- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,102
- Reaction score
- 1,504
- Location
- Sacramento, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
1. Creates a competitive insurance market: Government takes over...again
2. Reforms Medicare: Assures it's destruction in 1/2 the time..
3. Taxes "Cadillac Plans": Damn the Constitution.. we make our own rules!
4. Bundles Costs: this ain't cable TV folks
5. Adds incentive for lowering costs.Or just runs private insurance companies off American soil providing complete socialized heathcare for all Americans
YEP ...does ALL those things! :doh
Ezra Klein - The five most promising cost controls in the health-care bill
Interesting read. To sum up, the ways that this bill helps medical costs:
1. Creates a competitive insurance market
2. Reforms Medicare
3. Taxes "Cadillac Plans"
4. Bundles Costs
5. Adds incentive for lowering costs.
I still don't get this "cadillac" plan tax.Ezra Klein - The five most promising cost controls in the health-care bill
Interesting read. To sum up, the ways that this bill helps medical costs:
1. Creates a competitive insurance market
2. Reforms Medicare
3. Taxes "Cadillac Plans"
4. Bundles Costs
5. Adds incentive for lowering costs.
Did you even read the article?
NOPE... try to avoid liberal spew as much as practical..
Ezra Klein - The five most promising cost controls in the health-care bill
Interesting read. To sum up, the ways that this bill helps medical costs:
1. Creates a competitive insurance market
2. Reforms Medicare
The Senate bill would establish an Independent Medicare Advisory Board, which would be required to recommend changes to the Medicare program to limit its spending growth. Its recommendations would go into effect automatically unless Congress votes to block them.
3. Taxes "Cadillac Plans"
4. Bundles Costs
5. Adds incentive for lowering costs.
if that is the case then why is this measure in the present bill:The bill says congressmen and their staff members need to buy their insurance from these exchanges, too.
page 13 of this http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdfThese multistate
plans will be offered separately from the
Federal Employees Health Benefit Program and
will have a separate risk pool.
the cadillac plan will not tax the first dollar of these plans but only that portion which exceeds the ceiling. those high value employees who realize such plans pay little of them - seldom the 30% portion most pay for their employer provided plans. i see no real ability for this provision to actually do anything. it will not be a source of significant revenue and it will not hold down the size of the plans of the heavy hitters who enjoy them... that means individuals don't know how much their insurance really costs and don't have as much incentive to keep those costs down. Imagine the pressure for cost control if the 70 percent that employers pay were coming out of our own pockets, instead of quietly coming out of our wages.
excuse me. how is bundling going to actually save money? the physician cannot project how much care patients will require. so, are they going to price lean, recognizing that a bundle will deal with medical unknowns or price high in order to cover any unanticipated costs required to aid the patient. this is the democrats' version of voodoo economics... the most immediately promising of which are the "bundling" programs. Instead of getting paid for everything they do to help a diabetic, hospitals will get paid once for treating that person's diabetes and all related conditions over a certain period of time. If this leads to lower costs and doesn't harm patients, it will be expanded. That would be the beginning of the end of paying for quantity of treatment, and the beginning of paying for quality of treatment.
The idea of lousily regulated health insurance exchanges is not new. The Federal Employee Health Benefit plan (FEHB) has been a health insurance exchange for several decades now. With roughly 8 million users, it is bigger than any state exchange will be. Yet, the evidence is that health care costs on the FEHB grow at at effectively the same rate as the rest of the employer market. Even Klein himself has admitted this. Exchanges will probably smooth out the fluctuations and imbalances in the individual market and should reduce some amount of administrative overhead in a small part of the health insurance market, but the evidence they will systematically bring down cost is sorely lacking.
1. Creates a competitive insurance market: Government takes over...again
2. Reforms Medicare: Assures it's destruction in 1/2 the time..
3. Taxes "Cadillac Plans": Damn the Constitution.. we make our own rules!
4. Bundles Costs: this ain't cable TV folks
5. Adds incentive for lowering costs.Or just runs private insurance companies off American soil providing complete socialized heathcare for all Americans
YEP ...does ALL those things! :doh
Look how well the far-righties serve their sith masters...
They've got their talking points all memorized and ready spout without thought or explanation...
Ezra Klein - The five most promising cost controls in the health-care bill
hmm, alrighty, let's see:
t's hard to overstate how important the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) -- which makes the official judgments on how much bills cost and save -- is in Washington
hmmm. this would be the CBO that stated that insurance premiums would go up under this new health care legislation?
1. Creates a competitive insurance market
actually no it doesn't. had we gotten rid of state barriers to purchasing health insurance, then we would have a "competitive insurance market". instead all that happened was that the current list of State mandates placed on insurance (which is what helps to make the market uncompetitive) got added to with a list of Federal mandates. in those states where multiple options are available, now fewer are, and for those Americans with HSA's, they aren't allowed on the exchange.
the health insurance market just got less competitive. but as a market advocate, it's nice to see that the opposition is at least now paying us the compliment of attempting to hijack our arguments to defend their policies.
2. Reforms Medicare
from the article: Enter the Independent Medicare Advisory Board. Modeled off of the highly respected (but totally toothless) Medicare Payment and Advisory Commission, IMAC is a 15-person board of independent experts chosen by the president, confirmed by the Senate and empowered to cut through congressional gridlock. IMAC will write reforms that bring Medicare into like with certain spending targets. Congress can't modify these proposals, it can't filibuster these proposals, and if it wants to reject them, it needs to find another way to save the same amount of money. Making the process of passing tough reforms easier is the single most important thing you can do to make sure tough reforms actually happen.
this is what republicans were talking about when we warned of the death panel. this is a board that is slated to find ways to begin to reduce available health care, and is designed in such a way as to make it nigh impossible for congress (you know, representative government - that thing that is supposed to be making our political decisions?) to counteract. this will indeed lower health care costs paid by the government; similar to how NICE operates in Britain:
Tens of thousands with chronic back pain will be forced to live in agony after a decision to slash the number of painkilling injections issued on the NHS, doctors have warned. Instead the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is ordering doctors to offer patients remedies like acupuncture and osteopathy.
Specialists fear tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 each for private treatment.
The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year. NICE said in its guidance it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million.
so yes, this will actually cut government costs. :thumbsup: good job on that one, if there is something we can all agree on, it's hurting the elderly.
incidentally, on that 'medicare cost cut'?
the "Doc Fix" is currently working it's way through congress. so that "bending of the cost curve" will last, oh, about two weeks.
3. Taxes "Cadillac Plans"
yeah. i thought this was hilarious. if the government deems that your health care plan is too sparse, they will tax you! but if the government deems that your health care plan is too generous.... then they'll tax you for that, too! why anyone would think that the bozos in congress are going to be able to fine-tune what your health insurance plan should include better than, say, the job they've done on the federal budget is beyond me, but oh well.
then they slapped the same disaster growth rate on it as they did with the Alternative Minimum Tax.
from the article on this: if your plan costs $27,600, the final $100 bucks would be taxed (technically, the insurer pays the tax, but it'll pass that onto your employer). That's a very expensive plan, but over time, that $27,500 threshold grows by inflation, usually around 3 percent) rather than health-care inflation (closer to 7 percent). So if we don't get health-care inflation down, this will hit many more plans.
this reminds me of the underpands gnomes business plan from South Park. We tax expensive plans + over time we tax more people + something magical happens = costs go down!
4. Bundles Costs
from the article: The health-care bill seeds Medicare with many experiments to change this status quo, the most immediately promising of which are the "bundling" programs. Instead of getting paid for everything they do to help a diabetic, hospitals will get paid once for treating that person's diabetes and all related conditions over a certain period of time.
IE: we're going to make it extremely difficult for providers to make a profit, and then we're going to offer them a powerful incentive to give people the minimum defensible amount of care. but we're going to keep tort law the way it is, so that if they actually do provide the minimum defensible amount of care, they get their butts sued off.
this is the "the way to lower health care costs is to get rid of all the doctors" argument. it puts providers in a no-win situation and then blames them for being there. of course they're not going to stay.
5. Adds incentive for lowering costs.
actually the article lists "Changing the politics of reform" and it contains a number of laughable provisions. for example:
" the individual mandate in the bill brings everyone into the insurance market"
actually the individual mandate combined with the provision that forces insurance companies to cover those with preexisting conditions at the same rate as healthy people provides a powerful incentive for anyone who is healthy to flee the insurance market. It makes everyone de facto insured because if something traumatic happens, you go to your local office, and not only do they have to take you, they can't charge you extra. so if i am Healthy Young Joe, and i have the option of paying a $750 fine or a $13,000 premium and no matter what i pick an insurance company will still be paying for me if i get really sick.... then i have a $12,250 incentive to get rid of my health insurance. heck, that's more than 50% higher than the incentive we're giving to try to get people to purchase houses.
"Congress will have to get serious about holding costs down in the system".
yes. just like they are having to get serious about deficit spending and our looming unfunded entitlement nightmare?
" Republicans and Democrats both agree that we need more cost control in the health-care system. But politicians don't like to actually cut costs, because those votes reduce benefits and make people angry."
easy solution. it's typical of a left-winger to think of everything as flowing through government; but by simply getting rid of the state barrier and enacting loser-pays tort reform we can lower costs without lowering anyone's government benefits or costing Washington a dime.
Ezra Klein is a smart guy, but there's no way that he can actually believe the things he writes.
Look how well the far-righties serve their sith masters...
They've got their talking points all memorized and ready spout without thought or explanation...
Rather than call names and offer your own talking points, why not try to raise the level of debate, or at least meet that which the rest of us have already raised it to?
Ezra Klein - The five most promising cost controls in the health-care bill
Interesting read. To sum up, the ways that this bill helps medical costs:
1. Creates a competitive insurance market
2. Reforms Medicare
3. Taxes "Cadillac Plans"
4. Bundles Costs
5. Adds incentive for lowering costs.
Did you even read the article?
Then comes the REAL math...
Deere sees $150 million hit from healthcare reform
The law could raise expenses for large U.S. employers.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
(Reuters) - Farm equipment maker Deere & Co (DE.N) expects after-tax expenses to rise by $150 million this year as a result of the healthcare reform law President Barack Obama signed this week.
Most of the higher expense will come in Deere's second quarter, the company said on Thursday. The expense was not included in the company's earlier 2010 forecast, which called for net income of about $1.3 billion.
Caterpillar Inc (CAT.N) said on Wednesday it would take a $100 million after-tax charge to earnings in the first quarter because the new law will lower its tax deductions. Obama on Tuesday signed the most sweeping U.S. social policy legislation in decades into law.........................
FOLKS... that is 5000, Five-thousand.... $50,000 jobs GONE! From just 2 companies!
GREAT JOB OBLABBA!
you speak of REAL MATH when what you demonstrate is a complete ignorance of BASIC ECONOMICS
only using Whitehouse math ... I know I didn't use $250,000 per $50k job like the Stimulus jobs, but would you care to give me an explanation of my error?
Then comes the REAL math...
Deere sees $150 million hit from healthcare reform
The law could raise expenses for large U.S. employers.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
(Reuters) - Farm equipment maker Deere & Co (DE.N) expects after-tax expenses to rise by $150 million this year as a result of the healthcare reform law President Barack Obama signed this week.
Most of the higher expense will come in Deere's second quarter, the company said on Thursday. The expense was not included in the company's earlier 2010 forecast, which called for net income of about $1.3 billion.
Caterpillar Inc (CAT.N) said on Wednesday it would take a $100 million after-tax charge to earnings in the first quarter because the new law will lower its tax deductions. Obama on Tuesday signed the most sweeping U.S. social policy legislation in decades into law.........................
FOLKS... that is 5000, Five-thousand.... $50,000 jobs GONE! From just 2 companies!
GREAT JOB OBLABBA!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?