain contraceptives in order to encourage development of a male birth control pill (there are already other contraceptive methods available to men, both devices and surgeries) seems rather silly. It seems much like the counter-feminist argument that it's bad for women to work because it discourages men from providing for them. Giving women control over their own lives rather than relying on men to take care of them is a core tenet of feminism.

Because it will increase the cost, there is no way it cannot. Let me give you an example.

I don't know what it actually costs to buy birth control pills So I will just make some numbers up. Let us say it costs $45 a month to buy contraceptives, that is about $540 a year. You decide you prefer to pay the insurance company for this, and let them pay the pharmacy. They are willing to do this, but they need to pay their staff, and make a profit for their stockholders, which happens to be the pension fund you are relying on to fund your retirement so you really do not want them to go broke. They end up charging you $49.50 bucks a month, but it really helps a lot of people (you are not the only one invested in that pension fund) so you go for it. This directly increase your cost by 10%, another $54 dollars a year.

By the way, forcing more people to pay for contraceptives, even if they do not need them, does not reduce the costs, it just spreads it out. If the insurance company can get 9 people to pay for something that only one person uses the cost for each person only goes up by $0.50 (that pension fund can use that extra $0.005) but the overall cost still goes up.

I agree that there is a nonzero level of administrative costs associated with health plans, and I agree that part of what health plans do is spread costs around, which doesn't by itself reduce costs. However, I think there are two problems with your simple example:

- You assume (rather than demonstrate) that obtaining contraceptives through a health insurance provider is less efficient, in an economic sense, due to administrative costs. However, many services require administration, but are still very efficient. It's much cheaper for me to send a package via UPS than for me to deliver it myself, despite UPS's administrative costs. I see no reason, a priori, that similar efficiencies would not exist in obtaining contraceptives through a plan.

- You fail to address the main point of the numerous references I linked to: contraceptives can *prevent* costs. An unwanted pregnancy (or a wanted one, of course) can generate dramatic direct and indirect costs. These vastly exceed the costs of contraception, and so contraception can save money. Indeed, considering only the costs of health care of the woman, which are only a tiny fraction of the costs of an average pregnancy, some of the studies I referenced found that providing contraceptives saved quite a bit of money.

Either of those reasons alone suffice to invalidate your simple argument.

 

[ladyliberal]

Do you have any studies that actually back that up, or do you think it sounds so good it doesn't need proof?

The New England Journal of Medicine published a study in February of 2008 that concluded that preventative care is not cost effective. I guess that means I can provide evidence to back up my claim that covering routine expenses is not a good idea.

MMS: Error

Actually, your own source is one such study (or meta-study):

- "some measures... reduce mortality either at low cost or at a cost savings"

- "Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money..."

- Most importantly, the study found that more preventative than non-preventative treatments identified in the literature were actually cost-saving.

The article makes two points on the other side: Some politicians have overstated the benefits of preventative medicine, and preventative medicine is not always cost-effective. I would not dispute either.

The "care" that reduces cost is mostly stuff like getting people to quit smoking and eat better. That is much easier to accomplish if there is financial reward for changing behavior.

While such care was one of the examples given, I understand the study to have reviewed an incredibly broad range of treatments. I don't think that such treatments were "mostly" as you describe. Even if they were, I'm not sure what implication that would have-- certainly such counseling is health care.

 

[HUGGY]

Or have you all given up on that lie?

Anyone stiill want to tell me Obamacare is about cutting costs?


The Affordable Healthcare Bill was not about costs. It was about putting the health care insurance industry on notice.

It was about letting the players expose thier hands.

This was the first time that Health care was looked at seriously and it was a shot accross the bow and seeing who took what side.

The American Public wants single payer with a 70% approval.

The corporate owned media ...ya you know ..the one that runs hard on pills 24/7 had the upper hand in the first round but now Obama knows the lay of the land.

If the Dems get a turnaround on the seats in the House and a couple more in the Senate Obama won't make the same mistake trusting in the DINOs like Baucus and he will get his own team picked for the second half.

The rise in health care premiums will not play against Obama. It will be used to drive the corporate puppets of both parties to some stunning defeats in November.

The PEOPLE want comprehensive health care..they will get it.

Somebody has to pay for it, and that will be the middle class, no one else has enough money.

I've been saying that the money is already there. We have this great health care system according to the experts. It's already taking care of the indegent at a premium price in the emergency rooms accross the nation and in the neighborhood government funded clinics.

We already pay for health care. That's the big lie..that we don't have the money. That is pure foolishness. If we didn't have the money then we wouldn't have this system already in place.

Health care costs will go down significantly under a single payer system because of two factors that cannot be disputed. First..preventative care will reduce the incidents of catastrophic emergency care and eliminate much of the disease which creates a crisis in the emergency rooms in our hospitals..one unspoken aspect of better preventative care will not just be the cost of unneccesary emergency care but the QUALITY of emergency care will increase as soon as there is a lot less preasure on it.

The other obvious savings in health care costs under single payer will be the profit taking by the current system.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand your point about the word "insurance" often referring to a method of dealing with unusual rather than routine expenses. However, still don't understand why you seem to feel that having the same system deal with both is necessarily a bad thing. You also seem to feel that expanding routine coverage necessarily drives up costs. As my references argue, however, it can instead decrease them dramatically by reducing the need for more costly treatments later.

I believe that you are drastically understating the usage of contraception. Given that both men and women have an interest (financial as well as personal) one could say that men make use of contraceptives just as much as women do. I believe you are misstating the feminist position-- my understanding is that mainstream feminists hailed the advent of the (female) birth control pill and believe that contraception should be a shared responsibility (as opposed to "entirely on men").

Saying that feminists should try to make it more difficult for women to obtain contraceptives in order to encourage development of a male birth control pill (there are already other contraceptive methods available to men, both devices and surgeries) seems rather silly. It seems much like the counter-feminist argument that it's bad for women to work because it discourages men from providing for them. Giving women control over their own lives rather than relying on men to take care of them is a core tenet of feminism.

Because it will increase the cost, there is no way it cannot. Let me give you an example.

I don't know what it actually costs to buy birth control pills So I will just make some numbers up. Let us say it costs $45 a month to buy contraceptives, that is about $540 a year. You decide you prefer to pay the insurance company for this, and let them pay the pharmacy. They are willing to do this, but they need to pay their staff, and make a profit for their stockholders, which happens to be the pension fund you are relying on to fund your retirement so you really do not want them to go broke. They end up charging you $49.50 bucks a month, but it really helps a lot of people (you are not the only one invested in that pension fund) so you go for it. This directly increase your cost by 10%, another $54 dollars a year.

By the way, forcing more people to pay for contraceptives, even if they do not need them, does not reduce the costs, it just spreads it out. If the insurance company can get 9 people to pay for something that only one person uses the cost for each person only goes up by $0.50 (that pension fund can use that extra $0.005) but the overall cost still goes up.

I agree that there is a nonzero level of administrative costs associated with health plans, and I agree that part of what health plans do is spread costs around, which doesn't by itself reduce costs. However, I think there are two problems with your simple example:

- You assume (rather than demonstrate) that obtaining contraceptives through a health insurance provider is less efficient, in an economic sense, due to administrative costs. However, many services require administration, but are still very efficient. It's much cheaper for me to send a package via UPS than for me to deliver it myself, despite UPS's administrative costs. I see no reason, a priori, that similar efficiencies would not exist in obtaining contraceptives through a plan.

- You fail to address the main point of the numerous references I linked to: contraceptives can *prevent* costs. An unwanted pregnancy (or a wanted one, of course) can generate dramatic direct and indirect costs. These vastly exceed the costs of contraception, and so contraception can save money. Indeed, considering only the costs of health care of the woman, which are only a tiny fraction of the costs of an average pregnancy, some of the studies I referenced found that providing contraceptives saved quite a bit of money.

Either of those reasons alone suffice to invalidate your simple argument.

I did not assume it is less efficient, I proved it costs more because you have to pay more people. You assumed that makes it less efficient, which is probably true, but actually irrelevant.

Contraceptives do not prevent costs unless you assume that people who want them do not have access to them, and that the people who suddenly have access to them will use them. Planned Parenthood has free clinics that provide contraceptives to low income women who ask for them. yet they still preform abortions. Condoms are readily available almost everywhere for free, restaurants provide them like mints in San Francisco, yet there are still unplanned pregnancies. Condoms are actually more effective at reducing costs than contraceptives because they also help prevent STDs, so if the object is to reduce costs why not provide condoms?

I am willing to bet you right here and now that if the government literally handed out birth control pills on the street corner to everyone who walked by there would still be unplanned pregnancies and abortions, and that the rates might actually increase. I would also expect an increase in STDs as a result of people thinking they do not need to use condoms.

 

[MeBelle]

16 July 1798 by President John Adams. The Act required the Department of the Treasury to "provide for the relief and maintenance of disabled seamen." This Act led to the formation of several hospitals at sea and river ports all across the United States, which was officially the Marine-Hospital Fund. The Act specified the revenue for the Hospital Fund to come from the merchant seamen. Merchant seamen that used the early hospital fund hospitals were charged "20 cents per month." This series of hospitals to care for merchant seamen was based on the British practice of establishing hospitals to care for sailors and merchant seamen.

This was the first MANDATORY health care act.

Oh Chris....

The Marine-Hospital Service was an organization of Marine Hospitals dedicated to the care of ill and disabled seamen in the U.S. Merchant Marine, U.S. Coast Guard and other federal beneficiaries

This is where it gets, ummm, hysterically, yet sadly, funny:

Following the Civil War, public outcry and scandal surrounded the Marine Hospital Fund. In 1869, Dr. John Shaw Billings--a prominent Army surgeon—was appointed to head an investigation of the Marine Hospital Fund. Dr. Billings found the hospital fund to be inadequate and completely unorganized.

Marine Hospital Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, your own source is one such study (or meta-study):

- "some measures... reduce mortality either at low cost or at a cost savings"

- "Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money..."

- Most importantly, the study found that more preventative than non-preventative treatments identified in the literature were actually cost-saving.

The article makes two points on the other side: Some politicians have overstated the benefits of preventative medicine, and preventative medicine is not always cost-effective. I would not dispute either.

The "care" that reduces cost is mostly stuff like getting people to quit smoking and eat better. That is much easier to accomplish if there is financial reward for changing behavior.

While such care was one of the examples given, I understand the study to have reviewed an incredibly broad range of treatments. I don't think that such treatments were "mostly" as you describe. Even if they were, I'm not sure what implication that would have-- certainly such counseling is health care.

I am not saying it is not, I was specifically refuting the meme that preventative care is not a blanket assurance of reducing costs. If that worked we would have won the war on drugs decades ago.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone stiill want to tell me Obamacare is about cutting costs?


The Affordable Healthcare Bill was not about costs. It was about putting the health care insurance industry on notice.

It was about letting the players expose thier hands.

This was the first time that Health care was looked at seriously and it was a shot accross the bow and seeing who took what side.

The American Public wants single payer with a 70% approval.

The corporate owned media ...ya you know ..the one that runs hard on pills 24/7 had the upper hand in the first round but now Obama knows the lay of the land.

If the Dems get a turnaround on the seats in the House and a couple more in the Senate Obama won't make the same mistake trusting in the DINOs like Baucus and he will get his own team picked for the second half.

The rise in health care premiums will not play against Obama. It will be used to drive the corporate puppets of both parties to some stunning defeats in November.

The PEOPLE want comprehensive health care..they will get it.

Somebody has to pay for it, and that will be the middle class, no one else has enough money.

I've been saying that the money is already there. We have this great health care system according to the experts. It's already taking care of the indegent at a premium price in the emergency rooms accross the nation and in the neighborhood government funded clinics.

We already pay for health care. That's the big lie..that we don't have the money. That is pure foolishness. If we didn't have the money then we wouldn't have this system already in place.

Health care costs will go down significantly under a single payer system because of two factors that cannot be disputed. First..preventative care will reduce the incidents of catastrophic emergency care and eliminate much of the disease which creates a crisis in the emergency rooms in our hospitals..one unspoken aspect of better preventative care will not just be the cost of unneccesary emergency care but the QUALITY of emergency care will increase as soon as there is a lot less preasure on it.

The other obvious savings in health care costs under single payer will be the profit taking by the current system.

How does taking the profit out of something improve it? Is profit evil? Does making money cause illness and disease?

 

[Chris]

Somebody has to pay for it, and that will be the middle class, no one else has enough money.

I've been saying that the money is already there. We have this great health care system according to the experts. It's already taking care of the indegent at a premium price in the emergency rooms accross the nation and in the neighborhood government funded clinics.

We already pay for health care. That's the big lie..that we don't have the money. That is pure foolishness. If we didn't have the money then we wouldn't have this system already in place.

Health care costs will go down significantly under a single payer system because of two factors that cannot be disputed. First..preventative care will reduce the incidents of catastrophic emergency care and eliminate much of the disease which creates a crisis in the emergency rooms in our hospitals..one unspoken aspect of better preventative care will not just be the cost of unneccesary emergency care but the QUALITY of emergency care will increase as soon as there is a lot less preasure on it.

The other obvious savings in health care costs under single payer will be the profit taking by the current system.

How does taking the profit out of something improve it? Is profit evil? Does making money cause illness and disease?

How does taking the profit out of something improve it?

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for health care.

Think credit union.

 

[ladyliberal]

Because it will increase the cost, there is no way it cannot. Let me give you an example.

I don't know what it actually costs to buy birth control pills So I will just make some numbers up. Let us say it costs $45 a month to buy contraceptives, that is about $540 a year. You decide you prefer to pay the insurance company for this, and let them pay the pharmacy. They are willing to do this, but they need to pay their staff, and make a profit for their stockholders, which happens to be the pension fund you are relying on to fund your retirement so you really do not want them to go broke. They end up charging you $49.50 bucks a month, but it really helps a lot of people (you are not the only one invested in that pension fund) so you go for it. This directly increase your cost by 10%, another $54 dollars a year.

By the way, forcing more people to pay for contraceptives, even if they do not need them, does not reduce the costs, it just spreads it out. If the insurance company can get 9 people to pay for something that only one person uses the cost for each person only goes up by $0.50 (that pension fund can use that extra $0.005) but the overall cost still goes up.

I agree that there is a nonzero level of administrative costs associated with health plans, and I agree that part of what health plans do is spread costs around, which doesn't by itself reduce costs. However, I think there are two problems with your simple example:

- You assume (rather than demonstrate) that obtaining contraceptives through a health insurance provider is less efficient, in an economic sense, due to administrative costs. However, many services require administration, but are still very efficient. It's much cheaper for me to send a package via UPS than for me to deliver it myself, despite UPS's administrative costs. I see no reason, a priori, that similar efficiencies would not exist in obtaining contraceptives through a plan.

- You fail to address the main point of the numerous references I linked to: contraceptives can *prevent* costs. An unwanted pregnancy (or a wanted one, of course) can generate dramatic direct and indirect costs. These vastly exceed the costs of contraception, and so contraception can save money. Indeed, considering only the costs of health care of the woman, which are only a tiny fraction of the costs of an average pregnancy, some of the studies I referenced found that providing contraceptives saved quite a bit of money.

Either of those reasons alone suffice to invalidate your simple argument.

I did not assume it is less efficient, I proved it costs more because you have to pay more people. You assumed that makes it less efficient, which is probably true, but actually irrelevant.

Contraceptives do not prevent costs unless you assume that people who want them do not have access to them, and that the people who suddenly have access to them will use them. Planned Parenthood has free clinics that provide contraceptives to low income women who ask for them. yet they still preform abortions. Condoms are readily available almost everywhere for free, restaurants provide them like mints in San Francisco, yet there are still unplanned pregnancies. Condoms are actually more effective at reducing costs than contraceptives because they also help prevent STDs, so if the object is to reduce costs why not provide condoms?

I am willing to bet you right here and now that if the government literally handed out birth control pills on the street corner to everyone who walked by there would still be unplanned pregnancies and abortions, and that the rates might actually increase. I would also expect an increase in STDs as a result of people thinking they do not need to use condoms.

- I'm using "efficient" in the economic sense. To say that one method of obtaining a good is more efficient is the same as saying that it is less costly.

- You did not "prove" anything. You argued something about society, citing a simple model. I disputed the validity of your argument.

- You're right of course that contraceptives have no benefit unless they are used, and used by people who would not otherwise use them. That obvious observation in no way invalidates any of the studies I've cited.

- You say that condoms are more effective than contraceptives. However, a contraceptive is (dictionary.com) "any device that prevents or tends to prevent conception". Under this common definition, condoms are contraceptives.

- You ask "why not provide condoms"? I would like to see health insurance plans cover condoms. The only downside is that they might not be able to do it as efficiently, health care providers being more in the habit of providing daily pills that sporadically-used sheathes.

- As you've pointed out, the government has taken steps to make contraceptives free in some cases, and indeed there are still unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

 

[HUGGY]

Somebody has to pay for it, and that will be the middle class, no one else has enough money.

I've been saying that the money is already there. We have this great health care system according to the experts. It's already taking care of the indegent at a premium price in the emergency rooms accross the nation and in the neighborhood government funded clinics.

We already pay for health care. That's the big lie..that we don't have the money. That is pure foolishness. If we didn't have the money then we wouldn't have this system already in place.

Health care costs will go down significantly under a single payer system because of two factors that cannot be disputed. First..preventative care will reduce the incidents of catastrophic emergency care and eliminate much of the disease which creates a crisis in the emergency rooms in our hospitals..one unspoken aspect of better preventative care will not just be the cost of unneccesary emergency care but the QUALITY of emergency care will increase as soon as there is a lot less preasure on it.

The other obvious savings in health care costs under single payer will be the profit taking by the current system.

How does taking the profit out of something improve it? Is profit evil? Does making money cause illness and disease?

Those complaints are old and tired. Yes in some cases profit can make something more expensive. Is profit evil. No... that is a red herring..a straw man. There are plenty of avenues and opportunities for any company or corporation to make a profit. We do not need EVERYTHING to be at the mercy of profit any more than we should have government regulate everything in our capitalist economy. Some things are better handled as "The comons" and the vast majority of business should be located in a free marketplace. Part of the erronious idea that government will destroy the medical industry is that there will always be opportunity for medical equipment innovations and manufacturing and better ways to organize information sold as software and related systems. I won't even respond to your last pointless point. The hyperbol and hysteria has worn thin.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've been saying that the money is already there. We have this great health care system according to the experts. It's already taking care of the indegent at a premium price in the emergency rooms accross the nation and in the neighborhood government funded clinics.

We already pay for health care. That's the big lie..that we don't have the money. That is pure foolishness. If we didn't have the money then we wouldn't have this system already in place.

Health care costs will go down significantly under a single payer system because of two factors that cannot be disputed. First..preventative care will reduce the incidents of catastrophic emergency care and eliminate much of the disease which creates a crisis in the emergency rooms in our hospitals..one unspoken aspect of better preventative care will not just be the cost of unneccesary emergency care but the QUALITY of emergency care will increase as soon as there is a lot less preasure on it.

The other obvious savings in health care costs under single payer will be the profit taking by the current system.

How does taking the profit out of something improve it? Is profit evil? Does making money cause illness and disease?

How does taking the profit out of something improve it?

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for health care.

Think credit union.

Every other industrialized nation has a regressive tax system and people that come here for health care.

 

[HUGGY]

How does taking the profit out of something improve it? Is profit evil? Does making money cause illness and disease?

How does taking the profit out of something improve it?

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for health care.

Think credit union.

Every other industrialized nation has a regressive tax system and people that come here for health care.

That is another big lie.

People do not flock into our country for health care. That is a rediculous talking point. People get the health care they can wherever they are. Nobody "plans" on getting sick and travels somewhere "just in case" they might need medical attention. That is a stupid assumption. They come here mostly to make money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree that there is a nonzero level of administrative costs associated with health plans, and I agree that part of what health plans do is spread costs around, which doesn't by itself reduce costs. However, I think there are two problems with your simple example:

- You assume (rather than demonstrate) that obtaining contraceptives through a health insurance provider is less efficient, in an economic sense, due to administrative costs. However, many services require administration, but are still very efficient. It's much cheaper for me to send a package via UPS than for me to deliver it myself, despite UPS's administrative costs. I see no reason, a priori, that similar efficiencies would not exist in obtaining contraceptives through a plan.

- You fail to address the main point of the numerous references I linked to: contraceptives can *prevent* costs. An unwanted pregnancy (or a wanted one, of course) can generate dramatic direct and indirect costs. These vastly exceed the costs of contraception, and so contraception can save money. Indeed, considering only the costs of health care of the woman, which are only a tiny fraction of the costs of an average pregnancy, some of the studies I referenced found that providing contraceptives saved quite a bit of money.

Either of those reasons alone suffice to invalidate your simple argument.

I did not assume it is less efficient, I proved it costs more because you have to pay more people. You assumed that makes it less efficient, which is probably true, but actually irrelevant.

Contraceptives do not prevent costs unless you assume that people who want them do not have access to them, and that the people who suddenly have access to them will use them. Planned Parenthood has free clinics that provide contraceptives to low income women who ask for them. yet they still preform abortions. Condoms are readily available almost everywhere for free, restaurants provide them like mints in San Francisco, yet there are still unplanned pregnancies. Condoms are actually more effective at reducing costs than contraceptives because they also help prevent STDs, so if the object is to reduce costs why not provide condoms?

I am willing to bet you right here and now that if the government literally handed out birth control pills on the street corner to everyone who walked by there would still be unplanned pregnancies and abortions, and that the rates might actually increase. I would also expect an increase in STDs as a result of people thinking they do not need to use condoms.

- I'm using "efficient" in the economic sense. To say that one method of obtaining a good is more efficient is the same as saying that it is less costly.

- You did not "prove" anything. You argued something about society, citing a simple model. I disputed the validity of your argument.

- You're right of course that contraceptives have no benefit unless they are used, and used by people who would not otherwise use them. That obvious observation in no way invalidates any of the studies I've cited.

- You say that condoms are more effective than contraceptives. However, a contraceptive is (dictionary.com) "any device that prevents or tends to prevent conception". Under this common definition, condoms are contraceptives.

- You ask "why not provide condoms"? I would like to see health insurance plans cover condoms. The only downside is that they might not be able to do it as efficiently, health care providers being more in the habit of providing daily pills that sporadically-used sheathes.

- As you've pointed out, the government has taken steps to make contraceptives free in some cases, and indeed there are still unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

Adding more people is going to increase cost, that is a simple fact.

I actually ignored your thing about UPS because it has nothing to do with what we are discussing, but since you think it is actually pertinent I will discuss it. UPS is able to charge you less to move a package because they do not have to carry you to move that package. If you are already going to where that package is going it would actually be less expensive to carry it yourself. In other words, you are not paying them to take your package, you are paying them so you do not have to go yourself. It is not more efficient to pay them, it is more convenient.

I haven't read any of the studies you cited because they are not relevant to the discussion, The question is why routine costs should not be covered by insurance. It doesn't actually matter if a few studies indicate that access contraceptives reduce pregnancy, I have no doubt it does. I actually dispute the fact that women in the US lack access to contraceptives. They give prescriptions for it through public schools for God's sake, talking abut access is a red herring.

If we were to add insurance into this on top of the UPS example you would be paying a company every month to cover the expense of shipping that package, even when you don't need it. Unless, that is, you think that every woman will never get pregnant. Even during the period they are trying to conceive, and while they are pregnant, they are still paying for the contraceptives they are no longer buying, which actually increases the cost more than paying out of pocket would.

I did not say condoms are more effective than contraceptives, I said they were more effective at preventing STDs. Are you trying to tell me the pill, or other forms contraception, prevent STDs, because I can show you plenty of literature that says otherwise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've been saying that the money is already there. We have this great health care system according to the experts. It's already taking care of the indegent at a premium price in the emergency rooms accross the nation and in the neighborhood government funded clinics.

We already pay for health care. That's the big lie..that we don't have the money. That is pure foolishness. If we didn't have the money then we wouldn't have this system already in place.

Health care costs will go down significantly under a single payer system because of two factors that cannot be disputed. First..preventative care will reduce the incidents of catastrophic emergency care and eliminate much of the disease which creates a crisis in the emergency rooms in our hospitals..one unspoken aspect of better preventative care will not just be the cost of unneccesary emergency care but the QUALITY of emergency care will increase as soon as there is a lot less preasure on it.

The other obvious savings in health care costs under single payer will be the profit taking by the current system.

How does taking the profit out of something improve it? Is profit evil? Does making money cause illness and disease?

Those complaints are old and tired. Yes in some cases profit can make something more expensive. Is profit evil. No... that is a red herring..a straw man. There are plenty of avenues and opportunities for any company or corporation to make a profit. We do not need EVERYTHING to be at the mercy of profit any more than we should have government regulate everything in our capitalist economy. Some things are better handled as "The comons" and the vast majority of business should be located in a free marketplace. Part of the erronious idea that government will destroy the medical industry is that there will always be opportunity for medical equipment innovations and manufacturing and better ways to organize information sold as software and related systems. I won't even respond to your last pointless point. The hyperbol and hysteria has worn thin.

In other words, you don't actually know how taking the profit out will make anything better, you just like the way it sounds.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How does taking the profit out of something improve it?

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for health care.

Think credit union.

Every other industrialized nation has a regressive tax system and people that come here for health care.

That is another big lie.

People do not flock into our country for health care. That is a rediculous talking point. People get the health care they can wherever they are. Nobody "plans" on getting sick and travels somewhere "just in case" they might need medical attention. That is a stupid assumption. They come here mostly to make money.

Did I say flock? If not, why did you? I simply stated that there are people that come here from other countries for health care despite the fact that those countries have nationalized health care.

 

[Greenbeard]

Tell me, if it's going to save us costs, why did Obama delay implimentation until after the 2012 election?

Implementation wasn't delayed, it's in progress right now. Presumably you're talking only about the exchanges launching and the expansion of Medicaid, since plenty of other provisions are or are soon to be fully in effect. Unfortunately, those can't happen with the snap of one's fingers, particularly since exchanges are being designed, built, and run by states. Meaning 51 states need their legislative bodies to customize the exchange concept to their states (except in a few outliers where the governor has acted unilaterally), 51 states need to address a slate of key policy issues in a way that makes sense for them, potentially 51 states need to get out an RFP for an IT build to bring their antiquated systems up to speed.

There's lots of grumbling about the time frame but none of it takes the position that the new exchange-Medicaid infrastructure should be ready to go sooner than 2014. As it is, it's become rather clear that the transition period for many states is going to extend past 2014--they're not going to be "done" with setting this up until a year or two (or even a few) after the 2014 launch date.

Let's just think about it rationally for a second. If it's going to save us costs, then wouldnt he want it implimented before the election to guarantee his reelection?

I'm sure he wishes it could've all been done instantaneously. Sadly, we live in a real world.

As for costs, that too is a long-term proposition but one for which there's reason for optimism. The ACA has conservative tropes, like greater reliance on higher-deductible plans to give consumers more "skin in the game," greater competition and consumer choice through allowing insurers to sell out-of-state or in multiple states, and even seed money for state-based tort reform. It has cost control strategies liberals wanted to see like payment reform (rewarding performance, not volume), greater care coordination and attention to the costs of chronic illness, and more highly integrated care with shared savings for providers who cut costs. It even has things both side enjoy, like prevention and wellness incentives, movement toward using health information technology, and the creation of marketplaces where insurers will compete on price and quality.

All of these are aimed at slowing the growth of costs over time; health expenditures are unlikely to ever do anything but monotonically increase, the goal is to slow their growth rate relative to the rest of the economy. That's not an overnight project. And measuring its progress in terms of election cycles misses the point.

 

[hortysir]

You couldn't impliment everything immediately. I recall them saying something about "giving the insurance companies time..."

And meanwhile, the insurance companies have jacked up the costs big time until Obamacare kicks in.

Maybe then we shouldn't have let the insurance companies have a seat at the table when writing the bill. And Republicans protecting them every step of the way.

Remember single payer was what we wanted and they didn't get a seat at the table.

Funny how you admit that you (democrats) let the insurance companies in on the bargaining but then turn around and try to blame the republicans!

You guys locked the fucking door!!!
The right side of the aisle was impotent. They had zero say in the matter.
And now you're blaming them for the monster you created??!!!

Give you a seat at the table? We didn't need to give you a seat at the table. Giving you a seat would have only made Obamacare worse.

We didn't have enough votes to pass single payer because the lobbysts got to a handful of blue dog democrats like Max Baucus.

Trying to convince any Republicans to go along wpuld have been pointless. They were in obstruction mode.

But we could negotiate with the blue dogs and lobbyists. And what we got was Obamacare. Better than nothing, but not perfect.

Obamacare is not as bad as you think. That is why Fox has put out so many lies about Obamacare. And this is why we find Fox viewers are the most misinformed when it comes to things like Obamacare.

Lobbyists???


Obama promised me that he wasn't going to allow any lobbyists on the Hill.


re: Fox viewers,
Given their ratings, you're referring to the majority of America.

And what's to be mis-informed about?
Are you say that it's constitutionally-allowable to mandate a human to purchase health insurance (or any other privately-sold goods and services) with the only qualifier being birth?

 

[hortysir]

16 July 1798 by President John Adams. The Act required the Department of the Treasury to "provide for the relief and maintenance of disabled seamen." This Act led to the formation of several hospitals at sea and river ports all across the United States, which was officially the Marine-Hospital Fund. The Act specified the revenue for the Hospital Fund to come from the merchant seamen. Merchant seamen that used the early hospital fund hospitals were charged "20 cents per month." This series of hospitals to care for merchant seamen was based on the British practice of establishing hospitals to care for sailors and merchant seamen.

This was the first MANDATORY health care act.

And there is language in our constitution that allows our Congress to care for our military.
This "mandatory health care" is conditional: IF you served, THEN you must do this....
NOT: IF you are born, THEN you must buy this product.

But you knew the difference, dint'ya?

 

[Full-Auto]

Tell me, if it's going to save us costs, why did Obama delay implimentation until after the 2012 election?

Let's just think about it rationally for a second. If it's going to save us costs, then wouldnt he want it implimented before the election to guarantee his reelection?

If costs are saved, wouldnt it be far more likely that people will vote for him? yes or no?

Then why delay it? Unless of course, you know people arent going to like it.

You couldn't impliment everything immediately. I recall them saying something about "giving the insurance companies time..."

And meanwhile, the insurance companies have jacked up the costs big time until Obamacare kicks in.

Maybe then we shouldn't have let the insurance companies have a seat at the table when writing the bill. And Republicans protecting them every step of the way.

Remember single payer was what we wanted and they didn't get a seat at the table.

Who is we? Is there a mouse in your pocket? Democrats lied to everyone about the bill.

 

[hortysir]

If you study all the facts, it is going to save money over time. The right has put out so much misinformation I'm willing to bet you are repeating lies that the right told you about Obamacare.

And if you want to go back to the drawing board and give us what we really wanted, which was single payer nationalized universal healthcare, then we are more than willing to take you up on that.

But instead the right and the healthcare lobbyists obstructed that and they ended up writing the bill. Just like they wrote Romneycare.

It solves some problems, but isn't good enough.

And don't complain about rising healthcare costs now. Its why we passed healthcare reform in the first place. You defended the healthcare giants. You said in a free market they could charge whatever they wanted. So what 10 million people now can't afford insurance. Or were denied because of pre existing conditions.

Now you want to blame Obamacare for the rising costs? What a hoot. The costs went up 200% under Bush and you said NOTHING!

I thought you guys would be happy that Obamacare is good for the healtcare giants. They love the mandate. It will make them richer than ever.

I got a sucker.

Tell me something, how is requiring all insurance to cover contraceptive methods and counseling, well women visits, gestational diabetes screening, STD counseling, HOV testing, HIV testing and screening, breastfeeding support, and screening and counseling for intrapersonal and domestic violence counseling going to save money? Insurance is supposed to cover unexpected expenses, not routine ones. Covering routine ones drives up the costs for everyone.

I would also point out that what I am talking about is what Obama just put into it, not the rest of the stuff he put in before.

Your last sentence is an important distinction. I think many people in reading your original post's reference to "Obamacare" assumed that you were talking about the ACA.

As to your objections to routine health care being covered through insurance, I really don't think we need separate systems for emergency and routine health care. Routine care is certainly important: for an accessible explanation of how routine care can reduce costs by reducing the need for expensive emergency care, see Lower Costs and Better Care for Neediest Patients : The New Yorker. To address one of the particular areas you inquire about, consider the studies on cost-saving from contraception referenced in: http://www.cluw.org/PDF/ContraceptiveCoverageSavesMoney.pdf

I'm a firm believer that more routine wellness care drives down the number of emergency treatments.
A routine full physical with any number of diagnostics is cheaper than a single ER visit.