Obamacare: lower than expected premium rates.

maxpower1227 said:
Given that we are coming from a starting point of paying substantially more per capita for health care than citizens of modern civilized nations, why is it so hard to believe that we can reform the system to make it cheaper?
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite. What provisions in the ACA are going make health care cheaper? The way I see it, there are several ways to make it cheaper. You can pay doctors and hospitals less. Or you can reduce demand on the system, by, for example, denying some care to patients who are dying. This is probably the smartest solution, but politically it's a hard sell.

But from what I can see, the ACA will not decrease demand; instead it will increase it. If more people are insured (the stated goal of the program) then presumably more people will seek care more frequently. Increased demand means higher prices; that's micro-economics 101.
 
Brainster said:
Okay, I'll bite. What provisions in the ACA are going make health care cheaper? The way I see it, there are several ways to make it cheaper. You can pay doctors and hospitals less. Or you can reduce demand on the system, by, for example, denying some care to patients who are dying. This is probably the smartest solution, but politically it's a hard sell.

But from what I can see, the ACA will not decrease demand; instead it will increase it. If more people are insured (the stated goal of the program) then presumably more people will seek care more frequently. Increased demand means higher prices; that's micro-economics 101.
Click to expand...
So you are going to ignore the facts and keep up with your philosophical argument?

Fact: America pays the most money and gets the least amount of care. That just shouldn't be according to your logic.

Fact: Poor Americans who cannot afford insurance/and or health care get treated in the ER (very expensive treatment option).

You act as if there isn't demand already. As if people are suddenly going to get sick more often and need health care more often. No, they need it now and they get it now. They get it at the ER.

Guess who really pays for health care? - CNN.com
 
Brainster said:
A worthy objective, I have no doubt. But the part that gets me is that you somehow think all this can be accomplished and yet still end up cheaper. We're going to make sure that pre-existing conditions are covered and birth control and we're going to make sure that older folks don't have to pay much higher premiums. And it's going to cost everybody less, and reduce the deficit as well! Heck, Obamacare will even wash and wax your car on alternate Sundays.

This isn't skepticism, it's rank boosterism. Everything in life involves tradeoffs. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere but what, briefly, is your counter to the analysis (recently updated) put forward by the Congressional Budget Office which has stated since 2010 that the Affordable Care Act will do exactly that?

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176


Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. (We have not updated our estimate of the total budgetary impact of the ACA since last summer; for that most recent estimate, see Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act.)"
Click to expand...

I don't need a long screed, I have simply not seen a credible counter to the analysis put forward from a source which I trust and which I have found to be spot on in the past - and fiercely non-partisan. If your reply is that you believe that the CBO is partisan, then so be it.
 
BTW:

Brainster said:
Okay, I'll bite. What provisions in the ACA are going make health care cheaper? The way I see it, there are several ways to make it cheaper. You can pay doctors and hospitals less. Or you can reduce demand on the system, by, for example, denying some care to patients who are dying. This is probably the smartest solution, but politically it's a hard sell.

But from what I can see, the ACA will not decrease demand; instead it will increase it. If more people are insured (the stated goal of the program) then presumably more people will seek care more frequently. Increased demand means higher prices; that's micro-economics 101.
Click to expand...
Once you figure out why America pays the most for health care you will have answered your own question.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international organization of 30 developed countries, the United States spent 16 percent of its national income (GDP) on health care in 2007. This amount is by far the largest of any participating OECD nation. By comparison, Japan spent just over half that amount at 8.1 percent (in 2006), Turkey spent the lowest at 6.8 percent (in 2005) and France, the nation with the second-largest expenditure, spent 11 percent. Canada, our neighbor to the north, spent nearly 6 percent less on health care.
Click to expand...
So explain, using your logic, why does America spend so much on health care?
 
Obama care is just a creative way to spread the high cost out.

It's not going to reduce the cost of healthcare. The cost will be the same but, everyone will share it. Goods and services (along with everything else) will cost more.

No one really thinks that an employer is just going to suck up the cost. Right?

Brainsters right, there is no free lunch.

The only way to reduce cost (to the end user) is to reduce demand. Wellness programs would go along way if people only gave a crap. Americans love to get fixed once we break ourselves. That's why we pay so much for healthcare. God (or whatever you chose) bless us. :)
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Okay, I'll bite. What provisions in the ACA are going make health care cheaper? The way I see it, there are several ways to make it cheaper. You can pay doctors and hospitals less. Or you can reduce demand on the system, by, for example, denying some care to patients who are dying. This is probably the smartest solution, but politically it's a hard sell.

But from what I can see, the ACA will not decrease demand; instead it will increase it. If more people are insured (the stated goal of the program) then presumably more people will seek care more frequently. Increased demand means higher prices; that's micro-economics 101.
Click to expand...

Did you read that TIME Magazine cover story that came out about our health care system? Many of our costs are artificially high due to what can only reasonably be described as price gouging. People with insurance generally end up paying less than Chargemaster costs, and Medicare and Medicaid usually pays far less. People who have no insurance usually have little to no leverage with which to reduce their medical bills to reasonable levels.
 
maxpower1227 said:
Wrong. We can reduce cost by eliminating price gouging. Whether the ACA accomplishes this is a legitimate question though.
Click to expand...
Part of this "price gouging" is because a large percentage of ER visits and uninsured billings are never paid. That's really not all that significant (it's an excuse for the root problem)

The higher cost is due to higher risk of collection (sucks, huh). Insured cost are not fixed either. Hospitals normally charge for uninsured (under). payments.

Supply and demand is really simple to understand. We (I include myself) Americans are not exactly the healthiest people on the planet. Because of that we pay more to live longer.

Obama care spreads out the high cost. It's a stop gap band-aid for a much larger problem no one likes to address. Living like we do is costly (for all of us).
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Part of this "price gouging" is because a large percentage of ER visits and uninsured billings are never paid. That's really not all that significant (it's an excuse for the root problem)

The higher cost is due to higher risk of collection (sucks, huh). Insured cost are not fixed either. Hospitals normally charge for uninsured (under). payments.

Supply and demand is really simple to understand. We (I include myself) Americans are not exactly the healthiest people on the planet. Because of that we pay more to live longer.

Obama care spreads out the high cost. It's a stop gap band-aid for a much larger problem no one likes to address. Living like we do is costly (for all of us).
Click to expand...

No, it really is just price gouging. Chargemaster rates are almost arbitrarily set and are often one or two orders of magnitude more expensive than the actual materials or procedure should be. Charging $84 for a saline solution that sells for $5/liter online is not done to make up for the cost of the uninsured. It's price gouging in an industry where the typical laws of supply and demand don't really apply.

And I don't buy for a second the claim that our staggering health care costs are due to our collective unhealthy lifestyle. Our costs really didn't start to soar until relatively recently, and I doubt you can come up with a study to show that our lifestyle suddenly because comparatively unhealthier than that of all other modern nations at around that time.
 
Last edited:
maxpower1227 said:
No, it really is just price gouging. Chargemaster rates are almost arbitrarily set and are often one or two orders of magnitude more expensive than the actual materials or procedure should be. Charging $84 for a saline solution that sells for $5/liter online is not done to make up for the cost of the uninsured. It's price gouging in an industry where the typical laws of supply and demand don't really apply.

And I don't buy for a second the claim that our staggering health care costs are due to our collective unhealthy lifestyle. Our costs really didn't start to soar until relatively recently, and I doubt you can come up with a study to show that our lifestyle suddenly because comparatively unhealthier than that of all other modern nations at around that time.
Click to expand...
You don't really think if this was fixed it would be all rainbows with healthcare, right?

The POTUS speech I would love to see, the one where he says "you pay a lot because you need a lot. You ignore your health then expect this not to bite you in the ass."

Funny thing, in my company. We reduced our premiums and held cost steady because we all quit smoking.(this is over 4 years ago, eight for me). Side effect, productivity is up. ;)
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
You don't really think if this was fixed it would be all rainbows with healthcare, right?

The POTUS speech I would love to see, the one where he says "you pay a lot because you need a lot. You ignore your health then expect this not to bite you in the ass."

Funny thing, in my company. We reduced our premiums and held cost steady because we all quit smoking.(this is over 4 years). Side effect, productivity is up. ;)
Click to expand...

That's great, but can you show me some data that suggest that the dramatic increase in our health care costs correlates with some quantifiable change in the healthiness of our lifestyle?
 
SonOfLaertes said:
I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere but what, briefly, is your counter to the analysis (recently updated) put forward by the Congressional Budget Office which has stated since 2010 that the Affordable Care Act will do exactly that?

I don't need a long screed, I have simply not seen a credible counter to the analysis put forward from a source which I trust and which I have found to be spot on in the past - and fiercely non-partisan. If your reply is that you believe that the CBO is partisan, then so be it.
Click to expand...

That CBO estimate shows the cost going from about $0 to about $160 billion from 2013 to 2016. It's true that it does say:

Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits.
Click to expand...

I'm just a little skeptical. True there are some provisions (like the tax penalty for not getting insurance) that will act to reduce the deficit, but do they really total more than $160 billion?
 
maxpower1227 said:
That's great, but can you show me some data that suggest that the dramatic increase in our health care costs correlates with some quantifiable change in the healthiness of our lifestyle?
Click to expand...
Odd request.

It's supply and demand 101. The higher the demand the the higher the cost giving a fix supply. Think gas prices, same thing.

In the US we have created a huge demand on a fixed supply. Reducing the demand reduces the price the supplier can command for the supply.

Every "healthcare reform" I see does not address the supply. It expects the supply to command less for the demand.

All well and good but, try convincing someone to do eight years of med school so they can get minimum wage.

Less demand produces less loss through non payment and also drives competition.

This is a sore subject because it breaches the idea we created this ourselves. Back to the idea it's cheaper to maintain something than to fix it once it's broken. ;)

Obamacare is a stop gap, It does not address the root problem.
 
DGM said:
Odd request.

It's supply and demand 101. The higher the demand the the higher the cost giving a fix supply. Think gas prices, same thing.

In the US we have created a huge demand on a fixed supply. Reducing the demand reduces the price the supplier can command for the supply.

Every "healthcare reform" I see does not address the supply. It expects the supply to command less for the demand.

All well and good but, try convincing someone to do eight years of med school so they can get minimum wage.

Less demand produces less loss through non payment and also drives competition.

This is a sore subject because it breaches the idea we created this ourselves. Back to the idea it's cheaper to maintain something than to fix it once it's broken. ;)

Obamacare is a stop gap, It does not address the root problem.
Click to expand...

You are looking at the wrong part of the supply chain in cutting costs. It is not the Doctors, Nurses and Techs that are doing the price gouging, it is the materials suppliers.
People being charged hundreds of dollars for a pill they could buy a whole bottle of for $10 outside the hospital environment.
Thousands of dollars for products that cost cents to make. Supplying to the medical field has been lucrative for years because if it is medical, you can add a couple of zeros to the price and it'll get paid. That is the area where change has to take place and where the gouging is going on.
 
Ausmerican said:
You are looking at the wrong part of the supply chain in cutting costs. It is not the Doctors, Nurses and Techs that are doing the price gouging, it is the materials suppliers.
People being charged hundreds of dollars for a pill they could buy a whole bottle of for $10 outside the hospital environment.
Thousands of dollars for products that cost cents to make. Supplying to the medical field has been lucrative for years because if it is medical, you can add a couple of zeros to the price and it'll get paid. That is the area where change has to take place and where the gouging is going on.
Click to expand...
How much does it cost to develop the drug that cost cents to make?

Some of these drugs take years to develop and to get to market. Should the company just absorb this cost, along with wages of the people that worked on it?

What's the total cost? The part of the equation you are ignoring.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Odd request.

It's supply and demand 101. The higher the demand the the higher the cost giving a fix supply. Think gas prices, same thing.
In the US we have created a huge demand on a fixed supply. Reducing the demand reduces the price the supplier can command for the supply.

Every "healthcare reform" I see does not address the supply. It expects the supply to command less for the demand.

All well and good but, try convincing someone to do eight years of med school so they can get minimum wage.

Less demand produces less loss through non payment and also drives competition.

This is a sore subject because it breaches the idea we created this ourselves. Back to the idea it's cheaper to maintain something than to fix it once it's broken. ;)

Obamacare is a stop gap, It does not address the root problem.
Click to expand...

It's odd that you choose two commodities for which demand is fairly inelastic to lecture us about supply and demand curves.

And I made the request because you seemed to be suggesting that our high health care costs were driven by an unhealthy collective lifestyle.
 
DGM said:
How much does it cost to develop the drug that cost cents to make?

Some of these drugs take years to develop and to get to market. Should the company just absorb this cost, along with wages of the people that worked on it?

What's the total cost? The part of the equation you are ignoring.
Click to expand...

What you are ignoring is that many prescription drugs are sold at much lower prices in foreign markets which don't allow price gouging.

Seriously, read the TIME cover story: Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us
 
maxpower1227 said:
It's odd that you choose two commodities for which demand is fairly inelastic to lecture us about supply and demand curves.

And I made the request because you seemed to be suggesting that our high health care costs were driven by an unhealthy collective lifestyle.
Click to expand...
How does the US lifestyle compare when you use it to compare healthcare cost? Do we live a healthier lifestyle? How about obesity statistics?

Want to go there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom