Question for the Health Care Reform proponents.

[mot1man]

If and when a "Health Care Reform Bill" passes, will the cost of health care decrease?

Simple question, a yes or no will do.

[ddye]

If and when a "Health Care Reform Bill" passes, will the cost of health care decrease?

Simple question, a yes or no will do.
Yes or no is way too simple. health care costs will skyrocket in the next 15 years without reform, as baby boomers retire and get sick. So the issue is way more complicated.

The best reason for reform is that without universal coverage, costs will be out of control, and insuring pre existing conditions will be impossible.

Doug

[mot1man]

Yes or no is way too simple. health care costs will skyrocket in the next 15 years without reform, as baby boomers retire and get sick. So the issue is way more complicated.

The best reason for reform is that without universal coverage, costs will be out of control, and insuring pre existing conditions will be impossible.

Doug


When you say "Health Care Costs" will skyrocket, don't you mean "Health Insurance Costs"?

[Freep]

Yes or no is way too simple. health care costs will skyrocket in the next 15 years without reform, as baby boomers retire and get sick. So the issue is way more complicated.

The best reason for reform is that without universal coverage, costs will be out of control, and insuring pre existing conditions will be impossible.

Doug

The most humane way to cut costs is to reintroduce market forces into the routine health care sector. Let the market reduce costs and improve quality like it does in virtually every market that is not dominated by either 3rd party payers (so consumers are not motivated to be price conscious)( or regulatory rut that prevents innovation by private business.

These factors are well illustrated in John Stossel's "Sick In America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

[ddye]

When you say "Health Care Costs" will skyrocket, don't you mean "Health Insurance Costs"?
Both. Because of the way health care insurance companies PAY hospitals and doctors, the costs are pretty much guaranteed to rise.

But yeah, health care reform is probably more about reforming insurance, because that's what is predicted to quadruple in the next 15 years. All of these people who say "don't reform it, I like my coverage", what would they say if that coverage cost $2500.00 a month? Because it WILL cost that much in a few years.

But for the record, I am not sold on the public option, and I'm not against it either. If it can be done with the coop approach, that would be fine with me.

We need two things:

1. Universal coverage; like car insurance, having everyone support the high risk groups is the only way we'll be able to afford insurance in the future. It might sound unfair, but the low risk groups will in turn be supported the same way when THEY get old.

2. No deniability for pre existing conditions. This will probably have to be government subsidized, there's no point pretending that it won't. But again, universal insurance will make this a lot easier.

One more thing. Health care reform to me is more about working people than helping the poor and illegals, which already get at least emergency care. But even making THAT care more available will save the rest of us money, because it will take that care out of expensive emergency rooms.

Just my opinion...

Doug

[Bluenose177]

if a public health care option becomes a reality in the US, there wont be any private insurance firms as they'll be put out of business, but the working stiff will be hit hard by taxation on everything.

you think $8 a gallon for gas or $10 for a pack of cigarettes in the UK is a coincidence?

[ddye]

if a public health care option becomes a reality in the US, there wont be any private insurance firms as they'll be put out of business, but the working stiff will be hit hard by taxation on everything.

you think $8 a gallon for gas or $10 for a pack of cigarettes in the UK is a coincidence?
1. Britain is an island.

2. With traveling distances much shorter than America, high gas taxes are less onerous than they are here.

3. Cigarettes being high taxed is deliberate, but Britain (and Europe) had high gas prices BEFORE they had socialized health care. High gas taxes also encourage saving energy, important for a small country.

Doug

[KChampagne]

After Hurricane Katrina, many people were not able to get homeowner's insurance since most companies stopped writing policies in this area. So an "insurance of last resort" was created called Louisiana Citizens. People can get insurance but it is much higher. Also, those who do not have Citizen's insurance have to pay a yearly fee on their own policies to fund the program. I know this past year my fee was $250 on top of insurance I already pay for.

Just wondering if states do these insurances for homeowners, why can't they do it for those who need medical insurance?

Just a thought...

[str8shtr1]

If and when a "Health Care Reform Bill" passes, will the cost of health care decrease?

Simple question, a yes or no will do.

Eventually yes, the current cost are disgusting

[Bluenose177]

1. Britain is an island. SO WHAT?

2. With traveling distances much shorter than America, high gas taxes are less onerous than they are here.

it's about 3 hours drive from Buffalo to Toronto, it's about the same drive time from Stirling, central Scotland to Aberdeen in the north east of Scotland. or to put it another way, 98 miles from Stirling to Aberdeen and 110 miles from Buffalo to Toronto

3. Cigarettes being high taxed is deliberate, but Britain (and Europe) had high gas prices BEFORE they had socialized health care. High gas taxes also encourage saving energy, important for a small country.

Actually, gas prices have risen significantly since the early 1970's

Doug

So high gas, cigarettes, booze, food etc prices have nothing to do with a government funding a bottomless pit of a health service. money doesn't get used for Dr's, nurses, equipment, new hospitals, wards or beds (in reality more hospitals have closed or closed wards than been opened in the last 25 years) instead we have a cadre of pen pushers who's jobs are to decide were money should be spent?

if not on the above things, then what is the money being spent on? and is this the model or the one in Canada that Obamao wants, because it sure sounds like what you'll end up with.

[str8shtr1]

...if not on the above things, then what is the money being spent on?...

Profits?

... and is this the model or the one in Canada that Obamao wants, because it sure sounds like what you'll end up with.

More closer to Autralia and Japan where the private industries are supplemental to the government and they still make good money.

[chip]

Healthcare costs have "skyrocketed" because our govt pays for 46% of all healthcare.

Get the govt out of healthcare.

[str8shtr1]

Healthcare costs have "skyrocketed" because our govt pays for 46% of all healthcare.

Get the govt out of healthcare.

Doesn't the government, via medicade the VA etc, actually pay some of the lower cost?.

I believe I heard as one of the complaints of medicare\medicade was the cost were too low even though they were reliable.

Making it illegal for HCI's to purge the sick will force them all into bankruptcy in less than 2 years.

[stillkicking1962]

If health care reform is needed to control costs, then it's idiotic to not start with tort reform. I am not against reform to lower or control costs, but the reform that's being pushed does not address the issues. It's a power grab, nothing more, nothing less.

[bwchato]

No,Health care will go up

[WildRose]

Both. Because of the way health care insurance companies PAY hospitals and doctors, the costs are pretty much guaranteed to rise.

But yeah, health care reform is probably more about reforming insurance, because that's what is predicted to quadruple in the next 15 years. All of these people who say "don't reform it, I like my coverage", what would they say if that coverage cost $2500.00 a month? Because it WILL cost that much in a few years.

But for the record, I am not sold on the public option, and I'm not against it either. If it can be done with the coop approach, that would be fine with me.

We need two things:

1. Universal coverage; like car insurance, having everyone support the high risk groups is the only way we'll be able to afford insurance in the future. It might sound unfair, but the low risk groups will in turn be supported the same way when THEY get old.

2. No deniability for pre existing conditions. This will probably have to be government subsidized, there's no point pretending that it won't. But again, universal insurance will make this a lot easier.

One more thing. Health care reform to me is more about working people than helping the poor and illegals, which already get at least emergency care. But even making THAT care more available will save the rest of us money, because it will take that care out of expensive emergency rooms.

Just my opinion...

Doug
Failed premise. When us Baby Boomers hit 65 it won't be private insurance companies footing the bill it will be medicare which is already on the verge of insolvency.

None of the proposed Democratic reforms does anything to address this or solve the problem in any way.

[1997lancer]

Doug,

Who needs health care the most, the healthy, or the unhealthy? Presumably the healthy just for check-ups but the unhealthy for most of the cost right, likely 95%+?

My question is, where do you cut costs then? Do you cut costs on the healthy, or the unhealthy?

If you are cool with rationed care, then more power to you. Im not sure Id be ok if the Government told my wife she couldnt get treated, but to take a pill instead to make her coming death easier on her.

If thats acceptable to you, then carry on though.

[JerryN]

Failed premise. When us Baby Boomers hit 65 it won't be private insurance companies footing the bill it will be medicare which is already on the verge of insolvency.

None of the proposed Democratic reforms does anything to address this or solve the problem in any way.

Well, you're right - and wrong.

The Dem 'reforms' will cut what Medicare pays for procedures and fewer doctors will accept Medicare as full payment.
The proposed bill eliminates Medicare Advantage where HMOs accept Medicare as full payment.

Then all the retirees will either have less care or they will have to buy more supplemental insurance.
With less care there will be higher mortality and therefore (eventually) lower costs.
No death panels required - but still kind of morbid.

I wonder if Doug is ever going to be old. LOL

[JerryN]

1. Britain is an island.

2. With traveling distances much shorter than America, high gas taxes are less onerous than they are here.

3. Cigarettes being high taxed is deliberate, but Britain (and Europe) had high gas prices BEFORE they had socialized health care. High gas taxes also encourage saving energy, important for a small country.

Doug

Funny how all the proponents of European style government health care programs NEVER mention that taxes are 60%+

An inconvenient truth AGAINST all their liberal arguments.

[WildRose]

Well, you're right - and wrong.

The Dem 'reforms' will cut what Medicare pays for procedures and fewer doctors will accept Medicare as full payment.
The proposed bill eliminates Medicare Advantage where HMOs accept Medicare as full payment.

Then all the retirees will either have less care or they will have to buy more supplemental insurance.
With less care there will be higher mortality and therefore (eventually) lower costs.
No death panels required - but still kind of morbid.

I wonder if Doug is ever going to be old. LOLThat was my point Jerry. Under the plans the dem's are offering all that will be left is Medicare and Supplemental insurance which will necessarily skyrocket in cost for anything but basic care.

Baby Boomers like myself and my wife will be getting the double whammy. We'll be taxed at exorbitant rates until we retire, preventing us from saving adequately, and what we'll be left with is Medicare, which will have been stripped bare in the mean time.