No one denies it is worthwhile....

Romney is coming out with a plan for healthcare

Quote: AZDuffman

The plan was presented with only 6 years of cost but 10 years of revenue to make it look like it will save money. Already they are revising costs upwards. If you believe that government getting involved and millions of people lining up for their "free" health care then you probably believe Big 6/8 is the smartest bet in the casino.

They have many times. It is a budget-busting big government program to do something that is not the government's job to do.

Well, at the risk of interjecting facts into this discussion,
I'll refer you to this article, which in part says:

"A new non-partisan report finds that the cumulative effects of President Obama's health care reform package would be beneficial for the government's efforts at debt reduction if the law is implemented fully.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office put out a report on Monday afternoon that provides some welcome news for defenders of the Affordable Care Act and, perhaps, a bit of pause for those eager to overturn or de-fund the legislation. The debt is an increasingly dire crisis, the investigative arm of Congress found. But one thing alleviating the problem, though by no means eliminating it, is the health care reform package passed this past spring."

NON-PARTISAN GAO REPORT SUMMARY

Quote: JohnnyQ

Well, at the risk of interjecting facts into this discussion,
I'll refer you to this article, which in part says:

"A new non-partisan report finds that the cumulative effects of President Obama's health care reform package would be beneficial for the government's efforts at debt reduction if the law is implemented fully.

And I will repeat it again--show me any government social policy that did not end up costing several times what the government said it will. No sane person can think giving away health coverage is going to lower the deficit. And it has been proven the law was sold by taking 10 years revenue against 7 years expenses.

Quote: AZDuffman

And I will repeat it again--show me any government social policy that did not end up costing several times what the government said it will.

OK, that one makes some sense.

Quote: AZDuffman

No sane person can think giving away health coverage is going to lower the deficit.

Not sure that is quite right. The poorest of the poor will get medical care with
or without insurance, and whether the insurance is given to them or not. So,
no difference for that segment.

BUT if someone can afford health care insurance, then I think they should have it. The
point of the legislation is to require people to buy insurance, right ? Buy it. Not given away.

Quote: AZDuffman

And it has been proven the law was sold by taking 10 years revenue against 7 years expenses.

Well OK, then, if you say so (or Rush said so) I guess it must be true. So the highly respected and
independent non-partisan GAO got it all wrong when they issued their report ?

I will read the article about the 10 years vs 7 if you post the link.

Obamacare will not solve all of the Healthcare cost issues this country faces.
But it is a big step in the right direction. Very easy for the Republican "leadership"
to criticize when they don't have an alternative plan themselves.

Insurance is a simple game. The premiums the company charges have to outpace the checks it writes. If more is covered, the higher the premiums go. I would prefer my health policy, like I said in a previous post on this thread, to act like other insurance policies I have. If I go in for my annual checkup, I don't mind writing a $200 check to the doctors office, and thus don't want it covered in my plan. If I go to the dentist for my annual cleaning, I can pay for that out of pocket, I don't want that covered. Just like I don't whip out my auto insurance policy when I fill my tank. Those are routine expenses and people should be able to pay those out of pocket. If I need to stay in the hospital overnight, have a surgery or my wife to have a baby, those are things I can't pay for out of pocket and would expect the insurance to cover. But those simple $200 expenses we have insured, the insurance company is adding $500 worth of premium to our policy to cover that simple visit, then I have to pay a co-pay on top of it. It's utterly ridiculous. I don't buy insurance to cover things I can cover on my own. It makes no sense whatsoever, you buy insurance to cover a catastrophe, something that would put you in a financial bind if you didn't have it. Insuring stuff you can afford to pay for on your own is throwing money down the toilet.

Quote: Gabes22

If I go in for my annual checkup, I don't mind writing a $200 check to the doctors office.

Well, that's the problem. Most people, who are not as well-off as you are, do mind it. $200 for them ($1000 for a family) may be a cost of a summer vacation, or a "new" car to get to and from work, or, perhaps, a year worth of textbooks for the kids. They will skip their annual checkup, and won't see a doctor for as long as they possibly can, until the symptoms become unbearable, and the treatment requires several invasive surgeries, hospital stays and expensive recovery.
That is one of the biggest reasons why medical insurance and health care in general is so damn expensive in the US. Nobody in their right mind wants to pay hundreds of dollars to have their weight taken and blood work done. It is insane.

Quote: Gabes22

If I need to stay in the hospital overnight, have a surgery or my wife to have a baby, those are things I can't pay for out of pocket and would expect the insurance to cover.

So, basically, you are saying, that you don't want your auto insurance to pay for filling up your tank, but, if your transmission goes south or the engine stalls, then you would fully expect it to be covered. Is that it?

Quote: JohnnyQ

Not sure that is quite right. The poorest of the poor will get medical care with
or without insurance, and whether the insurance is given to them or not. So,
no difference for that segment.

Now wait a minute--I keep hearing "the poor are currently going without medical care." So which is it?

Quote:

BUT if someone can afford health care insurance, then I think they should have it. The
point of the legislation is to require people to buy insurance, right ? Buy it. Not given away.

You can think that all you want. It does not make it right. And the Obamacare law forces people to buy an "approved" plan. I have no need for a plan that covers birth control pills, but thanks to Obama I will have to buy one that does.

Quote:

Well OK, then, if you say so (or Rush said so) I guess it must be true. So the highly respected and
independent non-partisan GAO got it all wrong when they issued their report ?

The GAO and CBO can only score things as the law is written. When the law collects revenue for 10 years but pays benefits for only 6 (see below, I stand corrected) it has to score it that way. It is as if I asked someone here to score my craps wins if I plan to use dice control to limit a 7 to once every 8 rolls. Can't be done, but I placed the order so they would give said results, even if they are unrealistic.

Quote:

I will read the article about the 10 years vs 7 if you post the link.

Here is one article. Google "Obamacare 10 years revenue 6 years cost" for more.

Quote:

Obamacare will not solve all of the Healthcare cost issues this country faces.
But it is a big step in the right direction. Very easy for the Republican "leadership"
to criticize when they don't have an alternative plan themselves.

So now you know how Bush felt when he proposed partial private accounts for Social Security and the liberals just tore into it with no alternative. Of course, Obamacare is not a step in the right direction but a step towards socialism.

LOL! Believe me, I used to sell cars. There is no "new" car you can get for $1000. Heck there isn't even a beater you can walk of the dealer lot for $1000. I personally think the requirement to have insurance is a hindrance to the medical industry. There are many people who don't want to pay $500 or more worth of premiums for something 90% of America could afford to pay out of pocket, and is a fraction of the cost of the premium. If health insurance covered stuff that an insurance policy should cover, which is stuff the average American couldn't pay for out of pocket, then premiums would drop dramatically.

Quote: Gabes22

LOL! Believe me, I used to sell cars. There is no "new" car you can get for $1000. Heck there isn't even a beater you can walk of the dealer lot for $1000. I personally think the requirement to have insurance is a hindrance to the medical industry. There are many people who don't want to pay $500 or more worth of premiums for something 90% of America could afford to pay out of pocket, and is a fraction of the cost of the premium. If health insurance covered stuff that an insurance policy should cover, which is stuff the average American couldn't pay for out of pocket, then premiums would drop dramatically.

I always remember my mother writing a check to the pediatrician after each doctor visit when I was growing up. Back then health insurance was that, insurance. Now it really is a 'health plan'. I kid you not- I get a free massage once a month from my 'health insurance'. It may be free to me but it certainly isn't to my employer. If someone wants to google the cosmetic surgery fiasco that was part of the Buffalo school teacher's contracts, you'll get a laugh. They were getting free boob jobs and nose jobs, on the taxpayer's dime. The costs to the schools were staggering.

Quote: SOOPOO

I always remember my mother writing a check to the pediatrician after each doctor visit when I was growing up. Back then health insurance was that, insurance.

In the 70's, I worked summers on my Uncle's farm in Pennsylvania. I developed a nasty sore throat and made a appointment with the doctor in town. The bill was $15, there was no insurance transaction. The doctor had one of the nicest homes in town but he wasn't the wealthiest person in town.

Today, the doctor's I know have nice homes but are not the wealthiest people in town...but the insurance companies seem to own a whole bunch of the largest buildings around. Someone is getting wealthy off the $200 office visit but it isn't necessarily the doctor as much as all the others taking a bite of the pie...malpractice insurance, health insurance, lawyers, etc.

We (individually) don't care how much something costs if we are covered...all we pay is the co-pay. Once we ceased to be responsible for the bill it no longer mattered what it looked like...

Quote: SOOPOO

I kid you not- I get a free massage once a month from my 'health insurance'. It may be free to me but it certainly isn't to my employer. If someone wants to google the cosmetic surgery fiasco that was part of the Buffalo school teacher's contracts, you'll get a laugh. They were getting free boob jobs and nose jobs, on the taxpayer's dime. The costs to the schools were staggering.

Your employer may be the one writing the check for your health plan but they certainly aren't really the ones paying the bill. Your customers are the ones that pay the bill. They have to charge more for your services to cover health care costs because I am willing to be they are not sacrificing too much of their profit!!

It'll only be worse if more health care is paid for by the government. The Department of Inefficiency will end up being involved and we'll have higher costs for worse service because we will have taken the individual completely out of the loop. There aren't a whole lot of government programs that actually cost what we were told they would cost. Then, when it costs too much, they'll simply provide less at the same price...

There is a way to figure this out without complete government control. That would be a better direction than the one we are headed in now.

Many hospitals now offer exercise programs that are replacing the local gyms since local gyms can't accept insurance but a hospital can open a bare bones gym since it controls the "patient" flow.

The best thing that a woman of 30 can do in regards to breast cancer at 60 is to eat fresh vegetables and exercise, but an insurer who gives away gym memberships and certificates for fresh produce at the local supermarket will not benefit because in thirty years almost no one will have the same health insurer, even if they have the same job. So with these 'one payor' systems that have been adopted ... anyone been getting free vegetables lately?

In the real world any "cost-delineated legislation" would actually lead to accounting jokes such "the balanced budget" or other nonsense. Remember, Enron had a balanced budget. Most of the problems at Enron were off the books, so is much taxation.

"zero based budgeting" during the Carter years was a joke... it just meant more and more reams of paper being run-off the photocopiers but everyone still started at last year's budget, not zero.

Quote: RonC

Today, the doctor's I know have nice homes but are not the wealthiest people in town...but the insurance companies seem to own a whole bunch of the largest buildings around. Someone is getting wealthy off the $200 office visit but it isn't necessarily the doctor as much as all the others taking a bite of the pie...malpractice insurance, health insurance, lawyers, etc.

I don't know if they "own" the4 buildings, they just occupy them. The buildings are so huge because of the mess indirect health payments (and you are correct, it is no longer "insurance") require so much paperwork you need to house a big white-collar sweatshop to process it all. Health insurance is not all that profitable of a business on a ROI basis.

Quote: AZDuffman

I don't know if they "own" the4 buildings, they just occupy them. The buildings are so huge because of the mess indirect health payments (and you are correct, it is no longer "insurance") require so much paperwork you need to house a big white-collar sweatshop to process it all. Health insurance is not all that profitable of a business on a ROI basis.

I think you missed the point, so perhaps it is my fault for not making it clear. I'll try it again without reference to the insurance industry.

Your doctor may well charge $200 for an appointment but there are a lot of hands reaching for a piece of that pie where 40 years ago there were not the same amount reaching in to get a piece of the smaller pie. Health care was less expensive because we paid for a lot of it "out of pocket" instead of with "insurance."

I am mathematically challenged but I wonder about the figures for stuff like ROI that we are given sometimes...If I sell 200 people insurance at $2,000 a year and my total costs per policy is $1,900, I have made $100 on each policy without a real "investment"...my profit margin may not be that high but neither is my actual cash investment. I had a math guy who worked in marketing research tell me that one of the scooter places spent $1,400 on every chair to bring in $1,500. Do that a whole bunch of times and you'll have a pretty large profit that may not look like a huge ROI.

Quote: RonC

I am mathematically challenged but I wonder about the figures for stuff like ROI that we are given sometimes...If I sell 200 people insurance at $2,000 a year and my total costs per policy is $1,900, I have made $100 on each policy without a real "investment"...my profit margin may not be that high but neither is my actual cash investment. I had a math guy who worked in marketing research tell me that one of the scooter places spent $1,400 on every chair to bring in $1,500. Do that a whole bunch of times and you'll have a pretty large profit that may not look like a huge ROI.

You are making my point in your post, but I will clairify it. If your cost is $1,900 on a $2,000 policy then there is a real "investment" there--an investment of $1,900. In this case you have a margin of about 5%. (NOTE: for the technical-oriented people reading, and that is most of the regulars, I know I should not mix profit margin and ROI as freely as I am here.) 5% is not great, about the same as net margin on a big retail store. When I ran the pest control branch I got about 15% and they wanted 20-25% which I never could get as my market didn't have the highest margin product market, termite renewals, which had a margin of 40-50% or more.

There are hugh cash investmerns in health insurance. You need to be in compliance with a myriad of ever-changing federal and state rules. You need a large team for customer service and claims processing. You need some good computing power. And you need an outside salesforce to both sign up your groups and get the providers in your network. You have to get those providers to accept what you are willing to pay them. Even with the waves of consolidation going on in health care it is still very many doctors hanging out a shingle.

The scooter company is another example. They have a huge investment in advertising.

Bottom lime is people think just because the insurance company "makes billions" it is a license to print money. It is not.

Super plan. Less tax base for the country and a windfall for the insurance industry.