Healthcare cost a crime

[Ariux]

Essiential services like education, energy and healthcare are exempt from the law of supply and demand.

You are so stupid that I hope no one ever hands you a loaded gun and tells you it's a lollipop.

 

[Ariux]

Woman, why did you go to the ER for a modest fever? Couldn't you have popped some Tylenol and gone to a clinic in the morning? Is Remsa an ambulance? Why didn't you drive yourself the one block distance? Why did you consent to a chest x-ray? You could have asked for an antibiotic injection instead of the IV.

Okay, let's assume that you thought you were moments from death, with your bladder infection. You're right, $4G is a crime. But, you have to pay for those who don't pay. You have to pay the high costs of liability (for those billion-dollar medical settlements). And, you have to pay the premium for receiving a service so heavily regulated that there's no competition.

Fever=infection=antibiotic. For $0.83, you could have bought a package of aquarium antibiotics, at Walmart, and snorted it. But, I guess the ambulance doesn't take people to Walmart.

HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
against humanity.


I went into ER with a temperature of 102 with a bladder infection. I was given a urinalysis, a chest X-ray (?), IV antibiotics and sent home with Vicodin (I did not ask for) and received a copy of charges to Medicare for $3,965.50. I had to take Remsa, I live a block away from the hospital and the charges was $1000. I noticed these costs had gone up about 25% in the last few years.
I went to a hospital affiliated doctor which is part of a hospital network of doctors and Medicare was charged $288.00 for a urinalysis and was told I still had the infection and I had to go back to the hospital infusion center and receive 10 days of IV antibiotics. I wanted a second opinion and had another urinalysis and it came out negative.
Am I being charged for medical care Illegal Aliens get from this hospital and not paying? Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance is paying for medical care for Illegal Aliens? How much is it costing for hospital to deliver anchor babies? Illegal Aliens need to be deported to bring down the cost of medical care and save Medicare and Medicaid.
If we ever going to get the cost of healthcare down we will have to go universal healthcare where everyone put in the pot. Works for Mass. And Illegal Aliens deported. How are we going to pay for healthcare amnesty will bring.? Otherwise Medicare and Medicaid is really screwed. And if doctors want to opt out they can move their practice to Mexico or go to work at Wal-Mart. I got the feeling they will join in and take a cut in pay instead of no pay at all. Medicare and Medicaid is a big part of their paycheck and they will not be able to survive on private insurance unless they raise their rates and their clients will not go for that and join universal healthcare.
What do we care more about? Private insurance companies staying in business or affordable healthcare for all Americans?

 

[Flopper]

...but some segments work best if operated by or controlled by the government.

I could not disagree more with that statement. It is true that certain functions in society must be provided by government as required by the Constitution (military, courts, etc). However, there is no segment of the economy that works "best" operated by government.

Like all monopolies or near monopolies enforced by law, government controlled segments of the economy have no impetus to innovate, no competition keep them sharp, and therefore no reason to keep costs to a minimum and no concerns about poor results. Central planning must take place where the Constitution requires it. Outside of those enumerated powers, central planning should ONLY be considered where it increases competition..."operated or controlled by the government" NEVER increases competition and for that, customers and taxpayers suffer. Just look at the out of control costs and crap results in those segments of the economy in which the government is most involved and compare those to segments where more of a free market reigns. There is no comparison.

As a last example, I can't understand how anyone could call for government control after what we learned from deregulation of the airline industry. It's so much better after the feds go out of the way. The same would be true of education, healthcare, insurance, etc.

The justification for privatization is the old argument that private companies do everything better and more “efficiently” than government, and will find ways to cut costs. Over and over we hear that companies do everything for less cost than government. But it never seems to sink in that private companies don’t do things unless the people at the top can make a bundle of cash; if the CEO isn’t making millions, that CEO will move the company on to something else.

Take the post office for example. Close down the post office and let UPS and FEDX take care of the services and all services that don't meet profit expectations would be dropped regardless of their impact on the public. Sell our national parks and national forest to private enterprises and see how fast they close down and sell the least profitable to developers. If you privatize all public schools, kids from poor families who have no money for tuition or their parents choose not to pay it, get no education creating even greater social problems than we have now. Because a service is not profitable does not mean it's not needed.

Yes, deregulation of airlines was successful because it just removed government control of fares, routes, and market entry, but that doesn't mean all deregulation will be. If the financial industry was allowed to disclose to investors only what they chose to disclose, conduct insider trading, and manipulation markets, investor confidence would quickly erode as would investments in US capital markets. If we totally deregulated the pharmaceutical industry, there would be no assurance that any drug is either safe or effective; there would no limitation as to claims companies could make about their products.

 

[Flopper]

The reason insurance plans are so expensive is because of all the required coverage forced upon insurers by the do-gooders, the obscene regulations foisted upon the healthcare providers, and the cronyism benefiting attorneys, allowing them to file all kinds of lawsuits without every having to worry about paying anything if they lose.

So the fact that we demand three times as many medical services as we did 20 years ago has no effect on cost? We are treating diseases today that 10 years ago, had no effective treatments. High end medical equipment sales are growing at a 15% rate. Over the last decade, Knee replacements are up by 70%, Kidney transplant rates up by 31%, Liver transplant rates up by 42%, Statin drug usage up nearly tenfold,... Government and law suites are certainly a part of healthcare cost, but it is not the primary cause of cost increases.

http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/hrm/UNH-Health-Care-Costs.pdf

 

[Ariux]

Take the post office for example. Close down the post office and let UPS and FEDX take care of the services and all services that don't meet profit expectations would be dropped regardless of their impact on the public. Sell our national parks and national forest to private enterprises and see how fast they close down and sell the least profitable to developers. If you privatize all public schools, kids from poor families who have no money for tuition or their parents choose not to pay it, get no education creating even greater social problems than we have now. Because a service is not profitable does not mean it's not needed.

You bash private enterprise because of CEOs who make a lot of money. They only make a lot of money because the government is damping the free market. In your socialist utopia, the rich CEOs are replaced with rich government bureaucrats and friends, but without any of the desire to please the public. They don't have to please the public because they have a gun to the public's head. Literally.

The poor can still get welfare (vouchers) to send their children to private schools. The government can still mandate that children be educated, even if schools are private.

Without the post office, everyone would still get mail. You can send a UPS package anywhere. Why do you think mail would be different? It's good for business for shippers not to have to worry if UPS will deliver to their customers.

Private conservation groups would be very effective at taking care of national forests. Private doesn't have to mean commercial. Probably the government would do a better job of preserving forests. But, only because your desire to preserve forests is unrelated to providing anyone with a personal service.

Government is why healthcare costs are a crime. Every idea that our politicians have regarding medical care necessarily raises the costs of medical care.

 

[starcraftzzz]

The poor can still get welfare (vouchers) to send their children to private schools. The government can still mandate that children be educated, even if schools are private.

Yes but private schools cost a lot more and have lower test scores...

Without the post office, everyone would still get mail. You can send a UPS package anywhere.

Yes but in most rural areas you can only send a UPS package because the post office deliveries UPS packages

Private conservation groups would be very effective at taking care of national forests.

Why would they be now suddenly be effective when they weren't for the past 300 yeras?

Government is why healthcare costs are a crime. Every idea that our politicians have regarding medical care necessarily raises the costs of medical care.

All govt run health care programs cost less then private health care despite delivering higher health outcomes

 

[Political Junky]

Take the post office for example. Close down the post office and let UPS and FEDX take care of the services and all services that don't meet profit expectations would be dropped regardless of their impact on the public. Sell our national parks and national forest to private enterprises and see how fast they close down and sell the least profitable to developers. If you privatize all public schools, kids from poor families who have no money for tuition or their parents choose not to pay it, get no education creating even greater social problems than we have now. Because a service is not profitable does not mean it's not needed.

You bash private enterprise because of CEOs who make a lot of money. They only make a lot of money because the government is damping the free market. In your socialist utopia, the rich CEOs are replaced with rich government bureaucrats and friends, but without any of the desire to please the public. They don't have to please the public because they have a gun to the public's head. Literally.

The poor can still get welfare (vouchers) to send their children to private schools. The government can still mandate that children be educated, even if schools are private.

Without the post office, everyone would still get mail. You can send a UPS package anywhere. Why do you think mail would be different? It's good for business for shippers not to have to worry if UPS will deliver to their customers.

Private conservation groups would be very effective at taking care of national forests. Private doesn't have to mean commercial. Probably the government would do a better job of preserving forests. But, only because your desire to preserve forests is unrelated to providing anyone with a personal service.

Government is why healthcare costs are a crime. Every idea that our politicians have regarding medical care necessarily raises the costs of medical care.

Wait until you find out how much it will cost you to send a letter by private carrier.

 

[beagle9]

The poor can still get welfare (vouchers) to send their children to private schools. The government can still mandate that children be educated, even if schools are private.

Yes but private schools cost a lot more and have lower test scores...

Without the post office, everyone would still get mail. You can send a UPS package anywhere.

Yes but in most rural areas you can only send a UPS package because the post office deliveries UPS packages

Private conservation groups would be very effective at taking care of national forests.

Why would they be now suddenly be effective when they weren't for the past 300 yeras?

Government is why healthcare costs are a crime. Every idea that our politicians have regarding medical care necessarily raises the costs of medical care.

All govt run health care programs cost less then private health care despite delivering higher health outcomes

How about this look at it star ?

Is this how it all rolls maybe ? Let me know what you think of this major part of it all... Could it be that government is the problem or has become the problem ?

1. The government gets involved, as the poor are many and have no way to pay for their services most of the time when they fall ill now, and this is where the government kicks in and pays for them right ?

2. The hospitals and Doctors know all to well that the government is a sea of money with no end to it, and that it is mis-managed to the hilt as well, all due to it's huge size and confusion created where as (the left branch knows not what the right branch is doing most of the time), and that is (perfect) for the hospitals and doctors right (sometimes even getting paid twice for the same bills) when no one is looking of course ?

3. The hospitals then charge the government extreme high prices for those who have no coverage, and can't afford any, for example they charged $62,000 dollars for a stay of 4 days in the hospital, in which amounts to what $15,000 dollars a day for one person? We know a woman that this just happened to, so yes this is reality & truth speaking here. This bill was submitted on her behalf, and the government paid it all for her.

4. Now the hospitals and doctors don't want to show inconsistancy by what they bill right, so if a person comes in to have the same thing done (but they have insurance), well what to do, what to do is what they (the hospitals and doctors) must say right? They then charge the insurance company the extreme bill as well, because they don't want the government to think they are killing them while walking softly with the private carriers now would they ?

5. Now the private carriers see this problem of extreme charging, so they have meetings with the doctors billing offices and hospital billing offices, in order to protest these high and unrealistic charges on behalf of their clients and their bottom lines for what is being charged them, but they lose most of the time but why? It's because the hospitals and doctors are not going to risk not getting their extreme payments from the government who is not subjected to the private markets and it's up's and down's that are found so volital within the markets, so they stick with the charge to the private insurance carrier at all cost, in order to show consistancy with the government charges in which they had charged the government for.

6. Now what does the private insurance carrier do next ? They do the only thing they can do, and that is to roll that cost down upon their clients in higher premiums, deductibles, monthly rates and so on, in hopes that they will handle it all somehow, because they can't compete against a cash cow government, who is flooding the healthcare market with taxpayer money at extreme levels that are being paid out in regards to those now who donot have health insurance, and are yet using the industry with no hopes of paying at all in most cases, especially without government assistance of some kind being involved.

7. Ok, so (IMHO) we are not handling it as a people or a workforce (these charges), so government needs to join with the private carriers in learning what is right to pay, and what is not right to pay when it comes to these hospitals and doctors, in which have become use to sucking off of the governments tit for their milk now, and without any or much feed back from the cash cow they have been sucking off of anymore (the government).

Could it be that the private industry has been crippled by this situation in which I am thinking in these terms maybe, and is still being crippled more and more by it, so instead of the government seeing it's wrong, and then somehow correcting it, they would rather gobble up the private industry, and then control it all, but then where will this leave the tax payers who will be footing the entire bill in the end for the government ??? Will the hospitals and doctors yell hip hip hooray in the end, if the government wins it all ?

 

[Oldstyle]

HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
against humanity.


I went into ER with a temperature of 102 with a bladder infection. I was given a urinalysis, a chest X-ray (?), IV antibiotics and sent home with Vicodin (I did not ask for) and received a copy of charges to Medicare for $3,965.50. I had to take Remsa, I live a block away from the hospital and the charges was $1000. I noticed these costs had gone up about 25% in the last few years.
I went to a hospital affiliated doctor which is part of a hospital network of doctors and Medicare was charged $288.00 for a urinalysis and was told I still had the infection and I had to go back to the hospital infusion center and receive 10 days of IV antibiotics. I wanted a second opinion and had another urinalysis and it came out negative.
Am I being charged for medical care Illegal Aliens get from this hospital and not paying? Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance is paying for medical care for Illegal Aliens? How much is it costing for hospital to deliver anchor babies? Illegal Aliens need to be deported to bring down the cost of medical care and save Medicare and Medicaid.
If we ever going to get the cost of healthcare down we will have to go universal healthcare where everyone put in the pot. Works for Mass. And Illegal Aliens deported. How are we going to pay for healthcare amnesty will bring.? Otherwise Medicare and Medicaid is really screwed. And if doctors want to opt out they can move their practice to Mexico or go to work at Wal-Mart. I got the feeling they will join in and take a cut in pay instead of no pay at all. Medicare and Medicaid is a big part of their paycheck and they will not be able to survive on private insurance unless they raise their rates and their clients will not go for that and join universal healthcare.
What do we care more about? Private insurance companies staying in business or affordable healthcare for all Americans?

So you think that having ALL of us paying collectively for out of control health care costs instead of doing it on our own is going to fix the problem?

Sorry, Lil...but that isn't going to happen. One of my major beefs with ObamaCare is that it didn't address costs...which was what Americans really wanted when they called for health care reform. We didn't get that however...instead we got legislation that simply changed who it was that was going to pay the bill.

Your ER bill was so high in large part because we do pay for the health care of illegals and that cost is passed along to everyone else. ObamaCare didn't address that cost whatsoever. Our politicians are so afraid of offending the Hispanic voting block that they won't touch that issue with a ten foot pole.

As for doctors taking a pay cut? I've got news for you...there is a shortage of doctors already and we're about to add millions of people to the system through ObamaCare. What you're going to see is doctors opting out of taking Medicare and Medicaid patients and only seeing those people that can still afford private health care plans. ObamaCare is going to result in wealthy people still having access to quality health care while everyone else fights to be seen by the few doctors who WILL accept Medicare. It's going to get ugly.

 

[starcraftzzz]

So you think that having ALL of us paying collectively for out of control health care costs instead of doing it on our own is going to fix the problem?

Sorry, Lil...but that isn't going to happen. One of my major beefs with ObamaCare is that it didn't address costs...

Yes cutting 500billion in wasteful govt health spending isn't addressing costs. Moving to a more efficient payment system that reduces costs isn't addressing costs lowering drug costs, etc etc
Anaylsis of Obamacares cost cutting show that despite exanding health care to 35million people total health care costs will be decreased by the bill

which was what Americans really wanted when they called for health care reform. We didn't get that however...instead we got legislation that simply changed who it was that was going to pay the bill.

That is because you have noi clue what was int he bill

 

[Oldstyle]

So you think that having ALL of us paying collectively for out of control health care costs instead of doing it on our own is going to fix the problem?

Sorry, Lil...but that isn't going to happen. One of my major beefs with ObamaCare is that it didn't address costs...

Yes cutting 500billion in wasteful govt health spending isn't addressing costs. Moving to a more efficient payment system that reduces costs isn't addressing costs lowering drug costs, etc etc
Anaylsis of Obamacares cost cutting show that despite exanding health care to 35million people total health care costs will be decreased by the bill

which was what Americans really wanted when they called for health care reform. We didn't get that however...instead we got legislation that simply changed who it was that was going to pay the bill.

That is because you have noi clue what was int he bill

I'm curious, Star...does it hurt when you pull statistics like those out of your nether regions?

In case you haven't been paying attention...the COSTS of ObamaCare keep getting revised and it isn't downward. The truth is...the progressives played fast and loose with their accounting when they made those projections only going out ten years and front loading the analysis with several years of collecting taxes without paying out benefits. What's truly frightening is that the costs are already being inflated and we haven't even gotten to the point when they're going to explode.

You talk a big game...how about you provide me with a current study that shows how ObamaCare has lowered health care costs for Americans? Once you've done that? Show me how it is we're going to pay for this plan fifteen years from now when the real cost comes due?

 

[starcraftzzz]

So you think that having ALL of us paying collectively for out of control health care costs instead of doing it on our own is going to fix the problem?

Sorry, Lil...but that isn't going to happen. One of my major beefs with ObamaCare is that it didn't address costs...

Yes cutting 500billion in wasteful govt health spending isn't addressing costs. Moving to a more efficient payment system that reduces costs isn't addressing costs lowering drug costs, etc etc
Analysis of Obamacares cost cutting show that despite expanding health care to 35million people total health care costs will be decreased by the bill

which was what Americans really wanted when they called for health care reform. We didn't get that however...instead we got legislation that simply changed who it was that was going to pay the bill.

That is because you have noi clue what was int he bill

I'm curious, Star...does it hurt when you pull statistics like those out of your nether regions?

See this is the problem you are so ignorant that when some states facts you think it is bullishit

In case you haven't been paying attention...the COSTS of ObamaCare keep getting revised and it isn't downward.

This is also the problem you are so stupid that you think Obamcare costing more in 20 years then it will in 10 years means the costs increased. According to the CBO over the same time period Obamacare will cost 50billion less then they first estimated

You talk a big game...how about you provide me with a current study that shows how ObamaCare has lowered health care costs for Americans? Once you've done that? Show me how it is we're going to pay for this plan fifteen years from now when the real cost comes due?

Heres one
Ezra Klein - Does health-care reform bend the cost curve up?

and another
The Impact of Health Reform on Health System Spending

and another
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/pdf/system_spending.pdf

and another
CBO: Health reform to cut deficit by $50 billion more than we thought - The Washington Post

So plz come back when you aren't 100% ignorant ont eh topic

 

[Againsheila]

HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
against humanity.


I went into ER with a temperature of 102 with a bladder infection. I was given a urinalysis, a chest X-ray (?), IV antibiotics and sent home with Vicodin (I did not ask for) and received a copy of charges to Medicare for $3,965.50. I had to take Remsa, I live a block away from the hospital and the charges was $1000. I noticed these costs had gone up about 25% in the last few years.
I went to a hospital affiliated doctor which is part of a hospital network of doctors and Medicare was charged $288.00 for a urinalysis and was told I still had the infection and I had to go back to the hospital infusion center and receive 10 days of IV antibiotics. I wanted a second opinion and had another urinalysis and it came out negative.
Am I being charged for medical care Illegal Aliens get from this hospital and not paying? Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance is paying for medical care for Illegal Aliens? How much is it costing for hospital to deliver anchor babies? Illegal Aliens need to be deported to bring down the cost of medical care and save Medicare and Medicaid.
If we ever going to get the cost of healthcare down we will have to go universal healthcare where everyone put in the pot. Works for Mass. And Illegal Aliens deported. How are we going to pay for healthcare amnesty will bring.? Otherwise Medicare and Medicaid is really screwed. And if doctors want to opt out they can move their practice to Mexico or go to work at Wal-Mart. I got the feeling they will join in and take a cut in pay instead of no pay at all. Medicare and Medicaid is a big part of their paycheck and they will not be able to survive on private insurance unless they raise their rates and their clients will not go for that and join universal healthcare.
What do we care more about? Private insurance companies staying in business or affordable healthcare for all Americans?

We have the best medical care money can buy. Unfortunately, it's only provided to the wealthy, those who can pay for it. Even insurance companies decrease the value of care you receive. I sometimes think we were better off before insurance.

 

[Greenbeard]

3. The hospitals then charge the government extreme high prices for those who have no coverage, and can't afford any, for example they charged $62,000 dollars for a stay of 4 days in the hospital, in which amounts to what $15,000 dollars a day for one person? We know a woman that this just happened to, so yes this is reality & truth speaking here. This bill was submitted on her behalf, and the government paid it all for her.

What are you referring to here? Medicare, for instance, hasn't operated like that since the '70s. Instead, they operate under an inpatient prospective payment system (prospective in that prices are determined in advance, before anyone gets checked into the hospital), with payments for different cases/procedures adjusted according to set rules based on a number of factors.

Hospitals don't just get to bill whatever they want, they accept payment according to the formulas Medicare uses. State Medicaid programs similarly tend to rely on prospective payment fee schedules in their dealings with hospitals. You don't often hear the argument that Medicare and Medicaid make "exorbitant" reimbursements, since it's pretty well-known that they pay less than private payers.

You can find a brief overview of Medicare's method for reimbursing hospitals here: "Paymentbasics: Hospital Acute Inpatient Services Payment System"

4. Now the hospitals and doctors don't want to show inconsistancy by what they bill right, so if a person comes in to have the same thing done (but they have insurance), well what to do, what to do is what they (the hospitals and doctors) must say right? They then charge the insurance company the extreme bill as well, because they don't want the government to think they are killing them while walking softly with the private carriers now would they ?

As I just mentioned, private insurers are well aware that they pay more than Medicare. However, since they don't compete with Medicare for enrollees that fact offers them no leverage when they go to negotiate reimbursements with a hospital. If I'm enrolled in Blue Cross Blue Shield but I have the option of dropping them and choosing to enroll in Medicare as my insurer and pay them monthly premiums to cover costs, then BCBS can use that leverage in its dealings with hospitals: "Unless our reimbursements are closer to Medicare's (lower) rates, our enrollees are going to drop us and defect to Medicare. Then your hospital revenues are going to take an even larger hit as Medicare's market power grows than they would if you just offered us, BCBS, rates that are somewhere between their current levels and Medicare levels."

But of course that's not how Medicare works. Since BCBS enrollees can't defect to Medicare, that's not a credible argument that BCBS can make to negotiate lower reimbursement rates with hospitals. But that scenario was, of course, the rationale for creating a public health insurance option that would've competed directly with private insurers like BCBS.

Anyway, you might also try to argue that hospitals don't want to show inconsistency between private insurers, who actually do compete against one another. To a degree, that's true. But that doesn't lead to uniformity of reimbursement rates across insurers, it leads to secrecy. As Uwe Reinhardt notes in his excellent, must-read overview of private-sector hospital pricing, "The Pricing Of U.S. Hospital Services: Chaos Behind A Veil Of Secrecy":

Whatever an insurer’s base for paying hospitals might be, the dollar level of payments is negotiated annually between each insurer and each hospital. Under a DRG system [similar to what Medicare uses], for example, the item to be negotiated is the monetary conversion factor for the year and, possibly, some of the DRG weights. These actual dollar payments have traditionally been kept as strict, proprietary trade secrets by both the hospitals and the insurers.

So Insurer A doesn't necessarily know what Insurer B is paying for a given service at a hospital because that's generally not public information. Except in the case of public payers, but the private payers aren't competing against them anyway so that knowledge does them little good.

5. Now the private carriers see this problem of extreme charging, so they have meetings with the doctors billing offices and hospital billing offices, in order to protest these high and unrealistic charges on behalf of their clients and their bottom lines for what is being charged them, but they lose most of the time but why? It's because the hospitals and doctors are not going to risk not getting their extreme payments from the government who is not subjected to the private markets and it's up's and down's that are found so volital within the markets, so they stick with the charge to the private insurance carrier at all cost, in order to show consistancy with the government charges in which they had charged the government for.

You're kind of track here, though again you're off-base about the "extreme payments" you believe providers are getting from the government insurers.

Private insurers do lose quite a bit in the negotiations. The reason is that they lack--or are reluctant to use--leverage against providers. I just put up a thread on this last week: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...health-insurers-need-to-stop-being-wimps.html

This is an area where some sort of policy intervention (and there are various options) is needed.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes cutting 500billion in wasteful govt health spending isn't addressing costs. Moving to a more efficient payment system that reduces costs isn't addressing costs lowering drug costs, etc etc
Analysis of Obamacares cost cutting show that despite expanding health care to 35million people total health care costs will be decreased by the bill


That is because you have noi clue what was int he bill

I'm curious, Star...does it hurt when you pull statistics like those out of your nether regions?

See this is the problem you are so ignorant that when some states facts you think it is bullishit

In case you haven't been paying attention...the COSTS of ObamaCare keep getting revised and it isn't downward.

This is also the problem you are so stupid that you think Obamcare costing more in 20 years then it will in 10 years means the costs increased. According to the CBO over the same time period Obamacare will cost 50billion less then they first estimated

You talk a big game...how about you provide me with a current study that shows how ObamaCare has lowered health care costs for Americans? Once you've done that? Show me how it is we're going to pay for this plan fifteen years from now when the real cost comes due?

Heres one
Ezra Klein - Does health-care reform bend the cost curve up?

and another
The Impact of Health Reform on Health System Spending

and another
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/pdf/system_spending.pdf

and another
CBO: Health reform to cut deficit by $50 billion more than we thought - The Washington Post

So plz come back when you aren't 100% ignorant ont eh topic

When I asked you to show me some studies that show that ObamaCare will lower health care costs I didn't think you'd be stupid enough to cite three that were from 2010. The revisions to the cost of ObamaCare were made THIS year...which happens to be 2012. So toss out the first three that you provided (I won't even comment on how worthless anything ThinkProgress provides is...) and then lets look at the third...

If you read Klein's comments you'll see that he's still including the CBO estimates that include tax increases and cuts that are PROPOSED but haven't actually been implemented. That's the thing about ObamaCare that progressives don't really want to address...namely they can't get the taxes past the GOP controlled House and haven't been able to do so since 2010...and that they haven't actually voted for the cuts to Medicare providers yet that are already included in the CBO's estimates and don't seem to be in any hurry to do so. You'll also notice that they include billions of dollars in "savings" that supposedly will be saved from eliminating fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. That savings hasn't been realized either.

The fact is...CBO estimations are totally controlled by the numbers that they are GIVEN to work with. If they are told that a tax will be implemented that hasn't, nor appears likely to ever be passed, and include that tax in their calculations then what use is the final number? The old saying is...bullshit in...bullshit out. The Obama Administration fed the CBO a bunch of bullshit figures citing cost cutting that hasn't occurred and taxes that haven't been passed. That's bullshit in...and so we got bullshit out.

How about "you" come back when you're not quite so naive on this topic?

 

[starcraftzzz]

I'm curious, Star...does it hurt when you pull statistics like those out of your nether regions?

See this is the problem you are so ignorant that when some states facts you think it is bullishit

This is also the problem you are so stupid that you think Obamcare costing more in 20 years then it will in 10 years means the costs increased. According to the CBO over the same time period Obamacare will cost 50billion less then they first estimated

You talk a big game...how about you provide me with a current study that shows how ObamaCare has lowered health care costs for Americans? Once you've done that? Show me how it is we're going to pay for this plan fifteen years from now when the real cost comes due?

Heres one
Ezra Klein - Does health-care reform bend the cost curve up?

and another
The Impact of Health Reform on Health System Spending

and another
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/pdf/system_spending.pdf

and another
CBO: Health reform to cut deficit by $50 billion more than we thought - The Washington Post

So plz come back when you aren't 100% ignorant ont eh topic

When I asked you to show me some studies that show that ObamaCare will lower health care costs I didn't think you'd be stupid enough to cite three that were from 2010.

I'm sorry for not adhering to your stupid standard that we only use studies done in certain years

The revisions to the cost of ObamaCare were made THIS year...which happens to be 2012. So toss out the first three that you provided (I won't even comment on how worthless anything ThinkProgress provides is...) and then lets look at the third...

Yes so according to you revisions that hshow that costs of been lowered means studies that find Obamacare reduces costs before those revisions means Obamacare increase costs...

If you read Klein's comments you'll see that he's still including the CBO estimates that include tax increases and cuts that are PROPOSED but haven't actually been implemented.

How silly of Klein to analysis what Obamacare will do.

That's the thing about ObamaCare that progressives don't really want to address...

Its sad that Republicans are so stupid that they think we need to address pure ignroance with more ignorance

namely they can't get the taxes past the GOP controlled House and haven't been able to do so since 2010...
and that they haven't actually voted for the cuts to Medicare providers yet that are already included in the CBO's estimates and don't seem to be in any hurry to do so.

ROTFL so according to you obamcare increase costs because the GOP will vote to increase health care costs

The fact is...CBO estimations are totally controlled by the numbers that they are GIVEN to work with. If they are told that a tax will be implemented that hasn't, nor appears likely to ever be passed, and include that tax in their calculations then what use is the final number? How about "you" come back when you're not quite so naive on this topic?

Yes you claiming that Obamacare will not reduce spending because in the future congress will vote to increase spending is me being naive
Come back when your IQ goes above 60

The old saying is...bullshit in...bullshit out. The Obama Administration fed the CBO a bunch of bullshit figures citing cost cutting that hasn't occurred and taxes that haven't been passed. That's bullshit in...and so we got bullshit out.

This is also part of the problem. YOu are so ignorant that you don't realize that the CBO came up with those numbers

 

[Greenbeard]

When I asked you to show me some studies that show that ObamaCare will lower health care costs I didn't think you'd be stupid enough to cite three that were from 2010.

Some observations from March of this year: Slower Growth in Medicare Spending — Is This the New Normal?

But there are indications that Medicare spending growth has slowed. One highly visible gauge of Medicare spending trends is the standard monthly Part B premium, which is set by the Medicare actuary to cover one quarter of total Part B spending. In August 2011, the actuary projected that the Part B premium for 2012 would be $106.60, but the actual premium was set in November at only $99.90. A much broader indicator of a slowing trend is the fact that growth in Medicare outlays per enrollee in 2010 and 2011 was roughly in line with growth in the economy (see graphExcess Medicare Spending Growth.). And in January 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) made a $69 billion downward revision to its 10-year Medicare spending projection — a technical correction that reflects emerging data showing surprisingly slow growth in outlays. Similar slowing trends have led to positive earnings surprises for publicly traded insurers.

Moreover, the DRA and MIPPA were only pale previews of the payment-rate cuts in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA permanently slows the growth in Medicare payment rates for almost every category of provider other than physicians and makes additional targeted cuts to home health agencies and some other providers. As a result, the CBO projects that over the next decade Medicare spending per enrollee will grow substantially more slowly than the overall economy, even if there is a permanent SGR “fix.” Negative excess growth in Medicare is not as implausible as it might first sound — such a trend occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s in the wake of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

The framers of the ACA perceived broad provider-payment reform as the best prospect for slowing the long-term spending trend. But they needed scoreable savings, and they could ill afford to alienate backers by forcing through major payment reforms at the same time. The ACA planted the seeds for accountable care organizations (ACOs), bundled payment for episodes of care, patient-centered medical homes, and incentives for reducing readmissions. Now those seeds offer a way forward.

In site visits and interviews conducted for our ongoing qualitative research, the Center for Studying Health System Change found strong provider interest in payment reform and efforts to prepare for it, with the prospect of increasing constraint on Medicare payment rates cited as motivation. We see a combination of reformed delivery of care and broader units of payment as having the potential to allow providers to generate savings through steps that are less threatening to quality of care and access than are cuts in payment rates. More concretely, payment on the basis of shared savings or partial capitation can reward providers for delivering care more efficiently. This approach is preferable to merely paying providers less and less for business as usual.

There is a historical precedent for harsh, simple-minded cuts setting the stage for broad-based payment reform. Up until the early 1980s, Medicare reimbursed hospitals for costs incurred, subject to ceilings. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 substantially tightened those limits, leaving hospitals with no upside — they could not earn a profit by reducing costs — and a growing downside for those whose costs exceeded the limits. The next year, legislation was passed, with the support of the hospital industry, replacing cost reimbursement with the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS), with rates initially calibrated to leave Medicare outlays unchanged. Hospitals then had the opportunity to reduce costs per admission by shortening lengths of stay and to earn a positive margin in the process.

The IPPS is generally viewed as a major policy success: it encouraged hospitals to seek efficiencies, and when they found those efficiencies, it allowed the federal government to share in the savings. Should ACOs and other reforms prove effective, they will provide broader opportunities to increase the efficiency of delivery beyond shortening lengths of stay, such as managing chronic disease more effectively so as to keep beneficiaries out of the hospital in the first place. But our current challenge is more complex than the one faced in the early 1980s. Broadening the unit of payment will require reaching across different types of providers and helping to stitch together real delivery systems in places where now there are none.

Providers are beginning to change the way they do business to improve the cost picture without compromising quality. The recent Medicare and Medicaid reforms offered carrots for these improvements and, through Medicare, the looming threat of some big sticks on the horizon. The notion that the ACA didn't focus on costs is a talking point, not a reality.

See for instance: What We're Doing | Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation

 

[beagle9]

3. The hospitals then charge the government extreme high prices for those who have no coverage, and can't afford any, for example they charged $62,000 dollars for a stay of 4 days in the hospital, in which amounts to what $15,000 dollars a day for one person? We know a woman that this just happened to, so yes this is reality & truth speaking here. This bill was submitted on her behalf, and the government paid it all for her.

What are you referring to here? Medicare, for instance, hasn't operated like that since the '70s. Instead, they operate under an inpatient prospective payment system (prospective in that prices are determined in advance, before anyone gets checked into the hospital), with payments for different cases/procedures adjusted according to set rules based on a number of factors.

Hospitals don't just get to bill whatever they want, they accept payment according to the formulas Medicare uses. State Medicaid programs similarly tend to rely on prospective payment fee schedules in their dealings with hospitals. You don't often hear the argument that Medicare and Medicaid make "exorbitant" reimbursements, since it's pretty well-known that they pay less than private payers.

You can find a brief overview of Medicare's method for reimbursing hospitals here: "Paymentbasics: Hospital Acute Inpatient Services Payment System"

4. Now the hospitals and doctors don't want to show inconsistancy by what they bill right, so if a person comes in to have the same thing done (but they have insurance), well what to do, what to do is what they (the hospitals and doctors) must say right? They then charge the insurance company the extreme bill as well, because they don't want the government to think they are killing them while walking softly with the private carriers now would they ?

As I just mentioned, private insurers are well aware that they pay more than Medicare. However, since they don't compete with Medicare for enrollees that fact offers them no leverage when they go to negotiate reimbursements with a hospital. If I'm enrolled in Blue Cross Blue Shield but I have the option of dropping them and choosing to enroll in Medicare as my insurer and pay them monthly premiums to cover costs, then BCBS can use that leverage in its dealings with hospitals: "Unless our reimbursements are closer to Medicare's (lower) rates, our enrollees are going to drop us and defect to Medicare. Then your hospital revenues are going to take an even larger hit as Medicare's market power grows than they would if you just offered us, BCBS, rates that are somewhere between their current levels and Medicare levels."

But of course that's not how Medicare works. Since BCBS enrollees can't defect to Medicare, that's not a credible argument that BCBS can make to negotiate lower reimbursement rates with hospitals. But that scenario was, of course, the rationale for creating a public health insurance option that would've competed directly with private insurers like BCBS.

Anyway, you might also try to argue that hospitals don't want to show inconsistency between private insurers, who actually do compete against one another. To a degree, that's true. But that doesn't lead to uniformity of reimbursement rates across insurers, it leads to secrecy. As Uwe Reinhardt notes in his excellent, must-read overview of private-sector hospital pricing, "The Pricing Of U.S. Hospital Services: Chaos Behind A Veil Of Secrecy":

Whatever an insurer’s base for paying hospitals might be, the dollar level of payments is negotiated annually between each insurer and each hospital. Under a DRG system [similar to what Medicare uses], for example, the item to be negotiated is the monetary conversion factor for the year and, possibly, some of the DRG weights. These actual dollar payments have traditionally been kept as strict, proprietary trade secrets by both the hospitals and the insurers.

So Insurer A doesn't necessarily know what Insurer B is paying for a given service at a hospital because that's generally not public information. Except in the case of public payers, but the private payers aren't competing against them anyway so that knowledge does them little good.

5. Now the private carriers see this problem of extreme charging, so they have meetings with the doctors billing offices and hospital billing offices, in order to protest these high and unrealistic charges on behalf of their clients and their bottom lines for what is being charged them, but they lose most of the time but why? It's because the hospitals and doctors are not going to risk not getting their extreme payments from the government who is not subjected to the private markets and it's up's and down's that are found so volital within the markets, so they stick with the charge to the private insurance carrier at all cost, in order to show consistancy with the government charges in which they had charged the government for.

You're kind of track here, though again you're off-base about the "extreme payments" you believe providers are getting from the government insurers.

Private insurers do lose quite a bit in the negotiations. The reason is that they lack--or are reluctant to use--leverage against providers. I just put up a thread on this last week: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...health-insurers-need-to-stop-being-wimps.html

This is an area where some sort of policy intervention (and there are various options) is needed.

There was a hospital in the southern states called "Toumey Hospital", that had a huge lawsuit upon it not long ago, initiated by the federal government, in which also insnared some doctors and such as well in the suit, and this was for defrauding the government on medicare, double billing and so on and so forth I'm thinking it all was about.. Now you were saying..

No telling how wide spread this stuff was going on across this nation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No telling how wide spread this stuff was going on across this nation.

when its somebody elses money there is little incentive to save money, when it is 100% your money there is great incentive. One big reason government fails and private enterprise wins.

 

[Flopper]

Take the post office for example. Close down the post office and let UPS and FEDX take care of the services and all services that don't meet profit expectations would be dropped regardless of their impact on the public. Sell our national parks and national forest to private enterprises and see how fast they close down and sell the least profitable to developers. If you privatize all public schools, kids from poor families who have no money for tuition or their parents choose not to pay it, get no education creating even greater social problems than we have now. Because a service is not profitable does not mean it's not needed.

You bash private enterprise because of CEOs who make a lot of money. They only make a lot of money because the government is damping the free market. In your socialist utopia, the rich CEOs are replaced with rich government bureaucrats and friends, but without any of the desire to please the public. They don't have to please the public because they have a gun to the public's head. Literally.

The poor can still get welfare (vouchers) to send their children to private schools. The government can still mandate that children be educated, even if schools are private.

Without the post office, everyone would still get mail. You can send a UPS package anywhere. Why do you think mail would be different? It's good for business for shippers not to have to worry if UPS will deliver to their customers.

Private conservation groups would be very effective at taking care of national forests. Private doesn't have to mean commercial. Probably the government would do a better job of preserving forests. But, only because your desire to preserve forests is unrelated to providing anyone with a personal service.

Government is why healthcare costs are a crime. Every idea that our politicians have regarding medical care necessarily raises the costs of medical care.

It’s big business that’s eliminating competitors, not big government. Deregulation of the financial and telecommunications industry, and the deregulation of the regulators themselves have encouraged the mega-corporation to gobble up competition. 30% of our smaller banks have been bought out in the last 20 years. 20 years ago, there were over 75 cell phone carriers. Today there are 8. Four, soon to be 3, control 85% of the market.

Private schools like any business will follow the money and the money is not in poor and lower middle class neighborhoods. The wealthy will have the best schools and best teachers because they can afford the high tuitions. Those with lower income will have the poorer schools and teachers because they can’t afford to pay the tuition. This is how the free market works and there’s no reason to think it would work any different in education. Vouchers for the poor do not solve the problem. They would make it possible for the low income parents to send their kids to school, poor schools.

If we really wanted to improve our schools, we should make private schools illegal, and assign every child to a public school by random lottery. If suddenly CEOs' children, diplomats' children, and the children of our nation's leaders were attending public schools, I guarantee we would soon have a system of high quality schools in which every child would get an excellent education.

You can not send UPS packages, or for that matter Fedx packages, anywhere. These companies delivery where it's profitable to delivery. They do not deliver to P.O. boxes because most p.o. boxes are too small for most packages, however for many people that's the only way they receive mail. UPS delivers only to RFD boxes that can be easily reached. They do not delivery to APO addresses. Congress should allow the post office to make the necessarily cuts to eliminate it's deficit. The need for postal services will decrease with time and as they do, the post office should be allow to cut back services. Eventually the post office will disappear because there will be no need for it.

Government is not the primary cause of higher healthcare costs. The major cause is the increase in demand for healthcare.