Quote:

Quote:


The increase in national health spending would be $114.2 billion over the 2010 through 2019 period and $527.4 billion over the 2020 through 2029 period.


That cost estimate is complete lunacy. Exactly how much is going to cost to add millions of people to insurance rolls, public or private? Hint: we already know from current experience, $5k-$8k per year. How they estimate $114B for a *decade* is beyond me, unless they plan to only add 2%-3% of the uninsured. My estimate is that adding the uninsured will cost $300B-$400B per *year*, based on known costs.



Yeah, all these numbers are suspect. That's a big part of why I was saying I was skeptical of this plan working. I've heard a lot on TV about how Harry Reid has been in constant "contact" with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). I translate that as meaning he's learning how to massage the CBO economic models so he gets the financial scoring he wants. Which to me, goes against the whole entire spirit of these economic models. You can't sit there and manipulate the fuck out of them till it gives you the answers you want. They're not that reliable.

But, that report isn't saying the newly covered people will one increase national health expenditures $114.2 B. They have in there a comment that just the people who will newly get Medicaid will increase expenditures by $329.4 B. They're saying after all increases and savings, the expenditures will increase $114.2 B.

That 3 page report I linked to above doesn't spell it out directly like I've seen previous Lewin Group reports do for other plans, including previous carnations of Obamacare. But, looking at that report now, some of the savings come from reducing administrative work in insurance companies and slashing Medicare. The old will still be insured! They just won't be insured, as well. They also seem to be cutting into profits of health care providers producing some savings.

Quote:

For example, part of this kills off private hospitals on the theory that they siphon off paying customers from public hospitals, resulting in fewer people for public hospitals to overcharge to make up for government mandates.



I haven't seen anything on killing off private hospitals. I look for that next time I'm reading about it.

Quote:

There's really no substantial savings to be had in the system at all without going to a Euro/Canadian system of rationing and eliminating middlemen (mainly for-profit insurance).



I like Netherlands's system. They simply mandate that all insurance companies must except everyone and that everyone must have insurance, or face penalties. All insurance companies are private. And, individuals buy their own insurance, it's not done through employers, making health insurance portable so you're not forced to change providers all the time. That's what the HAA is based on. Netherlands's health care system has the highest customer satisfaction rate in all of Europe. I'm not aware of any rationing of care they implement. But, I'm no expert.

Quote:

My plan would be to eliminate middlemen, which would cost 30% of cost out



That's kind of what the Healthy Americans Act (HAA), does. Here's one of the more in-depth reports I was talking about above that covers the election campaign versions of Obamacare, McCain's plan, the HAA, and a Medicare-for-all plan: Click

Basically, there are reforms in the HAA, discussed in that report, that cut the administrative work done by health insurance companies in half. The report claims this would be a savings of $544.6B.

Two of the bigger insurance company administration reforms are 1.) moving the insurance industry from "experience rating" (looking at individuals to determine how much they will pay for health insurance) to "community rating" (looking at geographic regions to determine how much individuals will pay). And, to enforce mandates and figure tax breaks individuals will receive, the hated IRS collects health insurance premiums and passes them on to the insurance companies. By consolidating premium collections in with what the IRS already does, this eliminates costs incurred by insurance companies in collecting premiums.

Quote:

and bring drug prices into balance by charging very high taxes on companies that sold similar quantities of drugs in the US for more than other 1st-world countries.



During the election, both McCain and Obama supported importing drugs to get around the high prices charged in America. If that happened, drug companies would just slash their prices and we wouldn't have to import anything. I don't know what happened to that idea. The idea in Obamacare is basically what you say, a tax on brand name prescription drugs.

Quote:

What's the bottom line with the uninsured? For example if it was in effect right now would Melissa-Ashley be able to get her hysterectomy right away instead of asking for donations? Would Tina Tyler not have had to go to Canada for her shit?



That is the one good thing about Obamacare. The uninsured could get insurance, if they can afford it. But, several other plans do the same thing, without being convoluted. Convolution examples being slashing the loved program, Medicare, jacking up the hated program, Medicaid. Preserving the employer health care tax credit which favors the wealthy (although they are tweaking this by currently saying they want to tax the most expensive health insurance plans - it's just not an elimination of the problem, the wealthy are still favored. And, I've already heard quotes by Harry Reid where he wants to take that tax out.) Preserving experience rating which jacks up administrative costs in insurance companies. The stupid bill is 1,200 pages long. So, when there is a problem with a claim being paid, the average Joe will never be able to figure out what the real deal is (From memory, the HAA is only 164 pages). That's just off the top of my head. The bill is complex, so there's all these financial tweaks that the more I hear about them, the wrong people lose...

Quote:

Appreciable? What are you talking about? You mean you don't appreciate the research? Or the company, in which you are shareholder, doesn't appreciate it? Or ...?



He means "significant". The vast majority of drug research is done in the U.S.. But, it seems to me that's good for us. High-end jobs, here. Just so long as they wouldn't jack up the drug prices on Americans, like they currently do. No reason Americans should have to pay more for drugs just because the research is done here. Let them jack up prices in other countries and bring our costs down some so we're more in line with what other countries pay.

I promise I tried to keep this short guys, but this shit is complicated. It's fucking hard.