DescentBB

The sick side of Obamacare. It never addressed the continually rising costs problem when it was created, nor will it ever, despite all the hype to the contrary. It'll be interesting, and sad, to see when things melt down, and how. Conservatives have a sharp wedge sitting right in their laps to bring down Obamcare, if they use it right. Somehow though, I don't think they'll come up with anything better.

The second link is the main article referenced in the first link.

http://theweek.com/article/index/240572 ... ealth-care

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/b ... illing-us/

the article from Time magazine, last week....a truly great article, which clearly lays out how Medicare for all is the ONLY way to get this under control. I have long suspected, as I suggested in other threads, that this realization will be the major outcome from Obamacare. At that point, the people can decide whether to FINALLY embrace the sensible path, nationwide single payer, or continue to get driven to bankruptcy. Some of the stories in that article are mind-boggling scary.


edited to reflect Foil's sharp eyes and my tired double linkage!

You realize you just posted the same article tc did?

doh!!! Will edit that out......I will point out that Republican proposals won't do a damned thing to address the problem, either. So hardly a wedge to eliminate Obamacare(addresses maybe 10% of the issue), unless they suddenly embrace Medicare from cradle to grave.

callmeslick wrote:... I will point out that Republican proposals won't do a damned thing to address the problem, either. So hardly a wedge to eliminate Obamacare(addresses maybe 10% of the issue), unless they suddenly embrace Medicare from cradle to grave.

I didn't know they even had a proposal.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:... I will point out that Republican proposals won't do a damned thing to address the problem, either. So hardly a wedge to eliminate Obamacare(addresses maybe 10% of the issue), unless they suddenly embrace Medicare from cradle to grave.

I didn't know they even had a proposal.

they've had several, generally focused on tort reform, and cross-state insurance competition.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:... I will point out that Republican proposals won't do a damned thing to address the problem, either. So hardly a wedge to eliminate Obamacare(addresses maybe 10% of the issue), unless they suddenly embrace Medicare from cradle to grave.

I didn't know they even had a proposal.

they've had several, generally focused on tort reform, and cross-state insurance competition.

Oh those little pieces of policy I've seen but nothing on the scale of Obamacare other than some who would go for complete repeal. As far as i can see they dropped the ball early on and are afraid to pick it up.

there, you are correct, Will. They have no grand plan whatsoever. Just a repeal, which would make things, if anything, worse.

The main problem with costs right now is price transparency. Even if you WANTED a pure free market solution, there's absolutely no way to find out the price of procedures and medications BEFORE you have some care or treatment performed. In other words, a person can't shop around by price, which is only possible in a true competitor-based market. All the politicians, but especially Republicans, seem to have this wet dream about insurance affordability and competition. Well it's not the insurance that's the issue. It's what people end up paying above and beyond the insurance that gets people in perpetual debt. The endless bills that come afterwards are a nightmare that never ends. I've gotten bills for months and sometimes years later for something performed in a hospital. How does a person even account for that?

tunnelcat wrote:The main problem with costs right now is price transparency. Even if you WANTED a pure free market solution, there's absolutely no way to find out the price of procedures and medications BEFORE you have some care or treatment performed. In other words, a person can't shop around by price, which is only possible in a true competitor-based market. All the politicians, but especially Republicans, seem to have this wet dream about insurance affordability and competition. Well it's not the insurance that's the issue. It's what people end up paying above and beyond the insurance that gets people in perpetual debt. The endless bills that come afterwards are a nightmare that never ends. I've gotten bills for months and sometimes years later for something performed in a hospital. How does a person even account for that?

I hear you.....I have no bills yet for my wife's stay in the hospital. However, the issue with pricing is often driven by costs associated with hospitals caring for the uninsured, or under-insured(lots of those), who never can pay. Thus, they inflate the bills to get compensation. Another cost factor is trying to deal with lots of different plans and insurers. Only having a single source would drive down paperwork costs dramatically. As the Time article points out, hospitals bill private insurance customers sometimes 10 times the rate for Medicare customers.

There's the other problem, inelastic demand. When demand is unending and unyielding, any system worth it's salt will normally take advantage of that. Why bother to compete on price when people are willing to pay whatever it takes to get well?

If you want a single payer system, you'll have to redefine what people really need in healthcare verses what they want. You can't give everyone everything on the moon. There's not enough money in the world to give people all the infinite care they desire and still support a medical system that costs a lot just to teach it's doctors. That leads back to that dreaded word, rationing. If you have a single payer system, in order for that system to survive and not break the national bank, you'll have to have some form of rationing to fairly distribute that care. Americans used to getting what they want may not like that.

The biggest problem with cradle to grave Medicare is…providers would also have to be “REQUIRED” to accept it, and they only do that now, because it doesn’t really affect their bottom line, because they are still raking it in raping the privately insured. (or required to accept it to receive public funding of some nature)

Spidey wrote:The biggest problem with cradle to grave Medicare is…providers would also have to be “REQUIRED” to accept it, and they only do that now, because it doesn’t really affect their bottom line, because they are still raking it in raping the privately insured. (or required to accept it to receive public funding of some nature)

So do you think it would make one wit of difference in pricing if suddenly Medicare disappeared and all the uninsured patients in the country suddenly vanished and all that burdensome debt went away? I somehow don't think so. Inelastic demand is just that, inelastic. The market will keep raising prices until some breaking point is reached, because people will pay any amount, or go into absurd debt, just to get better or stay alive. Humans tend to be that way.

I’m not exactly sure how that relates to what I said.