RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Sorry, but I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over a couple that makes a million dollars in 2 years getting taxed a bit more on a quarter million dollar home they sell to help fund Medicare, when over 40 million Americans have no health insurance. Maybe that makes me a Communist. Obama was clear when he ran for office that he'd probably raise taxes on the rich, lower them for the middle class, and try to provide health coverage to most of those who don't have it - and that's exactly what he's done. Why are people so upset when he's only doing what he said he'd do when the majority of Americans voted for the guy?
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Politics
Universal Health Care Discussion
[1025 posts] [82 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
rus
Login to Send PM
JedThorp wrote >>
http://jonudell.net/udell/gems/healthCost02.jpgSo, by that graph, we should spend less on health care?
Is that your argument?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
I think the chart does more to argue the whole "we have the best medical care in the world" argument, and the concerns that quality of care will necessarily get worse if costs are reduced (like you suggested).
BTW, I think yes...we should be spending less per person on healthcare.
Posted 2 years ago # -
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM
JedThorp wrote >>
http://jonudell.net/udell/gems/healthCost02.jpgI have seen these kind of statistical analyses quoted before, and I have a fundamental question regarding them (not the numbers, but what they indicate). The assumption is that you can compare the expenditure on health care to the outcome of increased life expectancy and that yields a basis for a conclusion. But the notion that increased life expectancy is a yardstick by which to measure anything is questionable. A nation that spends a lot on medical technology is perfectly capable of taking a patient that has suffered a debilitating stroke at the age of 80 and keeping them alive in a nursing home until they are, say, 92. But what this doesn't address is the issue of quality of life. I would like to know how many people would be willing to give up increased spending in the pursuit of increased life expectancy for increased spending in pursuit of a better quality of life while we're here.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
You can do the same chart by infant mortality though, or MRI machines per patient, or a number of other yardsticks...and it looks pretty much the same.
Posted 2 years ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Also, I don't think the trend of who's "beating us," even accepting life expectancy as an accurate measure of quality of care, yields any great insights--at least, at the superficial level, there appear to be a lot of differences between Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Belgium--and I don't only mean with respect to the government's involvement in the health care sector, I mean across many factors that could influence life expectancy.
Posted 2 years ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
WASHINGTON – Nearly 4 million Americans  the vast majority of them middle class  will have to pay the new penalty for not getting health insurance when President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law kicks in, according to congressional estimates released Thursday.
The penalties will average a little more than $1,000 apiece in 2016, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report.
Most of the people paying the fine will be middle class. Obama pledged in 2008 not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.Posted 2 years ago # -
ehill27
Short North
Login to Send PM
@rus,
yep, yep. This idea came from conservatives and the health industry (more comparisons here). An attempt at bipartisanship and bit of corporate welfare for health insurers that, as a liberal, I'm not too keen on. However, I understand the concept that increasing participation decreases the burden on the individual.
So, you can pay a "penalty" that helps pay for your health coverage when you show up at the ER uncovered or you can acquire government subsidized health insurance for yourself. We can only hope that the cost after subsidy is close to the penalty.
Posted 2 years ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
ehill27 wrote >>
@rus,
yep, yep. This idea came from conservatives and the health industry (more comparisons here). An attempt at bipartisanship and bit of corporate welfare for health insurers that, as a liberal, I'm not too keen on. However, I understand the concept that increasing participation decreases the burden on the individual.
So, you can pay a "penalty" that helps pay for your health coverage when you show up at the ER uncovered or you can acquire government subsidized health insurance for yourself. We can only hope that the cost after subsidy is close to the penalty.Hopefully, the cost would be less than the penalty otherwise it's just cheaper to pay the penalty.
Speaking of that though, seems like expected cost benefits might not materialize.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_law_costs
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance  adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.Posted 2 years ago # -
ehill27
Short North
Login to Send PM
I don't understand your comment. If you could get health insurance coverage for anywhere near the cost of the non-participation penalty, why would you opt for going without insurance?
Unanticipated health care bills are no joke. Financially, they can be downright catastrophic.
~~~
As for the other, the numbers are all speculation at this point. Having said that, I do believe that we would have been much better served if the Dems didn't compromise away so many of their ideas, especially the public option, in a futile attempt for bipartisanship.
Posted 2 years ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
ehill27 wrote >>
I don't understand your comment. If you could get health insurance coverage for anywhere near the cost of the non-participation penalty, why would you opt for going without insurance?
Unanticipated health care bills are no joke. Financially, they can be downright catastrophic.As an economic incentive for immediate costs, not possible costs later, a penalty for not carrying health insurance has to be "high enough" to encourage marginal cases.
For a related example, I caught a bit of 'All Sides' earlier today. Apparently, car insurance costs are incredibly high ( as in, larger than a car payment ) in Detroit where auto insurance is mandatory. On speaker said a common practice was to obtain insurance for one month to register the car, then cancel it immediately to save money. Sure, that completely ignores the possible long term costs for an accident ( just like ignoring the possibility of needing expensive health care ) but apparently a large number of people do it because it makes economic sense based on their immediate needs.
Same thing with health insurance, no?
Posted 2 years ago # -
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM
-
sirlancelot
Login to Send PM
The proposed federal budget cuts ($3-4 trillion) would push federal healthcare funds (if any) into block grants, allocated to each state, based on population. States would be free to use that money however they want. Now, remember what Ohio did with funds from the tobacco settlement that were intended to go to smoking prevention?
One major difference between universal medical care in Britian versus U.S. Medicare/Medicaid is that most British doctors are state employees, on a fixed salary, with less specialisation and fewer options for advancement. My understanding is that state doctors can have some private patients, on the side, and private patents can get private medical insurance. If you have private health insurance, it can pay for private rooms and perhaps bypass the wait for certain medical procedures.
Posted 1 year ago # -
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
@sirlancelot - The big difference is Medicare/Medicaid are public insurance providers, not a national health system delivering care.
The Paul Ryan budget proposal is also DOA, it solves neither the deficit or the healthcare spending inflation challenge.
Posted 1 year ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.