Bending the Cost Curve

[Oddball]

Way to try dodging the subject with a transparent and rather pathetic appeal to emotion.

Just as a refresher, the subject here is "bending the cost curve".

How do you expect an entity --the US federal gubmint-- that has never ever contained any costs of anything that they've involved themselves with, to suddenly come through with any downward bending of that cost curve thingy?

 

[RDD_1210]

Way to try dodging the subject with a transparent and rather pathetic appeal to emotion.

Just as a refresher, the subject here is "bending the cost curve".

How do you expect an entity --the US federal gubmint-- that has never ever contained any costs of anything that they've involved themselves with, to suddenly come through with any downward bending of that cost curve thingy?

You're right, the OP wanted to talk about ways to reduce the costs and what do you want to talk about? Other gov't agencies, not the topic at hand. So you might want to make sure you stay on topic before you call out others for what you, are in fact, doing yourself.

But keep avoiding the fact that you value money over human lives. You actually don't need to say anything else about that, you've made your point loud and clear now.

 

[Oddball]

My question is entirely germane, when the track record of the feds ever containing the costs of anything --their primary argument for foisting Obunglercare upon America-- is nonexistent.

Your phony appeal to emotion, insofar as your silly allegation that I value money more than human life, is non sequitur and irrelevant....But par for the course from people who have no intellectual ammunition.

 

[boedicca]

So that means we should stop trying? We should give up on improving our country and the lives of Americans? We KNOW the current model of health care delivery, before "Obamacare" is severely flawed and unsustainable. Something had to be done. "Obamacare" is far from perfect, but I'll take it as a step in the right direction.

The only people who think it is a step in the right direction are those who believe in totalitarian government.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released its summer update, a report that includes some information pertinent to the new health care law—including one data point that we didn’t have before. In the past, when the CBO scored the health care bill, it had always mixed the new revenue and new spending calculations into a single element: the total effect on the deficit. But as Keith Hennessey points out, the new report breaks out the tax and revenue effects for the first time. The result—a lot more entitlement spending, and a big hike in tax revenues—is not exactly surprising. But it is clarifying:

Taking into account all of the provisions related to health care and revenues, the two pieces of legislation were estimated to increase mandatory outlays by $401 billion and raise revenues by $525 billion.

As Hennessey says, it would have been nice to have had this information months ago:

Imagine two scenarios of a lawmaker who was on the fence last March. He or she is a Blue Dog Democrat, or a Democrat from a fiscally conservative red district, and is deeply concerned that the legislation may be fiscally responsible. He is presented with two different statements from CBO:

1. “CBO says these bills will reduce the budget deficit by $124 billion over the next decade.”

2.“CBO says these bills will increase federal entitlement spending by $401 billion over the next decade, and will increase taxes by $525 billion over that same time period, for a net deficit reduction of $124 billion.”

These are very different statements. Both are true. CBO said only the first when Members were looking to understand the fiscal impacts of this legislation.

Throughout the debate, Democratic legislators and other supporters of the bill told the public that the health care bill would save money. But in the sense that saving money meant spending less, that was never true. The bill increases entitlement spending by quite a bit—$401 billion, we now know. The way it supposedly cuts the deficit is by raising even more new tax revenue than it spends.

CBO on the Health Care Bill: More Spending, More Tax Revenue - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

 

[Charles_Main]

Are we talking about providers or insurers? And without all-payer rate setting, how do keep the market from being dominated by a handful of insurers anyway?



Are you sure about that? A quick search of individual market plans available to someone in a random Los Angeles zip code shows:

• 3 plans available from Celtic Insurance Company
• 4 plans available from Kaiser Permanente
• 3 plans available from Health Net of California, Inc
• 7 plans available from Anthem BC Life & Health co (Anthem BC)
• 4 plans available from Blue Cross of California (Anthem BC)
• 5 plans available from PacificCare Life and Health Ins Company
• 2 plans available from Time Insurance Company
• 2 plans available from John Alden Life Insurance Company
• 3 plans available from Health Net Life Insurance Company
• 23 plans available from Blue Shield of CA Life & Health Insurance Co
• 8 plans available from Connecticut General Life Insurance Co
• 3 plans available from CA Physicians Service dba Blue Shield CA
• 1 plan available from the Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company
• 10 plans available from Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc
• 3 plans available from PacifCare of California
• 1 plan available from Aetna

And in fact a quick check of the website of the California Department of Insurance reveals the full list of health insurers licensed in the state to provide group and individual insurance coverage as well as those licensed to provide only individual coverage. It certainly isn't 6.




What kind of tort reform? The sort of collateral source rule reform that's been pursued in more than half of all states? Or the sort of joint and several liability reform that's also be implemented in most states? Or damage caps, like those implemented in most states:

I find the suggestion to try using specialized medical courts for liability cases to be intriguing. Are you open to that?



So what's the cost control aspect here? People taking better care of themselves?

Well we all see that you are good and repeating what the Democrats say about it. However I for one have been around long enough to know a simple truth.

Government has never passed a large Social Program like this into law. That came anywhere close to living up to what we were told. Both in cost and effectiveness.

Sorry I am just not as easily fooled as you. we have 200 Plus years of history that tells us it will cost more, and do less than the people selling it claim.

Period.

So that means we should stop trying? We should give up on improving our country and the lives of Americans? We KNOW the current model of health care delivery, before "Obamacare" is severely flawed and unsustainable. Something had to be done. "Obamacare" is far from perfect, but I'll take it as a step in the right direction.

Stop trying to improve access to health care. No, Stop trying to find Government answers to it. HELL YES.

As far as this Bill being a step in the right direction. I think you are dead wrong. It is a misguided Bloated failure of an attempt. Costs are going up, and the Government is now on a hook for huge costs related to it. That is anything but a step in the right direction.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Goodness, six quick responses and not one about bending the cost curve or improving quality. Shocking!

6 people who actually have no idea what's in the bill or interest in learning what it does.

The Speaker said we had to pass it to see what was in it, remember?

 

[boedicca]

One funny thing that we know is NOT in it is a severance clause.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Has any of David Plouffe's posters ever answered why handing out 1099's on purchases over $600 was in ObamaCare?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One funny thing that we know is NOT in it is a severance clause.

That's going to be one big fucking "oopsies" when the Roberts Court declares ObamaCare unconstitutional

 

[Charles_Main]

It's bending alright. UP!

 

[Greenbeard]

It's bending alright. UP!

And how do you want to bend it down? I take it none of the ideas from the publications listed in the OP are acceptable to you. So what do you want?

 

[Charles_Main]

It's bending alright. UP!

And how do you want to bend it down? I take it none of the ideas from the publications listed in the OP are acceptable to you. So what do you want?

No I didn't comment on any of those ideas. Suffice to say some of them are ok some are not.

The point is what we have right now. Is having the opposite effect we were told it would have. According to even Obama now. I am not ready to let that go. We screamed and cried from the roof tops that this Bill would not do what they said it would do, and would cost Much More than they said it would cost. We were rewarded for saying that with being called Ignorant, and Racist. Now that what we claimed is coming true before our eyes. I am not ready to just let them off the hook and talk about real solutions.

People wanted to talk about real solutions during the debate before the HC bill passed, Democrats did not want to hear it. They shot down Every Amendment the Opposition offered then claimed they had no ideas.

Many of the ideas in the OP were in fact brought up and rejected before we had this bill shoved down our throats.

This who deal has been very frustrating. And Blew any chance of me believing we can work with this Admin and the Far left Dems who control congress. I believe Sensible , Practical solutions will have to wait until the Far left Stranglehold on Power is broken. Moderates in both Parties must be able to work together, and all be heard, to find the solutions we need. The radicals of both sides need to be defeated before we can do anything that will work.

IMO anyways.

 

[Greenbeard]

No I didn't comment on any of those ideas. Suffice to say some of them are ok some are not.

The point is what we have right now. Is having the opposite effect we were told it would have. According to even Obama now.

I realize this may be novel but when I post a thread I do want to talk about what's in it. So if you're holding back on talking about the OP for some reason, there's no need to.

That said, what "opposite effect" is the new law having?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Promoting Health and Disease Prevention

* Public Health: Reducing Tobacco Use (Tobacco is Bad for you? What the fuck?! Why am I only finding out about this now?)

* Public Health: Reducing Obesity (Be in front of your Skype at 7:00 am Comrade! We want to see you do 20 Party approved Jumping Jacks. Yeah, we don't have enough Government regulation and oversight, that's why we have an Obesity Crisis. We're these serious suggestions?)

* Positive Incentives for Health (When staying alive and healthy aren't enough, we'll give you a tax credit. Again I ask, were these serious suggestions?)

 

[Charles_Main]

No I didn't comment on any of those ideas. Suffice to say some of them are ok some are not.

The point is what we have right now. Is having the opposite effect we were told it would have. According to even Obama now.

I realize this may be novel but when I post a thread I do want to talk about what's in it. So if you're holding back on talking about the OP for some reason, there's no need to.

That said, what "opposite effect" is the new law having?

What opposite effect? Well the bill is not even in effect and Costs are sky rocketing partially because of it, and the estimated cost of the bill has rose to the point where the lie we were told about it Reducing the Debt has been exposed as well.

I seem to recall Nancy telling us it would create 5 Million jobs in the Industry, 400,000 "almost immediately" Yet this year we saw only 20,000 new Health care related private sector jobs. About the same as last year. Where are all the jobs Nancy?

I realize this may be novel as well, But I can post my opinion about the existing bill on this thread If I wish. Frankly what we can and can not do about bending the cost curve down has been talked about at length both here and in this Nation. The Fact is also that Democrats did not listen to anyone else when they passed the current law. They did what they wanted, so this is there baby. Like I said I believe until the Ultra Liberal Congressional Democrats are gone. Debating this is senseless because no truly sensible bipartisan Effective ideas would ever get past Nancy.

 

[RDD_1210]

My question is entirely germane, when the track record of the feds ever containing the costs of anything --their primary argument for foisting Obunglercare upon America-- is nonexistent.

Your phony appeal to emotion, insofar as your silly allegation that I value money more than human life, is non sequitur and irrelevant....But par for the course from people who have no intellectual ammunition.

Actually, contrary to what you might have convinced yourself of, your rambling about which government agencies have been run profitably is actually not on topic with what the OP wanted to discuss which is actual techniques to lower the cost of healthcare. But keep living in your fantasy world where you are never wrong about anything. Seems like a wonderful place.

My "phony appeal" was a genuine question, why is it that you are more concerned about money than people living and dying? You won't answer that, you never do, and I don't expect you to.

 

[RDD_1210]

So that means we should stop trying? We should give up on improving our country and the lives of Americans? We KNOW the current model of health care delivery, before "Obamacare" is severely flawed and unsustainable. Something had to be done. "Obamacare" is far from perfect, but I'll take it as a step in the right direction.

The only people who think it is a step in the right direction are those who believe in totalitarian government.

Yeah, I want government to control everything I do, what I think and how I live. Good analysis. You do detective work professionally?

 

[RDD_1210]

Well we all see that you are good and repeating what the Democrats say about it. However I for one have been around long enough to know a simple truth.

Government has never passed a large Social Program like this into law. That came anywhere close to living up to what we were told. Both in cost and effectiveness.

Sorry I am just not as easily fooled as you. we have 200 Plus years of history that tells us it will cost more, and do less than the people selling it claim.

Period.

So that means we should stop trying? We should give up on improving our country and the lives of Americans? We KNOW the current model of health care delivery, before "Obamacare" is severely flawed and unsustainable. Something had to be done. "Obamacare" is far from perfect, but I'll take it as a step in the right direction.

Stop trying to improve access to health care. No, Stop trying to find Government answers to it. HELL YES.

As far as this Bill being a step in the right direction. I think you are dead wrong. It is a misguided Bloated failure of an attempt. Costs are going up, and the Government is now on a hook for huge costs related to it. That is anything but a step in the right direction.

In your opinion, BESIDES cost, is there ANYTHING at all thats good in this healthcare bill? Be honest.

 

[WillowTree]

6 people who actually have no idea what's in the bill or interest in learning what it does.

I'm interested in when any federal program has ever come in below cost estimates and delivered what it promised.

Start listing them.........NOW......

I'm interested in why you think money is more important than living.

Start telling me now.....

well, without money it's hard to buy groceries, heat the house and buy clothing. We could do that if you got off your lazy ass and paid for your own doctor. TIA.