the real cost

[gbpfan1231]

Maybe someone can explain the math to me. I see 30 million uninsured Americans, which is less than 10% of the total population. We have all this wrangling and politicians looking for votes, but the people on medicare and medicaid don't understand that they are not getting the same plan I have as an employed person working for a fortune 500 company. Why is 10% of the population so important? They can get care at the hospital for serious issues.

 

Next is the 1 trillion in costs this will add to the deficit. If I take $1 trillion divided by 30 million people, the cost is $33.33 per uninsured person. How is it possible to provide health care for that? What am I missing?

I think you are missing a couple zeros???

[Big John]

I think you are missing a couple zeros???

$33.3300 would be the same.

 

He put the decimal in the wrong place and missing 3s instead, as it should be $33333.33

[gbpfan1231]

$33.3300 would be the same.

 

He put the decimal in the wrong place and missing 3s instead, as it should be $33333.33

I meant when he entered the 1 trillion in his calculator he missed zeros on the trillion number.

[paulzale]

I meant when he entered the 1 trillion in his calculator he missed zeros on the trillion number.

 

Yes, I typed it incorrectly. Doesn't the $33,333.33/uninsured seem like a lot? Even if I assume that is over a 10 year period, Then is is too little and how is $3,333 going to buy health care for the uninsured each year?

 

All I am saying is that the numbers don't add up, so I am not sure what to make of "Health Care Reform" I think people the people who want reform really don't know what is going to be provided vs. what they "think" they will get.

[westvirginia]

What forecasts should we put stock in?

 

No-one is saying that CBO's economic projections are set in stone, but that doesn't justify ignoring something that has an accurate track record because its politically convenient or simply because you and some bloggers want to believe otherwise.

 

Accurate track record? How much were medicare/aid and SS supposed to cost this year, and what are they're actual costs?

 

This bill is a bad flipping idea fiscally.

[The Irish Doggy]

yeah but the part of the equation that misses is, all the profit they make from something like viagra (they advertise so that they can sell more of it and get more profit) is what ends up funding the development of new drugs. to stay profitable, a drug company has to do two things: 1) effectively sell the drugs it already has, and 2) come up with new drugs people will want to buy. if the government increases their costs or decreases their benefit, they will change their behavior accordingly, it's pretty simple really.

 

why do you think most of the new drugs and technologies are developed here? and do you really think that won't be affected by government price-fixing?

 

You know this is fascinating. The anti-health care crowd gives the drug companies an attaboy for creating and incessantly promoting drugs and then blames America when they consume them unnecessarily. Extra points for choosing Viagra as the example.

[Azazello1313]

You know this is fascinating. The anti-health care crowd gives the drug companies an attaboy for creating and incessantly promoting drugs and then blames America when they consume them unnecessarily. Extra points for choosing Viagra as the example.

 

curious...do you really think that is what I was saying? it seems like a clear enough argument to follow without distorting into a silly strawman to flagellate.

[bushwacked]

Accurate track record? How much were medicare/aid and SS supposed to cost this year, and what are they're actual costs?

 

I know you get all uppity and take it personal when the real world contradicts what Ayn Rand told you to believe, but maybe you'd should try to do a bit more researching or pontificating before your typical kneejerk routine.

 

Are you aware what economic forecasts are? Are you aware no-one expects the CBO, or any other economic forecasters for that matter, to be perfect all the time? Are you trying to insinuate the CBO isn't a respected industry standard as far as forecasts go? It sure seems you are trying to do that and you couldn't be more incorrect.

 

Are you not aware that many years ago the CBO predicted sky-rocketing medicare costs and provided a pleothera or research and dialogue on the warnings of the actual costs and the difficulty of predicting tehm? Are you not aware their are 2 sides of the coin as far as actual costs missing projections?

 

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, says Jon Gabel in an op-ed published in today's New York Times.

 

Drawing on Commonwealth Fund-supported research, Gabel, a senior fellow at the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago, analyzed CBO's forecasts of three major changes in the Medicare program relative to their ultimate outcomes. He found that in the early 1980s, CBO underestimated savings from reforms Congress made in the way Medicare paid hospitals by $11 billion. Under the new law, Medicare would pay hospitals a fixed amount per admission based on the patient's primary medical condition, instead of covering costs incurred during a patient's stay. This encouraged shorter stays, led to fewer diagnostic services, and reduced administrative costs. CBO predicted that by 1986 total spending would be $60 billion. Actual spending in 1986 was $49 billion.

 

Gabel also found that 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.

 

Gabel explains that when CBO analyzes initiatives aimed at reducing costs, it requires considerable evidence that similar previous policy changes have saved money. When there is a lack of historical examples, the "unknown" variable often becomes zero. The task for the budget office becomes even more challenging when it considers the impact of more than one change simultaneously—changes that might have synergies.

 

Gabel observes that underestimating savings that can come from cost-control initiatives in Medicare and throughout the health system could undermine efforts to pass health reform legislation. "As Congress now works on its greatest push for health care reform in generations, the budget office needs to revise the methods it uses to make predictions about costs," he says.

 

Do you have any kind of feel of what economic forecasts or comprised of, or do you just like to argue?

[cre8tiff]

I know you get all uppity and take it personal when the real world contradicts what Ayn Rand told you to believe, but maybe you'd should try to do a bit more researching or pontificating before your typical kneejerk routine.

 

Are you aware what economic forecasts are? Are you aware no-one expects the CBO, or any other economic forecasters for that matter, to be perfect all the time? Are you trying to insinuate the CBO isn't a respected industry standard as far as forecasts go? It sure seems you are trying to do that and you couldn't be more incorrect.

 

Are you not aware that many years ago the CBO predicted sky-rocketing medicare costs and provided a pleothera or research and dialogue on the warnings of the actual costs and the difficulty of predicting tehm? Are you not aware their are 2 sides of the coin as far as actual costs missing projections?

 

 

 

Do you have any kind of feel of what economic forecasts or comprised of, or do you just like to argue?

 

I'll take number two for the win, Alex.

[The Holy Roller]

I'll take number two for the win, Alex.

 

God knows noone else in this thread just likes to argue.

[westvirginia]

God knows noone else in this thread just likes to argue.

 

I'm just trying to pick up the slack for h8tank and skins...

[The Mucca]

Everything will be OK once the conservatives get back control to fix this mess, like they always do after a democratic presidency

[bpwallace49]

Everything will be OK once the conservatives get back control to fix this mess, like they always do after a democratic presidency

 

Who came after Bubba again?

[westvirginia]

Everything will be OK once the conservatives get back control to fix this mess, like they always do after a democratic presidency

 

Which is damn near as scary as the idiots in charge now.

[Azazello1313]

pretty interesting

 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that 127 million

people potentially qualify for subsidies through the exchange on the basis of their income and family status, but many of them are covered at work or through Medicaid. Therefore, the CBO estimated that only 18 million will participate. However, if the number of people who purchase the subsidized insurance is higher than projected, taxpayer costs will be higher and fewer people will be covered by private employer-sponsored health plans.

...

consider a typical insurance plan with $15,000 in annual premium costs for a family of four earning $30,000 annually. Assuming the family is in the 10 percent income tax bracket, the CBO estimates that under the House bill:

- In the exchange, a family of four earning $30,000 would be charged only $500 for its health plan, for a federal subsidy of $14,500.

- A worker with a similar total income (consisting of cash wages plus an employer-provided insurance plan) would receive a tax subsidy of $2,295, or $12,205 less than the family in the exchange.

 

man, the incentives here are just a complete clusterf*ck.

[gbpfan1231]

pretty interesting

 

 

 

man, the incentives here are just a complete clusterf*ck.

What does that really mean? In the first example I assume that the family mentioned does not get insurance covered by the employer and in the second example the employer does pay? I am not sure I understand but then again I bet Pelosi could not even explain it.

[westvirginia]

pretty interesting

 

 

 

man, the incentives here are just a complete clusterf*ck.

 

No they aren't. This is exactly what they wanted. It's win-win for them. If this thing drives people to fedgov HC, then they increase their power and control. If it screws up and undercuts private insurance, then they get to ride in on a white horse 5, 10 or 20 years from now and finish taking it over. Pretty clear to me...

[Azazello1313]

What does that really mean? In the first example I assume that the family mentioned does not get insurance covered by the employer and in the second example the employer does pay? I am not sure I understand but then again I bet Pelosi could not even explain it.

 

what it means is there are very heavy incentives for employers and employees to get themselves and/or their people on the government subsidized plans. you're talking about a difference of $10,000+ per year in costs that the government will subsidize in some cases if you meet whatever requirements.

 

let's say you have two companies, one with 49 employees, the other with 51. both companies have $35,000 they can spend on a new employee. the 51 employee firm has to provide the employee with insurance that costs, say, $13,000 per year. so they can offer the employee $22,000 per year in salary (not quite accurate, since it excludes SS and other taxes, but we can leave that out for the sake of this argument since it applies across the board). or they can offer them a little more than that and take part of the premium out of the employee's paycheck each time, but either way it's the same salary after health care of $22,000.

 

the 49 employee firm, on the other hand, for the same cost to them, can offer an employee the full $35,000 in salary, that person can receive an $11,500 government subsidy against their $13,000 permium, and pay $1500 in premiums, resulting in an after-health-care salary of $33,500.

 

$33,500 vs $22,000, for the same cost to the employer. those are strong incentives for employers to do whatever they can to not offer health insurance. which, if people find ways to respond to those incentives (hint: they will), will add more and more people to the government subsidy, driving up the taxpayer cost of this scheme significantly.

[driveby]

Health Care 2020

[westvirginia]

Health Care 2020

 

And that doesn't even include the unintended consequence to employment and the fact that this thing is going to cost 10 times more than projections indicate, just like medicare/caid/social security.

[darin3]