How much will Obama-care cost?

[Chibibar]

Krisken: no I actually like some of Bush (yea that is rare) I do like HIT cause information between hospitals, doctors, PCP (Primary Care Physicians) and other medical entities should be able to share information on the fly. It is a good thing.

But like all things government, there are too many hands in the cookie jar, or too many chiefs, or too many cooks (pick your saying) in it and thus doesn't quite come out the way it should be.

Do you have some examples of who these groups or people are?[/QUOTE]

what? you mean the cookie jar comment?

Social Security?
Medicaid?
Medicare?
VA Medical? (I only hear stories from my friend who had to use this which is government run health care/insurance service)

 

[Krisken]

Krisken: no I actually like some of Bush (yea that is rare) I do like HIT cause information between hospitals, doctors, PCP (Primary Care Physicians) and other medical entities should be able to share information on the fly. It is a good thing.

But like all things government, there are too many hands in the cookie jar, or too many chiefs, or too many cooks (pick your saying) in it and thus doesn't quite come out the way it should be.

Do you have some examples of who these groups or people are?[/quote]

what? you mean the cookie jar comment?

Social Security?
Medicaid?
Medicare?
VA Medical? (I only hear stories from my friend who had to use this which is government run health care/insurance service)[/QUOTE]
Each of those handle different situations. Should they all be part of the same group with the same rules and regulations?

 

[Chibibar]

Krisken: no I actually like some of Bush (yea that is rare) I do like HIT cause information between hospitals, doctors, PCP (Primary Care Physicians) and other medical entities should be able to share information on the fly. It is a good thing.

But like all things government, there are too many hands in the cookie jar, or too many chiefs, or too many cooks (pick your saying) in it and thus doesn't quite come out the way it should be.

Do you have some examples of who these groups or people are?[/quote]

what? you mean the cookie jar comment?

Social Security?
Medicaid?
Medicare?
VA Medical? (I only hear stories from my friend who had to use this which is government run health care/insurance service)[/QUOTE]
Each of those handle different situations. Should they all be part of the same group with the same rules and regulations?[/QUOTE]

different group yes, all ran by the government.

and..... what a headache it is.
(that is where I'm getting at)

---------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------

The basic premise is that government run (at least in the U.S.) is not as streamline as it should it. So many red tapes and such makes common people have a hard time to get anything done.

This is just America's past on government run stuff. Many fear (like me) that what makes this government run stuff any smoother?

I am not saying that the private industry is doing any better (which is not since we are in this bind but we are talking mainly the government ability to do things) maybe there should be more rules and regulation instead of direct involvement.

i.e. rules ON insurance instead of BE the insurance company.

 

[Chibibar]

on a different note: (still part about health care)
It looks like the government is trying to instill religious doctrine into the bill
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5604239.shtml

short version: Federal tax money should not support abortion.
long version: ya have ta read da article

 

[Espy]

While I wish the Catholic Church would stay out of it I think a hell of a lot more people might get behind it if they made sure it didn't cover abortion. Not that it really matters, we shovel money to Planned Parenthood anyway so if you don't like your taxpayer dollars going to fund abortion then you are way late to the party.

 

[Chibibar]

While I wish the Catholic Church would stay out of it I think a hell of a lot more people might get behind it if they made sure it didn't cover abortion. Not that it really matters, we shovel money to Planned Parenthood anyway so if you don't like your taxpayer dollars going to fund abortion then you are way late to the party.

True, but I think it is interesting that they are more "lobbying" toward this. Of course the comment on IRS can be interesting.

There is a tax-exempt issue. Can you imagine if the Catholic church have to start paying taxes?

 

[drawn_inward]

Drawn_Inward: The real cost of this won't be in a deduction from your paycheck. It will be a far greater cost that you won't see coming until it is too late.

Believe me, I'm not thrilled by Obamacare. I am wanting to know if anyone has actually done the math for the projected cost for the individual/family/small business.

It scares me that this plan will be a REQUIREMENT, and yet, we don't know the final cost. That should be scary to everyone. We can't opt out. We will be forced to do what the government says.

Will the government decide on our treatment as well?

I just want to know the facts. That's all. I'm not blindly attacking the plan. I want to know what the plan entails with the least amount of rhetoric as possible.

---
The abortion issue is pretty much a moot point. As Espy said, it's a bit late to be complaining about it now.

 

[Krisken]

Drawn_Inward: The real cost of this won't be in a deduction from your paycheck. It will be a far greater cost that you won't see coming until it is too late.

Believe me, I'm not thrilled by Obamacare. I am wanting to know if anyone has actually done the math for the projected cost for the individual/family/small business.

It scares me that this plan will be a REQUIREMENT, and yet, we don't know the final cost. That should be scary to everyone. We can't opt out. We will be forced to do what the government says.

Will the government decide on our treatment as well?

I just want to know the facts. That's all. I'm not blindly attacking the plan. I want to know what the plan entails with the least amount of rhetoric as possible.

---
The abortion issue is pretty much a moot point. As Espy said, it's a bit late to be complaining about it now.[/QUOTE]
As I've listed before, Politifact.com is really good at tearing up Republicans and Democrats and the inaccuracies they have been spewing.

For instance, on the right you have this disproven...

Health care reform will not force people into a government-run plan

and on the left you have this disproven...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/09/nita-lowey/lowey-says-stupak-amendment-restricts-abortion-cov/Lowey says Stupak amendment restricts abortion coverage even for those who pay for their own plan

So the site is good at taking the things that people have said about the healthcare bills (and the plan put forth by the GOP) and pointing out what is true and untrue.

 

[Chibibar]

right, but we are talking about the government health insurance plan.

Poor people can barely PAY for insurance (hence the reason we are in this mess to begin with) so........ If poor people can't have abortion (because insurance company won't cover them OR they can't afford the extra premium) then what?

 

[GasBandit]

Health care reform will not force people into a government-run plan

Not right away it won't. But it's a trojan horse to single payer, because a private company that HAS to show a profit cannot compete with a government run plan that doesn't. To say nothing of the fact that it will be cheaper for businesses to pay the fines for not providing health insurance than it will be to provide health insurance, thus causing many people to lose what they have.

That site also has some discrepancies in it - it says "only small businesses would have access to the exchange, so no big deal, won't affect many people." Small business, by the commonly held description, (as shown in a previous link in this thread) accounts for a huge percentage of jobs in America.

It also makes a lot of assumptions - first and foremost, that politicians can be held to what they say. "It won't be paid for by unlimited government funds, because it's not allowed to be." Well, 5 years down the road when the thing is imploding because it was only creative accounting that made it look feasable in the first place, do you think the government will just say "uhp, sorry, it's broke, no more government health insurance, sorry everybody." Or, will they say "sorry everybody, your insurance premiums are all going up. Remember to vote for me come november!" Or, are they more likely to just change the plan to keep it afloat with money from the general coffer, exactly like they did with social security?

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

Not right away it won't. But it's a trojan horse to single payer, because a private company that HAS to show a profit cannot compete with a government run plan that doesn't.

wait, won't consumers go for the best option available?

I thought that was like a basic tenant of your entire philosophy: that consumers will pay more for better product. So all insurance companies have to do is provide better coverage than the government run plan. It shouldn't be THAT hard, considering all the horror stories you spout about what would happen with a government run plan.

 

[GasBandit]

Not right away it won't. But it's a trojan horse to single payer, because a private company that HAS to show a profit cannot compete with a government run plan that doesn't.

wait, won't consumers go for the best option available?

I thought that was like a basic tenant of your entire philosophy: that consumers will pay more for better product. So all insurance companies have to do is provide better coverage than the government run plan. It shouldn't be THAT hard, considering all the horror stories you spout about what would happen with a government run plan.[/QUOTE]

Where did you get that? It's not my philosophy. My philosophy is that fair competition in the private sector, overseen by a small government that merely prevents monopoly or illegal business practices delivers superior options for consumers for a lower cost.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

But in fair competition, consumers will pay more for a superior product, right? So why wouldn't they pay more for superior, private insurance?

 

[GasBandit]

But in fair competition, consumers will pay more for a superior product, right? So why wouldn't they pay more for superior, private insurance?

I bolded the pertinent part for you. The answers lie just a few posts higher in this thread.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

See, the thing I don't get is that if the government plan is going to be so horrible, wouldn't the people who can currently afford private insurance just stay on that so insurance companies can keep making money hand over fist like they're doing now?

 

[GasBandit]

See, the thing I don't get is that if the government plan is going to be so horrible, wouldn't the people who can currently afford private insurance just stay on that so insurance companies can keep making money hand over fist like they're doing now?

The landscape of the insurance industry is different than most other things. Insurance has been so super-uber-regulated that it can't, for instance, sell insurance across state lines or to individuals (only to groups, or indirectly to individuals through even more "creative accounting").

So, basically, regulation hostile to both competition and to what would normally be an inelastic demand curve has made it such as it is now. If we go into this and introduce another competitor who has the added advantage of not having to stay in the black... it's just a countdown from there.

Also, the changes in allowed business practices (things like pre-existing condition exclusions going bye-bye) will also increase costs exponentially - which the government plan will be able to absorb without raising premiums/deductibles/coinsurance/etc... but private insurance will not.


I'm not saying there aren't problems with the existing system, but we should have been addressing those problems directly instead of leaping on the fast-track to single payer.

 

[Chibibar]

See, the thing I don't get is that if the government plan is going to be so horrible, wouldn't the people who can currently afford private insurance just stay on that so insurance companies can keep making money hand over fist like they're doing now?

for private sector, sure, but when your company (or your job like me) PAYS part of that insurance, company is willing to sacrifice some benefits to get lower rates.

Sure, as consumers, you can always pay MORE for better care but guess what? that kinda defeat the whole "affordable" insurances for low income isn't it?

The whole idea behind this was to supply insurance for 40 million people who CAN'T afford current insurance or UNABLE to get insurance due to insurance company reserve the right to refuse insurance.

So..... if the program is subpar (it is possible look at medicare) then poor people are still stuck.

 

[Krisken]

See, the thing I don't get is that if the government plan is going to be so horrible, wouldn't the people who can currently afford private insurance just stay on that so insurance companies can keep making money hand over fist like they're doing now?

The landscape of the insurance industry is different than most other things. Insurance has been so super-uber-regulated that it can't, for instance, sell insurance across state lines or to individuals (only to groups, or indirectly to individuals through even more "creative accounting").

So, basically, regulation hostile to both competition and to what would normally be an inelastic demand curve has made it such as it is now. If we go into this and introduce another competitor who has the added advantage of not having to stay in the black... it's just a countdown from there.

Also, the changes in allowed business practices (things like pre-existing condition exclusions going bye-bye) will also increase costs exponentially - which the government plan will be able to absorb without raising premiums/deductibles/coinsurance/etc... but private insurance will not.


I'm not saying there aren't problems with the existing system, but we should have been addressing those problems directly instead of leaping on the fast-track to single payer.[/quote]
Fast track to single payer is very hyperbolic. It's not even single payer option. It's a government option health plan.

The reason insurance can't sell across state lines is because each state has different rules regarding health care. If these rules were not in place, an insurance company that wants to make the most profit with the least amount of restriction could set up in a state with very little restrictions. The company would be under the rules of the state they are set up in.

Really, the rules are there for YOUR protection. I don't understand why this gets blown out of proportion to act as if the insurance companies are somehow getting screwed.

I'd like to add that there is this perception of Medicare being so evil. I don't get it.

 

[tegid]

Health care reform will not force people into a government-run plan

Not right away it won't. But it's a trojan horse to single payer, because a private company that HAS to show a profit cannot compete with a government run plan that doesn't. To say nothing of the fact that it will be cheaper for businesses to pay the fines for not providing health insurance than it will be to provide health insurance, thus causing many people to lose what they have.
[/QUOTE]

The first one is false, and there are counter examples.
The seconde is just your guessing.


I think your problem is that you consider, or so it seems, that supposed main purpose of the government to control you more and more as a fundamental part of your argument, and when someone doesn't agree or at least doubts it many of you arguments start to fall apart for them (us).

 

[Covar]

But in fair competition, consumers will pay more for a superior product, right? So why wouldn't they pay more for superior, private insurance?

Yea that's not how a free market works at all.

Consumers will pay for the product with the greatest value. That is quality and price. Say for example the best product in a particular market costs $500. Another product costs $300 but is only a quarter as good as the $500 product. Then yes the consumer will purchase the superior product. Now if someone was to come along and offer a product that was half as good as the $500 product for $225 The sales would shift in favor of the $225 inferior product.

 

[GasBandit]

I think your problem is that you consider, or so it seems, that supposed main purpose of the government to control you more and more as a fundamental part of your argument, and when someone doesn't agree or at least doubts it many of you arguments start to fall apart for them (us).

Well, the main purpose of Obamacare sure isn't to make sure everybody gets health care. We're spending another trillion dollars that will (by their own calculations) only reduce the number of uninsured from about 40 million to about 18 million. And it took 2000 pages of legislation to do it.

And even Democrat Senator Mark Warner says that Obama blew it on healthcare reform when he decided to shift his focus to health insurance reform. If you want to lower the cost of health insurance, you need to address the real issue - the cost of health care itself. The trial lawyer lobby won't let tort reform be touched, but there's plenty of other ideas for lowering costs and increasing competition that Democrats just plug their ears and sing "La la la" every time they're brought up because... you guessed it.. it's not about health care.. it's about government power.

From my political thread today -

Even a liberal admits that with healthcare reform, Democrats are creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind.

Of the 200 amendments the Democrats in the House rejected before passing Pelosicare, 11 would have required for Congress to enroll in the government option.

So much for what is good for the goose being good enough for the gander.

---------- Post added at 02:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------

I'd like to add that there is this perception of Medicare being so evil. I don't get it.

No, not evil. Certainly well-intentioned. But in a very bad way financially. Which is about to get worse.