Lawmakers Warned About Health Costs

[ImWithStupid]

Lawmakers Warned About Health Costs

 

CBO Chief Says Democrats' Proposals Lack Necessary Controls on Spending

 

By Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray

Washington Post Staff Writers

Friday, July 17, 2009

Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats, fueling an insurrection among fiscal conservatives in the House and pushing negotiators in the Senate to redouble efforts to draw up a new plan that more effectively restrains federal spending.

 

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

 

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory -- or cost curve -- of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, "The curve is being raised." His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse.

washingtonpost.com

 

On a good and fukkin amazing note, Dems are actually backpeddling a bit on this one and admit their plan is idealogue BS, just like, the stimulus and Cap and Tax was and they took hits from constituents on those, especially Cap and Tax.

 

The reason it's a fukkin' miracle is that the CBO said the same thing on the stimulus and also on Cap and Tax that it was a far left agenda that would be a never ending funding problem for the government leading to either debt or huge tax increases.

 

Here's another one of those Republican alternatives the Dems won't even let be heard, just like all the other ones I keep showing Bender but quickly and conveniently forgets about to claim the other side is just obstructionist and have no ideas of their own...

 

Patients' Choice Act

 

I'm sure just like the other ones I post few will actually read them and see that they are ways to change the current system without spending trillions and will bring things into line without bankrupting the country in an attempt to pass their Idealogue, secular progressive, statist agenda to put the entire country on the government doll, like the Dems who are currently in power.

[hugo]

Prevents cherry picking by guaranteeing access to coverage. Even though we're confident that less government interference and more individual choice will control costs and improve quality and access, we recognize that markets can't solve all problems. That's why our bill prevents cherry picking - when insurance companies choose to cover only healthy patients - by equalizing risk across insurance companies and reversing the perverse incentives that leave those most vulnerable with the fewest options.

 

In other words, another damn commie plan.

 

A better plan:

 

Conclusion: Medical Savings Accounts and Beyond

 

The high cost and inequitable character of our medical care system are the direct result of our steady movement toward reliance on third-party payment. A cure requires reversing course, reprivatizing medical care by eliminating most third-party payment, and restoring the role of insurance to providing protection against major medical catastrophes.

 

The ideal way to do that would be to reverse past actions: repeal the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care; terminate Medicare and Medicaid; deregulate most insurance; and restrict the role of the government, preferably state and local rather than federal, to financing care for the hard cases. However, the vested interests that have grown up around the existing system, and the tyranny of the status quo, clearly make that solution not feasible politically. Yet it is worth stating the ideal as a guide to judging whether proposed incremental changes are in the right direction.

 

Most changes made in the final decade of the twentieth century were in the wrong direction. Despite rejection of the sweeping socialization of medicine proposed by Hillary Clinton, subsequent incremental changes have expanded the role of government, increased regulation of medical practice, and further constrained the terms of medical insurance, thereby raising its cost and increasing the fraction of individuals who choose or are forced to go without insurance.

 

There is one exception, which, though minor in current scope, is pregnant of future possibilities. The Kassebaum-Kennedy Bill, passed in 1996 after lengthy and acrimonious debate, included a narrowly limited four-year pilot program authorizing medical savings accounts. A medical savings account enables individuals to deposit tax-free funds in an account usable only for medical expense, provided they have a high-deductible insurance policy that limits the maximum out-of-pocket expense. As noted earlier, it eliminates third-party payment except for major medical expenses and is thus a movement very much in the right direction. By extending tax exemption to all medical expenses whether paid by the employer or not, it eliminates the present bias in favor of employer-provided medical care. That too is a move in the right direction. However, the extension of tax exemption increases the bias in favor of medical care compared to other household expenditures. This effect would tend to increase the implicit government subsidy for medical care, which would be a step in the wrong direction.

 

Before this pilot project, a number of large companies (e.g., Quaker Oats, Forbes, Golden Rule Insurance Company) had offered their employees the choice of a medical savings account instead of the usual low-deductible employer-provided insurance policy. In each case, the employer purchased a high-deductible major medical insurance policy for the employee and deposited a stated sum, generally about half of the deductible, in a medical savings account for the employee. That sum could be used by the employee for medical care. Any part not used during the year was the property of the employee and had to be included in taxable income. Despite the loss of the tax exemption, this alternative has generally been very popular with both employers and employees. It has reduced costs for the employer and empowered the employee, eliminating much third-party payment.

 

Medical savings accounts offer one way to resolve the growing financial and administrative problems of Medicare and Medicaid. It seems clear from private experience that a program along these lines would be less expensive and bureaucratic than the current system and more satisfactory to the participants. In effect, it would be a way to voucherize Medicare and Medicaid. It would enable participants to spend their own money on themselves for routine medical care and medical problems, rather than having to go through HMOs and insurance companies, while at the same time providing protection against medical catastrophes.

 

A more radical reform would, first, end both Medicare and Medicaid, at least for new entrants, and replace them by providing every family in the United States with catastrophic insurance (i.e., a major medical policy with a high deductible). Second, it would end tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. And, third, it would remove the restrictive regulations that are now imposed on medical insurance—hard to justify with universal catastrophic insurance.

 

This reform would solve the problem of the currently medically uninsured, eliminate most of the bureaucratic structure, free medical practitioners from an increasingly heavy burden of paperwork and regulation, and lead many employers and employees to convert employer-provided medical care into a higher cash wage. The taxpayer would save money because total government costs would plummet. The family would be relieved of one of its major concerns—the possibility of being impoverished by a major medical catastrophe—and most could readily finance the remaining medical costs. Families would once again have an incentive to monitor the providers of medical care and to establish the kind of personal relations with them that were once customary. The demonstrated efficiency of private enterprise would have a chance to improve the quality and lower the cost of medical care. The first question asked of a patient entering a hospital might once again become "What’s wrong?" not "What’s your insurance?"

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A longer version of this essay appeared in Public Interest, winter 2001. Available from the Hoover Press is To America’s Health: A Proposal to Reform the Food and Drug Administration, by Henry I. Miller. Also available is The Essence of Friedman, edited by Kurt R. Leube. To order, call 800-935-2882.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize for economic science, was a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution from 1977 to 2006. He passed away on Nov. 16, 2006. He was also the Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago, where he taught from 1946 to 1976, and a member of the research staff of the National Bureau of Economic Research from 1937 to 1981.

 

What amazes me is the Chicago School of Economics is the most consistently rational group in the world when they reside in a city full of raving lunatics.

[ImWithStupid]

.

 

 

.

[phreakwars]

The problem I have with that plan, is it still gives the power of health care decisions to the insurance companies. Who will, in turn, take that same tax cut proposed and suck it out of you in some other type of fee. These guys are all about making money, don't think for a second they won't try and squeeze more money from those who buy insurance. They'll resort to bullshiit cheap insurance packages that will deny you for the tiniest of thing.

 

What was it they were saying, they'll forward an advance on those unemployed? Yeah here's how that's gonna work.

 

Your unemployed, so as a tax break to you, there gonna give you a credit/tax cut to buy insurance, forwarded to whom? The insurance companies, who will, like I said, screw you in the ass. It's not the plan, but rather the middle man that needs to go when it comes to health care IMHO. And that middle man, is the insurance industry. Nothing wrong with good ole' American Capitalism, but when it starts dictating the health of the people who feed it the money, then it needs to go.

 

Having someone insured by a private provider is not a simple task, you need to FIRST get on these insurance companies asses about what they are paying out. If someone like AIG can ask for bailout money (They pay out insurance claims BTW, just in case you didn't know)and not show that people are getting the coverage they paid for, then we have a problem. Think about this...

 

80% of all bankruptcy's are caused by medical bills, of that, 60% of those people already have coverage. Alot of it, is vital service being denied by insurance companies, yet still used by the patient, thus, they get a nice huge medical bill for that average $200+ a month the typical person pays for insurance.

 

While that DOES add up to about the $2300 number they came up with, it still doesn't address the issue of what the patient is actually billed for and what the insurance company has agreed to pay. I can agree that we CAN have insurance for every American without government intervention, we have always been able to. The problem is, someone needs to step in and make sure the Insurance companies do as they are SUPPOSED to, not what they are told to do.

 

Yet, to do THAT, the government needs to "GASP" step in, and tell these insurance companies how it's gonna be with the American people when it comes to providing them with health coverage.

 

Considering the AIG guys can afford to give themselves bonuses and deny claims, I have a NO VOTE OF FAITH stance on insurance companies. The fact of the matter is, if you want better coverage, and your an average Joe, you probably can't afford it.

 

It's simply rationed health care by insurance companies. Personally, I won't be happy with the proposal from either side unless it has the wording in it that deals with insurance companies and pharma companies.

 

Think about THAT, for a minute. An incredibly HUGE number of medicines in the united states cost PENNIES to make and are sold for prices higher then an 8 ball of meth for one damn pill

 

The advantage I mainly see in a public plan, is the people who dictate what treatment you get, are not for profit.

 

Sure the government shouldn't control our lives, but I'd rather trust the people that we Americans elected to choose the level of care I get over some bitch working her 9-5 shift at an insurance company call center looking for ways to reject certain expenses and coverage.

 

I read the funniest thing the other day on Twitter. Glen Beck, of all people, was complaining that he had to take his kid into the hospital in some state, and the hospital wouldn't accept his insurance from another state.

 

Like the complete moron that he is, he starts to tweet crap like "DON'T THEY KNOW WHO I AM, I'M A STAR" and blah blah blah.

 

And all I could think was... yeah, welcome to REALITY dipshiit.

 

People don't want the damn government to run health care, people just want ADEQUATE health care that doesn't leave them bankrupt.

 

I don't think it's REALLY asking that much to have the government we elected ensure that doesn't happen.

.

.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

The problem I have with that plan, is it still gives the power of health care decisions to the insurance companies. Who will, in turn, take that same tax cut proposed and suck it out of you in some other type of fee. These guys are all about making money, don't think for a second they won't try and squeeze more money from those who buy insurance. They'll resort to bullshiit cheap insurance packages that will deny you for the tiniest of thing.

 

What was it they were saying, they'll forward an advance on those unemployed? Yeah here's how that's gonna work.

 

Your unemployed, so as a tax break to you, there gonna give you a credit/tax cut to buy insurance, forwarded to whom? The insurance companies, who will, like I said, screw you in the ass. It's not the plan, but rather the middle man that needs to go when it comes to health care IMHO. And that middle man, is the insurance industry. Nothing wrong with good ole' American Capitalism, but when it starts dictating the health of the people who feed it the money, then it needs to go.

 

Having someone insured by a private provider is not a simple task, you need to FIRST get on these insurance companies asses about what they are paying out. If someone like AIG can ask for bailout money (They pay out insurance claims BTW, just in case you didn't know)and not show that people are getting the coverage they paid for, then we have a problem. Think about this...

 

80% of all bankruptcy's are caused by medical bills, of that, 60% of those people already have coverage. Alot of it, is vital service being denied by insurance companies, yet still used by the patient, thus, they get a nice huge medical bill for that average $200+ a month the typical person pays for insurance.

 

While that DOES add up to about the $2300 number they came up with, it still doesn't address the issue of what the patient is actually billed for and what the insurance company has agreed to pay. I can agree that we CAN have insurance for every American without government intervention, we have always been able to. The problem is, someone needs to step in and make sure the Insurance companies do as they are SUPPOSED to, not what they are told to do.

 

Yet, to do THAT, the government needs to "GASP" step in, and tell these insurance companies how it's gonna be with the American people when it comes to providing them with health coverage.

 

Considering the AIG guys can afford to give themselves bonuses and deny claims, I have a NO VOTE OF FAITH stance on insurance companies. The fact of the matter is, if you want better coverage, and your an average Joe, you probably can't afford it.

 

It's simply rationed health care by insurance companies. Personally, I won't be happy with the proposal from either side unless it has the wording in it that deals with insurance companies and pharma companies.

 

Think about THAT, for a minute. An incredibly HUGE number of medicines in the united states cost PENNIES to make and are sold for prices higher then an 8 ball of meth for one damn pill

 

The advantage I mainly see in a public plan, is the people who dictate what treatment you get, are not for profit.

 

Sure the government shouldn't control our lives, but I'd rather trust the people that we Americans elected to choose the level of care I get over some bitch working her 9-5 shift at an insurance company call center looking for ways to reject certain expenses and coverage.

 

I read the funniest thing the other day on Twitter. Glen Beck, of all people, was complaining that he had to take his kid into the hospital in some state, and the hospital wouldn't accept his insurance from another state.

 

Like the complete moron that he is, he starts to tweet crap like "DON'T THEY KNOW WHO I AM, I'M A STAR" and blah blah blah.

 

And all I could think was... yeah, welcome to REALITY dipshiit.

 

People don't want the damn government to run health care, people just want ADEQUATE health care that doesn't leave them bankrupt.

 

I don't think it's REALLY asking that much to have the government we elected ensure that doesn't happen.

.

.

.

.

 

 

Don't complain. You're the one saying that as long as the Dems have a plan we should go along with it.

 

You're just a damn obstructionist.

 

You don't have an alternate plan.

 

You're a damn no nothing say no person.

 

Whatever you say doesn't matter because you don't have another plan.

[phreakwars]

Didn't I just outline one? Come down on the people who cause the problem. No Republican or Democrat will DARE do that.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

Didn't I just outline one? Come down on the people who cause the problem. No Republican or Democrat will DARE do that.

.

.

 

 

Don't know WTF you mean.

[ImWithStupid]

Don't know WTF you mean.

 

 

Yea, If you're gonna do your usually partisan crap, check this out...

 

theblogprof: Democrats admit: Financial Crisis caused by Democrat Intervention

[phreakwars]

Ho hum, the blame game again, not tonight, I'm sleepy. And it totally passed over your head what I said. NEITHER REPUBLICAN NOR DEMOCRATS will step up to the plate and go after the real cause of our health care problems. The insurance companies.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

Ho hum, the blame game again, not tonight, I'm sleepy. And it totally passed over your head what I said. NEITHER REPUBLICAN NOR DEMOCRATS will step up to the plate and go after the real cause of our health care problems. The insurance companies.

.

.

 

 

Bullsh!t. Neither will take on the real cause of high health care prices, tort reform, because most of them are fukkin lawyers.

 

Without tort reform, health care reform isn't possible.

 

If the damn Dems want to claim health care is a fukkin' "right" and they can tell doctors how much money they can make, why don't they take on an actual right under the fukkin' Constitution, like the right to legal representation, and tell lawyers how much they can make.

 

Easy. Because they are a bunch of fukkin' lawyers.

[phreakwars]

Your right, they do need tort reform, it would prevent guys like Glen Beck from saying he wants to sue his Dr. because his rectum hurt after surgery.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

Your right, they do need tort reform, it would prevent guys like Glen Beck from saying he wants to sue his Dr. because his rectum hurt after surgery.

.

.

 

 

I agree. I don't know the details, but if it's a frivilous suit. Prevent it.

 

That's the difference between conservatives an liberals. Our beliefs aren't swayed by who it involves or their beliefs, unlike Sonya Sotomayor, where her beliefs drives her opinions.

[phreakwars]

Our beliefs aren't swayed by who it involves or their beliefs,

Yeah right, tell that to the pro lifers.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

Yeah right, tell that to the pro lifers.

.

.

 

 

Exactly, because all the pro-life groups came out denouncing the acts of the guy who killed Dr. Tiller.

 

You don't ever see any left wing groups standing up for conservatives who are victims of the same thing that they would scream and yell if it happened to a liberal.

[phreakwars]

I see, the GOP party is the VICTIM party... got it.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

I see, the GOP party is the VICTIM party... got it.

.

.

 

 

Wow, you really can't help yourself from claiming someone said something they didn't, huh?

 

You should try to get a job writing for Keith Overbite on MSNBC.

[Old Salt]

. Edited April 2, 2016 by rem

[RoyalOrleans]

Well, let's call it slightly promising. It seems that with every day that passes more and more people start to express doubts over the Democrat's plan for a nationalization of our health care system. Now some of the nation's governors are weighing in with their concerns over the possibility of increased Medicaid costs.

 

Is it possible that the people of this country are going to catch on? A huge portion of American citizens - perhaps a majority - care about only one thing; shedding yet another personal responsibility. They don't care who runs our health care system as long as they don't have to take personal responsibility for their own health needs. Just look around you at the ever-increasing proportion of lardasses in our society. These people don't care enough about their own health to push back from the table or to drive by a fast food joint without turning in. Do you think they have one desire in the world to take responsibility for their own health needs? If someone else wants to do it, that's just fine with them ... especially if the evil rich can be forced to foot the bill. That just leaves these gargantuan hulks more money for Whoppers and Quarter Pounders.

 

Perhaps, though, the people who will end up paying the bills - the achievers - are starting to take note of the terrible costs to be paid for what will surely be a sub-standard health care system. Who knows? Maybe the slovenly caucus will actually start wondering just how they're going to like it when the government tells them they can't have a particular medical procedure because they're too old ... or too fat.

 

No Private Sector Options on the table

 

There has never, in the history of civilization, been an economic system devised by man that did a better and more efficient job of delivering need and desired goods to the population than our system of free enterprise. How many of you think that you would have those iPhones in your pockets if the government was still closely regulating the phone companies? Yet the Democrats' plans for health care completely ignore the private sector. It's all government. There are some very easy private sector options that could be tried before the government takes the whole ball of wax over ... and if you want just a few easy examples, here you go:

 

Allow insurance companies to tailor health care policies to the specific needs of the customers. I, for instance, do not need maternity protection or coverage for alcohol rehab.

 

- Allow consumers to purchase health insurance companies across state lines.

- Widen the availability of medical savings accounts.

- Allow consumers to deduct the cost of insurance from their taxable income.

- Allow doctors, nurses and medical suppliers to take a credit against any income taxes due for the market value of services provided free to those living at or below the poverty level.

 

There .. that took about 30 seconds. All viable private-sector options, yet none are on the table for the Democrats in Washington.

 

This isn't about improving our health care. This is all about taking OVER your health care and making you that much more dependent on government.

 

Come on, folks. You NEED to wake up here.

[timesjoke]

Bender, your ideas only change who is rationing care, not the rationing itself.

 

The Government through massive shortfalls in funds will be forced to do exactly what your saying is bad about the Insurance companies.

 

 

As IWS pointed out, Obama clearly said he would never allow any limits on the ability to sue doctors. Do you know that the largest single expense for a doctor to be in business is his own insurance policy to defend against lawsuits?

 

 

Tort reform would be the best first step to reducing medical costs.