This healthcare bill is going to come to a vote in the Senate pretty soon, I'm guessing. I hear that Obama is going to do a blitzkreig tour of various talking head shows, selling the omnibus healthcare bill. All our debate on this forum is of little consequence. Take the time to write your US Senator now, when it may have an influence on their vote. I just sent my email to my two US Senators from Texas urging them to vote against the bill -- on the assumption that the bill will be substantially similar to the bill in the US House. My guess is there are not going to be substantive changes, now.
I voiced my chief concerns to be that (1) the bill would unacceptably balloon the US budget deficit and (2) the bill would weaken and damage Medicare. I'm getting close enough to 65 that I'm starting to take an interest and to care about Medicare. Also, my mother-in-law is already there. I also said that I was very concerned the legislation would damage and weaken my own excellent healthcare insurance and access to healthcare.
I advocated starting the process of healthcare reform over from scratch. I advocated studying the problems to identify what was and was not a true problem. I explicitly voiced my skepticism that the healthcare system problems were as bad as portrayed by the media and the Democrats. I advocated drafting narrowly targeted bills for each identified bonafide problem. If there is a problem of excessive healthcare insurance company malfaesance, draft a bill directed to correcting healthcare insurance company malfaesance issues. If there is a problem of medical liability, draft a bill directed to correcting medical liability issues (tort reform). If there is a problem of pre-existing conditions leading to denials of healthcare insurance, draft a bill direted to excluding pre-existing condition provisions. Too many evils can be hidden under a gigantic omnibus healthcare bill such as the Democrats are advocating.
I also addressed the argument that the increase in healthcare costs is evidence of a crisis. The last I heard, healthcare insurance or healthcare costs have increased 100% over the last decade. That amounts to about 8% increase per year. While many people would like to enjoy year 2000 healthcare insurance and/or healthcare costs in 2010, I wonder how many would want to be stuck with the healthcare of 2000? We have many more procedures, our medical equipment is much more sophisticated than it was in 2000. Additionally, we have aged, on average, as a nation and older people consume more healthcare. Furthermore, isn't the healthcare industry just as subject to the effects of inflation as the rest of us? Don't they consume energy and hence pay more today than they did in 2000 for their energy? Don't they buy raw materials and manufactured articles and hence pay more today than they did in 2000 for these articles? If you consider the role of external inflationary effects (energy, raw materials) driving up healthcare costs and the fact that the delivered healthcare is not a constant unit of product, why is this an indication that the healthcare industry is in crisis?
And I concluded with a request for them to vote against the US Senate bill which is going to be, count on it, a faithful analog of the US House bill. In my case, the two US Senators were probably already on cruise control to vote against this healthcare bill, but maybe your senators are not yet committed. Let them hear your voice. It is easy. Google their name "Senator XXXX" and click on the link. Don't know your senator's name, there are easy ways to discover this also by googling or other searches. Talk is cheap. Send an email to someone who is going to have a vote on this thing. Also email your US Representative. Do it now, before this thing fast forwards to a vote in the middle of the night.
I also addressed the argument that the increase in healthcare costs is evidence of a crisis. The last I heard, healthcare insurance or healthcare costs have increased 100% over the last decade. That amounts to about 8% increase per year. While many people would like to enjoy year 2000 healthcare insurance and/or healthcare costs in 2010, I wonder how many would want to be stuck with the healthcare of 2000? We have many more procedures, our medical equipment is much more sophisticated than it was in 2000.
I'm as opposed to a proposal for a public option form of health care reform as anyone. But some of the Republican talking points aren't making sense to me, and this is one of them.
What new medical procedures are available now that weren't available in 2000? Quick, without using Google. You talk about being "stuck" in 2000 health care, so you should be able to cite a few examples of how it is better now.
Once we've established how much health care has improved since 2000, I think we'll find that it doesn't justify a 100% increase in cost. And inflation certainly doesn't increase a 100% increase in cost. Finally, if it's okay that it increases by 100% from 2000-2010, will we then be okay with it increasing by 100% from 2010 to 2020? And another 100% form 2020 to 2030?
I almost always agree with you, but I don't see much reason behind this logic.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
I suggest that congress and this administration clean up the fraud first. Then start working on healthcare. What is the rush? Hell, Im p.oed that they say there is fraud and wasted money, but refuse to act on it, unless they get their healthcare bill passed. Or it appears as such.
On another note, have you ever wondered why tort reform keeps getting cut from all the bills? It has proven to lower healthcare cost. When California did it, premiums dropped on the average 40%. I think Howard Dean said it best himself. "Democrats in Congress did not include tort reform in the health care bill because they were fearful of taking on the trial lawyers." Those very trial lawyers who provide lots of money to the party.
Another thought; Why not open boarders, as the Republicans suggest, to create national competition. I might be going out on a limb here, but it appears they do not want to come up with solutions that might take from the passing of a Government Option. Lets face it, The liberal members of congress want government run healthcare. Plane and simple. If other options are used, with results, they wont get a government plan. I feel they know such, that would explain their reluctants so listen to the Republican's ideas. I feel the bills they are trying to pass are too misleading and eat up with smoke and mirrors. I would love to see insurance reform, but not government run.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
Once we've established how much health care has improved since 2000, I think we'll find that it doesn't justify a 100% increase in cost. And inflation certainly doesn't increase a 100% increase in cost. Finally, if it's okay that it increases by 100% from 2000-2010, will we then be okay with it increasing by 100% from 2010 to 2020? And another 100% form 2020 to 2030?
I almost always agree with you, but I don't see much reason behind this logic.
I'm not going to play the game of bean counting the differences cause I'm not going to invest my time doing the research. Speaking for myself, I now get an annual flu shot; I did not get a flu shot ever before 2000. I got a battery of Hepatis vaccines in 2006/2007 (A and B: one is a two shot battery, the other is a three shot battery). I got a colonoscopy in 2006, my wife will get one this year. We didn't get them before. I had a ultrasound procedure to diagnose (negatively, thankfully) a symptom that could have been an aeortic embolism. I had a stress test with some sort of swallowing of a radioactive substance involved. I didn't get this sort of thing in the past. I'm guessing these procedures have come into normal practice whereas they weren't formerly. It is a continuum. To me, an 8% annual increase driven by changing the target of "a unit of annual healthcare" is not at all difficult to understand and accept. It only takes an annual 8% increase to accumulate to a 100% increase over 10 years. Try it. For the mathematically inclined this can be readily calculated on your calculator as 1.08^10 -- where the carat indicates exponentiation.
Also, you have neglected my point that there is an inflation factor that effect healthcare, too. Suppose this accounts for 3% of the annual healthcare increases. Crudely, this drops the annual healthcare cost increase to 5% per year. Do you buy a 5% increase in healthcare costs driven by a moving target of "a unit of healthcare?"
You also maintained at least momentarily that is wasn't broken; you argued that those who need health care get it, etc.
I'll give you that moment of zen. I respect and always enjoy your writing but you did argue that things are not that bad.
You read me correctly. I'm saying that those who need healthcare get it. Of course, I'm not saying this means 99.99999999999% of all cases satisfy that statement. I'm an engineer by training, and I'm satisfied with a lower PRACTICAL threshold of success. How would you feel if I asserted that 95% of those needing healthcare in the United States that are also US citizens get the healthcare they need? I don't know what the actual correct number would be, but I would say that if that number was 95%, I would feel justified in contending the system isn't broken.
I've been hearing since the early years of the Clinton administration that the healthcare sky is falling -- that is 16 years ago. I would like to know if the sky has fallen yet? If it has, I missed it. So have several pretty impeccunious people of my acquaintance who seem to have been able to keep on keepin on in the dire situation of failed healthcare. Not in my observation. I'm not saying the system is perfect. I'm not saying 99.999999999999% get the care they need. I'm saying it appears to me that 95% get the care they need, and that's success in my book.
Once we've established how much health care has improved since 2000, I think we'll find that it doesn't justify a 100% increase in cost. And inflation certainly doesn't increase a 100% increase in cost. Finally, if it's okay that it increases by 100% from 2000-2010, will we then be okay with it increasing by 100% from 2010 to 2020? And another 100% form 2020 to 2030?
I almost always agree with you, but I don't see much reason behind this logic.
I didn't answer this. "Okay with" isn't really operable. If you ask me if I'm "Okay with" being 53 years old versus being 26 years old I would say h311 no!!!! But it is a fact of life. A 1972 Pontiac Bonneville whale sized car cost $5,200 decked out with all the options. I just bought a new 2010 Toyota Corolla with few deluxe features for $18,000. Am I OK with that? Does it matter what I think of how I feel about that? No. Inflation happens. Why would healthcare be different? And remember . . . there is significant component of difference in "annual unit of healthcare" that is built into that 8% annual growth of healthcare costs.
Start asking yourself how much prices of things -- bread, milk, gasoline, real estate, college tuition, shoes, eyeglasses, hunting licenses, ammunition, cars -- have changed over your life. They have changed a lot in my life. Bread is still bread, milk is still milk. Gasoline is still gasoline. You can argue that our real estate may be a moving target -- central air has improved, more amenities, more aesthetic features.
My bottom line is, I cannot see where an annual 8% increase in healthcare can be looked at and flagged as a disaster. Heck, college costs probably increase that much and no one is asserting that college education quality has improved on the order of healthcare!
These are just my opinions. I'm not always right. But this seems like a pretty reasonable take on this issue of increasing healthcare costs.
What new medical procedures are available now that weren't available in 2000?,
Prostate surgery is now being performed by robotic means which is fast, more percise and quicker recovery.
Quote:
Once we've established how much health care has improved since 2000, I think we'll find that it doesn't justify a 100% increase in cost. And inflation certainly doesn't increase a 100% increase in cost. Finally, if it's okay that it increases by 100% from 2000-2010, will we then be okay with it increasing by 100% from 2010 to 2020? And another 100% form 2020 to 2030?
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
The average cost for family healthcare is at $5700 today, are you telling me it was only $2850 in 2000?
I'm not telling you that at all. I really have no idea what the cost was in 2000. I'm merely working off the premise of a 100% increase in 8 years that has been offered on this thread. A premise that I assume was introduced by supporters of health care reform. I seriously doubt the increase has been that much.
Alsatian, I don't think we can afford an ongoing 8% increase per year in any necessity, be it health care or utilities or groceries. Does your paycheck increase enough each year to accommodate such increases? Mine doesn't, and I would suggest that neither does the paycheck of about 95% of other Americans.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
I'm not telling you that at all. I really have no idea what the cost was in 2000. I'm merely working off the premise of a 100% increase in 8 years that has been offered on this thread. A premise that I assume was introduced by supporters of health care reform. I seriously doubt the increase has been that much.
Bingo, however there's the biggest proponent on this forum right now counting down the days when he can rely on his neighbors to pay for his healthcare is spreading these lies. It's time to discuss the real issues and the minor changes that are required for the private sector (excluding the major public changes that are required)
Quote:
Alsatian, I don't think we can afford an ongoing 8% increase per year in any necessity, be it health care or utilities or groceries. Does your paycheck increase enough each year to accommodate such increases? Mine doesn't, and I would suggest that neither does the paycheck of about 95% of other Americans.
The root problem is the public controled piece. The government only pays 70 cents on the dollar of their bill. That's not the same as the negotiated rate your insurance company pays. That's an additional discount they take because they don't negotiate. Just like in my biz. They mandate their price will be 8% better on the same package we sell to the private sector. If not, you don't do business. What are we finding out? Doctors aren't doing business with the government more and more. Second, it's the mandates. Government sets the rules for what you must buy, not you or your insurance company. I actually looked for catastrophic care this past year, I can't buy it because insurance companies can't offer it. That's total BS because pay as you go is a viable alternative along with HSA's.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Talk is cheap
