CBO Estimates ObamaCare Will Cost Almost Double What Obama Said It Would

[LiveLaughLove]

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbo-obamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

In other news, water is wet. Oh wait, already used that today.

CBO says 1.76 trillion over 10 years. Obama said 940 billion (which is still outrageous).
Obama used Democrat math where 1+1=2 but we'll call it 1/2 to get it passed.

[Maxwell Smart] Missed it by that much! [/Maxwell Smart]

[dwarthog]

Hmmm, looks like we are finally finding out a little bit of what is actually in that legislation, not that it was all that hard to dope out to begin with.

[Midtowner]

The cost of not having the Affordable Care Act will likely price insurance out of most folks' budgets.

Hopefully, from the ACA's imminent failure, we end up with either a nationalized healthcare system or at least a viable public option.

[dwarthog]

The cost of not having the Affordable Care Act will likely price insurance out of most folks' budgets.

Hopefully, from the ACA's imminent failure, we end up with either a nationalized healthcare system or at least a viable public option.

I disagree, having a product, insurance, and no customers that can afford to buy it isn't a successful strategy and one that would ultimately lead to lots of changes, by the people buying it and by the insurance companies.

This legislation does nothing to alter the cost, it just roots around in other peoples pockets for the money to continue a system that isn't working.

[REDREX]

The cost of not having the Affordable Care Act will likely price insurance out of most folks' budgets.

Hopefully, from the ACA's imminent failure, we end up with either a nationalized healthcare system or at least a viable public option.---Why would you think Nationalized healthcare or a public option would be viable or cheaper ? ---The Gov't runs nothing better than the private sector

[SoonerProphet]

hmm, some contradictory info...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-usa-budget-deficit-idUSBRE82C19Q20120314

[cleller]

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbo-obamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

In other news, water is wet. Oh wait, already used that today.

CBO says 1.76 trillion over 10 years. Obama said 940 billion (which is still outrageous).
Obama used Democrat math where 1+1=2 but we'll call it 1/2 to get it passed.

[Maxwell Smart] Missed it by that much! [/Maxwell Smart]

As we've all heard here, the CBO is non-partisan, and always truthful and correct.

[sappstuf]

hmm, some contradictory info...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-usa-budget-deficit-idUSBRE82C19Q20120314

Not really.. They finally get around to mentioning the cost of Obamacare..


Before the revenue and tax effects, the gross cost for that period hits a new high: $1.762 trillion

I think the phrase is, "burying the lede"...

[pphilfran]

But the analysis also projected that some 4 million fewer people will obtain insurance through employers or through the insurance exchanges promoted by the healthcare law by 2016 than estimated a year ago.

Many of those people will need to be covered by government-run Medicaid program for the poor, causing higher Medicaid costs to eat into savings elsewhere.

[cleller]

...but its a terrific way to close the gap between the "haves" and "have nots".

[TUSooner]

Oh, never mind, bad idea.

[pphilfran]

Oh, never mind, bad idea.

The only bad idea is the idea that is not posted... :)

[dwarthog]

Here is the explanation for both sets of numbers.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k19/dwarthog/Affordable_healthcare_CBO_1.png

[diverdog]

---Why would you think Nationalized healthcare or a public option would be viable or cheaper ? ---The Gov't runs nothing better than the private sector

Yeah right......worldcom, lehmann, gm, bear stern, merrill, need I go on?

[REDREX]

Yeah right......worldcom, lehmann, gm, bear stern, merrill, need I go on?---Medicare ----Medicade---Post Office ----Social Security----- Public Pension plans---need I go on ?

[Whet]

The cost of not having the Affordable Care Act will likely price insurance out of most folks' budgets.

Hopefully, from the ACA's imminent failure, we end up with either a nationalized healthcare system or at least a viable public option.

Maybe you should spend some time with our Canadian friends to the north, or our friends from Britain, before you discuss nationalized healthcare. Did you now Canada restricts how much money doctors can earn? Typically, the doctors reach their earnings limits within 6 months and some within 3 months. When the limit is reached, the doctors no longer practice, so that results in very long wait times to see a doctor, or undergo tests or procedures. That is nationalized healthcare.

We already have a public option for healthcare - it is called Medicade!

[TUSooner]

---Medicare ----Medicade---Post Office ----Social Security-----need I go on ?

Don't knock the Post Office (even though Santorum has long advocated privatizing it).

Show me ANYTHING that's trouble free and wholly efficient in the pubic or private sector.
I am skeptical of government programs, because politicians can't keep their hands off the money (e.g. Social Security, and the strangling of the USPS). But there is a difference between being skeptical, and dismissing all government programs based on pure ideology (or trite conservative mythology) that never gives way to data. Just a thought.

[pphilfran]

I damn sure wouldn't be bragging about the government when they are spending nearly 25% of our gross national product...

[Midtowner]

---Why would you think Nationalized healthcare or a public option would be viable or cheaper ? ---The Gov't runs nothing better than the private sector

Perhaps because we aren't nationalized in the U.S. and every single peer first world country on Earth which has a public option or a totally socialized system delivers similar or better results for sometimes as little as half the cost.

Facts are not your friend in this conversation.

[REDREX]

Perhaps because we aren't nationalized in the U.S. and every single peer first world country on Earth which has a public option or a totally socialized system delivers similar or better results for sometimes as little as half the cost.

Facts are not your friend in this conversation.----Are you ready for Tort reform to slowdown all the defensive medicine ?

[pphilfran]

Don't knock the Post Office (even though Santorum has long advocated privatizing it).

Show me ANYTHING that's trouble free and wholly efficient in the pubic or private sector.
I am skeptical of government programs, because politicians can't keep their hands off the money (e.g. Social Security, and the strangling of the USPS). But there is a difference between being skeptical, and dismissing all government programs based on pure ideology (or trite conservative mythology) that never gives way to data. Just a thought.

The problem with the post office is Congress dragging it's feet on the recommended changes...Congress forcing them to prefund retirement to the extreme...far too many retirees being supported by fewer and fewer workers ....and a growth business plan that went down the tubes with email...

[Midtowner]

----Are you ready for Tort reform to slowdown all the defensive medicine ?

Depends on what you mean by tort reform.

Do I think that doctors should be able to kill and maim patients acting outside of the standard of care? No. I hope you don't. Would I like there to be a better-defined standard of care? Sure. I'm just not sure you're going to be in favor of that. If we start legislating that certain tests are statistically no longer needed and that docs shouldn't perform them, the righties are going to start whining about death panels again.

[dwarthog]

Perhaps because we aren't nationalized in the U.S. and every single peer first world country on Earth which has a public option or a totally socialized system delivers similar or better results for sometimes as little as half the cost.

Facts are not your friend in this conversation.

I was not aware we had rationing of health care here in the states.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/01/could-britains-health-care-rationing-come-to-the-states/


According to a report from The Independent, some of the procedures being rationed include:

Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.
Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems “substantially” affect their ability to work.
Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering “chronic continuous pain”, ulceration or bleeding.
Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.
Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in “exceptional circumstances” and after monitoring for six months.

[TUSooner]

The problem with the post office is Congress dragging it's feet on the recommended changes...Congress forcing them to prefund retirement to the extreme...far too many retirees being supported by fewer and fewer workers ....and a growth business plan that went down the tubes with email...
I think that is correct; "strangling" was my inartful shorthand. No doubt the post office got bloated, primarily with managers, IMHO. But it's pretty cool that I can send my far-away nephew a birthday card with $10 in it and it gets there in 2 or 3 days for less than 50 cents. Scrapping the USPS would abdicate one of the oldest recognized legitimate functions of any government in history. Plus, it is not profitable to deliver mail to BFE, Idaho, so I doubt any private carrier would be eager to tackle that chore. So, notwithstanding any magical and mystical theorizing about the fabulous perfection of "The Market" I think the Government needs to take care of the mail. And some other stuff, too.

[pphilfran]

I think that is correct; "strangling" was my inartful shorthand. No doubt the post office got bloated, primarily with managers, IMHO. But it's pretty cool that I can send my far-away nephew a birthday card with $10 in it and it gets there in 2 or 3 days for less than 50 cents. Scrapping the USPS would abdicate one of the oldest recognized legitimate functions of any government in history. Plus, it is not profitable to deliver mail to BFE, Idaho, so I doubt any private carrier would be eager to tackle that chore. So, notwithstanding any magical and mystical theorizing about the fabulous perfection of "The Market" I think the Government needs to take care of the mail. And some other stuff, too.

It should not be privatized...

I think they are chasing their tail, though...

I don't think the cuts, if they ever get implemented, are going to be enough...their volume has been tanking and there is no end in sight...and then many of the layoffs will just get moved from payroll into retirement costs...I am feared that there will be more deep cuts down the road....

[pphilfran]

The same chit happens in both private and public concerns....

You start off small and growing....low overall pay scale...no retirees...sales and revenue growing....the business plan is working....

Then 30 years down the road they are big and bloated...much higher pay scale due to seniority....a chit pot full of retirees....sales and revenue growth slowing...the growth business plan is now in the chitter...

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Perhaps because we aren't nationalized in the U.S. and every single peer first world country on Earth which has a public option or a totally socialized system delivers similar or better results for sometimes as little as half the cost.

Facts are not your friend in this conversation.

Or we could think outside the box and create a system where consumers make choices about health care and pay for the consequences of their own lifestyle choices.

We already have a system where bureaucrats make medical decisions, it's just the insurance companies rather than government bureaucrats. We also have a system where fat out of shape people are subsidized by healthy people. It's called group insurance. A single payer system does nothing to alleviate that. What's so fair about that? What's good about encouraging bad behavior?

Also, don't confuse medical outcomes with quality of treatment. There's a lot of reasons why Americans have worse health outcomes - lifestyle choices being principle among those.

[pphilfran]

Or we could think outside the box and create a system where consumers make choices about health care and pay for the consequences of their own lifestyle choices.

We already have a system where bureaucrats make medical decisions, it's just the insurance companies rather than government bureaucrats. We also have a system where fat out of shape people are subsidized by healthy people. It's called group insurance. A single payer system does nothing to alleviate that. What's so fair about that? What's good about encouraging bad behavior?

Also, don't confuse medical outcomes with quality of treatment. There's a lot of reasons why Americans have worse health outcomes - lifestyle choices being principle among those.

If they don't have insurance how are they going to pay for their consequences? Turn them away when they need treatment? And if we don't turn them away we will be paying for the services anyway...probably at a far later, and more expensive, time than if they would have had insurance to begin with...

[Bourbon St Sooner]

If they don't have insurance how are they going to pay for their consequences? Turn them away when they need treatment? And if we don't turn them away we will be paying for the services anyway...probably at a far later, and more expensive, time than if they would have had insurance to begin with...

You can create a system where everybody is covered, but they still pay more for their lifestyle choices. Of course lower income people would still have to be subsidized. I'm less worried about that the people that have means and they smoke and are overweight and diabetic and taking 10 pills a day and paying the same amount as a marathon runner on the same group plan.

In a single payer system bureacrats make arbitrary decisions about how many procedures they are paying for based on the budget and everybody else goes on a waiting list. And if you die while waiting then that's your problem. I think there's a better, more humane way to allocate scarce resources.

[pphilfran]

You can create a system where everybody is covered, but they still pay more for their lifestyle choices. Of course lower income people would still have to be subsidized. I'm less worried about that the people that have means and they smoke and are overweight and diabetic and taking 10 pills a day and paying the same amount as a marathon runner on the same group plan.

In a single payer system bureacrats make arbitrary decisions about how many procedures they are paying for based on the budget and everybody else goes on a waiting list. And if you die while waiting then that's your problem. I think there's a better, more humane way to allocate scarce resources.

I am on the opposite side of the discussion...insurance is used to spread the risk...policy costs should be similar no matter the lifestyle...

Of the many risks we face and choose from which should be targeted for higher premiums? How do you determine the dividing point?

That marathon runner could be destroying his joints at a faster rate then myself, and me, not being a marathoner, I guess I should not be paying for his hip or knee replacements...

[Midtowner]

In a single payer system bureacrats make arbitrary decisions about how many procedures they are paying for based on the budget and everybody else goes on a waiting list. And if you die while waiting then that's your problem. I think there's a better, more humane way to allocate scarce resources.

If it's a federal administrative system, it's governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. It's anything but arbitrary. Believe me. In fact, not being "arbitrary and capricious" is basically what the APA is all about.

I don't think we're going to develop the perfect plan on Soonerfans. It just ain't gonna happen.

Do I think that conceptually, some sort of advantage should be taken of the economies of scale which only the government is capable of tapping? Heck yeah. Also, everyone needs to pay into the system. Period.

[dwarthog]

I am on the opposite side of the discussion...insurance is used to spread the risk...policy costs should be similar no matter the lifestyle...

Of the many risks we face and choose from which should be targeted for higher premiums? How do you determine the dividing point?

That marathon runner could be destroying his joints at a faster rate then myself, and me, not being a marathoner, I guess I should not be paying for his hip or knee replacements...

I bet that insurance company's have reams of data with regards to life style decisions and it impacts to your medical costs and overall health.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I am on the opposite side of the discussion...insurance is used to spread the risk...policy costs should be similar no matter the lifestyle...

Of the many risks we face and choose from which should be targeted for higher premiums? How do you determine the dividing point?

That marathon runner could be destroying his joints at a faster rate then myself, and me, not being a marathoner, I guess I should not be paying for his hip or knee replacements...

The problem with modern insurance is that a large part of it is not insurance, but prepayment for services. Just like the insurance on your car doesn't pay for maintenance, health insurance shouldn't pay for primary care. A better system would be to use medical savings accounts to pay for primary care and true insurance plans for catastophic care coverage. If you're on 10 different medicines, then you are going to pay for that out of your medical savings account. If you have a knee joint replacement, you pay for it up to that deductible amount.

Ultimately, health care resources are scarce just like any other. Somehow care has to be rationed. The current system with costs rising at 2 to 3 times inflation is unsustainable.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

If it's a federal administrative system, it's governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. It's anything but arbitrary. Believe me. In fact, not being "arbitrary and capricious" is basically what the APA is all about.

I don't think we're going to develop the perfect plan on Soonerfans. It just ain't gonna happen.

Do I think that conceptually, some sort of advantage should be taken of the economies of scale which only the government is capable of tapping? Heck yeah. Also, everyone needs to pay into the system. Period.

I agree that everyone needs to pay into the system. That's one part of the plan that I agree with.

Economies of scale are not very helpful in driving down total costs in healthcare. Economies of scale are that you have a certain fixed costs and as you produce more of something. Well you can drive down the cost of each MRI by ordering more MRI's but that doesn't drive down the total cost of health care. To drive down total cost you need to use less of the resource. That ultimately gets down to driving behavior. We're not going to use less medical resources until people start making better behavioral decisions.

[FtwTxSooner]

The problem with modern insurance is that a large part of it is not insurance, but prepayment for services. Just like the insurance on your car doesn't pay for maintenance, health insurance shouldn't pay for primary care. A better system would be to use medical savings accounts to pay for primary care and true insurance plans for catastophic care coverage. If you're on 10 different medicines, then you are going to pay for that out of your medical savings account. If you have a knee joint replacement, you pay for it up to that deductible amount.

Ultimately, health care resources are scarce just like any other. Somehow care has to be rationed. The current system with costs rising at 2 to 3 times inflation is unsustainable.

My auto insurance ends up paying for a defensive driving course every few years, as the premium reduction when I take the class far exceeds the costs of the class. Homeowners insurance would provide a discount if you have a monitored alarm system. In all of these cases the insurance companies feel the risk of having to pay out on a claim is reduced by actions taken by the policy holder, and enourages such behavior with a rate reduction.

I could only guess if the same sort of economics would apply to primary care in reducing the risk of future claims.

In any case, the government shouldn't mandate it.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Good discussion guys. Much more fun than "You're guy's a bigger doosh than my guy" crap that seems to dominate this board. I should get back to the training class I'm supposed to be paying attention to.

[pphilfran]

The problem with modern insurance is that a large part of it is not insurance, but prepayment for services. Just like the insurance on your car doesn't pay for maintenance, health insurance shouldn't pay for primary care. A better system would be to use medical savings accounts to pay for primary care and true insurance plans for catastophic care coverage. If you're on 10 different medicines, then you are going to pay for that out of your medical savings account. If you have a knee joint replacement, you pay for it up to that deductible amount.

Ultimately, health care resources are scarce just like any other. Somehow care has to be rationed. The current system with costs rising at 2 to 3 times inflation is unsustainable.

I agree

[soonercoop1]

The cost of not having the Affordable Care Act will likely price insurance out of most folks' budgets.

Hopefully, from the ACA's imminent failure, we end up with either a nationalized healthcare system or at least a viable public option.

There were a couple of things that could have been done to promote some competition and not cost us any government intervention....why not try those first?

[soonercruiser]

Yeah right......worldcom, lehmann, gm, bear stern, merrill, need I go on?

Diver,
What's this list about?
Sounds a lot like a list of companies whose past executives now have jobs in the Obama administration.
Hummmm....

[soonercruiser]

The CBO has now lost all credibility IMO.
They are a shill for whomever is in power!
Either party!

If you don't give them the numbers they want, the party in power can hurt you.
So - do away with them!
There! Another budget cut!

[diverdog]

The CBO has now lost all credibility IMO.
They are a shill for whomever is in power!
Either party!

If you don't give them the numbers they want, the party in power can hurt you.
So - do away with them!
There! Another budget cut!

The problem cruiser is that they are dealing with a lot of unknowns.

People forget that the reason single payer is on the table is because health insurance premiums were going through the roof. Had private carriers not been upping premiums at 20% per year this would not be a discussion.

[olevetonahill]

Perhaps because we aren't nationalized in the U.S. and every single peer first world country on Earth which has a public option or a totally socialized system delivers similar or better results for sometimes as little as half the cost.

Facts are not your friend in this conversation.

Is this why we all hear of People bringin their Kids and such to the US ?Ya know so they can get the BEST care?

[olevetonahill]

The Cost of Medical is going thru the roof for a bunch of reasons

The biggest is we are SPOILED
Bring back the 2 patients to every room , Hell for that matter Bring back the WARDs
My Last Grand daughter cost my son over 20K, I said WTF?
They had a 5 star room for DIL to have the Baby in, That one room alone just in cosmetics cost more than my shack!

When My Daughter was born she cost ME a total of 601 dollars. Doctor, Hospital everything , that was in 78

Ex had a Private room ,

Lets get rid of all the excess, period

Never had Insurance , Paid for everything My Kids needed out of my pocket

[pphilfran]

Get rid of prescription advertisements...

[Midtowner]

Is this why we all hear of People bringin their Kids and such to the US ?Ya know so they can get the BEST care?

Anecdotal information is not data.

This is data:


espite having the most costly health system in the world, the United States consistently underperforms on most dimensions of performance, relative to other countries. This report—an update to three earlier editions—includes data from seven countries and incorporates patients' and physicians' survey results on care experiences and ratings on dimensions of care. Compared with six other nations—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom—the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives. Newly enacted health reform legislation in the U.S. will start to address these problems by extending coverage to those without and helping to close gaps in coverage—leading to improved disease management, care coordination, and better outcomes over time.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx

[olevetonahill]

Yer just a whiz bang Know it all aint ya.

[Midtowner]

Yer just a whiz bang Know it all aint ya.

I'll take a comprehensive/peer-reviewed study conducted by the W.H.O. versus "I heard some kids from another country had their parents bring them to the U.S. for medical care."

[pphilfran]

I'll take a comprehensive/peer-reviewed study conducted by the W.H.O. versus "I heard some kids from another country had their parents bring them to the U.S. for medical care."

lol

[okie52]

Anecdotal information is not data.

This is data:



http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx

Well, there are some that disagree:


Such is the case with a new study published last week by the Commonwealth Fund that argues that, compared to six other developed countries, “the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last” on measurements of its quality, access, efficiency, equity, and “healthy lives.” Overall, the study ranked the Netherlands first, followed by the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, New Zealand, and Canada, with the U.S. ranking dead last.

The study is typical of the genre: drawing conclusions that are not warranted by the data; failing to account for alternative (and more plausible) explanations; and using flawed methodologies. The point of view of the authors is clear: in the first paragraph of the report, they write that “newly enacted health reform legislation in the U.S. will start to address these problems by extending coverage.” But they do their cause no favors with such a tendentious report.


As with the infant mortality problem, such national statistics can be manipulated, but so long as the level of disclosure is sufficiently detailed, one can attempt basic comparisons. The Lancet Oncology has published two sets of interesting studies on this subject as it relates to cancer: CONCORD, a worldwide analysis of cancer survival rates; and EUROCARE, a European one. CONCORD found that, in all cancers studied, 91.9% of Americans survived for five years after diagnosis, compared to 57.1% for Europeans.


Another important element of health care quality is speed of service: how long did it take to get an appointment to get an MRI scan? How long did it take, once surgery was prescribed, to undergo the procedure? Delays in diagnosis and treatment are important, because a disease can worsen when it hasn’t been discovered or isn’t being treated. The Commonwealth survey asks its participants some relevant questions in this department, but de-emphasizes—or doesn’t ask—the questions that really matter. In addition, the questions it does ask, it asks in ways that blur, rather than reveal, differences. Hence, the survey ranks the U.K. higher than the U.S. on timeliness of care, even though vast experience shows that the U.K. is among the world’s worst, and the U.S. among the world’s best, on this front. (The British waiting time problem got so bad that Tony Blair brought in Donald Berwick, President Obama’s nominee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to tackle it.)


One important thing to remember when comparing the American health care system to that of other countries is that we actually have three different systems: one for those with private insurance (177 million people in 2010), one for those under Medicare (45 million), and one for those under Medicaid and SCHIP (40 million). A rigorous survey of U.S. health care quality would break out the distribution of those in each program, and the respective performances of each.

One thing we do know is that people with Medicaid fare worst: because Medicaid severely underpays doctors and hospitals for the care of its beneficiaries, many physicians refuse to take Medicaid patients. As a result, wait times and health outcomes for Medicaid patients are far worse than those for people with private insurance or Medicare. The Affordable Care Act expands the Medicaid population by 20 million, which is certain to put additional strains on this already-broken system.


Hence, though the authors of the Commonwealth study are sanguine about the prospects of Obamacare to improve the quality of American health care, the likely outcome is the opposite.

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/230340/commonwealth-fund-rags-u-s-health-care/avik-roy

[Midtowner]

Any time there is a generally accepted study in a field (about something like global climate change or evolution, for example), and that study can affect the livelihood of billion dollar companies, there will be "some that disagree."

Snipping from the editorial you linked, "[the WHO study] de-emphasizes—or doesn’t ask—the questions that really matter." Simply stating that the WHO study didn't ask the questions which really mattered, yet not providing the readers with some idea as to what those wrong questions were or what questions really mattered is kind of a weak way to attack, no?

And the CONCORD study is something I'm aware of. Of course, your article likes to pick 'n choose things. The U.S. does great in the treatment of some cancers. We're tops in the world in treating breast cancer, no question. But with other important stats, while we are BY FAR #1 in spending, we're #39 in infant mortality, for example.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064

The current system where we spend twice as much and get comparable results to other countries is not defensible. If you want to argue that it's best for all of us that the middle class folks who can't afford health insurance just declare bankruptcy or die, that's a perfectly valid argument. If you are saying "We're #1! USA!! USA!!! USA!!!" then you'd be wrong.

[pphilfran]

Overall we have the best health care but we get dinged hard for low percentage of coverage and cost...

[okie52]

Any time there is a generally accepted study in a field (about something like global climate change or evolution, for example), and that study can affect the livelihood of billion dollar companies, there will be "some that disagree."

Snipping from the editorial you linked, "[the WHO study] de-emphasizes—or doesn’t ask—the questions that really matter." Simply stating that the WHO study didn't ask the questions which really mattered, yet not providing the readers with some idea as to what those wrong questions were or what questions really mattered is kind of a weak way to attack, no?

And the CONCORD study is something I'm aware of. Of course, your article likes to pick 'n choose things. The U.S. does great in the treatment of some cancers. We're tops in the world in treating breast cancer, no question. But with other important stats, while we are BY FAR #1 in spending, we're #39 in infant mortality, for example.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064

The current system where we spend twice as much and get comparable results to other countries is not defensible. If you want to argue that it's best for all of us that the middle class folks who can't afford health insurance just declare bankruptcy or die, that's a perfectly valid argument. If you are saying "We're #1! USA!! USA!!! USA!!!" then you'd be wrong.

Hey, I'm a pragmatist so if nationalized healthcare works better and is far cheaper then I'm all for it. But surveys are usually very subjective depending on how the questions are asked or phrased.

I merely looked at the agenda of the commonwealth fund and it is pretty clear they support mandated universal healthcare. There may be nothing wrong with that goal but often the goal eliminates objective discourse on a subject.


The Commonwealth Fund is a private U.S. foundation (specifically, a think tank[1]) whose stated purpose is "to promote a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency", especially for those they consider society's most vulnerable (e.g., low-income Americans and the elderly). It is active in a number of areas. It is currently lead by a progressive economist.

And I do believe that universal coverage system will sacrifice something vs our system. You want universal access and cheaper costs then you are probably going to give up quality and timeliness. I'm not saying which outweighs the other as far as a superior system but I do think we will give up some advantages by switching.

I certainly don't believe any universal coverage in the study's countries afford its covered citizens the same quality and timeliness of care. Where the US loses it is cost and accessability.

[LiveLaughLove]

Anyone that thinks our medical isn't the best in the world is living in fantasy land.

Over regulation and snake in the grass john Edwards type lawyers make the prices high and make it so less people can afford it, but there is no doubt that it by far the worlds best overall.

Anyone saying otherwise is just an extremist and unworthy of being listened to (thought I'd try the lib tactics on here of trying to stifle debate by throwing out name calling). :)

[Midtowner]

Anyone that thinks our medical isn't the best in the world is living in fantasy land.

Over regulation and snake in the grass john Edwards type lawyers make the prices high and make it so less people can afford it, but there is no doubt that it by far the worlds best overall.

Anyone saying otherwise is just an extremist and unworthy of being listened to (thought I'd try the lib tactics on here of trying to stifle debate by throwing out name calling). :)

Oh horse****. Study after study have shown the effect of medical malpractice on health costs is negligible, i.e., single digits in the % of cost of delivering services.

Here's a link to an article about a study by the Harvard Institute of Public Health which attributed medical malpractice and defensive medicine as being a whopping 2.4% of the cost of delivering healthcare.

http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/09/10/a-new-study-has-found-that-the-combined-costs-of-medical-malpractice-and-so-called-defensive-medicine-make-up-only-2-4-of-the-total-costs-of-health-care-in-the-united-states/

I mean we COULD believe a Harvard Institute of Public Health study which is peer-reviewed and accepted throughout the community, OR we could believe political assertions without factual bases which assert that lawyers are certainly to blame for our healthcare costing double what it does everywhere else in the world.

Who should we believe?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Oh horse****. Study after study have shown the effect of medical malpractice on health costs is negligible, i.e., single digits in the % of cost of delivering services.

Here's a link to an article about a study by the Harvard Institute of Public Health which attributed medical malpractice and defensive medicine as being a whopping 2.4% of the cost of delivering healthcare.

http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/09/10/a-new-study-has-found-that-the-combined-costs-of-medical-malpractice-and-so-called-defensive-medicine-make-up-only-2-4-of-the-total-costs-of-health-care-in-the-united-states/

I mean we COULD believe a Harvard Institute of Public Health study which is peer-reviewed and accepted throughout the community, OR we could believe political assertions without factual bases which assert that lawyers are certainly to blame for our healthcare costing double what it does everywhere else in the world.

Who should we believe?Damn sure not you and your ilk...

[Midtowner]

Damn sure not you and your ilk...

Right! Screw the Harvard Institute of Public Health! Mark Levin said it's all lawyers' fault and Mark can't be wrong, right? Reminds me of a famous Mark Twain quote: "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."

But if you're saying the Harvard Institute of Public Health is my "ilk," then thanks.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Right! Screw the Harvard Institute of Public Health! Mark Levin said it's all lawyers' fault and Mark can't be wrong, right? Reminds me of a famous Mark Twain quote: "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."

But if you're saying the Harvard Institute of Public Health is my "ilk," then thanks.I stand corrected...Just you...and I don't know who Levin is. Must be somebody that makes you feel inferior.

[Midtowner]

I stand corrected...Just you...and I don't know who Levin is. Must be somebody that makes you feel inferior.

Ah yes, your usual contribution--a juvenile insult. Thanks for that. Run along now. Adults are talking.

[diverdog]

Out of curiosity did anyone care to read the CBO report? I did and the author of the article left out a lot of stuff. Like $500 billion of additional receipts that will offset the cost.

[okie52]

Midtowner- does the current healthcare act provide for portability and no pre-existing conditions? I really can't remember.

[okie52]

Out of curiosity did anyone care to read the CBO report? I did and the author of the article left out a lot of stuff. Like $500 billion of additional receipts that will offset the cost.

I thought the CBO said the costs just doubled meaning it added 800 billion.

[diverdog]

I thought the CBO said the costs just doubled meaning it added 800 billion.

It is the gross cost not the net cost.

[okie52]

The article also states that only next year will we get a true 10 cost which could well be over 2 trillion.

[REDREX]

Oh horse****. Study after study have shown the effect of medical malpractice on health costs is negligible, i.e., single digits in the % of cost of delivering services.

Here's a link to an article about a study by the Harvard Institute of Public Health which attributed medical malpractice and defensive medicine as being a whopping 2.4% of the cost of delivering healthcare.

http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/09/10/a-new-study-has-found-that-the-combined-costs-of-medical-malpractice-and-so-called-defensive-medicine-make-up-only-2-4-of-the-total-costs-of-health-care-in-the-united-states/

I mean we COULD believe a Harvard Institute of Public Health study which is peer-reviewed and accepted throughout the community, OR we could believe political assertions without factual bases which assert that lawyers are certainly to blame for our healthcare costing double what it does everywhere else in the world.

Who should we believe?---This article says that defensive medicine could be up to 34% of medical costs--- http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/dec10/advocacy2.asp

[Midtowner]

Specifically, they estimated that 35 percent of diagnostic tests, 29 percent of lab tests, 19 percent of hospitalizations, 14 percent of prescriptions, and 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits.

Because not doing those things falls outside of the standard of care in the community. Like I said, I'm fine with adjusting the standard of care and having some folks sit down and decide that liability won't lie for certain procedures when they are as the article says "negative defensive medicine," but if docs get off the hook for their negligence, I want to be able to get on the highway with a .24 BAC, switch over to the wrong side, get up to 90MPH, let go of the steering wheel and have it be the other person's problem when I collide with 'em.

Besides, the article has about the largest margin of error for these costs I've ever seen... between 5% and 34%? Yikes.

And orthopedic surgeons.. Those guys ain't hurting for money.

[REDREX]

Because not doing those things falls outside of the standard of care in the community. Like I said, I'm fine with adjusting the standard of care and having some folks sit down and decide that liability won't lie for certain procedures when they are as the article says "negative defensive medicine," but if docs get off the hook for their negligence, I want to be able to get on the highway with a .24 BAC, switch over to the wrong side, get up to 90MPH, let go of the steering wheel and have it be the other person's problem when I collide with 'em.

Besides, the article has about the largest margin of error for these costs I've ever seen... between 5% and 34%? Yikes.

And orthopedic surgeons.. Those guys ain't hurting for money.----I did not see "community standard of care" mentioned in the article--- Tort reform is needed and defensive medicine is expensive

[LiveLaughLove]

The bottom line is the bottom line and it's going to be much more expensive than Obama said. Notice I didn't say than Obama thought, because I am pretty sure he and his folks knew the real numbers. In the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi, "we have to pass the bill to find out whats in it."

You can twist it, turn it, cajole it, plead with it, dismiss it, and many other things, but we are going to be stuck with a bill that we simply will not be able to pay. Especially, because no politicians will have the cajones to be an adult and get it repealed and do actual medical reform instead of just more buying votes with another government hand out.

[Midtowner]

----I did not see "community standard of care" mentioned in the article--- Tort reform is needed and defensive medicine is expensive

If it was a serious discussion, then you would have. That's part of the test for whether malpractice occurred. If you don't violate the standard of care, no malpractice. The issue with defensive medicine, as it's called is that we now have all of these many procedures, which according to some doctors are unnecessary, but according to others keep them from getting sued because not doing so results in killed and maimed patients.

So I guess you'd like a "death panel" to decide this?

[Midtowner]

The bottom line is the bottom line and it's going to be much more expensive than Obama said. Notice I didn't say than Obama thought, because I am pretty sure he and his folks knew the real numbers. In the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi, "we have to pass the bill to find out whats in it."

You can twist it, turn it, cajole it, plead with it, dismiss it, and many other things, but we are going to be stuck with a bill that we simply will not be able to pay. Especially, because no politicians will have the cajones to be an adult and get it repealed and do actual medical reform instead of just more buying votes with another government hand out.

Remember, it was invented by folks like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as an answer to Hillarycare.

[REDREX]

If it was a serious discussion, then you would have. That's part of the test for whether malpractice occurred. If you don't violate the standard of care, no malpractice. The issue with defensive medicine, as it's called is that we now have all of these many procedures, which according to some doctors are unnecessary, but according to others keep them from getting sued because not doing so results in killed and maimed patients.

So I guess you'd like a "death panel" to decide this?---Lets go to loser pays ---That will slowdown many of the baseless lawsuits filed----I always love the spineless Lawyers that will settle for cost of defense

[Sooner5030]

as others have stated - insurance worked great when it was used to pool risks so that we were covered when something catastrophic occurred.

Now the big debate is about whether insurance should cover BC? Make selective and routine care bill be settled between the patient and the provider....or at least allow us the freedom to buy insurance that only covers catastrophic events. We can't do that anymore.....we are forced to participate in a "gamed" coverage where everyone has motive to get as much care as possible because the cost is spread amongst everyone.

[LiveLaughLove]

Remember, it was invented by folks like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as an answer to Hillarycare.

And you actually think that means something to me? I have never liked Gingrich and Romney is only better than any of the alternatives. I have no illusions that he (or anyone else) will repeal ObamaCare as I said before.

I'll still take him over Obama any day.

[okie52]

Remember, it was invented by folks like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as an answer to Hillarycare.

And turned down by people like Ted Kennedy.

[okie52]

---Lets go to loser pays ---That will slowdown many of the baseless lawsuits filed----I always love the spineless Lawyers that will settle for cost of defense

I like that part too, like almost all of the euros that have universal healthcare.

[soonercruiser]

Oh horse****. Study after study have shown the effect of medical malpractice on health costs is negligible, i.e., single digits in the % of cost of delivering services.

Here's a link to an article about a study by the Harvard Institute of Public Health which attributed medical malpractice and defensive medicine as being a whopping 2.4% of the cost of delivering healthcare.

http://www.bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/09/10/a-new-study-has-found-that-the-combined-costs-of-medical-malpractice-and-so-called-defensive-medicine-make-up-only-2-4-of-the-total-costs-of-health-care-in-the-united-states/

I mean we COULD believe a Harvard Institute of Public Health study which is peer-reviewed and accepted throughout the community, OR we could believe political assertions without factual bases which assert that lawyers are certainly to blame for our healthcare costing double what it does everywhere else in the world.

Who should we believe?

Well, Midtowner...
Most of the so-called peer review and studies on the cost in healthcare from defensive medical practice are NOT ACCURATELY MEASURABLE.
And, most good studies mention that to start off.
Kinda like the CBO numbers.
"Lies, damn lies, and then statistics".

[soonercruiser]

If it was a serious discussion, then you would have. That's part of the test for whether malpractice occurred. If you don't violate the standard of care, no malpractice. The issue with defensive medicine, as it's called is that we now have all of these many procedures, which according to some doctors are unnecessary, but according to others keep them from getting sued because not doing so results in killed and maimed patients.

So I guess you'd like a "death panel" to decide this?

Never mind That little small print at the bottom of Midtowners forms.......Oh, the miserable pain and suffering!

[soonercruiser]

Midtowner- does the current healthcare act provide for portability and no pre-existing conditions? I really can't remember.

....or interstate competition....tort reform.....
Obama is in the lawyers pockets, and vice versa!

[LiveLaughLove]

Oh yeah, the CBO also estimates that between 12-20 million employees will lose their current coverage as employers drop their insurances to force their employees to get ObamaCare.

I seem to remember Obama swearing that those of us with coverage would not see ANY changes in coverage or have to switch doctors.

So we have an almost doubled cost and 12-20 million people losing their current coverage. This thing is a marvel of American liberalism and government overreach. A bureaucrat's dream.

[Midtowner]

....or interstate competition....tort reform.....
Obama is in the lawyers pockets, and vice versa!

Those provisions were blocked by the GOP.

Hopefully, when the Democrats win both houses, some tweaks will be in order.

[REDREX]

Those provisions were blocked by the GOP.

Hopefully, when the Democrats win both houses, some tweaks will be in order.----With a Dem House and 60 Senate votes how did the Reps block any part of the bill?

[StoopTroup]

Doing nothing about health care in this Country isn't the answer. Also comparing Healthcare systems of other Countries in order to convince people that doing nothing is also the right thing to do isn't the answer. Worrying about how much the Government Spends and gets involved is a very noble cause but not if the answer is that they shouldn't spend anything.

We wouldn't be the Super Power that we are if we hadn't spent and really wasted money on technology in the Space Race. We have developed many medical procedures and techniques through the many Wars the US has been involved in as well. Nothing that has benefited medicine in our Country has ever come from spending nothing.

Our Medical System is broke. Emergency Rooms are packed because healthcare plans limit the days that Doctors see patients to M-F 7 or 8 am to 4 or 5 pm. Yet we now all push for our work forces to work night and day and in some industries....24/7. How the hell do we expect to cover the illnesses by having a Medical Community that wants to continue to work 4 ten hour days and on Wednesdays catch up on some paperwork and get to their tee time by 11am?

I do know of one Orthopedic Surgeon here in Town that did a extraordinary amount of surgeries per day and cut 4-5 days a week. He was a terrific Surgeon and he worked hard. His Family knew he was devoted to his career and that as long as he felt he could help people....he was going to try and help them.

He did this until he himself was ill. He found out he couldn't be helped and that his days on this Earth were numbered. He was a very smart guy. Genius IMO. Instead of wasting away and suffering and having his family watch him slowly deteriorate, he chose a quicker and in his opinion less painful way out than what his peers where diagnosing him with.

He will be missed.

I surely hope that he was able to make enough money so that his Family will be able to live on comfortably without him. He helped a lot of people. He deserved better. I surely wish we had had better answers for his condition so that the outcome would have at least been one that allowed him to live on a bit longer and enjoy the hard work he put in all of those years.

Things aren't always the way we see them in books, magazines or TV.

RIP Karl.

[Turd_Ferguson]

----With a Dem House and 60 Senate votes how did the Reps block any part of the bill?I guess you don't get your answer...

[olevetonahill]

I guess you don't get your answer...

Midtowner is with Icky, They looking up some charts and graphs and ****.

[REDREX]

I guess you don't get your answer...---I didn't expect to