Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm not going to try to defend the profitability of private insurance companies. I've seen too many very nice buildings to not believe that these guys make money.
However, I've seen too many cost calculations from the government that say we are saving bundles of cash and then end up spending more than we spent previously. Unless the 1/5 figure is supported by something outside of government fantasy figures, i would tend to think that it's either an unintentional lie or an intentional one.
The lie is not yours. I've heard that figure elsewhere. Still, it challenges credulity that the government can do something cheaply when there is no incentive to do anything cheaply.
It's actually pretty simple when you think about it. Medicare handles so many claims that is has massive economics of scale.
Read this "CONTROL"
Congrats Klop.
YOU have cemented your stance as one of a fucking Statist.
Preventive care does reduce cost. The reason studies say preventive care may not reduce costs is because the savings will be cancelled out by people living longer. If that's your affordability measure, we can solve growing health care costs tomorrow by going Logan's Run.
Medical loss ratios reduce cost by removing the incentives for arbitrary rate increases.
Digital records will save money, and you note that yourself without even realizing. If it's easier to track and bill procedures, it's also cheaper to track and bill procedures. It costs less money to fill out and submit a form than it does to do so twenty times.
All the experts, all the studies, all the data, is wrong, all because you decided it is wrong. Preventative care works.
Medical loss rations, will not reduce cost because, even if the insurer actually develops a way to reduce costs, they will not benefit from it. You know why? Because they reduce the incentives to save money, because any costs they reduce will not result in increased profits.
As I said, digital records might save money, but if it does it will be long term, after a massive investment in new technology. The savings are only potential even after that. It is wonderful that you believe in rainbows and unicorns, but the rest of us live in the real world.
You know the difference between you and rdean?
Neither do I.
I've spoke to a few HR Proffessionals on this topic. They are in agreement that a predictable, flat rate of cost in any category of expense beats one that varies wildly and unpredictably.
Then I would strongly suggest they push for building a state SHOP exchange based on a defined employer contribution + premium aggregator model in which employees choose whichever plan they like (perhaps in a given actuarial tier) and pay the difference between the employer contribution and their plan cost themselves. Employer premiums are then predictable and the costs of fluctuations fall on the employee.
The magic of a high-functioning insurance market.
Preventive care does reduce cost. The reason studies say preventive care may not reduce costs is because the savings will be cancelled out by people living longer. If that's your affordability measure, we can solve growing health care costs tomorrow by going Logan's Run.
Medical loss ratios reduce cost by removing the incentives for arbitrary rate increases.
Digital records will save money, and you note that yourself without even realizing. If it's easier to track and bill procedures, it's also cheaper to track and bill procedures. It costs less money to fill out and submit a form than it does to do so twenty times.
All the experts, all the studies, all the data, is wrong, all because you decided it is wrong. Preventative care works.
Medical loss rations, will not reduce cost because, even if the insurer actually develops a way to reduce costs, they will not benefit from it. You know why? Because they reduce the incentives to save money, because any costs they reduce will not result in increased profits.
As I said, digital records might save money, but if it does it will be long term, after a massive investment in new technology. The savings are only potential even after that. It is wonderful that you believe in rainbows and unicorns, but the rest of us live in the real world.
You know the difference between you and rdean?
Neither do I.
All the studies? You haven't cited a single study. You quoted one newspaper article that claims it may cost more.
If you fail to see how the reduction in errors and duplicate procedures that digital medical records will create saves money, there really isn't any point in talking to you.
When Preventive Care Costs More - NYTimes.comThe report, published online this week in the journal Health Affairs, projected that people with Type 2 diabetes who participated in a disease management program to prevent serious complications would cost the federal government slightly more money over 25 years than they would have without any intervention. The management program would save money only among the youngest participants in their 20s, the researchers found.
Reject the facts? You just linked to two different versions of the same article, and keep jumping up and down claiming preventive care costs more, when even the analysis in your articles don't agree with that claim.
Reject the facts? You just linked to two different versions of the same article, and keep jumping up and down claiming preventive care costs more, when even the analysis in your articles don't agree with that claim.
I see, linking to two different studies, and an article where the CBO admits it is looking at the wrong data, is linking to two different versions of the same article.
Do you know that, even though I was right in my assessment of your honesty, I am still disappointed?
The new research offers them added ammunition, arguing that the 10-year horizon typically used by CBO analysts is too brief to capture the savings that eventually result from improved public health. The authors -- who include two University of Chicago medical professors as well as O'Grady and James C. Capretta, who both served for years in various health policy positions in Washington -- suggest that the CBO instead use a 25-year "budget window" to calculate the cost of prevention programs.
Reject the facts? You just linked to two different versions of the same article, and keep jumping up and down claiming preventive care costs more, when even the analysis in your articles don't agree with that claim.
I see, linking to two different studies, and an article where the CBO admits it is looking at the wrong data, is linking to two different versions of the same article.
Do you know that, even though I was right in my assessment of your honesty, I am still disappointed?
The third article isn't about the CBO, it's another version of the first article. And guess what? It states the exact opposite of what you claim it states...
So even the author of the study you claim shows preventive cares doesn't save money states that's because CBO's measures underestimate the savings.The new research offers them added ammunition, arguing that the 10-year horizon typically used by CBO analysts is too brief to capture the savings that eventually result from improved public health. The authors -- who include two University of Chicago medical professors as well as O'Grady and James C. Capretta, who both served for years in various health policy positions in Washington -- suggest that the CBO instead use a 25-year "budget window" to calculate the cost of prevention programs.
Using data from long-standing clinical trials, researchers projected the cost of caring for people with Type 2 diabetes as they progress from diagnosis to various complications and death. Enrolling federally-insured patients in a simple but aggressive program to control the disease would cost the government $1,024 per person per year -- money that largely would be recovered after 25 years through lower spending on dialysis, kidney transplants, amputations and other forms of treatment, the study found. However, except for the youngest diabetics, the additional services would add to overall health spending, not decrease it, the study shows.
