Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38
  1. #1
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    14,576

    HEALTH CARE: The future of Obamacare

    Very high costs.

    The health reform that Mitt Romney passed in 2006 in Massachusetts presaged President Obama's, and its results are showing what we can expect nationwide. The latest warning comes in a huge new tax increase proposed by Governor Deval Patrick.

    Mr. Patrick says the money will fund the usual array of liberal programs. But this is salesmanship to disguise that the state's real spending driver is the exploding cost of RomneyCare. That law was supposed to save the state money. But last August Beacon Hill was forced to impose new price controls and a cap on overall state health spending because "health-care spending has crowded out key public investments," as Mr. Patrick puts it in his budget.

    He's right about that: Health care was 23% of the state fisc in 2000, and 25% in 2006, but it has climbed to 41% for 2013. On current trend it will roll past 50% around 2020—and that best case scenario assumes Mr. Patrick's price controls work as planned. (They won't.) In real terms the state's annual health-care budget is 15% larger than it was in 2007, while transportation has plunged by 22%, public safety by 17% and education by 7%. Today Massachusetts spends less on roads, police and schools after adjusting for inflation than it did in 2007.



    Review & Outlook: The RomneyCare Bill Comes Due - WSJ.com
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  2. #2
    Pencil of death
    Reputation: Bluenote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,000
    Very politicized article. Hard to take an article that is that politicized with those few facts, no look at the other side, etc... Seriously. I don't make up my mind from NYT opinion blathering, either.

    Republican Governers didn't hold the line in taxes - we still all call it Taxachusettes. The biggest public boondoggle in state history - that multi-billion dollar Big Dig happened under Republican Governers. There was also a death of a motorist - under a Republican.

    Health Care costs are too high all over the country. They are high in Massachusettes, where we have a crapload of world class teaching hospitals.

    Studies done here on reducing costs point to the usual suspects - better preventative care, reducing ER trips, normalizing rates for routine procedures between community and teaching hospitals, reducing administrative costs and malpractice reform.

    The State caps how much insurance premiums can rise and have tried to keep it 4 - 8%. Not great, but below the national average.

    I've bought insurance through the state connector. Good insurance, competitively priced with my employers policies.

    We need real conversations about healthcare costs in this country.

    We do not need more partisan bickering.



    Review & Outlook: The RomneyCare Bill Comes Due - WSJ.com[/QUOTE]
    "Do not argue with an idiot. He will only drag you down to his level and beat you on experience." (Twain)

    "I used these numbers as an example to make a point." (AM999)

    "1/2 of you are wrong and the other .5 are incorrect!" (FlynG)

    "Taking crazy things seriously is a serious waste of time." (Murakami)

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    51,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
    Very politicized article. Hard to take an article that is that politicized with those few facts, no look at the other side, etc... Seriously. I don't make up my mind from NYT opinion blathering, either.

    Republican Governers didn't hold the line in taxes - we still all call it Taxachusettes. The biggest public boondoggle in state history - that multi-billion dollar Big Dig happened under Republican Governers. There was also a death of a motorist - under a Republican.

    Health Care costs are too high all over the country. They are high in Massachusettes, where we have a crapload of world class teaching hospitals.

    Studies done here on reducing costs point to the usual suspects - better preventative care, reducing ER trips, normalizing rates for routine procedures between community and teaching hospitals, reducing administrative costs and malpractice reform.

    The State caps how much insurance premiums can rise and have tried to keep it 4 - 8%. Not great, but below the national average.

    I've bought insurance through the state connector. Good insurance, competitively priced with my employers policies.

    We need real conversations about healthcare costs in this country.

    We do not need more partisan bickering.



    Review & Outlook: The RomneyCare Bill Comes Due - WSJ.com
    [/QUOTE]

    The suggestions never actually seem to be about reducing costs, they are about limiting exposure to billing. People who don't see a doctor aren't involved in the crisis, it's people who actually need healthcare that are running into the behemoth that is medical billing. We can all try to adopt healthier lifestyles but "you shouldn't have eaten those hamburgers" doesn't do much for healthcare that is not within reach because of costs. All the studies seem to come down to a way to pay the bills rather than maybe deciding what a reasonable charge should be.

    My first visit to my doctor each year gets an inflated bill. It contains an in depth checkup that would take an hour or more if it were actually performed. He does the same thing he does every quarter actual face time is probably 15 minutes or less, the bill is for everything Medicare will allow for a level 4 checkup.

    Somehow I doubt my experience is unique. This year it was billed at over $400. Now he didn't get it, he got a reduced payment but still more than the actual care delivered warranted. It's all about how to get the money, nobody is actually trying to control costs faced by patients.

  4. #4
    Moderatus Puisne
    Reputation: Argentius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    16,070
    Andy69 -- What would you propose?

    Would you prefer to see the government get out of the health care business entirely?

  5. #5
    Pencil of death
    Reputation: Bluenote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,000
    The suggestions never actually seem to be about reducing costs, they are about limiting exposure to billing. People who don't see a doctor aren't involved in the crisis, it's people who actually need healthcare that are running into the behemoth that is medical billing. We can all try to adopt healthier lifestyles but "you shouldn't have eaten those hamburgers" doesn't do much for healthcare that is not within reach because of costs. All the studies seem to come down to a way to pay the bills rather than maybe deciding what a reasonable charge should be.

    My first visit to my doctor each year gets an inflated bill. It contains an in depth checkup that would take an hour or more if it were actually performed. He does the same thing he does every quarter actual face time is probably 15 minutes or less, the bill is for everything Medicare will allow for a level 4 checkup.

    Somehow I doubt my experience is unique. This year it was billed at over $400. Now he didn't get it, he got a reduced payment but still more than the actual care delivered warranted. It's all about how to get the money, nobody is actually trying to control costs faced by patients.[/QUOTE]

    I think studies that say - reduce malpractice costs and 'defensive tests' and say 'cap how much a teaching hospital can charge for a routine procedure' and 'shift some routine health care from Docs to Nurse Practitioners' - are all very much about directly reducing charges.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. He will only drag you down to his level and beat you on experience." (Twain)

    "I used these numbers as an example to make a point." (AM999)

    "1/2 of you are wrong and the other .5 are incorrect!" (FlynG)

    "Taking crazy things seriously is a serious waste of time." (Murakami)

  6. #6
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    14,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Argentius View Post
    Andy69 -- What would you propose?

    Would you prefer to see the government get out of the health care business entirely?
    the government needs to get out of the way. It's interference is the biggest reason why costs are so high. If it got out of the way and allowed alternatives to enter the market the competition would drive the costs down. Prices are high because demand is high relative to supply and supply is low because of artificial controls imposed by the government at the behest of insurance companies and big medicine. Most people think that licensing laws are designed to make sure that medical people meet a certain minimum standard but what they really do is create an artificial barrier to entry and a defacto monopoly or guild or whatever you want to call it for the current players.

    Laws like Obamacare only make it worse. Ideally, we want NO ONE with health insurance, not everyone. It's in the best interest of insurance companies to keep costs high to justify high premiums. It would be hard to keep the cost of a policy at $12k/yr if an office visit was $25.
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Bill2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    8,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    Ideally, we want NO ONE with health insurance, not everyone.
    My winner for post of the day.

  8. #8
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    22,485
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    the government needs to get out of the way. It's interference is the biggest reason why costs are so high.

    Other countries have way more intervention by government, and lower costs, and better health outcomes on many measures.

    Right theory, wrong universe.
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    9,957
    1. Your OP title says Obamacare but the referenced article supporting your post says Romneycare.

    2. The GOP/Tea Party controls the House. They can introduce a bill tomorrow repealing the 1940's legislation granting a monopoly to the health care insurance providers, officially known as The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015.

    Its hard for a nation based on a free market economic model to allow 1/5 of its economy to operate under a different rule. Its is not hard to see why healthcare is so expensive.
    Last edited by troutmd; 04-11-2013 at 06:50 AM.
    If you don't get an answer to your question it doesn't necessary mean you made one or that you deserve one.

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    51,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
    The suggestions never actually seem to be about reducing costs, they are about limiting exposure to billing. People who don't see a doctor aren't involved in the crisis, it's people who actually need healthcare that are running into the behemoth that is medical billing. We can all try to adopt healthier lifestyles but "you shouldn't have eaten those hamburgers" doesn't do much for healthcare that is not within reach because of costs. All the studies seem to come down to a way to pay the bills rather than maybe deciding what a reasonable charge should be.

    My first visit to my doctor each year gets an inflated bill. It contains an in depth checkup that would take an hour or more if it were actually performed. He does the same thing he does every quarter actual face time is probably 15 minutes or less, the bill is for everything Medicare will allow for a level 4 checkup.

    Somehow I doubt my experience is unique. This year it was billed at over $400. Now he didn't get it, he got a reduced payment but still more than the actual care delivered warranted. It's all about how to get the money, nobody is actually trying to control costs faced by patients.
    I think studies that say - reduce malpractice costs and 'defensive tests' and say 'cap how much a teaching hospital can charge for a routine procedure' and 'shift some routine health care from Docs to Nurse Practitioners' - are all very much about directly reducing charges.[/QUOTE]

    The charges for a NP are not lower than if you see a Doctor. Charges are not being lowered or even stabilized in the world I live in.

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Bill2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    8,217
    Quote Originally Posted by QuiQuaeQuod View Post
    Other countries have way more intervention by government, and lower costs, and better health outcomes on many measures.

    Right theory, wrong universe.
    It's true. Experts have tried to figure out what's the deal with the US health care system. One theory is the US has tried to treat health care like it's a competitive free market traded good. But it's not- when people are gravely ill/ injured in the hospital and the specialists recommend an astronomically expensive treatment, people don't usually say "well, let me shop around a bit first. I'll let you know." There are competitive elements of course but by nature it's not a free market.

  12. #12
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    41,111
    Quote Originally Posted by QuiQuaeQuod View Post
    Other countries have way more intervention by government, and lower costs, and better health outcomes on many measures.

    Right theory, wrong universe.
    cause the free market has been so awesome at managing costs
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  13. #13
    waterproof*
    Reputation: Creakyknees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    40,584
    this thread needs more 80's rock

    * posted by Creakybot 2013 all rights reserved.
    * not actually waterproof.

  14. #14
    waterproof*
    Reputation: Creakyknees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    40,584
    BTW, the reality is that Obamacare is a colossal failure and it's not even implemented yet. The Dem's that are honest, among themselves, are already admitting this and building their cover stories. B.O. has nothing to worry about; in a couple of years he gets to retire to the easy life of a past President, leaving the rest of us holding the flaming bag of **** he left on our nation's porch.
    * posted by Creakybot 2013 all rights reserved.
    * not actually waterproof.

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Bill2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    8,217
    Hey, we can't say lib or con. Is Dem ok? I haven't checked the style book lately

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: troutmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    9,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Creakyknees View Post
    BTW, the reality is that Obamacare is a colossal failure and it's not even implemented yet. The Dem's that are honest, among themselves, are already admitting this and building their cover stories. B.O. has nothing to worry about; in a couple of years he gets to retire to the easy life of a past President, leaving the rest of us holding the flaming bag of **** he left on our nation's porch.
    Misguided anger alert --- the OP referenced Romenycare problem.

    ***************************

    The Wall Street Journal

    REVIEW & OUTLOOK
    January 23, 2013, 7:32 p.m. ET
    .
    The RomneyCare Bill Comes Due

    Deval Patrick proposes a huge tax increase on the middle class.
    If you don't get an answer to your question it doesn't necessary mean you made one or that you deserve one.

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    14,693
    The suggestions never actually seem to be about reducing costs, they are about limiting exposure to billing. People who don't see a doctor aren't involved in the crisis, it's people who actually need healthcare that are running into the behemoth that is medical billing. We can all try to adopt healthier lifestyles but "you shouldn't have eaten those hamburgers" doesn't do much for healthcare that is not within reach because of costs. All the studies seem to come down to a way to pay the bills rather than maybe deciding what a reasonable charge should be.

    My first visit to my doctor each year gets an inflated bill. It contains an in depth checkup that would take an hour or more if it were actually performed. He does the same thing he does every quarter actual face time is probably 15 minutes or less, the bill is for everything Medicare will allow for a level 4 checkup.

    Somehow I doubt my experience is unique. This year it was billed at over $400. Now he didn't get it, he got a reduced payment but still more than the actual care delivered warranted. It's all about how to get the money, nobody is actually trying to control costs faced by patients.[/QUOTE]

    that's how it works. a good clinician/surgeon typically collects about 25-35% of what they bill....PA's are often a little more as they cost less. in an academic hospital setting, the costs per service come off the hospital charge master list. everything is negotiated down from that based on insurance reimbursement rates.

    you're correct, physicians should be paid fair salaries as industry standard, not fee for service.
    Not banned yet.

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    14,693
    Quote Originally Posted by QuiQuaeQuod View Post
    Other countries have way more intervention by government, and lower costs, and better health outcomes on many measures.

    Right theory, wrong universe.
    you been repped...
    Not banned yet.

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    14,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Creakyknees View Post
    BTW, the reality is that Obamacare is a colossal failure and it's not even implemented yet. The Dem's that are honest, among themselves, are already admitting this and building their cover stories. B.O. has nothing to worry about; in a couple of years he gets to retire to the easy life of a past President, leaving the rest of us holding the flaming bag of **** he left on our nation's porch.
    how does one come to this conclusion?
    please list the "failures" in your opinion (which is all it is).
    Not banned yet.

  20. #20
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    14,576
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie View Post
    cause the free market has been so awesome at managing costs
    don't have a free market in health care, so blaming high costs on the free market is a red herring
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  21. #21
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    14,576
    Quote Originally Posted by QuiQuaeQuod View Post
    Other countries have way more intervention by government, and lower costs, and better health outcomes on many measures.

    Right theory, wrong universe.
    So you're denying that allowing doctors to charge a small fixed monthly fee for unlimited office visits would help keep costs down?

    Wrong universe, alright.
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    51,090
    Quote Originally Posted by bahueh View Post
    The suggestions never actually seem to be about reducing costs, they are about limiting exposure to billing. People who don't see a doctor aren't involved in the crisis, it's people who actually need healthcare that are running into the behemoth that is medical billing. We can all try to adopt healthier lifestyles but "you shouldn't have eaten those hamburgers" doesn't do much for healthcare that is not within reach because of costs. All the studies seem to come down to a way to pay the bills rather than maybe deciding what a reasonable charge should be.

    My first visit to my doctor each year gets an inflated bill. It contains an in depth checkup that would take an hour or more if it were actually performed. He does the same thing he does every quarter actual face time is probably 15 minutes or less, the bill is for everything Medicare will allow for a level 4 checkup.

    Somehow I doubt my experience is unique. This year it was billed at over $400. Now he didn't get it, he got a reduced payment but still more than the actual care delivered warranted. It's all about how to get the money, nobody is actually trying to control costs faced by patients.
    that's how it works. a good clinician/surgeon typically collects about 25-35% of what they bill....PA's are often a little more as they cost less. in an academic hospital setting, the costs per service come off the hospital charge master list. everything is negotiated down from that based on insurance reimbursement rates.

    you're correct, physicians should be paid fair salaries as industry standard, not fee for service.[/QUOTE]

    What they actually get paid depends on what kind of buffer stands between them and the patients posterior.

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    484
    I just got informed a few days ago that I might NOT have a job because of Obamacare. Working PRN our hours would vary and likely put us over the threshold of having being provided insurance although our prospective employer pays us more to secure outside health insurance. That sucks.

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,740
    Andy69: It's interference [the government's] is the biggest reason why costs are so high.

    But the government has its hands tied. It failed to create a single payer system and negotiate prices and literally drive cost down. We all know why, do you?

    In reality government health related legislation (including Obamacare) is dictated by corporate interests (in this case Big Pharma) and therefore they are basically protecting the high costs and subsidizing them from your taxes. Just another form of corporate welfare. The fact that government "interference" works in other countries is plenty of proof, but Americans are too blind and drunk on their capitalism to even consider an alternative.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    GF Superfly 29er HT
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    Pake French 75 track

  25. #25
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    22,485
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    So you're denying that allowing doctors to charge a small fixed monthly fee for unlimited office visits would help keep costs down?

    Wrong universe, alright.
    I am saying your claim, which I quoted and include here AGAIN for clarity: "the government needs to get out of the way. It's interference is the biggest reason why costs are so high.", is counter to the facts of health care on this planet.

    Who is stopping doctors from charging a monthly fee for unlimited office visits? No one, as far as I know. Except themselves. Feel free to drop the info on exactly what forbids them from doing so, if you have a source.
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. If you're a Cyclist and against Obamacare
    By veloduffer in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-07-2012, 04:54 PM
  2. Could Obamacare be dead?
    By sandan in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 02-01-2011, 03:52 PM
  3. Obamacare and Organs
    By TheDon in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-12-2010, 04:49 AM
  4. 71% of MO voters say no to Obamacare
    By Reynolds531 in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 08-09-2010, 09:31 PM
  5. Why we can't afford Obamacare
    By moneyman in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 09-11-2009, 07:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Sea Otter Classic

Hot Deals

Contest


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook