Health care reform, necessary?

[Subhumus]

toomuchtime answered your first two questions. In answer to your last question, I say no. Of course some humans would continue to develop new technologies. Places like the Huntsman Cancer Institute are great. My point was that it would definitely be decreased. Profit incentive is still a good market factor that produces results.

toomuchtime has still not responded with respect to the information I provided to the contrary. The government most certainly DOES heavily subsidize the R&D of big pharm. They may not write checks out right, but they most certainly create equal benefits to big pharm that are more than equal to direct monetary compensation. This is a fact.

The proposed "Price Caps" are certainly not just aimed at the pharmaceutical industry either. However, I do not believe for a minute that capping retail pharmaceutical prices would in effect hinder the R&D of new technologies or medicines. If anything, it would STIMULATE the process and increase competition among industry leaders.

 

[MaggieMae]

These are political gestures, not real policy initiatives, you mention. What is needed is a coordinated program of education and incentives to motivate people, health care providers, insurers and employers to encourage proper weight maintenance and exercise as well as healthier eating habits. A proposed sin tax on sugary drinks intended to make paying for unpopular health insurance legislation less distasteful and photo ops of Michele smiling at fat kids at a time when the public is souring on her husband's policies and performance is not a real policy initiative.

Health care is nothing more than a campaign issue to the Dems, and for that reason they will pass nothing that cannot be used to enhance their prospects at the polls or that the Republicans might be able to claim some credit for, such as caps on non economic damages or selling insurance across state lines, regardless of any benefits these things might bring to the American people.

You keep contradicting yourself. Health care, as popular a priority as it ALWAYS is, can hardly be called "just a campaign issue." The draft bills (I believe there were six) were hotly debated (which is why they turned out to be tomes). The only reason the public turned violently against reform is because of all the headlined noise made by the Republicans and conservatives. In that latter, you would be correct in that health care reform has NOW become a campaign issue because it's seen as a dirty item, thanks to all the negative publicity.

Democrats do not bulldoze through major bills, which is why they haven't just called for a 51% majority vote. Public opinion DOES count. If Republicans had this on the table, they would have shoved it through a long time ago using any means necessary, you betcha, just as they did Medicare Part D.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Reforming the way health care is provided in our nation has been an issue for a century.


The article below is from "Business Week" and provides an historic background for debate.



JANUARY 10, 2005

INDUSTRY OUTLOOK 2005 -- LIFE SCIENCES

Commentary: Health Care: More Money, Less Care
Ever higher outlays aren't getting the U.S. a better health-care system, but the pols aren't doing much to redress this miserable equation


This is what passes for good news in health care: U.S. spending will increase by only 9% to 10% in 2005, about the same rate as last year, according to UBS Securities (UBS ). That's still three times the rate of inflation, but at least it's less than the gains the nation saw in the first two years of this century, when costs rose by 12% to 13% a year.

All told, the U.S. will probably spend an estimated $1.9 trillion on health care in 2005, $100 billion more than the prior year. That's 15.7% of the gross domestic product. Despite such mammoth sums, hospitals will continue to struggle to stay solvent, employers will continue to face higher insurance premiums, employees will continue to shoulder a higher percentage of those premiums, and insurers -- well, insurers will continue to do very well, thank you, because they get to pass on their higher costs to the policy holders. Though not, of course, to the 45 million people who are uninsured -- 15.6% of the population.

At some point, and probably in the not-too-distant future, this level of spending will almost certainly become unsustainable. Expensive new drugs and medical technologies, a growing number of uninsured, and an aging, overweight population virtually guarantee cost increases will climb back to the 12% to 13% range in a few years. By 2010, UBS Securities estimates that health care will consume 17.4% of the GDP. "In my view, the pressure is not off costs at all," says William McGeever, a UBS health-care analyst. "I see nothing on the horizon that will moderate increases."

All of this might be O.K. if we were getting maximum bang for all those bucks, but we're not. Other industrialized nations, which have universal health coverage, spend less of their GDP on health care -- 8% to 10%. Yet they rank well above the U.S. in average life expectancy and infant mortality rate, standard measures of a nation's health. The U.S. ranks in the bottom quartile of all industrialized nations on those two measures.

Nor does the U.S. do well on more specific quality measures. In a study of a broad range of procedures in five highly industrialized nations, released last spring in the well-regarded journal Health Affairs, researchers determined that the extra spending on health care in the U.S. is "not buying better experiences with the health care system, with the exception of shorter waits for nonurgent surgery." That conclusion was backed up by a study released in December by Veteran's Administration researchers: They found that only 51% of patients nationwide receive med- ically recommended care for their conditions. So much for the oft-heard claim that the U.S. has the best medical system in the world.

Despite this dire situation, there are no serious proposals in Washington to redress the miserable cost/quality equation. President George W. Bush's main health-care reform initiative, the introduction of tax credits for Health Savings Accounts, is likely only to siphon off healthy adults from existing insurance plans, making it harder to offset the costs of treating the sick. At the same time, the shift to high-deductible policies by many employers is likely to cause some consumers to delay health care until their conditions become serious -- and more expensive to treat.

If change is going to come, it needs to be driven by the companies now picking up the nation's health-insurance tab, as well as their beleaguered employees. The annual Towers Perrin Health Care Cost Survey predicts that employers can expect, on average, an 8% increase in health-care costs in 2005, to an annual rate of $7,761 per employee. Those employees will see their share of insurance premiums increase by an average of 14%, while benefits will be reduced by 2%.

A Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that the cost of job-based health coverage has risen 59% since 2000, while the percentage of U.S. workers who receive health benefits through their jobs has dropped from 65% to 61%. Paying more, getting less. Isn't it about time that policymakers -- and the people who vote for them -- come up with a better way?

So, does anyone on this message board have a better idea? I've yet to read one on this message board, or hear one from Senate or House Republicans. "Obamacare" as many of you characterize current Congressional and White House efforts to pass a bill recieve only negative comments from many - but never do the negative nellies / neds ever acklnowledge the problems outliined above, or suggest real solutions.

Some reforms are needed.

The Current Health Care screwjob bill is not the answer. Small, targeted legislation is the answer to the problem, not broad sweeping legislation.

 

[Christopher]

toomuchtime has still not responded with respect to the information I provided to the contrary. The government most certainly DOES heavily subsidize the R&D of big pharm. They may not write checks out right, but they most certainly create equal benefits to big pharm that are more than equal to direct monetary compensation. This is a fact.

First, the study was prepared by a left-leaning group whose agenda is to promote a single-payer health care system. So, how can we be sure it is unbiased in its analysis? Here is an analysis I trust more: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10681/10-26-DrugR&D.pdf

Real R&D spending per successful new drug has been rising for many years, largely because of growth in the size and length of clinical trials and an increased rate of failure. Those changes generally reflect drug companies’ strategic choices about which kinds of drugs to pursue—choices that depend on anticipated demand and scientific opportunities. In particular, drug companies are devoting more resources to developing drugs for chronic illnesses.4 In many cases, those drugs require prolonged use, so longer clinical trials are necessary.

Maybe citizen.org just cannot accept that R&D on drugs has increased because of the length of clinical trials? Why would they leave out this fact? They seem to need a target: the pharmaceutical company’s profits.

Second, the report makes statements such as this: “The industry is one of the least taxed in America, yet it has the highest profit margin of all industries – three times the average of all industries. It claims to be a high-risk industry, yet for almost two decades it has topped the profit charts by a factor of two and more recently three.”

It seems to me that they do not understand that high risk industries/jobs result in higher pay/profit, according to what the market dictates. It is almost like saying that “surgeons claim to be in a high-risk industry yet they have a significantly higher pay than most other jobs”.

Third, it is clear that the US spends a significant amount more on R&D than other countries.

Drug spending overall accounts for about 10% of health care spending. If you want to discuss another portion of health care costs that equals that of drug spending, let’s talk about obesity in America. Nearly 10 percent of health spending for obesity - Health care- msnbc.com

Obesity-related conditions now account for 9.1 percent of all medical spending, up from 6.5 percent in 1998, the study concluded.
"We have ways of changing behavior and changing those health outcomes so that we don't have to deal with the medical consequences of obesity," added Levi, who advocates community-based programs that promote physical activity and better nutrition.
About a third of adult Americans are obese, and the obesity rate rose 37 percent between 1998 and 2006, the years covered by Monday's study.
Prescription drugs for obesity-related illnesses account for much of the rise in spending. Medicare spends about $600 more per year on prescriptions for an obese beneficiary than a normal-weight one, the study found.

How about we do as Jeff Levi suggests and create these types of programs that will help bring down health care spending by educating people to be healthier? Doing this would not change our current health care system or insurance at all and could have a greater positive effect than price caps on drugs.

The proposed "Price Caps" are certainly not just aimed at the pharmaceutical industry either. However, I do not believe for a minute that capping retail pharmaceutical prices would in effect hinder the R&D of new technologies or medicines. If anything, it would STIMULATE the process and increase competition among industry leaders.

Do you have any credible evidence which supports your belief?

 

[Subhumus]

First, the study was prepared by a left-leaning group whose agenda is to promote a single-payer health care system. So, how can we be sure it is unbiased in its analysis? Here is an analysis I trust more: cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10681/10-26-DrugR&D.pdf


Do you have any credible evidence which supports your belief?

The answers are "with substantial alternate sources of information from varying perspectives" and "yes" respectively.

For the first alternate source of information:

cptech.org/ip/health/econ/govrnd.html (you know the drill with respect to prefexs - sorry)

I am honestly surprised you would require substantiation for such a common sense economic issue. One in which we are absolutely surrounded, especially in "there" times, with CLEAR examples of R&D based success while adhering to STRICT budgetary guidelines. One does not require "faith" or "belief" to understand and readily observe the factual basis for such a simple business principle.

Why not check out the Chemical, Textile, Industrial Manufacturing...fricking NASA for pete's snake to obtain more than ample proof that science and technology marches quite successfully forward at no less a pace while existing under an absolute and definitive ceiling of budgetary requirements.

The simple rule is that whenever you adjust the input or output of ANY arbitrarily potential system of operations, the mechanism constituting progressive forward momentum will adapt and adjust itself in order to survive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Reforming the way health care is provided in our nation has been an issue for a century.


The article below is from "Business Week" and provides an historic background for debate.



JANUARY 10, 2005

INDUSTRY OUTLOOK 2005 -- LIFE SCIENCES

Commentary: Health Care: More Money, Less Care
Ever higher outlays aren't getting the U.S. a better health-care system, but the pols aren't doing much to redress this miserable equation


This is what passes for good news in health care: U.S. spending will increase by only 9% to 10% in 2005, about the same rate as last year, according to UBS Securities (UBS ). That's still three times the rate of inflation, but at least it's less than the gains the nation saw in the first two years of this century, when costs rose by 12% to 13% a year.

All told, the U.S. will probably spend an estimated $1.9 trillion on health care in 2005, $100 billion more than the prior year. That's 15.7% of the gross domestic product. Despite such mammoth sums, hospitals will continue to struggle to stay solvent, employers will continue to face higher insurance premiums, employees will continue to shoulder a higher percentage of those premiums, and insurers -- well, insurers will continue to do very well, thank you, because they get to pass on their higher costs to the policy holders. Though not, of course, to the 45 million people who are uninsured -- 15.6% of the population.

At some point, and probably in the not-too-distant future, this level of spending will almost certainly become unsustainable. Expensive new drugs and medical technologies, a growing number of uninsured, and an aging, overweight population virtually guarantee cost increases will climb back to the 12% to 13% range in a few years. By 2010, UBS Securities estimates that health care will consume 17.4% of the GDP. "In my view, the pressure is not off costs at all," says William McGeever, a UBS health-care analyst. "I see nothing on the horizon that will moderate increases."

All of this might be O.K. if we were getting maximum bang for all those bucks, but we're not. Other industrialized nations, which have universal health coverage, spend less of their GDP on health care -- 8% to 10%. Yet they rank well above the U.S. in average life expectancy and infant mortality rate, standard measures of a nation's health. The U.S. ranks in the bottom quartile of all industrialized nations on those two measures.

Nor does the U.S. do well on more specific quality measures. In a study of a broad range of procedures in five highly industrialized nations, released last spring in the well-regarded journal Health Affairs, researchers determined that the extra spending on health care in the U.S. is "not buying better experiences with the health care system, with the exception of shorter waits for nonurgent surgery." That conclusion was backed up by a study released in December by Veteran's Administration researchers: They found that only 51% of patients nationwide receive med- ically recommended care for their conditions. So much for the oft-heard claim that the U.S. has the best medical system in the world.

Despite this dire situation, there are no serious proposals in Washington to redress the miserable cost/quality equation. President George W. Bush's main health-care reform initiative, the introduction of tax credits for Health Savings Accounts, is likely only to siphon off healthy adults from existing insurance plans, making it harder to offset the costs of treating the sick. At the same time, the shift to high-deductible policies by many employers is likely to cause some consumers to delay health care until their conditions become serious -- and more expensive to treat.

If change is going to come, it needs to be driven by the companies now picking up the nation's health-insurance tab, as well as their beleaguered employees. The annual Towers Perrin Health Care Cost Survey predicts that employers can expect, on average, an 8% increase in health-care costs in 2005, to an annual rate of $7,761 per employee. Those employees will see their share of insurance premiums increase by an average of 14%, while benefits will be reduced by 2%.

A Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that the cost of job-based health coverage has risen 59% since 2000, while the percentage of U.S. workers who receive health benefits through their jobs has dropped from 65% to 61%. Paying more, getting less. Isn't it about time that policymakers -- and the people who vote for them -- come up with a better way?

So, does anyone on this message board have a better idea? I've yet to read one on this message board, or hear one from Senate or House Republicans. "Obamacare" as many of you characterize current Congressional and White House efforts to pass a bill recieve only negative comments from many - but never do the negative nellies / neds ever acklnowledge the problems outliined above, or suggest real solutions.

Some reforms are needed.

The Current Health Care screwjob bill is not the answer. Small, targeted legislation is the answer to the problem, not broad sweeping legislation.

I agree. Too bad the R's support the status quo, and that equates to support for the insurance industry over people.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Some R's want small targeted legislation, others dont appear to care.

 

[Bern80]

Reforming the way health care is provided in our nation has been an issue for a century.


The article below is from "Business Week" and provides an historic background for debate.



JANUARY 10, 2005

INDUSTRY OUTLOOK 2005 -- LIFE SCIENCES

Commentary: Health Care: More Money, Less Care
Ever higher outlays aren't getting the U.S. a better health-care system, but the pols aren't doing much to redress this miserable equation


This is what passes for good news in health care: U.S. spending will increase by only 9% to 10% in 2005, about the same rate as last year, according to UBS Securities (UBS ). That's still three times the rate of inflation, but at least it's less than the gains the nation saw in the first two years of this century, when costs rose by 12% to 13% a year.

All told, the U.S. will probably spend an estimated $1.9 trillion on health care in 2005, $100 billion more than the prior year. That's 15.7% of the gross domestic product. Despite such mammoth sums, hospitals will continue to struggle to stay solvent, employers will continue to face higher insurance premiums, employees will continue to shoulder a higher percentage of those premiums, and insurers -- well, insurers will continue to do very well, thank you, because they get to pass on their higher costs to the policy holders. Though not, of course, to the 45 million people who are uninsured -- 15.6% of the population.

At some point, and probably in the not-too-distant future, this level of spending will almost certainly become unsustainable. Expensive new drugs and medical technologies, a growing number of uninsured, and an aging, overweight population virtually guarantee cost increases will climb back to the 12% to 13% range in a few years. By 2010, UBS Securities estimates that health care will consume 17.4% of the GDP. "In my view, the pressure is not off costs at all," says William McGeever, a UBS health-care analyst. "I see nothing on the horizon that will moderate increases."

All of this might be O.K. if we were getting maximum bang for all those bucks, but we're not. Other industrialized nations, which have universal health coverage, spend less of their GDP on health care -- 8% to 10%. Yet they rank well above the U.S. in average life expectancy and infant mortality rate, standard measures of a nation's health. The U.S. ranks in the bottom quartile of all industrialized nations on those two measures.

Nor does the U.S. do well on more specific quality measures. In a study of a broad range of procedures in five highly industrialized nations, released last spring in the well-regarded journal Health Affairs, researchers determined that the extra spending on health care in the U.S. is "not buying better experiences with the health care system, with the exception of shorter waits for nonurgent surgery." That conclusion was backed up by a study released in December by Veteran's Administration researchers: They found that only 51% of patients nationwide receive med- ically recommended care for their conditions. So much for the oft-heard claim that the U.S. has the best medical system in the world.

Despite this dire situation, there are no serious proposals in Washington to redress the miserable cost/quality equation. President George W. Bush's main health-care reform initiative, the introduction of tax credits for Health Savings Accounts, is likely only to siphon off healthy adults from existing insurance plans, making it harder to offset the costs of treating the sick. At the same time, the shift to high-deductible policies by many employers is likely to cause some consumers to delay health care until their conditions become serious -- and more expensive to treat.

If change is going to come, it needs to be driven by the companies now picking up the nation's health-insurance tab, as well as their beleaguered employees. The annual Towers Perrin Health Care Cost Survey predicts that employers can expect, on average, an 8% increase in health-care costs in 2005, to an annual rate of $7,761 per employee. Those employees will see their share of insurance premiums increase by an average of 14%, while benefits will be reduced by 2%.

A Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that the cost of job-based health coverage has risen 59% since 2000, while the percentage of U.S. workers who receive health benefits through their jobs has dropped from 65% to 61%. Paying more, getting less. Isn't it about time that policymakers -- and the people who vote for them -- come up with a better way?

So, does anyone on this message board have a better idea? I've yet to read one on this message board, or hear one from Senate or House Republicans. "Obamacare" as many of you characterize current Congressional and White House efforts to pass a bill recieve only negative comments from many - but never do the negative nellies / neds ever acklnowledge the problems outliined above, or suggest real solutions.

Some reforms are needed.

The Current Health Care screwjob bill is not the answer. Small, targeted legislation is the answer to the problem, not broad sweeping legislation.

I agree. Too bad the R's support the status quo, and that equates to support for the insurance industry over people.

This is not true. Opposition to the proposals of the Democrat controlled congress is not the same thing as saying we don't need reform. If you took a show of hands I would bet my bottom dollar almost everyone would say we indeed do need reform.

True as you pointed out earlier, there is no 'bill' so to speak to opposse, but we are all aware of what the dems think will help the health care industry. We know a public option has been put on the table and we know about all the new rules for health insurance companies, so it isn't like the right is making up things to oppose.

The problem with the left's proposals in solving health care is the same problem they have in solving everything else. You can't fix what you don't acknowledge. And the left has this nasty habit of avoiding concepts like personal accountability like the plague. You want YOUR health care costs to go down? The simplest, most effective solution is to take care of yourself.

The left's other problem is that more government is the solution to everything, this despite government's track record in effectively managing anything at all. The fundamental problem is there is no incentive to be efficient. They don't have to answer to anyone and the solution to 'fix' something that can't compete, instead of making it more competitive, is to subsidize it (see the USPS), and a subsidy is just a price inflation passed on to the consumer.

I just don't understand why there is this huge aversion to non-government solutions. How about DE-regluating some of the insurance industry for starters. Make it easier for entreprenuers to start an insurance company. I think people would line up for a company that would truly customize an insurance plan for them. Maybe all I want is coverage for real catastrophic health problems likes cancer and I'd agree to pay for the common cold. But those customization options aren't available because of all the things the government makes the health insureance companies cover. Stuff that the consumer may not want or ever have a need for. Let isnurance companies compete across state lines. Start encouraging more tax exempt HSA's and FSA's.

There isn't some mystery about how to reduce health care costs. Those things will work because we know for a fact that time and time again the private sector provides things better than government. They do so because they have to. The singular goal of the private sector is to meet the demands of consumers. If they don't, they fail. Government solutions dont' carry that level of risk if they don't provide for the consumer and so there is no real incentive to do so.

 

[MaggieMae]

Some R's want small targeted legislation, others dont appear to care.

That's the way it will go NOW, but at the outset, a huge percentage of people were in favor of massive health care reform. Unfortunately, with all the bickering and time wasted because of the bickering spend on this, I too want the whole fucking thing to just DIE.

But now we hear today that the private health care industry expects to raise its premiums by 39% over the next few years. How many more employers will need to drop coverage, leaving employees on their own, and neither are able to pay those astronomical premiums before SOMETHING IS DONE?!!!

 

[toomuchtime_]

Some R's want small targeted legislation, others dont appear to care.

That's the way it will go NOW, but at the outset, a huge percentage of people were in favor of massive health care reform. Unfortunately, with all the bickering and time wasted because of the bickering spend on this, I too want the whole fucking thing to just DIE.

But now we hear today that the private health care industry expects to raise its premiums by 39% over the next few years. How many more employers will need to drop coverage, leaving employees on their own, and neither are able to pay those astronomical premiums before SOMETHING IS DONE?!!!

Nothing in any of the Dem bills would have done anything to prevent these rate increases. In fact, there is reason to believe they would have caused premiums to go up even faster.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is not true. Opposition to the proposals of the Democrat controlled congress is not the same thing as saying we don't need reform. If you took a show of hands I would bet my bottom dollar almost everyone would say we indeed do need reform.

True as you pointed out earlier, there is no 'bill' so to speak to opposse, but we are all aware of what the dems think will help the health care industry. We know a public option has been put on the table and we know about all the new rules for health insurance companies, so it isn't like the right is making up things to oppose.

The problem with the left's proposals in solving health care is the same problem they have in solving everything else. You can't fix what you don't acknowledge. And the left has this nasty habit of avoiding concepts like personal accountability like the plague. You want YOUR health care costs to go down? The simplest, most effective solution is to take care of yourself.
I positively despise arguments like that because there is sooooooooooooo much evidence you could choke on it that people DO try to take care of themselves, and the amounts they spend on OTC meds is testament to that. People who cannot afford health insurance usually cannot afford professional health care either. We're not discussing the slackers here; these are middle class folks who are not income eligible for Medicaid and not old enough for Medicare.

The left's other problem is that more government is the solution to everything, this despite government's track record in effectively managing anything at all. The fundamental problem is there is no incentive to be efficient. They don't have to answer to anyone and the solution to 'fix' something that can't compete, instead of making it more competitive, is to subsidize it (see the USPS), and a subsidy is just a price inflation passed on to the consumer.

I just don't understand why there is this huge aversion to non-government solutions. How about DE-regluating some of the insurance industry for starters. Make it easier for entreprenuers to start an insurance company. I think people would line up for a company that would truly customize an insurance plan for them. Maybe all I want is coverage for real catastrophic health problems likes cancer and I'd agree to pay for the common cold. But those customization options aren't available because of all the things the government makes the health insureance companies cover. Stuff that the consumer may not want or ever have a need for. Let isnurance companies compete across state lines. Start encouraging more tax exempt HSA's and FSA's.
The government does NOT tell private insurers what they must cover. You choose your policy coverage based on a universal set of standards established by the private health care insurers. Here's their package of options.
http://www.opic.state.tx.us/docs/442_2007_health_ug.pdf

There isn't some mystery about how to reduce health care costs. Those things will work because we know for a fact that time and time again the private sector provides things better than government. They do so because they have to. The singular goal of the private sector is to meet the demands of consumers. If they don't, they fail. Government solutions dont' carry that level of risk if they don't provide for the consumer and so there is no real incentive to do so.

If there hasn't been a mystery about how to reduce health care costs, then why oh why doesn't the private industry do it themselves? Greed and profit, that's why. Supply and demand in this area of free enterprise leaves at least 30,000,000 people at risk of dying. Nice.

 

[MaggieMae]

Some R's want small targeted legislation, others dont appear to care.

That's the way it will go NOW, but at the outset, a huge percentage of people were in favor of massive health care reform. Unfortunately, with all the bickering and time wasted because of the bickering spend on this, I too want the whole fucking thing to just DIE.

But now we hear today that the private health care industry expects to raise its premiums by 39% over the next few years. How many more employers will need to drop coverage, leaving employees on their own, and neither are able to pay those astronomical premiums before SOMETHING IS DONE?!!!

Nothing in any of the Dem bills would have done anything to prevent these rate increases. In fact, there is reason to believe they would have caused premiums to go up even faster.

Nope. The Health insurance exchange would create a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can comparison shop, which ironically sets in motion the free market gospel for competition. The government would regulate the exchange so that insurance companies can't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, or charge wildly different amounts for similar coverage, although they would be able to set rates based on age.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

That's the way it will go NOW, but at the outset, a huge percentage of people were in favor of massive health care reform. Unfortunately, with all the bickering and time wasted because of the bickering spend on this, I too want the whole fucking thing to just DIE.

But now we hear today that the private health care industry expects to raise its premiums by 39% over the next few years. How many more employers will need to drop coverage, leaving employees on their own, and neither are able to pay those astronomical premiums before SOMETHING IS DONE?!!!

Nothing in any of the Dem bills would have done anything to prevent these rate increases. In fact, there is reason to believe they would have caused premiums to go up even faster.

Nope. The Health insurance exchange would create a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can comparison shop, which ironically sets in motion the free market gospel for competition. The government would regulate the exchange so that insurance companies can't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, or charge wildly different amounts for similar coverage, although they would be able to set rates based on age.

Removing the restiriction on insurance companies to sell the products across state lines would do the same thing without creating a new government beurocracy that is funded by the taxpayer.

I prefer the more simple and inexpensive approach to the more complex and expensive one...considering both means would have the same ends, reduced cost of coverage.

 

[Bern80]

I positively despise arguments like that because there is sooooooooooooo much evidence you could choke on it that people DO try to take care of themselves, and the amounts they spend on OTC meds is testament to that. People who cannot afford health insurance usually cannot afford professional health care either. We're not discussing the slackers here; these are middle class folks who are not income eligible for Medicaid and not old enough for Medicare.

Roughly two thirds in this country are considered obese. That isn't a health care system problem. That's a personal responsibility problem. That is all the evidence I need.

The government does NOT tell private insurers what they must cover. You choose your policy coverage based on a universal set of standards established by the private health care insurers. Here's their package of options.
http://www.opic.state.tx.us/docs/442_2007_health_ug.pdf

You don't think there is a demand for more customizble health care? You mean what Obama wants insruance providers to do is the first that industry has ever been told what it must sell? 'Fraid I have to call bullshit. http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/cda06-04.cfm The health insurance industry has always been heavily regulated, ableit primarily at the state level.

If there hasn't been a mystery about how to reduce health care costs, then why oh why doesn't the private industry do it themselves? Greed and profit, that's why. Supply and demand in this area of free enterprise leaves at least 30,000,000 people at risk of dying. Nice.

Because of the regulations in place. Again, the purpose of a private business is to meet the demands of it's consumers. You like most probably had to re-enroll in your policy this year. What were your options? If they were anything like mine, it was high deductible or low deductible. That's it. I just don't buy that there is no demand for more variety.

 

[Bern80]

That's the way it will go NOW, but at the outset, a huge percentage of people were in favor of massive health care reform. Unfortunately, with all the bickering and time wasted because of the bickering spend on this, I too want the whole fucking thing to just DIE.

But now we hear today that the private health care industry expects to raise its premiums by 39% over the next few years. How many more employers will need to drop coverage, leaving employees on their own, and neither are able to pay those astronomical premiums before SOMETHING IS DONE?!!!

Nothing in any of the Dem bills would have done anything to prevent these rate increases. In fact, there is reason to believe they would have caused premiums to go up even faster.

Nope. The Health insurance exchange would create a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can comparison shop, which ironically sets in motion the free market gospel for competition. The government would regulate the exchange so that insurance companies can't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, or charge wildly different amounts for similar coverage, although they would be able to set rates based on age.

There wouldnt be any need to regulate the bolded part. If what you say is true where people would be able shop and have options, all other things being equal, they will pay the lowest price.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's the way it will go NOW, but at the outset, a huge percentage of people were in favor of massive health care reform. Unfortunately, with all the bickering and time wasted because of the bickering spend on this, I too want the whole fucking thing to just DIE.

But now we hear today that the private health care industry expects to raise its premiums by 39% over the next few years. How many more employers will need to drop coverage, leaving employees on their own, and neither are able to pay those astronomical premiums before SOMETHING IS DONE?!!!

Nothing in any of the Dem bills would have done anything to prevent these rate increases. In fact, there is reason to believe they would have caused premiums to go up even faster.

Nope. The Health insurance exchange would create a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can comparison shop, which ironically sets in motion the free market gospel for competition. The government would regulate the exchange so that insurance companies can't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, or charge wildly different amounts for similar coverage, although they would be able to set rates based on age.

Individuals not covered by employer sponsored plans and small businesses comparison shop for health insurance now so there is no reason to think the exchanges will increase competition, and while some of the provisions of the exchanges would make it easier to compare policies, the main purpose of the exchanges is to facilitate providing subsidies to individuals who qualify and who buy an Exchange qualified policy. There is absolutely nothing about the exchanges that would affect increases in premiums that are based on expected increases in costs to the insurers as the current rate increases are.

The requirement to insure people with pre existing conditions will put an upward pressure on premiums, obviously, which is why the bills include an individual mandate to offset this upward pressure, but while I have been unable to find a single study that concludes the individual mandate in either bill will be sufficient to keep standard rates from increasing, I have seen several that claim it won't be.

 

[Christopher]

First, the study was prepared by a left-leaning group whose agenda is to promote a single-payer health care system. So, how can we be sure it is unbiased in its analysis? Here is an analysis I trust more: cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10681/10-26-DrugR&D.pdf


Do you have any credible evidence which supports your belief?

The answers are "with substantial alternate sources of information from varying perspectives" and "yes" respectively.

For the first alternate source of information:

cptech.org/ip/health/econ/govrnd.html (you know the drill with respect to prefexs - sorry)

I am honestly surprised you would require substantiation for such a common sense economic issue. One in which we are absolutely surrounded, especially in "there" times, with CLEAR examples of R&D based success while adhering to STRICT budgetary guidelines. One does not require "faith" or "belief" to understand and readily observe the factual basis for such a simple business principle.

Why not check out the Chemical, Textile, Industrial Manufacturing...fricking NASA for pete's snake to obtain more than ample proof that science and technology marches quite successfully forward at no less a pace while existing under an absolute and definitive ceiling of budgetary requirements.

The simple rule is that whenever you adjust the input or output of ANY arbitrarily potential system of operations, the mechanism constituting progressive forward momentum will adapt and adjust itself in order to survive.

Yes, I had to do the same thing when providing links at first.

Anyway, to my response. I think you are missing what I am talking about here. Adhering to strict budgetary guidelines is not the same as the government capping prices on prescription drugs. I understand that science and technology moves forward within established budgets. R&D teams/companies do this all the time. However, this is not the same as an external entity capping what these companies can sell their developed technology for.

Of course companies adjust to survive. Capped prices could mean they cut some R&D in order to survive. That is the point. I’m not saying we would not move forward on development. I’m saying that this progression would be slowed. This may not appear to be a bad thing economically, because such development is occurring faster than we can keep pace with paying for it. However, there are definite negative economic consequences from price control policies which I believe are worse and would outweigh any perceived benefits.

There is plenty of evidence throughout history that government price controls are a bad thing in general. In fact, most economists would agree that using government price controls is not a good idea, except in emergency situations and only for the short term. This is a great article that discusses this in more detail, from a professor of economics at Rutgers. Price Controls: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Some highlights:

Despite the frequent use of price controls, however, and despite their appeal, economists are generally opposed to them, except perhaps for very brief periods during emergencies. In a survey published in 1992, 76.3 percent of the economists surveyed agreed with the statement: “A ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of HOUSING available.” A further 16.6 percent agreed with qualifications, and only 6.5 percent disagreed. The results were similar when the economists were asked about general controls: only 8.4 percent agreed with the statement: “Wage-price controls are a useful policy option in the control of INFLATION.” An additional 17.7 percent agreed with qualifications, but a sizable majority, 73.9 percent, disagreed (Alston et al. 1992, p. 204).
The reason most economists are skeptical about price controls is that they distort the allocation of resources.
…
The study of price controls teaches important lessons about free competitive markets. By examining cases in which controls have prevented the price mechanism from working, we gain a better appreciation of its usual elegance and efficiency. This does not mean that there are no circumstances in which temporary controls may be effective. But a fair reading of economic history shows just how rare those circumstances are.

I think we should learn from history and not make the same mistakes.

 

[KissMy]

If you want to fix health care it would help if you knew what is causing the problems

Antitrust exemption for the insurance industry was established in the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act. The insurance industry has a special statutory exemption from the antitrust laws. Insurers should be subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else.” Congress needs to pass S.1681 - Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009 This Act repeals the insurance industry exemption for the most egregious forms of antitrust violations - price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMN2AXyBsp0&feature=related"]Repeal Antitrust Exemption[/ame]

Want to know why there are too few general practitioners & soaring medical cost?

They told me I was too smart to go into primary care "Everyone told me it was the wrong thing to do," recalls Dr. Jennifer Weyler, explaining her decision two years ago as a medical student to become a family doctor. "My teachers discouraged me; administrators discouraged me. They told me I was too smart to go into primary care or that the job wouldn't be enough of a challenge." And sure enough, Weyler, now a resident in family medicine at the University of Massachusetts, is frustrated - but not by her job, which she loves. "It frustrates me," she explains, "to have to continually explain to people what a primary care practitioner is."

It was only 50 years ago, after all, that no one had to be told what a family doctor was, mainly because that's about all there was. Eighty-seven percent of all doctors in the thirties were general practitioner - namely internists, pediatricians, and family doctors. Today that figure has dropped to 30 percent.

A New England Medical Center's Health Institute study in 1992 found that specialists order more tests, perform more procedures, and hospitalize patients more often than primary care doctors treating similar symptoms. Family practitioners are less likely to hospitalize patients than specialists treating patients who had similar levels of illness, according to a recent Journal of the American Medical Association report. A 1990 study estimated that a 50-50 mix of primary care doctors to specialists would produce a 39 percent reduction in total expenditures for physician services. "Primary care protects people from unwanted procedures," explains Fitzhugh Mullan, an assistant U.S. surgeon general "General practitioners look at risks and benefits, both in terms of care and costs."

The American Medical Association is a trade union that limits the number of people who can enter medical school. Control over admission to medical school and later licensure enables the profession to limit entry in two ways. The obvious one is simply by turning down many applicants. The less obvious, but probably far more important one, is by establishing standards for admission and licensure that make entry so difficult as to discourage young people from ever trying to get admission.

Like the AMA, SEIU is largely a medical trade union who wrote Obamacare H.R.3200. Obama is the SEIU union boss negotiating their pay contract with the US citizens. These unions will pay lower premiums & get more benefits than the average citizen under Obamacare. "SEIU's Agenda is My Agenda!!!" said Obama "Together we had fought to raise wages for home care workers in Illinois." SEIU Employees are getting a Big Raise with Obamacare. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM"]Obama - SEIU's Agenda is My Agenda[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5alq_p7RaA&feature=related"]Takeover & Deception[/ame]

Do you really want more rationing & higher medical cost? Adding a 2,000 page bureaucracy congress did not read forcing everyone into that system will make prices even higher & care worse for us that pay for it. Unlike the H.R.3200 health care bill passed by the house that does away with private health care & forces me to pay more for less, there is no public option, only mandated government healthcare! Start reading at page 16 of H.R.3200

10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first
15 effective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.

This will cause private insurance pools to shrink until that company goes out of business forcing everyone onto the option-less government plan. I would at least like the option to provide my own health care. A 10 page health care bill would be enough. [ame="httphttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8&feature=player_embedded"]Whats in H.R.3200[/ame] Republicans are NOT the party of NO!

 

[MaggieMae]

If you want to fix health care it would help if you knew what is causing the problems

Antitrust exemption for the insurance industry was established in the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act. The insurance industry has a special statutory exemption from the antitrust laws. Insurers should be subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else.” Congress needs to pass S.1681 - Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009 This Act repeals the exemption for the most egregious forms of antitrust violations - price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations. Repeal Antitrust Exemption

Want to know why there are too few general practitioners & soaring medical cost?

They told me I was too smart to go into primary care "Everyone told me it was the wrong thing to do," recalls Dr. Jennifer Weyler, explaining her decision two years ago as a medical student to become a family doctor. "My teachers discouraged me; administrators discouraged me. They told me I was too smart to go into primary care or that the job wouldn't be enough of a challenge." And sure enough, Weyler, now a resident in family medicine at the University of Massachusetts, is frustrate - but not by her job, which she loves. "It frustrates me," she explains, "to have to continually explain to people what a primary care practitioner is."

It was only 50 years ago, after all, that no one had to be told what a family doctor was, mainly because that's about all there was. Eighty-seven percent of all doctors in the thirties were general practitionersgeneral practitioner - namely internists, pediatricians, and family doctors. Today that figure has dropped to 30 percent.

A New England Medical Center's Health Institute study in 1992 found that specialists order more tests, perform more procedures, and hospitalize patients more often than primary care doctors treating similar symptoms. Family practitioners are less likely to hospitalize patients than specialists treating patients who had similar levels of illness, according to a recent Journal of the American Medical Association report. A 1990 study estimated that a 50-50 mix of primary care doctors to specialists would produce a 39 percent reduction in total expenditures for physician services. "Primary care protects people from unwanted procedures," explains Fitzhugh Mullan, an assistant U.S. surgeon general "General practitioners look at risks and benefits, both in terms of care and costs."

The American Medical Association is a trade union that limits the number of people who can enter medical school. Control over admission to medical school and later licensure enables the profession to limit entry in two ways. The obvious one is simply by turning down many applicants. The less obvious, but probably far more important one, is by establishing standards for admission and licensure that make entry so difficult as to discourage young people from ever trying to get admission.

Like the AMA, SEIU is largely a medical trade union who wrote Obamacare H.R.3200. Obama is the SEIU union boss negotiating their pay contract with the US citizens. These unions will pay lower premiums & get more benifits than the average citizen under Obamacare. "SEIU's Agenda is My Agenda!!!" said Obama "Together we had fought to raise wadges for home care workers in Ilinois." SEIU Employees are getting a Big Raise with Obamacare. Obama - SEIU's Agenda is My Agenda Takeover & Deception

Do you really want more rationing & higher medical cost? Adding a 2,000 page bureaucracy congress did not read forcing everyone into that system will make prices even higher & care worse for us that pay for it. Unlike the H.R.3200 health care bill passed by the house that does away with private health care & forces me to pay more for less, there is no public option, only mandated government healthcare! I would at least like the option to provide my own health care. A 10 page health care bill would be enough. Whats in H.R.3200 Republicans are NOT the party of NO!

With the exception of Leahy's stated indignation that the health care industry has been getting away with violating Antitrust laws for years, the rest of your YouTube background is moot at this point in time. It's been hashed and rehashed a gazillion times. Yawn....

 

[KissMy]

With the exception of Leahy's stated indignation that the health care industry has been getting away with violating Antitrust laws for years, the rest of your YouTube background is moot at this point in time. It's been hashed and rehashed a gazillion times. Yawn....

Wrong - Show me where AMA limiting doctors & SEIU wage increase was rehashed. If congress wrote a bill that served the average American it would have passed. Instead they write bills to serve special interest. Unless congress listens & writes legislation to serve the general public who elected them, then they are gone in November.