The Health Care Summit: What did you think?

[Sam_Stone]

@Richard_Parker

Frankly, your partisan interpretation of what happened is just as wrong as Alexander was.

Frankly, my ‘partisan interpretation’ came from ABC news. And I carefully said that Alexander was ‘mostly’ right, because I’m aware that you can interpret this in different ways.

Yes, the premium goes up because of mandated ‘better coverage’. That includes coverage for pre-existing conditions, drug abuse recovery, and other new coverages. But the point is that if you already are in a plan, you don’t need the pre-existing coverage feature. And if you don’t abuse drugs, you don’t need that either.

So if you assume people are happy with the coverage they have now, it seems to me that forcing them to take additional coverage they didn’t ask for, then charging them 13% more, does constitute an increase in fees.

Basically, this is the argument - the government is going to reduce cost-per-coverage by 14% to 20% (or so they say, but let’s take that as offered).

If the governmnent mandated the changes but did nothing to reduce costs, premiums would go up by as much as 30%. But because of the government savings they’ll only go up by 13%. But go up they will (for the subset of people in question).

The most accurate statement would probably be something like “We’re going to give you 30% more coverage, for only a 13% increase.” Obama chooses to interpret that as a 17% decrease in premiums, while Alexander interprets it as a 13% increase in premiums.

So who’s right? Both. It depends on how you look at it. If this was an optional transaction, Obama would be mostly correct. But since it’s mandated coverage, and not everyone needs it, I think Alexander is. But either way, it’s a disputable point, so it’s wrong to say Obama ‘schooled him’. They both knew exactly what they were talking about, and both used the right numbers. Obama just interpreted it differently. Obviously, your side is choosing to spin it in a way that makes Obama look more correct.

To me, the fact that it’s mandated makes the difference. It’s like buying a car, and then being told that you have to pay $500 more for the undercoating and you have no choice, but you’re really saving $1000 because normally you’d be charged $1500 for undercoating. If you really wanted the undercoating, it’s a deal. If you didn’t, it’s just a price hike.

[gonzomax]

The Repubs ran against Obama stating that heath care is this country has to be fixed. Almost everyone realizes our health system in unsustainable. Yet when Obama actually wants to put a watered down bill through, they filibuster while calling it Socialism. The Repubs have had plenty of input. Obama actually thought they could work together in the beginning. Now he realizes that they will filibuster and obstruct anything. As usual ,politics above the country. Rove and Luntz have their fingerprints all over this kind of politics.
Health care should not be a for profit industry.

[Translucent_Daydream]

@Zoe

My favorite voice in the room was that of Rep. Louise Slaughter. I was fascinated by what she had to say.

I wrote her a letter this morning, and asked her if she noticed that none of the Republicans would look at her in the eye after her testimony.

[Grumman]

@Giles

And that’s why everyone needs to pay – one way or another – for a basic minimum of health insurance. It could be by the government requiring everyone to have that basic minimum, or by taxes being used to supply a basic minimum, but it must be compulsory. Otherwise, healthy young people won’t buy insurance, because it’s not good value for money; and the insurance companies raise premiums, because they are only getting the expensive high-risk customers.

As I’ve said before, the real problem isn’t that people are acting in their best interests and refusing to buy an inferior product they won’t benefit from, it’s that the government plan relies on people acting against their best interests.

Your solution is a scam - it does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare in the US, it just hides it by spreading it out.

[Translucent_Daydream]

Although I am not thrilled with mandates on coverage, its really necessary to get rid of pre-existing conditions because the high risk pools won’t be affordable.

I still don’t understand why they can have the high risk pool be run as non-profit, and lift the ban for private non-profit health insurance systems.

[Sateryn76]

@Giles

And that’s why everyone needs to pay – one way or another – for a basic minimum of health insurance. It could be by the government requiring everyone to have that basic minimum, or by taxes being used to supply a basic minimum, but it must be compulsory. Otherwise, healthy young people won’t buy insurance, because it’s not good value for money; and the insurance companies raise premiums, because they are only getting the expensive high-risk customers.

How about changing the function of health care? Make it more like car insurance, where you pay for the oil change and they pay for the rear end collision. Or maybe catastrophic coverage only, like John Kerry proposed. Or how about disconnecting insurance from employment? Or one of the many other proposed ideas?

Why is Obama’s plan the only good plan?

[Giles]

@Sateryn76

How about changing the function of health care? Make it more like car insurance, where you pay for the oil change and they pay for the rear end collision. Or maybe catastrophic coverage only, like John Kerry proposed. Or how about disconnecting insurance from employment? Or one of the many other proposed ideas?

Why is Obama’s plan the only good plan?

I wasn’t saying that Obama’s plan is the only good one.

But, if you are going to liken it to car insurance, who is the “they” when you have the equivalent of a rear end collision? If you can assign the blame to anyone, then it’s likely to be someone without the money and without the insurance to pay for your health costs. And most costly health care happens without someone you can blame like that.

[Sateryn76]

@Giles

I wasn’t saying that Obama’s plan is the only good one.

But, if you are going to liken it to car insurance, who is the “they” when you have the equivalent of a rear end collision? If you can assign the blame to anyone, then it’s likely to be someone without the money and without the insurance to pay for your health costs. And most costly health care happens without someone you can blame like that.

You miss my point - maybe we should look at a system that doesn’t cover checkups and the like, but does cover MRIs and cancer treatment. This will change how healthcare is consumed, and force people to confront the cost of health care.

[Giles]

@Sateryn76

You miss my point - maybe we should look at a system that doesn’t cover checkups and the like, but does cover MRIs and cancer treatment. This will change how healthcare is consumed, and force people to confront the cost of health care.

On the other hand, perhaps the system should encourage everyone to have regular check-ups, in order to save on more expensive procedures later.

Part of the problem today is that uninsured people are already forced “to confront the cost of health care”, and choose not to get health care when they ought to. That can be at least as bad as insured people over-consuming health care.

[elucidator]

@John_Mace

There isn’t a lot of nuance in “Do you want Congress to pass major health care reform legislation…” Is your objection to the word “major”?

But let’s put that aside. Are you still standing by your claim that “Pubbie speakers repeatedly baldly stating that the American people don’t want HRC”? I’d like to see a cite supporting that.

Its hard for me to accept that you haven’t heard these words, last one I remember was Cantor. However, I’m not much in the mood for a google hunt. Surly, snappish, de-caffienated. If the issue is of such importance, I am willing to withdraw the remark. Amidst the avalanche of Pubbie disinformation on this issue, 'tis but another snowflake.

[Sateryn76]

@Giles

On the other hand, perhaps the system should encourage everyone to have regular check-ups, in order to save on more expensive procedures later.

Part of the problem today is that uninsured people are already forced “to confront the cost of health care”, and choose not to get health care when they ought to. That can be at least as bad as insured people over-consuming health care.

Per the New England Journal of Medicine, preventative care vs. treatment is a wash.

And, if a standard check up is $200 (which is it for me), consider that a large portion of that cost is consumed dealing with insurance paperwork. Take those costs out of the equation, and that cost may end up being more like $100.

$100 a year for a check up isn’t going to break anybody.

[BobLibDem]

There are millions of people in the US who will never have $100 of free spending money in their hands (or the $200 which might be more typical) in any given year. It may not break them, but it doesn’t mean they have it.

What I got from the summit was that John McCain is a pathetic little loser. He came there to give his talking points and try to make Obama look bad, not to contribute positively to the discussion. Not that he was alone in that regard, Eric Cantor came just to use a prop of the 2000+ page bill, as if the length of it meant anything. Time for the Democrats to go it alone, the Republicans have zero interest in actually solving the problem.

[Sateryn76]

@BobLibDem

There are millions of people in the US who will never have $100 of free spending money in their hands (or the $200 which might be more typical) in any given year. It may not break them, but it doesn’t mean they have it.

What I got from the summit was that John McCain is a pathetic little loser. He came there to give his talking points and try to make Obama look bad, not to contribute positively to the discussion. Not that he was alone in that regard, Eric Cantor came just to use a prop of the 2000+ page bill, as if the length of it meant anything. Time for the Democrats to go it alone, the Republicans have zero interest in actually solving the problem.

To get to an average of $150/year is $0.41 a day. Most mobile people could get that pretty easily. And for those that can’t - isn’t that what Medicaid is for?

And is it so out of the park for a healthy person to just skip check-ups? My husband and I don’t go every year - not because we can’t afford it, but because we’re healthy and don’t need it.

[BobLibDem]

Try being poor and saving up for it. One month of savings could well be eaten up by a spike in a utility bill or a broken appliance.

[Sateryn76]

@BobLibDem

Try being poor and saving up for it. One month of savings could well be eaten up by a spike in a utility bill or a broken appliance.

Brother…I’ve been poor. 19 and a single mom and working for $15,500 a year. An “appliance”? What’s that?

[yorick73]

@Zoe

yorick, is it that these people, these constituents, don’t seem real to you? Have you never known anyone who suffered – really experienced anguish needlessly? For what reason should the people in that room NOT be reminded of the crucial nature of the reason they are there?

Those people are very real. And, yes, I have known plenty of people, including myself, who could not afford health care and suffered as a result. These stories serve no purpose. We can’t determine if they are fabricated. We can’t determine if this woman could have accessed some government program but didn’t look into it. There are a million possibilities.

There are 300 million people in this country. Regardless of how much we collectively spend there will still be suffering. I should ask you…are any of these stories alone worth fundamentally changing the entire health care system?

[Richard_Parker]

forget it

[Wesley_Clark]

@yorick73

Those people are very real. And, yes, I have known plenty of people, including myself, who could not afford health care and suffered as a result. These stories serve no purpose. We can’t determine if they are fabricated. We can’t determine if this woman could have accessed some government program but didn’t look into it. There are a million possibilities.

There are 300 million people in this country. Regardless of how much we collectively spend there will still be suffering. I should ask you…are any of these stories alone worth fundamentally changing the entire health care system?

I think so. In the US we spend 17% of GDP on health care and there is massive discontentment. In places like Germany, France & Canada they spend 11% and if you tried to abolish their health care system you’d see widespread rioting.

So the simple fact is that a health care system that is 40% cheaper and has higher consumer satisfaction is possible. But we do not have it.

[PeachdeQueen]

@Sam_Stone

Frankly, my ‘partisan interpretation’ came from ABC news. And I carefully said that Alexander was ‘mostly’ right, because I’m aware that you can interpret this in different ways.

Yes, the premium goes up because of mandated ‘better coverage’. That includes coverage for pre-existing conditions, drug abuse recovery, and other new coverages. But the point is that if you already are in a plan, you don’t need the pre-existing coverage feature. And if you don’t abuse drugs, you don’t need that either.

So if you assume people are happy with the coverage they have now, it seems to me that forcing them to take additional coverage they didn’t ask for, then charging them 13% more, does constitute an increase in fees.

Basically, this is the argument - the government is going to reduce cost-per-coverage by 14% to 20% (or so they say, but let’s take that as offered).

If the governmnent mandated the changes but did nothing to reduce costs, premiums would go up by as much as 30%. But because of the government savings they’ll only go up by 13%. But go up they will (for the subset of people in question).

The most accurate statement would probably be something like “We’re going to give you 30% more coverage, for only a 13% increase.” Obama chooses to interpret that as a 17% decrease in premiums, while Alexander interprets it as a 13% increase in premiums.

So who’s right? Both. It depends on how you look at it. If this was an optional transaction, Obama would be mostly correct. But since it’s mandated coverage, and not everyone needs it, I think Alexander is. But either way, it’s a disputable point, so it’s wrong to say Obama ‘schooled him’. They both knew exactly what they were talking about, and both used the right numbers. Obama just interpreted it differently. Obviously, your side is choosing to spin it in a way that makes Obama look more correct.

To me, the fact that it’s mandated makes the difference. It’s like buying a car, and then being told that you have to pay $500 more for the undercoating and you have no choice, but you’re really saving $1000 because normally you’d be charged $1500 for undercoating. If you really wanted the undercoating, it’s a deal. If you didn’t, it’s just a price hike.

You make a good point, but every insurance policy you own has some coverages in it that you are paying for and will NEVER use. To compound that, your premium will likely go up and coverage you actually need and use will be reduced. Cuts are always made to the services most utilized. As an added plus, they’ll throw in that substance abuse coverage or chiropractic care.

If we do nothing, insurance premiums will increase unabaited, coverage will decrease and more American’s will become uninsured. It’s the uninsured and degrading health of American’s in general that is costs the paying insured more money every year. Ultimately, the burden then falls on government programs and their costs swells.

As far as the pre-existing conditions issue, don’t be a fool. Of course that doesn’t matter as long as you stay with the same plan over a long term, but if you have to change jobs, OR if your employer decides to switch carriers and you are in the middle of treatment…then what? SOL

[Richard_Parker]

@Sam_Stone

So if you assume people are happy with the coverage they have now, it seems to me that forcing them to take additional coverage they didn’t ask for, then charging them 13% more, does constitute an increase in fees. . . . To me, the fact that it’s mandated makes the difference. It’s like buying a car, and then being told that you have to pay $500 more for the undercoating and you have no choice, but you’re really saving $1000 because normally you’d be charged $1500 for undercoating. If you really wanted the undercoating, it’s a deal. If you didn’t, it’s just a price hike. (emphasis added)

I wrote a less charitable response a moment ago. I’ll be nicer this time. You misunderstand what the Senate bill does, Sam. I suggest you (re)read the bill summary and the CBO Report.

No one with insurance is forced by the Senate bill to get new insurance. Section 1251 of the bill is very clear that “Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act.”

Of course, just because the bill doesn’t force anyone with insurance to change, that doesn’t mean no one will be forced to switch plans by their employers decision in the new marketplace. However, the 13% increase that the CBO speaks of is among people who are the non-employer market. Therefore, among that population, there is no employer forcing them to switch. If they switch, it is entirely voluntary.

Sen. Alexander, in the context of arguing about whether the bill reduces costs, pointed to this increase in premiums without any further explanation or qualification. Obama was 100% right to correct him for at least two independent reasons. First, increase in average premiums isn’t a reflection of rising “costs” in the context of their discussion if it is a result of increased benefits. Second, the increase is entirely voluntary. Your assessment that Obama was “mostly wrong” is your own (it is nowhere in your ABC cite), and it is incorrect.

Since you’ve conceded that your opinion would be changed if changing plans were voluntary, are you prepared to admit you were wrong now that you know it is voluntary?