Ice1 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) To address 2 and 3: 2. If a state wants to opt out of the additional federal money, it apparently can. Once it's citizens figure out that the people in the next door blue state are getting health care while they aren't.........well, good luck with that. 3. Why would a business that can drop insurance right now without penalty do so after a penalty can be assessed? Point 2; Why do you think over 50% of the states brought this up in the lawsuits? Not only did the Federal Government threaten to destroy their budgets, they did so if they didn't absorb costs on a program they had zero control over. This was a cost shift not a state financial benefit. Now that this is a Federal Tax funded program via the court ruling, why would any state absorb these costs on their budget regardless if blue or red? States are already struggling to balance budgets and cannot print money or run trillions in the red like the Federal Government does. Point 3: Obamacare has yet to be implemented. Once the exchanges are set up and corresponding regulations kick in, business will make a purely financial decision as the government and/or worker will be forced to absorb the insurance benefit provided by corporations today. The decision now becomes purely financial driven. Few realize today the amount of costs picked up by business. Anyone that has ever gone the COBRA route certainly does. It remains to be seen if business picks up the tax because it is less expensive than real cost coverage then raises pricing to offset new government taxes. Many business's I know are now doing studies and will finalize implementation strategies to coincide with this new laws implementation timeline. Edited July 2, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Keep in mind that these are Republicans making these estimates... The numbers can't be trusted: Gov. Nathan Deal said Thursday he had not yet reached a decision on Medicaid and noted that the November elections may change the landscape yet again. The governor and other elected officials have repeatedly expressed concerns about what the expansion could mean for the state budget. The state estimated last week that it would have to pay an additional $4.5 billion over 10 years if the Medicaid expansion goes through. “We can’t afford the patients we have on Medicaid already,” said state Sen. Renee Unterman, R-Buford, who heads the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee. Georgia is facing a $300 million Medicaid shortfall this fiscal year. “There’s no way we can accept more patients.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 There is always an accounting. When the laws of nature and/or the laws of economics are violated there is always an accounting. For the record, basic economic principles can clearly explain why a free market allocation of health care insurance will almost certainly be inefficient. (It has to do with information asymmetries.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 For the record, basic economic principles can clearly explain why a free market allocation of health care insurance will almost certainly be inefficient. (It has to do with information asymmetries.) Could the government make it more "efficient"? If so, how? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 Could the government make it more "efficient"? If so, how? Believe it or not, it could make it more efficient by forcing everyone to buy insurance and forcing insurance companies to accept everyone. reference: http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Believe it or not, it could make it more efficient by forcing everyone to buy insurance and forcing insurance companies to accept everyone. reference: http://www.heritage....r-all-americans Would this not overwhelm the HC system? Would this not make access to service less efficient? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Would this not overwhelm the HC system? Would this not make access to service less efficient? People without insurance clogging up ER rooms are not helping HC efficiency. Providing healthcare for everyone does not make more people sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) Believe it or not, it could make it more efficient by forcing everyone to buy insurance and forcing insurance companies to accept everyone. reference: http://www.heritage....r-all-americans Believe it or Not is the question. Just to put in some perspective of what Obamacare was trying to force down the throats of states from a budgetary perspective. How does an 18,400,000 person expansion of Medicaid grab you. The point is now the Federal Government will have to shift this total cost burden back to their budget which will clear up the real costs with the exception of all other off budget expansions by the government as it relates to regulation and IRS expansion to manage. Also from Heritage. http://www.heritage....mpact-on-states Edited July 2, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) If they aren't on Medicaid already, as [] noted, they are still using the system for free through our ERs. That is far from efficient as well. Edited July 2, 2012 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Believe it or Not is the question. Just to put in some perspective of what Obamacare was trying to force down the throats of states from a budgetary perspective. How does an 18,400,000 person expansion of Medicaid grab you. The point is now the Federal Government will have to shift this total cost burden back to their budget which will clear up the real costs with the exception of all other off budget expansions by the government as it relates to regulation and IRS expansion to manage. Also from Heritage. http://www.heritage....mpact-on-states Ah, another unbiased perspective from the heritage foundation. Thank you FOX reporter Ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Ah, another unbiased perspective from the heritage foundation. Thank you FOX reporter Ice. Just curious, do you not believe there is an impact on State Budgets? Do you not believe the Courts just ruled this is a Federal program thus making this taxed based at that level? Why would anyone believe any state would now fund a percentage of this expansion out of their budget given states have zero control over Federal funding programs long term. The Fed was shifting 10% at minimum costs to states within in a few years and once implemented states would have no control over Federal Taxes to fund. Just because over 50% of the states adjoined the lawsuit doesn't mean only these states will not expand Medicaid Programs. Any state would be foolish to do so given this current framework. Not sure how that is biased? Seems fact based given the ruling handed down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Ah, another unbiased perspective from the heritage foundation. Thank you FOX reporter Ice. Pot meet Kettle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 People without insurance clogging up ER rooms are not helping HC efficiency. Providing healthcare for everyone does not make more people sick. I just googled ER wait times.... US - low 38 minutes/high 4 hours Canada - low 7 hours/medium 20 hours/high 24 hours UK - low 4 hours (according to the new law they passed)/high 7 hours. Seems our current system is pretty efficient... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) Believe it or not, it could make it more efficient by forcing everyone to buy insurance and forcing insurance companies to accept everyone. reference: http://www.heritage....r-all-americans Don't have the time or expertise to read and comprehend all of that, but this part is what is already happening in Massachusetts under Romneycare: "The problem with these systems is that, with government controlling the purse strings and a system that is free at the point of consumption, demand for services always outstrips the supply." Note that the Forbes blogger here was not the only report to confirm that people are haivng to wait months for non-emergency care, and are having trouble finding doctors who are at capacity: Romneycare: More ER Crowding, Longer Doctor Wait Times Sorry for the slow blogging of late. I’ve had a heavy travel schedule, and been busy with work. Things may continue to be slow this month for that reason. But while I’m here, I thought I’d point you to two pieces, brought to my attention by Byron York, from the Boston Globe’s White Coat Notes blog, on trends in Massachusetts. The first piece shows that Massachusetts emergency rooms are busier than ever, despite the fact that Romneycare’s explicit purpose was to reduce emergency room visits, and the second one shows that waiting times for doctors’ appointments in the state have increased in most specialties. Here’s White Coat Notes on the ER survey: When the Massachusetts Legislature made health insurance mandatory five years ago, supporters of the first-in-the-nation law hoped it would keep patients out of hospital emergency rooms. Patients with insurance, the theory went, would have better access to internists, family practitioners, and pediatricians, lessening their reliance on emergency rooms for routine care. There is more evidence today that it did not turn out that way. Three-quarters of Massachusetts emergency room physicians who responded to a survey last month said the number of patients in their ERs climbed in the last year. They cited ”physician shortages” along with a growing elderly population as the top two reasons why more patients come to ERs. The law ”didn’t create an infrastructure,” said Dr. David John, chief of emergency care at Caritas Carney Hospital in Boston. “Doctors offices are full to capacity…” Solving emergency room crowding is clearly more complicated than many thought. Insurance coverage is just the first step. You need enough doctors to see the patients, and they must have room on their schedules for last-minute appointments, sometimes at inconvenient hours. And here’s the entry on waiting times: A new poll of 838 Massachusetts doctors finds patients are still waiting weeks — in some cases as long as a month and a half — for non-urgent appointments with primary care physicians and certain specialists. Surveyors for the Massachusetts Medical Society called doctors’ offices in February and March and asked when they could come in for routine care. They requested a new patient appointment with internists, family practitioners, and pediatricians; an appointment for heartburn with gastroenterologists; a heart check-up with cardiologists; an appointment for knee pain with orthopedic surgeons; and a routine exam with obstetrician/gynecologists. The average wait ranged from 24 days for an appointment with a pediatrician to 48 days to see an internist. The wait for an internist was actually down slightly, from 53 days in a similar 2010 survey, but the waits for family doctors, gastroenterologists, orthopedists, and ob/gyns increased… Surveyors also asked doctors whether they are accepting new patients: It was most difficult to find a new adult primary care doctor — more than half of those practices were full. This year’s results were close to the findings in the society’s 2010 survey. These surveys point to a key flaw of Obamacare (and Romneycare): that one of the critical ways to improve access and reduce the cost of health care is to increase the supply of doctors and hospitals. If more people have insurance, and the supply of doctors and hospitals remains fixed, the price of health care will go up. If, on top of that, you go with the four-tranche American system, in which Medicaid (and increasingly Medicare) underpay physicians and hospitals for their time, those are the patient populations for whom health care access is the poorest. Once again, access to health insurance is not the same thing as access to health care. Edited July 2, 2012 by delusions of grandeur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 The aging population is going to demand an increase in doctors and hospitals. This is a fact with or without Obamacare. We also spend 50% of our healthcare funds on 5% of our population. We are doing a poor job in managing these people and their needs. Zakaria had some interesting things in this weekend that j only caught the tail end of. There is a city in Jersey that has made dramatic changes in caring for these high coat individuals with direct preventative type care which has cut er visits from them in a Hugh way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) Keep in mind, not even Romney thinks this is a tax issue. Edited July 2, 2012 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) Keep in mind, not even Romney thinks this is a tax issue. Do you think Obamacare will be save govt money or cost the govt money? If it costs the Govt money then who and how will it be paid for? It sure seems like this will not be a reduction to the deficit so I am wondering who is going to pay the additional cost? Edited July 2, 2012 by gbpfan1231 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 ! Keep in mind, not even Romney thinks this is a tax issue. How does one make a link work in this new craptastic interface? If it's a youtube video, then you have to change the title to the link, or it will pick it up as media (which has been disabled). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) How do you change a title to a link you have no control over? This place sucks now. Sorry I misspoke. You don't change it, you just type a title for the link (e.g. Ferhnstrom: Mandate is a Penalty, Not a Tax) and then highlight it and click the link button... The title just can't be the same as the link for youtube videos because it will trigger the disabled media feature. Edited July 2, 2012 by delusions of grandeur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 How do you change a title to a link you have no control over? This place sucks now. Best way is to start over then type in what you want to title to read, then highlight it, then hit the "link" button and enter the url there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 I just googled ER wait times.... US - low 38 minutes/high 4 hours Canada - low 7 hours/medium 20 hours/high 24 hours UK - low 4 hours (according to the new law they passed)/high 7 hours. Seems our current system is pretty efficient... Do they not teach southerners how to use teh google? They must be afraid you'd rise again if you gained full power of the interwebs. The US ER might be a little more efficient (so they can cycle through more customers), but I don't believe your numbers. http://en.wikipedia....nada#Wait_times Your Canadian numbers are of average time in the ER (probably for a particular province which can be affected by rurality). So that means there complete time of being triaged and treated until being discharged or admitted is about 7 hours at low (if your numbers are correct which when checked against the first website I found is not the case). Here are a couple stories that say the US average is a little over 4 hours. http://www.upi.com/H...6891280122494/. http://articles.busi...ah-pulse-report Per the Ontario province website (picked for no other reason than it was the first one that came up in google). http://edrs.waittime...ary.aspx?view=1 Time Spent in the Emergency Room (9 out of 10 patients) Current (Hours) -- May 2012 Complex conditions /requiring more time for diagnosis, treatment or hospital bed admission - 10.5 Admitted Patients - 27.9 Non-Admitted Patients - 7.2 Minor or uncomplicated conditions /requiring less time for diagnosis, treatment or observation - 4.2 I think those times are reasonable and comparable to the US system. I doubt the majority of Canadians would be interested in giving up their healthcare system for ours. Oh, Canada pays about half per capita as the US. So that money is well spent. Thank god we don't have some socialist single payer system where we could still outspend every other country in the world and save money over the current system while providing healthcare for all along with several other positive side effects of single payer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) No, they don't think the FedGov will do a good job, the problem is that when a Country has more freeloaders then hard working taxpayers, the freeloaders will let the FedGov do as they please as long as they benefit. They could care less about how it affects the taxpayers or the Country as a whole. This is nothing more then a tax increase on the middle class, with the state of our Country in at the moment, that is not good. Yes, there are freeloaders. Unfortunatly, only the government has the ability fix that problem the way our current health care system is set up. But forcing people to pay up or pay a penalty seems a step in the right direction in terms of combating freeloading, yes? FYI, about 85% of the taxes raised will be paid be the super-wealthy/very high income earners. The middle class (as a group) actually doesn't come out too badly, considering many in the middle class are uninsured. Again, I'm uneasy about how this will all play out. All I know for sure is that the GOP isn't offering any better solution, so perhaps we ought to at least give it a try because the status quo is unaccetable. Edited July 3, 2012 by yo mama 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Kill everyone over 50. Problem solved in 4 words. Yer welcome, America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Kill everyone over 50. Problem solved in 4 words. Yer welcome, America. In my case you would be killing off someone who pays over $50,000 in Federal taxes, plus tops out on Social Security payments and pays a hefty amount in state taxes in 2 states and property taxes in 3 counties. I support a lot of dead beats. You may want to keep me in harness for a few more years. You might want to get back to me when I'm 70 for the death thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 I just googled ER wait times.... US - low 38 minutes/high 4 hours Canada - low 7 hours/medium 20 hours/high 24 hours UK - low 4 hours (according to the new law they passed)/high 7 hours. Seems our current system is pretty efficient... You should google Germany and Switzerland and see what their times are like (since their systems are much closer to what the US system will be like under Obamacare). [note: I don't know what the answers will be, I only know from my own personal experience in Germany and Switzerland that wait times were low/non-existent] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.