Obamacare Guarantees Higher Insurance Premiums

[Malcador]

Well, national ego stroking is enjoyable. Especially for Canadians and their neighbours, heh.

 

Also GD, that seems a bit extreme to think a single payer system will lead to some dystopian environment.

[alanschu]

Yeah it's an ego stroke which is always nice.  Though I've never been a hater of our system nor have I found waiting times to be extreme when I needed care.

 

 

A decade ago I was much more in favour of privatizing the system somewhat, but I'm now of the opinion that it'd create some inefficiencies and probably cause some complications.  Never mind that a lot of my assumptions about overuse no longer seemed accurate.

[Walsingham]

Gorgon that is EXACTLY what Obama and the left wing wants. They made this system that is so inefficient and expensive KNOWING it will fail. Which will be the segue the need to drag us to single payer. Then they get decide who gets healthcare... and who doesn't. It is the ultimate backstage pass into everyone's lives they have lusted after for so long.

 

In the UK your treatment is judged solely on what are called QALYs (moderated by the case put by your GP or consultant).

 

They are very very careful not to incorporate any 'extraneous' information into that process, such as what you look like. All cases are seen 'blind'. I am 100% confident that a UK provider wouldn't change your healthcare access based on - for example - your politics. Even if an individual in the system wanted to they'd have to risk being fired just to get the information. Never mind altering the outcome of a panel decision.

 

Guarding your rights and freedoms does not mean panicking at shadows. I can't believe a chap with your background could be so bloody jumpy.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Walsingham

[Hurlshort]

I'm not concerned about the government becoming some boogey man that will only help those that have favorable political views.  Look at how the IRS was torn to shreds when it came out that they targeted Tea Party members.  It is simply too easy to get caught doing it.

 

I am concerned that our government is too much of a mess to run such a huge system with any effectiveness.  I'd rather see individual states handling this, but that has plenty of pitfalls as well. 

[Guard Dog]

I don't think we'll ever see political affiliation as some kind of means testing. Although it is a possibility that should not be ignored. I think they will use this to go after other freedoms they don't think you should have. Like guns. Making the health of every American something the government has a vested interest in will give them a chance to do things through that back door they would never get passed in Congress. Heck we already have governments making large sodas illegal, telling citizens what they can and can't eat, or buy, or stores and restaurants can sell. Plus if you have ever dealt with the VA you would know the government has no business running any kind of healthcare. 

[Guard Dog]

I always enjoyed this recount from a US citizen that spent some time up in Canada and had to endure our health care system.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/permissiontolive/2012/07/how-i-lost-my-fear-of-universal-health-care.html

It's not universal health care that scares me. It's the bastards that will be running it and what they will do with it.

[Hurlshort]

Would you be more comfortable with a large private corporation being given a monopoly?  I'm thinking along the lines of how we handle utilities in most of the country.  

 

I have my problems with PG&E, but they do run a bit better than some of the hospitals I've had to deal with.

 

Hmm, I'll have to think on how I feel about that.

[Guard Dog]

No, that is not a good option either. However, replacing a bad option with  WORSE option is not a fix. The problem, the ONLY thing wrong with the US healthcare system is the runaway costs of both care and insurance. The costs are only high because there is no consequence for them being high. There is no price competition between suppliers, providers, or even drug makers. And most people are removed from the actual costs of their care so they don't even know what they are getting or their insurance is paying for. It is common for providers to run tests and procedures their patients don't even need just to generate revenue. 

 

You have all heard me say it, we do have a perfect health care system in the US; Veterinary Care. Competition keeps prices low. You can buy as much or as little as you think you need. Tommy's vet has equipment my doctor could never dream of owning. And the reason this system works is the goddamned government has never gotten involved in it.

[Hurlshort]

My vet always gets uncomfortable when I take my pants off and request a prostrate exam.  

 

So how do we curb costs without involving the government?  

[alanschu]

 

 

You have all heard me say it, we do have a perfect health care system in the US; Veterinary Care.

 

Veterinary care also includes the option of: "This is too expensive, please put my pet down instead."

 

Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, I do not consider the subjects that they cover to be equivalent.  A lot of things that we do to our pets (maybe we shouldn't?) are things that I do not know if I'd be comfortable doing since we are allowed infinitely more determinism over the life of our pet than we are over another human being.

[ShadySands]

Am I the only one with pet insurance? It's not that cheap 

 

Plus I don't really want Monsanto or the like funding/running medical schools

[Gorgon]

No, that is not a good option either. However, replacing a bad option with  WORSE option is not a fix. The problem, the ONLY thing wrong with the US healthcare system is the runaway costs of both care and insurance. The costs are only high because there is no consequence for them being high. There is no price competition between suppliers, providers, or even drug makers. And most people are removed from the actual costs of their care so they don't even know what they are getting or their insurance is paying for. It is common for providers to run tests and procedures their patients don't even need just to generate revenue. 

 

You have all heard me say it, we do have a perfect health care system in the US; Veterinary Care. Competition keeps prices low. You can buy as much or as little as you think you need. Tommy's vet has equipment my doctor could never dream of owning. And the reason this system works is the goddamned government has never gotten involved in it.

Well do you think government would have any luck breaking up these cartels. How has that been going so far. Price fixing won't go away if the system is left alone.  

[Rosbjerg]

Source.

 

Something to think about.

[Blodhemn]

Those prices easily vary depending on where you get your procedure and whether you have insurance or not and vice versa. For instance, if you pay out of pocket a hospital will usually give you atleast 50% off of what they'd charge your insurance if you have it. 

[Rostere]

Anyway, regardless of how you think this all should be solved, I think there is one thing we all might agree on: healthcare is ridiculously overpriced in the US. And even with its high price, Americans don't live very long lives or get a lot in return.

 

Let's have a look here. You know something is way, way off the rails when you've got higher costs than even Norway and Switzerland.

 

So why don't you just simply copy/paste the system of some other country? New Zealand and Japan seems from the list to be two modern countries with cheap and well-functioning healthcare. Why don't you just send observers over there, see how they get the same thing as you do for less than half the cost and then use their system instead? (That's certainly something I would like to tell the politicians in my own country from time to time...)

[kgambit]

124$ a month is just freaking ludicrous if that's a one month charge for Lipitor.  My wife was on Lipitor for a while.  We paid 95$ for 3 months for brand then reduced that to 15$ for 3 months for generic. 

Edited October 2, 2013 by kgambit

[Blodhemn]

Anyway, regardless of how you think this all should be solved, I think there is one thing we all might agree on: healthcare is ridiculously overpriced in the US. And even with its high price, Americans don't live very long lives or get a lot in return.

 

Let's have a look here. You know something is way, way off the rails when you've got higher costs than even Norway and Switzerland.

 

So why don't you just simply copy/paste the system of some other country? New Zealand and Japan seems from the list to be two modern countries with cheap and well-functioning healthcare. Why don't you just send observers over there, see how they get the same thing as you do for less than half the cost and then use their system instead? (That's certainly something I would like to tell the politicians in my own country from time to time...)

Japan has trouble looming it's way with the leagues of elderly and an economy/population unable to support it. 

 

Out of what I've seen, the country that does it best is probably Aus.

[Hurlshort]

I am currently paying $195 a month for Creon, an enzyme that helps my wife's pancreas process food.  This is after insurance covers 80% of the cost.

[Gorgon]

They've made it mandatory here for doctors to recommend cheaper alternatives, provided they are effective, and not just write a prescription for the first thing that comes into their minds. When a patent expires the cost of drugs can plummet to as low as a few percent of the original price and there is quite often something already out there with a similar effect. This also keeps a lid on unsavory incentive schemes and back hand deals between pharmaceutical companies and doctors.  

[Zoraptor]

New Zealand and Japan seems from the list to be two modern countries with cheap and well-functioning healthcare.

Ours is 'single payer' ie state funded via direct tax primarily, and state run, with optional private. Cannot see that flying in the US as it would require nationalising a load of stuff and replacing the private bureaucracy with public bureaucracy, two things the US (or at least a politically important subset thereof) doesn't like much as a rule. Indeed, the US has persistently and still is trying to get us to break up our single buyer drug purchaser as it persists in going for cheap options rather than all in high cost exclusive package deals on out-of-patent brand name drugs.

 

From the outside it certainly appears that the biggest problem the US system has is twofold- that there's little incentive towards prevention and that such a large proportion of people simply are not effectively covered by health care except the extremely expensive emergency kind. 

[kgambit]

I am currently paying $195 a month for Creon, an enzyme that helps my wife's pancreas process food.  This is after insurance covers 80% of the cost.

 

Ouch.  I'm not disputing that there are some drugs with astronomical costs associated with them.  Soliris (which is used to treat a very rare blood disorder) goes for about 400000 $ dollars a year.

 

I'm just saying that anyone paying that price for Lipitor is getting gouged big time.  Pfizer offered to reimburse patients for up to 50$ per prescription leaving a 4$ co-pay and then volunteered to boost that to 75$.  Several large prescription houses had reduced their co-pays for brand name Lipitor to 14$.   And that was all for the brand name.  124$ a month is a rip-off

[kgambit]

Cannot see that flying in the US as it would require nationalising a load of stuff and replacing the private bureaucracy with public bureaucracy (snip)

 

......   that such a large proportion of people simply are not effectively covered by health care except the extremely expensive emergency kind. 

 

Totally agree with the first part.  I don't see a total public takeover of the health care system as being workable.

 

Not trying to be argumentative, but could you please define what you mean by "large proportion" because last time I checked over 85% of all Americans had health care coverage. 

(48 million is a lot of people, yes.  And ~15% is fairly high so if that's what you meant we're good)

 

Obama's health care package is going to provide coverage for about 18 million people or less than half of the uncovered 48 million.  So it's not UHC by any stretch of the imagination.  And the latest budget estimate was that the  net cost was ~ 1.4 trillion dollars over 10 years. 

 

They've made it mandatory here for doctors to recommend cheaper alternatives, provided they are effective, and not just write a prescription for the first thing that comes into their minds. When a patent expires the cost of drugs can plummet to as low as a few percent of the original price and there is quite often something already out there with a similar effect. This also keeps a lid on unsavory incentive schemes and back hand deals between pharmaceutical companies and doctors.  

 

And they do the same thing here, but drugs cost more in the US than elsewhere.    And you're wrong about there always being a generic alternative.   Sometimes a drug holds a virtual monopoly on the market and there is NO cheap alternative.  

Edited October 2, 2013 by kgambit

[Hurlshort]

Weird, I've always heard that about 70% of Americans are covered and Obamacare will lift that to 95%.

[kgambit]

Weird, I've always heard that about 70% of Americans are covered and Obamacare will lift that to 95%.

 

No.  I've checked multiple sources.  They all agree within a couple of million on 48 million currently uninsured out of 314 million total (+/-)  The reason that only 18 million new insured are added is because the tax bill is full of exemptions that excuse people from being forced into the individual mandate.  I can dig up sources if you want.    NY Times had a full breakdown iirc,

 

Edit:  There is a little bit of wiggle room in the final numbers because some aspects are difficult to project - such as how many people will lose employer coverage and be forced to choose between paying for their own or paying fines.

 

Edit 2:  NYTimes  

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/percentage-of-americans-lacking-health-coverage-falls-again.html

 

Edit 3:  That 70% figure might be from the 19-25 yo group.   

Edited October 2, 2013 by kgambit

[Tsuga C]

Did we expect anything less from the feds?