Health Care Reform...Sound off here, An ET Roundtable.

[Index piker]

Quote from Free Thinker:

its not your decision. you as a relative have no right or say in the decision to unplug a parent unless he has an advance directive, and even then it wont kick in until the prognosis is bleak ,if that parent is still competent.

What if I give the prognosis needed to rid this world of your kind, hows that?

 

[Mav88]

Very very interesting old article on Bush's pill program, look who is chiding republicans on how the cost estimates were too low, and look who also criticised the program as being 'too stingy'

Politics is a cesspool

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html

At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) taunted Treasury Secretary John W. Snow about the rhetorical discrepancies.

"If you're looking for a crisis, I would suggest you look at a crisis that was self-made in just last year, because the crisis exists in what's happened to Medicare by weighing it down," Emanuel said. "Those of us who told you it was going to cost twice as much were right." ...

..From the outset, the cost of the Medicare drug benefit has sparked nearly as much controversy as the details of the program itself. Liberals have said that Bush devised a "stingy" benefit in which many seniors would be faced with thousands of dollars' worth of drug bills. Conservatives have argued that an open-ended entitlement to prescription drug coverage would cost far more than the Treasury could afford.

It's a bit early for assessing the CBO prediction but there are voices that claim Bush actually did it right, if you are going to give out freebies. LOL, dubya may be a better liberal than liberals

http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/10/17/prescription-drug-coverage-and-elderly-medicare-spending/

In 2006, the federal government first began expanding Medicare coverage to include prescription drugs using the Medicare Part D program. According to one report, Part D will cost taxpayers $47 billion in 2007.

Yet it is possible that Medicare Part D could actually save taxpayers money. If prescription drugs and other medical care are substitutes, then increasing funding for lower cost pharmaceuticals could actually save taxpayers money on the more expensive hospital stays (covered by Medicare Part A) and physician visits (covered by Medicare Part B). For instance, it is possible that regularly taking beta blockers may reduce the chance that one needs an expensive heart surgery.

On the other hand, if pharmaceuticals and other medical care are compliments, than increasing Part D funding, could increase the total spending in Medicare Parts A and B. For instance, individuals taking prescriptions drugs may need to go to the doctor more often¨Ccovered by Part B¨Cin order to have their pharmaceutical usage monitored....

A simple two part model finds that the ¡°prescription drug benefits increase drug spending by $157, reduces Medicare Part A spending by $135, and increases Medicare Part B spending by $31¡å¨Ca net $104 reduction in Medicare spending. The more complicated structural model using structurally estimating unobserved heterogeneity parameters finds that the drug benefit increases drug spending by $170 (or 22%). However, ¡°prescription drug benefits decrease Medicare Part A spending by $350 or 13%; and prescription drug benefits decrease Medicare Part B spending by $74 or 4% although the estimates are statistically insignificant.¡±

 

[Mav88]

its not your decision. you as a relative have no right or say in the decision to unplug a parent unless he has an advance directive, and even then it wont kick in until the prognosis is bleak ,if that parent is still competent.
euthanasia is still illegal almost everywhere.

unplugging from life support is not euthanasia.

The problem is if it's my money, so I should be part of the decision. If not, then economics will eventually make the decison for you- nobody will get life support.

 

[Wallet]

Quote from Mav88:

Politics is a cesspool

That's all you needed to say

 

[AMT4SWA]

Quote from killthesunshine:

can everyone AGREE we need reform right

Sure......MASSIVE tort reform, get fully RID of the vaccination courts, and get Americans more DIRECTLY involved with paying for their own health care (3rd party payer methods EXPLODE health care costs for all......almost as inefficient as a fully government controlled system).


*** 3rd party payer dependent methods are a very costly way to handle the predominance of health care for Americans.

*** Government controlled health care is the WORST method humanly possible to handle health care for Americans.

NOT until Americans are MORE DIRECTLY INVOLVED with paying for about 90% of their typical year to year health care expenses will the costs EVER GO DOWN.........PERIOD!!!

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from hermit:

Over the last 30 years, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which assesses the costs of health reform and other legislation as it moves through Congress and is widely respected for its competence and integrity, has underestimated the amount of savings and overestimated the costs that major changes in the health care system would bring.

CBO underestimated savings from reforms Congress made in the way Medicare paid hospitals by $11 billion.

Savings from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which changed the way skilled nursing facilities and home health services were reimbursed under Medicare, turned out to be 50 percent greater in 1998 and 113 percent greater in 1999 than the budget office forecast. And, CBO predicted that drug prices would rise following the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which added prescription drug benefits to Medicare, estimating that spending on the drug benefit would be $206 billion. Actual spending was nearly 40 percent less than that, Gabel found.



http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Con...stimated-Savings-and-Overestimated-Costs.aspx

In the case of this bill the CBO claims it to be budget neutral, how can that be? They are incorporating a NEW cost into the budget, unless it is 100% funded from cuts within the existing budget, it increases. It is that simple. Now you are going to tell me that the cost is covered by raising taxes, which is true, but the budget still INCREASES.

Then there is the double counting of medicare funds, and the fact that the 10 year CBO estimates include 10 years of funding with only 6 years of payouts. This is the equivalent of saying 1+1= something other than 2. So yes I doubt the CBO estimate, you should as well.

 

[hermit]

Quote from AMT4SWA:

Sure......MASSIVE tort reform, get fully RID of the vaccination courts, and get Americans more DIRECTLY involved with paying for their own health care (3rd party payer methods EXPLODE health care costs for all......almost as inefficient as a fully government controlled system).


*** 3rd party payer dependent methods are a very costly way to handle the predominance of health care for Americans.

*** Government controlled health care is the WORST method humanly possible to handle health care for Americans.

NOT until Americans are MORE DIRECTLY INVOLVED with paying for about 90% of their typical year to year health care expenses will the costs EVER GO DOWN.........PERIOD!!!

So why weren't all this measures implemented all this time while the health care system was dragging the economy down?

 

[hermit]

Quote from PiggyBank:

In the case of this bill the CBO claims it to be budget neutral, how can that be? They are incorporating a NEW cost into the budget, unless it is 100% funded from cuts within the existing budget, it increases. It is that simple. Now you are going to tell me that the cost is covered by raising taxes, which is true, but the budget still INCREASES.

Then there is the double counting of medicare funds, and the fact that the 10 year CBO estimates include 10 years of funding with only 6 years of payouts. This is the equivalent of saying 1+1= something other than 2. So yes I doubt the CBO estimate, you should as well.

Let the budget increase, atleast it will have some useful effect on the economy as well as on the lives of people. We didn't see such rhetoric over legislation when it was contributing to the deficit.

As for the CBO estimate,its fine to doubt it but why then doubt it only for the worse? Since we can see from previous instances, they tend to underestimate savings and overestimate costs quite regularly.

 

[omegapoint]

Just an example of the need for accountability to stop somewhere. I took a stress test, treadmill for 10 minutes with EKG attached that was 1500 dollars and nothing revealed. Now they tell me I need another this one costs over 4000 dollars and noone would have volunteered the cost had I not asked. Cost of procedures is the microbe in the room.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from hermit:

Let the budget increase, atleast it will have some useful effect on the economy as well as on the lives of people. We didn't see such rhetoric over legislation when it was contributing to the deficit.

As for the CBO estimate,its fine to doubt it but why then doubt it only for the worse? Since we can see from previous instances, they tend to underestimate savings and overestimate costs quite regularly.

No it will have a negative effect on the economy. Public sector jobs are financed by taxes, they are a drain on the economy. Obviously tax cuts without spending cuts will increase the deficit.

As for the CBO estimate, maybe doubt was not the right word, let me re-phrase. I think the CBO estimate is a giant fucking lie. Also what is your problem with rhetoric if it is FACT.