dayman Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) The promising thing about that is that it actually looks like it does something to address health CARE costs, not just health insurance premiums. The HSA's and the tax treatment? I mean ultimately nobody can afford the catastrophic costs. Nobody. So you will always need insurance for that sort of thing anyway...and that's where all the costs are...5% of us use 50% of the money. So say we go to that system and bite the bullet and the catastrophic insurance plans are basically huge subsidies everybody gives to 5% with no real care they get out of it....then the "lower level" is a choice (I guess) of HSA's or some supplemental insurance? Pretty obvious looking at my situation I'm going with an HSA...as will everyone like me. Pretty obvious the fat guy next door with diabetes is taking the supplemental insurance. So the supplemental insurance plan is now sky rocketing. So the higher level insurance is even more of a rip off than what I have now b/c I pay only for that (which I don't use unless I'm hit by a bus)...and the supplemental market is through the roof b/c everybody that is healthy gets out and runs to HSA's. So insurance is now even more ****ed. Now...if I could just get ripped off on the high level policy but know I'm secure, and take my HSA and use healthcare wisely and the costs came down...I have to tell you for me that would be something (given my relative youth and health) that would be a huge win. But are Americans going to use less healthcare? Is this HSA option (which only the healthy people really want to use) going to have a significant effect on fat/unhealthy America to drop costs? They're going to consume less as a result? The market forces take control here? I'm not so sure. Plus, the hardship on those who are sick...gets pretty rough in that situation. I don't have the answers obviously but I think we should go with what we've got...but please bring back those "death panels" b/c we all need those and we have got to accelerate the pay structure shift even more dramatically medicare should get even more ambitious on that end. To be honest though I'm still evolving on the whole issue. The side of me that strives for some sort of a system wants to improve the ACA. The side of me that just wants the lowest price healthcare for myself would take the HSA and catastrophic plan and just let everything else burn...hell throw some panels into the catastrophic care plan to make some calls on this end of life stuff and I'm basically out clear and free (until I'm old or get some nagging sickness and my HSA runs out...in which case I'll be clamoring for a system more like the ACA) Edited July 4, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 NY Times A Choice, Not a WhineBy DAVID BROOKS Hostility toward the Supreme Court has risen sharply since Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. upheld the Obama health care law. People are apparently angry that the court didn’t rid them of a law they detest. But that’s silly. If Americans want to replace this thing, they should do it themselves. The case against Obamacare is pretty straightforward. In the first place, the law centralizes power. Representative Tom Price, a Republican of Georgia, counted 159 new federal offices, boards and councils, though nonpartisan researchers have had trouble reaching an exact tally. In the first six months after passage alone, federal officials churned out an awesome 4,103 pages of regulations. The law also creates the sort of complex structures that inevitably produce unintended consequences. The most commonly discussed perverse result is that millions of Americans will lose their current health insurance. A report by the House Ways and Means Committee found that 71 of the Fortune 100 companies have an incentive to drop coverage. But nobody really knows what’s going to happen. A Congressional Budget Office study this year estimated that 20 million could lose coverage under the law or perhaps 3 million could gain employer coverage. Or the number could be inside or outside the range. There are other possible perverse effects. According to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services, over the next 75 years Medicare payment rates for inpatient hospital services would steadily fall from around 67 percent of private insurance payment rates to an implausibly low 39 percent. Doctors would either flee the program in droves or Congress would override the law, exploding the costs. Another report from the department suggests there could be 84 million Americans on Medicaid, an astounding burden on that already stretched system. The law threatens to do all this without even fixing the underlying structures that make the American health care system so inefficient. It fails to fix the fee-for-service system that rewards people for the volume of services provided. It fails to fix the employer tax exemption that hides costs and encourages overspending. Critics of the bill shouldn’t be hating on Chief Justice Roberts. If they can’t make this case to the voters, they really shouldn’t be in public life. Moreover, there are alternatives. Despite what you’ve read, there is a coherent Republican plan. The best encapsulation of that approach is found in the National Affairs essay,"How To Replace Obamacare" by James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit. Capretta and Moffit lay out the basic Republican principles: First, patients should have skin in the game. If they are going to request endless tests or elaborate procedures, they should bear a real share of the cost. Instead of relying on the current tax exemption that hides costs, the Republican plans would offer people a tax credit for use to purchase the insurance plan that suits their needs. The tax credit could phase out for the wealthy. Employees of small business who aren’t covered now would see an immediate benefit, which they could take from job to job. {snip} (5 more points follow in the article.) Capretta and Moffit have more details (at the link). Their plan is flexible, decentralized and compelling. Republicans say they trust the people. If that’s true, then they won’t waste another futile breath bashing the court for upholding Obamacare. They’ll explicitly tell the country how they would replace it. Democracy is a contest between alternatives, not a deus ex machina stroke from the lords in black robes. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 4, 2012 Author Share Posted July 4, 2012 NY Times . I think this is less about heath care and more about control. They could care a less if there is a efficient, effective plan. Problem is it's not the democrats plan and most of all, it's a free market plan. We can't have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I think this is less about heath care and more about control. They could care a less if there is a efficient, effective plan. Problem is it's not the democrats plan and most of all, it's a free market plan. We can't have that. Maybe its just the "4th of July" talking but, Yes,........................We the People ............can have control back. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I think this is less about heath care and more about control. They could care a less if there is a efficient, effective plan. Problem is it's not the democrats plan and most of all, it's a free market plan. We can't have that. It IS about control and wealth redistribution. It has nothing do with efficiency or effectiveness since it will create the opposite. People that support this are in for a rude awakening. As for myself, I'm going to take the $2K/year penalty and pocket the $18K difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 The plan that they are offering would be much more effective in helping limit the rise of health insurance premiums, much more so than the ACA, and would have considerable more support from independent voters. I'm hoping that's what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 It IS about control and wealth redistribution. It has nothing do with efficiency or effectiveness since it will create the opposite. People that support this are in for a rude awakening. As for myself, I'm going to take the $2K/year penalty and pocket the $18K difference. isnt that the fundamental nature of any insurance. you could pay into a insurance system your whole life and never see the return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 isnt that the fundamental nature of any insurance. you could pay into a insurance system your whole life and never see the return. As opposed to American health care system in which people who never pay into the system often receive the same high quality care as those of us who do contribute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 isnt that the fundamental nature of any insurance. you could pay into a insurance system your whole life and never see the return. I would hope I never see the return. In which case not having it and paying out of pocket makes even more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts