Obamacare is working already!

[WhatMoney]

I find it ironic that big government people advocate a public option as a competitive force, that has never proved to be the case.

Well, I'd say Medicare for retirees has reduced the cost of medical care for seniors by the competition of the Medicare system. A typical lower income senior pays about $96/month for Medicare Pt. B insurance. They also pay 20% of the medical bill (unless they opt for a private Medicare Advantage plan). There is NO private insurance plan for seniors that can compete with Medicare. Even private supplementary plans are prohibitively expensive for seniors - because the profit and greed of private plans makes them so.

A healthy senior at age 64 can easily pay $500/month for private insurance. (And one with a pre-existing condition couldn't even get insurance.) Once he turns 65, he gets the same coverage for $96/month plus the 20% copay on bills. The doctors, labs, and hospitals all have to take the reduced (read realistic) Medicare payment schedules for services. This saves the patient and the taxpayer money. If Medicare was extended to all adults, as in a single payer system, everyone's premium rates and medical bills would decrease.

Would the private insurance companies whine and spend Billions of dollars to fight this? Well of course - it's all about money and profits to them. But there is NO evidence that private insurance administrators provide any better health care than government administrators, (actually private contractors handle all Medicare paperwork anyway.) And contrary to what you think, Medicare administrative costs are much less than private insurance overhead. Medicare runs around 9% while private runs around 30%, IIRC. Much of that is simply profit for the private companies.

Would this really force doctors out of the field and hospitals to close? Well the experience of every other modern country that has government controlled medical rates says no, hell no. In fact the private companies stay in business and offer competitive plans when they are forced to. If a few greedy private insurance company executives and doctors get out of the business because their excessive incomes are hurt - well good riddance to them. You should not be in medicine just for the money.

I just don't think they government has any business taking tax money to provide private benefits (food stamps, welfare, section 8, social security, medicare, and now health insurance). It may be an unpopular view, but I don't want to pay for anyone elses healthcare, and I don't want anyone else to pay for mine. Where does it end? Will I be taxed to pay for your cable tv? lawn service? Viagra? abortion?

First of all you should not include Social Security, Medicare, and health insurance in the same category as food stamps, welfare, and section 8.
Social Security is an contributory benefit system and Medicare is an insurance system. You pay into Social Security through payroll taxes, and receive those benefits back when you retire and apply for SS. With all the money I've paid into SS, having always paid the maximum tax possible since my first professional job after college, I will have to live to be 88 to just get back the money I personally paid into the social security system. That is not welfare.

Medicare is also not welfare - you pay taxes into the system, and still pay premiums and copays after you qualify for the system at age 65. Medicare is not Medicaid.

As far as your desire to not pay for anyone else's health care, through your payment of premiums and payroll taxes - that is interesting. Do you not understand the concept of insurance? Do you really think your premium covers your health costs if you are faced with a large medical bill? Should fire insurance be eliminated, because you don't want to pay if your neighbors house burns down? You have to be rather extreme to claim insurance is too socialistic for you. You must be a multi-millionaire if you can afford to go through modern life without any insurance, because someone else besides you might just benefit. That's what it sounds like you are saying anyway.

[KeithDoxen]

The countries that have tried state-run medical care (as opposed to just state-run financing of medical care) have generally not been happy with the result. Britain is an example of this.

State-run financing of medical care has not gone over too well either.

The least-bad health care systems do appear to be in places where there is private medical care and a mixture of public and private financing of care, such as Holland and Japan. But in those places there are usually cultural factors, such as healthy living, that we don't really have here, and that bring down costs for obvious reasons.

[mtngirl47]

Whenever this subject arises--I hear all these terrible stories about people having to wait for care in those "socialist" countries...all the sad stories about children or elderly parents who die in Canada or England because they didn't get the appropriate medical care. I think it's time we started telling the stories of people here in the the USA with the same sad stories!

Until our business slow down we had a catastrophic health plan for our family with a $1000 per incident deductible. It cost us about $500 per month.
When our daughter, age 12, at the time, got a stomach ache we treated her with bland foods, 7up, etc. We live in the country...no urgent care centers around, and it was a weekend so we couldn't go to the pediatrician. On Sunday night we decided to bite the bullet and went to the emergency room-- her appendix had burst, she had peritonitis and almost died. We felt terribly guilty about it. The doctor said that her appendix was behind some other organs and she probably didn't feel the normal pain.

Now...we can't afford the premiums and I worry every day about what will happen to us if one of us gets a serious illness...we certainly can't file bankruptcy again! How many in this forum find themselves in their current financial position because of health issues? How wrong is that in the "greatest country on earth?"

Government-run health care? How about my mom & dad? My dad joined the Air Force in 1955 at the age of 19 and spent 30 years active duty. From the day he joined up, the US Government has taken care of his & my mom's every health and dental need. Now, at the age of 74 they are still golfing, traveling, active, healthy people. Mom had breast cancer 12 years ago, dad had major back surgery 4 years ago. They never got to "pick" their doctor. They never had to wait for any necessary procedure or test.

Two weeks ago my dad had to have emergency surgery for a torn muscle. (working in the garden) I rushed to be with them...he was admitted to a major Air Force hospital that was run like clockwork. His care was excellent. They catered to his every need. The hospital people knew I had traveled 8 hours to be with my folks and they offered me free housing two blocks from the hospital.

On Friday night...as I left the hospital I walked out through the emergency room and it was empty. What's the point? Go to any hospital that serves a population of 15,000+ people and see if the emergency room is empty on a Friday night. The population for an Air Force hospital get excellent well care, and they can go to the doctor whenever they want or need. They don't need to go to the emergency room unless there is an emergency.

[chrisdfw]

Well, I'd say Medicare for retirees has reduced the cost of medical care for seniors by the competition of the Medicare system. A typical lower income senior pays about $96/month for Medicare Pt. B insurance. They also pay 20% of the medical bill (unless they opt for a private Medicare Advantage plan). There is NO private insurance plan for seniors that can compete with Medicare. Even private supplementary plans are prohibitively expensive for seniors - because the profit and greed of private plans makes them so.

Yes, medicare has reduced the cost for seniors, but not in aggregate because they are taking money out of working folks paychecks to pay for it.
It has not reduced the COST, just what they pay. It has shifted the COST to those who earn their income from wages. If we want medicare to be insurance we should have been collecting much higher money from retirees checks when they were working and be collecting much higher premiums from them now. If that was the case, then the system wouldn't be in danger of going broke. They didn't pay in enough during their careers and they are paying premiums too low to cover the risk. Also, does it cost more to treat high income workers in retirement than low income workers? No, so why do high income workers have to pay much higher premiums in the form of medicare taxes. Premiums based on income is just a way to take money from those who make more in favor of those who make less.

And social security is the same as welfare to me, and here is why.

If you are a low income worker, you get a 40% wage replacement rate, so your contributions are a great deal. If you are a high income worker you get closer to a 20% wage replacement rate, despite paying the same proportion of your income (up to the limit).

The upper income are subsidizing the lower income. Also the young are subsidizing the old, who get relatively higher benefits for what they paid in because they paid under the old rates (pre-82) but get higher benefits.
Its a great deal for low income workers and current retirees. They probably recieved a great return for their money. Not a good deal for high income workers and those retiring in the future. Why should some workers subsidize others?

Insurance is a different matter. If you buy insurance before you get sick and I buy it, we basically agree to share the risk and pay a premium to do so. If you get sick and then can buy insurance, you aren't sharing the risk, the adverse event has already happened, you are shifting your costs from you onto me. By allowing the sick to buy insurance after they are sick, you are not insuring against the risk, you are shifting the cost. You can't buy car insurance after the wreck, why can you buy health insurance after you are sick.

I understand insurance, what you are favoring doesn't meet any reasonable definition of insurance, which is a risk sharing arrangement and can be an optimal economic arrangement. What most of these programs are is a wealth sharing arrangement, which imposes dead weight losses on the economy and is not an optimal economic arrangement.

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame the people who take advantage of it, I blame the voters who allow these programs to exist. Taking wealth from some to give to others is not a legitimate function of government, whether we take from the rich to give to the poor, or take from the middle class to give to wealthy bankers and corporations.

[ryan]

Well, I'd say Medicare for retirees has reduced the cost of medical care for seniors by the competition of the Medicare system. A typical lower income senior pays about $96/month for Medicare Pt. B insurance. They also pay 20% of the medical bill (unless they opt for a private Medicare Advantage plan). There is NO private insurance plan for seniors that can compete with Medicare. ...

Of course there are no private plans that can compete with Medicare.

There is no private ANYTHING that can compete with the government if the government decides its going to pay any costs to dominate an industry.

Private companies can not print money or take money from one trust fund and use wherever they wish to shore up some other project.

You're describing Medicare as if it is merely a specific program, 'self-funded', when in reality it draws on so much resources of the entire federal system, whether it has taken in enough user fees or not.

That is not competition, its defacto government monopoly.

This is excerpted from an AP article last year:
WASHINGTON — Social Security and Medicare are fading even faster under the weight of the recession, heading for insolvency years sooner than previously expected, the government warned Tuesday.

Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, a year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner, trustees reported.

Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year, just as it did for the first time in 2008. The trustees project that the Medicare fund will be depleted by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.

The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government's "full faith and credit" but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes.

[onwards]

How is that change working out for everyone ??

Well enough, thank you. Certainly gave the dems major points from me for this coming midterm, although I am somewhat miffed by the strange compromises they had to make to get it through in the end.

[WhatMoney]

Of course there are no private plans that can compete with Medicare.

That is by choice - a non-profit private insurance company could compete with the government, and still provide high paying jobs for their workers - but they refuse to do so unless forced. Why should a private paper pusher be worth more than a government paper pusher?

You're describing Medicare as if it is merely a specific program, 'self-funded', when in reality it draws on so much resources of the entire federal system, whether it has taken in enough user fees or not.

Medicare is not self-funded because there are no cost controls on private medical care. Everyone in the USA medical industry is overcharging for their services. The insurance companies have little incentive to negotiate lower payout rates - it is easier to just raise your premiums.

Remember the hospitals and doctors choose which private insurance companies to accept by their payout rates. The highest payout insurance companies get the most business from the doctors who want the highest income. The poor patient is the one who keeps paying the higher premium costs for this incestuous relationship between doctors and private insurance companies.

That is not competition, its defacto government monopoly.

If you want lower health care costs, this is what you need. If you want 30% of your private health insurance premiums to go to executive salaries and stockholders just keep the present system. Medicare passes close to 95% of their funds to medical payouts, not excess profits.

The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government's "full faith and credit" but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes

You got it - if you want more affordable health care you are going to pay more taxes AND the government is going to have to direct more tax revenue to health care - instead of useless foreign wars, defense industry contracts, and banks "too big to fail".

[WhatMoney]

Yes, medicare has reduced the cost for seniors, but not in aggregate because they are taking money out of working folks paychecks to pay for it.

That is how the system has always worked. Retirees tend to not work as much as healthy workers below retirement age. Aging and age discrimination are very real. You can't expect all retirees to pay the full cost of their medical care when they are sick and aging. About 40% of all retirees are living near the poverty level today. They have no money to pay a major medical bill. The average retiree today receives $1200/month in social security, and many have no savings. Never mind that this might be because of medical costs or early job loss.

It has not reduced the COST, just what they pay.

You must have missed my point earlier. Medicare payout rates are lower, by 10-25%, over what a private insurance company will pay a doctor. If all doctors were required to accept the Medicare payout rates for ALL workers, not just seniors, medical costs would decrease and so would the premiums. There is a good reason why for-profit insurance companies pay the doctors more for a service than Medicare. And that increases the costs to all those under age 65.

And social security is the same as welfare to me, and here is why.
If you are a low income worker, you get a 40% wage replacement rate, so your contributions are a great deal. If you are a high income worker you get closer to a 20% wage replacement rate, despite paying the same proportion of your income (up to the limit).

You obviously don't believe in progressive taxation, the system that has been in effect in this country for about 60 years. This is a moral and philosophical difference no amount of debate will change. You must worship Ayn Rand. Her ideas will not solve the overpopulation problems of the world, and it's effects on Americans - unless you feel mass genocide is the answer...

Insurance is a different matter. If you buy insurance before you get sick and I buy it, we basically agree to share the risk and pay a premium to do so. If you get sick and then can buy insurance, you aren't sharing the risk, the adverse event has already happened, you are shifting your costs from you onto me.

But this is not the present system. There is a good chance the mandate will be rejected before 2014. Then, those that choose no insurance will simply die for lack of treatment, or screw the doctors and hospitals by declaring bankruptcy when they can't afford the medical bills. If anything, this will draw us closer to a single payer system - or people with medical emergencies will just continue to die and/or go bankrupt - today's system of health care in the US.

[Pandora]

... How about my mom & dad? My dad joined the Air Force in 1955 at the age of 19 and spent 30 years active duty. From the day he joined up, the US Government has taken care of his & my mom's every health and dental need. Now, at the age of 74 they are still golfing, traveling, active, healthy people. Mom had breast cancer 12 years ago, dad had major back surgery 4 years ago. They never got to "pick" their doctor. They never had to wait for any necessary procedure or test.

While you may praise the militarys medical to such a degree - myself a Marine brat and fully support our military - it is 100% WRONG of the military to charge retired members for their medical, period. My father served 30 years in the Marines and was told way back when "Serve your country - and we'll take care of you for life." Really? That suddenly changed in the late 80's early 90's when members started having to pay for TRICARE - and it isnt cheap. That is BS at its best. Although my father did receive care, it did take a while to get appointments at Bethesda or even Quantico - and most times he would have to go to a local dr because it was so overbooked at the military medical facilities. He would have to pay a co-pay to the local doctor and thats if they accepted Tricare. Retired members get pushed out for active duty members - so it can take quite a while to get appointments. My father was dx'd with cancer in May 2008 - he died 3 months later - all his services and treatments were done locally by our local hospital and cancer center. While Tricare did pay for most of it - they did not pay 100% - and they (Tricare) are the ones who told him to go to the local hospital and private physicians as they were overbooked. As a side note - to this day my mom still has issues getting appointments - it takes weeks (upwards of 6 at times) just to be seen. Thats not acceptable either.

I do say our military is well underpaid for what they do in support of our freedom - as well as others freedom around this world. Do you know how many military families are eligible for food stamps and assistance? Thats just wrong - they should get paid enough to support their families, and that includes medical after serving this country and retiring. Dont even get me started on the taxes that they must pay on their retirement monies they receive - already taxed and paid in the first go round, now taxed again. Grrrr.

Thank you to all the service men and women who serve or who have served this country - our family salutes you!.

[pris72]

Whenever this subject arises--I hear all these terrible stories about people having to wait for care in those "socialist" countries...all the sad stories about children or elderly parents who die in Canada or England because they didn't get the appropriate medical care. I think it's time we started telling the stories of people here in the the USA with the same sad stories!

Until our business slow down we had a catastrophic health plan for our family with a $1000 per incident deductible. It cost us about $500 per month.
When our daughter, age 12, at the time, got a stomach ache we treated her with bland foods, 7up, etc. We live in the country...no urgent care centers around, and it was a weekend so we couldn't go to the pediatrician. On Sunday night we decided to bite the bullet and went to the emergency room-- her appendix had burst, she had peritonitis and almost died. We felt terribly guilty about it. The doctor said that her appendix was behind some other organs and she probably didn't feel the normal pain.

Now...we can't afford the premiums and I worry every day about what will happen to us if one of us gets a serious illness...we certainly can't file bankruptcy again! How many in this forum find themselves in their current financial position because of health issues? How wrong is that in the "greatest country on earth?"

Government-run health care? How about my mom & dad? My dad joined the Air Force in 1955 at the age of 19 and spent 30 years active duty. From the day he joined up, the US Government has taken care of his & my mom's every health and dental need. Now, at the age of 74 they are still golfing, traveling, active, healthy people. Mom had breast cancer 12 years ago, dad had major back surgery 4 years ago. They never got to "pick" their doctor. They never had to wait for any necessary procedure or test.

Two weeks ago my dad had to have emergency surgery for a torn muscle. (working in the garden) I rushed to be with them...he was admitted to a major Air Force hospital that was run like clockwork. His care was excellent. They catered to his every need. The hospital people knew I had traveled 8 hours to be with my folks and they offered me free housing two blocks from the hospital.

On Friday night...as I left the hospital I walked out through the emergency room and it was empty. What's the point? Go to any hospital that serves a population of 15,000+ people and see if the emergency room is empty on a Friday night. The population for an Air Force hospital get excellent well care, and they can go to the doctor whenever they want or need. They don't need to go to the emergency room unless there is an emergency.

This sounds like a very rare case with the V.A. I use to live in a cul-de-sac and on both sides of me were Vietnam vets. One had high blood pressure(very high). His BP one night was 190/120. He calls the V.A. about it,and they inform him that the next appt. was available in 4 months. 4 months ok for someone who could stroke over at any given min. He decides to head on to the local ER for immediate treatment, which he had to pay for.
A friend of mine takes her Dad to the V.A. It's a nightmare, which are her exact words on facebook. My husbands Uncle goes to the V.A. in Mississippi. He has agent orange. Again 4-6 month wait to get an appt. with his Dr.
I do not want any part of any Govt. run healthcare, because I have seen and heard enough over the years to know what a disaster it is. Look at Canada. They are in the red, and cutting care even more which wasn't great to begin with.

[AngelinaCat]

I'll add to Pris72's comments: my husband' brother, age 62, is also a Vietnam Vet. Through dissolute living, he damaged his heart to the point that he only had about 20% heart function, and the VA put in a pacemaker, and basically sent him home to die with a prognosis of six months to live.

That was three years ago. He cleaned up his life and got rid of the drugs and prostitutes. He got away from the neighborhood he had been living in and moved into a nice retirement community. He also started going to private practice doctors, and followed their advice.

Today, he is married to a nice lady, and a doctor's exam conducted just this week, shows him with a heart action of about 55% and a heart rate that is appropriate for a healthy male his age.

He still goes to the VA for some things, but when given the choice, he goes to his private practice doctors.

[newbegin]

We needed healh care reform. Unfortunately, what was done wasn't enough. There should be no mandate without a public option. It's the only way to keep the insurance premiums from skyrocketing.

Insurance companies are the richest in the world , they do what they want ...when they want... to whomever they want... People should'nt be so neive to think that their looking out for "working people's" best interest, Your right it did'nt go far enough.

[HRx]

Rocketing yearly insurance costs has always been an issue under every administration. The cause of increases isn't directly related to the health care reform bill. If you already didn't know it insurance companies are in business to make huge profits!

[Maine]

10 years ago the full month price for my family health insurance was $586. 5 years ago that number, for the SAME plan, same everything had risen to $1066. Hard to blame it all Obama when my premiums almost doubled in 5 years, and well before he took office. It is 'only' $1268 now.

[BKDebby]

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the huge increase was made in anticipation of Obozocare. With that said more and more companies will be looking to shift the premiums to the workforce. Then they will start to wonder why employee loyalty is in the crapper.

How is that change working out for everyone ??

My health insurance was already crap before, but starting on October 1, my employer will start deducting $75.00 a week from my paycheck for my share (40%), and this is for just me since I'm single with no dependents. And I have a $3500.00 deductible. Thanks Obama. I don't make that much, so roughly 1/5 of my check is going to insurance. No wonder I have to file BK.