Will health care costs actually go down if congress passes health care reform?

[grassninja]

As I'm sure a lot of you have read or heard bits of intended health care reform bills that have been floating though the house and senate. The 2,000 page house bill has passed and the senate has passed a resolution to debate and vote on the bill.

The question I have, is will it actually lower the cost of health care? They are talking about taxing medical products, taxes on certain insurance plans, requiring people that do not have health insurance to buy it or get fined, and maybe, but probably not, go to jail if they don't. They say they will set aside money for people that are not able to buy it because of being too poor, or losing their jobs, but that makes no sense, because if you count on blocks of people to be paying for insurance that aren't making enough money to buy insurance, then you have to borrow, spend less or raise the premiums.

I saw this simple video on YouTube and it makes some sense -- the only way to lower the cost of health is to lower the costs that make up the total cost of the health care services to consumers. If the cost to provide those services continue to go up so will cost of insurance and the taxes that go with it.

If you guys got anything, I'd love to hear it, because from all that I've read from all different sources, gives me the impressions that no one has a fucking clue on what it's going to take to provide cheap health care.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1cTLxTNw2M

 

[Mayhem]

All I know is that I haven't had health insurance for about 10 years. I need an operation on my foot and until I get it, standing gets painful after about an hour and driving becomes unbearable after 2 - 3 hours. I'm voting with the Dems on this one.

 

[grassninja]

All I know is that I haven't had health insurance for about 10 years. I need an operation on my foot and until I get it, standing gets painful after about an hour and driving becomes unbearable after 2 - 3 hours. I'm voting with the Dems on this one.

I certainly don't disagree that there is a need and a place to help provide coverage to those that can't afford it. I don't know your circumstance, as to how much money you make and what options are available in your area, but there is a chance if this passes, and you make enough money, you will be forced to buy a health insurance policy.

If you are a veteran you may qualify for VA health coverage. I'm a veteran and I have it. I've never had to use it, but it's there for me. I'm currently unemployed without health insurance, but I'm fortunate to have the VA coverage.

Some university hospitals help people out as well. If the legislation passes, the coverage does not begin for about three to four years. So you would be waiting a few more years longer. Either way, I hope you are able to find a way to get your surgery sooner.

The thing about this health care debate that really scares me is that they are promising everyone the moon, but we don't know if they will deliver it.

Like I mentioned above I have the VA option and if I want to see a doctor, which I still have to pay a small premium, I have to wait weeks or months to do so.

The way I look at this health care issue is that the government is like the Octomom. She already had two kids that she could not support and went to extreme means to have six more. She may have had the best of intentions, but she was not able to support what she already had, but she added more anyway.

The government has already made health care promises that they have not been able to keep to veterans and they have a Medicare/Medicaid system that is full of waste and fraud.

I think that the government needs to do the following first:

1. Fix Medicare Medicare/Medicaid
2. Veterans wait no more than a week for coverage.
3. Setup a system to have people apply for coverage (medicaid), based on the applications they can get a sense of who needs and wants short term medical coverage and those that may need longer term care. This would give them a solid base to have the federal government and states budget for it.
4. Based on need they can start admitting some more into medicare/medicaid and they can pass the information on to the states, where they and the local communities can look at ways of providing coverage.

In any case, I get the impression that those that have been writing the congressional bills for health care are trying to rewrite the book, and I can to tell you from personal experience, even some of the best plans can turn out with unintended consequences.

I think that congress needs to look at plugging holes instead of building a new ship, which takes longer and is more expensive than plugging holes.

 

[D-rock]

If people were serious about getting medical cost under control not only would they demand a government run insurance plan that gave healthcare to everybody, but they would demand that the government totally socialize almost every aspect of medicine and run it themsleves. That's everything from drug companies, medical supply makers to doctors and hospitals.


Getting cost under control for something that's that needed and a human right just doesn't coincide the rules of capitalism.

 

[grassninja]

If people were serious about getting medical cost under control not only would they demand a government run insurance plan that gave healthcare to everybody, but they would demand that the government totally socialize almost every aspect of medicine and run it themsleves. That's everything from drug companies, medical supply makers to doctors and hospitals.


Getting cost under control for something that's that needed and a human right just doesn't coincide the rules of capitalism.

If the government were to socialize these industries, there is no guarantee that it would cost the average American less if they are paying for it in the form of higher income taxes and sales taxes. Even socialism depends on the creation of wealth if it's source of revenue is taxing individuals.

I think part of the reason why health care in America is so expensive is because of the lack of capitalism (competition) in the market. Almost no one pays for health care directly.

Doctors and hospitals are not competing with each other to offer the best deal and best products at the lowest prices. They are charging as much as they can convince insurance companies and the government to pay them. So no one really knows what it cost to provide a doctors visits or a surgery.

This insurance system made the doctors a lot of money along the way and out of work lawyers figured out that they could file lawsuits to get their hands on some of that money, which create a need for malpractice insurance, which has also caused the expenses of medical operations to increase and here we are now with a situation where you go to a doctor or hospital and they want your insurance information instead of having a chart listing the cost of their services.

The lawyers found them to be a convenient source of money. If you get a car accident and it's the other cars fault and that driver doesn't have liability insurance and has no money, assets or good paying job, no lawyer will take that case, because there is no money. In that scenario, if you have the right coverage on your car, you take what your insurance company will give you and that's about the end of it.

If we had never had health insurance there is no way doctors would be able to charge the prices they do for surgeries, because if they wouldn't be able to figure out a way to provide the service at a cost that most could afford, there wouldn't be that many doctors.

My argument is that there is no guarantee that theses changes are going to provide cheaper, better care to everyone. I think we need to take things one step at a time.

 

[marquis2]

If the government were to socialize these industries, there is no guarantee that it would cost the average American less if they are paying for it in the form of higher income taxes and sales taxes. Even socialism depends on the creation of wealth if it's source of revenue is taxing individuals.

I think part of the reason why health care in America is so expensive is because of the lack of capitalism (competition) in the market. Almost no one pays for health care directly.

Doctors and hospitals are not competing with each other to offer the best deal and best products at the lowest prices. They are charging as much as they can convince insurance companies and the government to pay them. So no one really knows what it cost to provide a doctors visits or a surgery.

This insurance system made the doctors a lot of money along the way and out of work lawyers figured out that they could file lawsuits to get their hands on some of that money, which create a need for malpractice insurance, which has also caused the expenses of medical operations to increase and here we are now with a situation where you go to a doctor or hospital and they want your insurance information instead of having a chart listing the cost of their services.

If we had never had health insurance there is no way doctors would be able to charge the prices they do for surgeries, because if they wouldn't be able to figure out a way to provide the service at a cost that most could afford, there wouldn't be that many doctors.

My argument is that there is no guarantee that theses changes are going to provide cheaper, better care to everyone. I think we need to take things one step at a time.

Socialism is nothing more than getting people tp pool their resources to provide what would be difficult any other way. So you have a socialist military for example which seems to work pretty well.
You must remember that you are dealing with a lifetime provision.At times you will be paying in more than you take out but there's always the chance that someday you will be taking out more than you pay in.If this never happens just count your blessing that sickness has passed you buy.Part of what you are buying is peace of mind-to know that if you or one of your family are struck down with disease or injury you will get treatment without financial hardship or worse.
The free market in theory offers competition and a government scheme offers value. The reality is somewhere in between ; the sort of competition which arises in the present system has less to do with the patient and more to do with profits.Less , far less, of your premiums actually go into health benefits.Government schemes aren't quite as efficient as would be hoped because there's no motive to be so yet it's found by looking elsewhere that a far greater proportion of what you pay goes to the actual patient.
Overriding all this is the rising expectations of people , new treatments become available and costs are always going to rise. There's no easily affordable way of providing full care to everybody all at once.Also, as soon as it's introduced there will be a sudden demand on resources by those who couldn't afford to pay in the old way , perhaps with existing chronic problems.