The Cost Of Doing Nothing Will Be High

[Guest]

I ran across an article on CNN.com which not only provided a reiteration of the cost statistics for healthcare, but pointedly said who would pay for it. In the article it said...

"The price for...indifference will be high. If efforts at better cost containment fail once again, and health care costs rise -- as almost surely (they will) -- (those costs) will be borne entirely by the family...(The average) family's disposable income would be much higher if the growth of future health spending was better controlled. And, as noted, many smaller firms will stop altogether providing job-based health insurance."

I'm reading the word "indifference" as the public accepting either no healthcare reform legislation at all, or "reforms" which will be transparently ineffective. Regardless of our political or ideological preferences, this country has a huge problem. We all need to demand legislative solutions from our elected representatives. I wish I could say that the operation of the free market can reasonably be expected to solve the problem, but it hasn't and very likely will not in the future. As the author in the article notes, in less than a decade healthcare costs have doubled, consistently rising at an average annual rate of 8.4%. Unless that trend is reversed--the cost curve "bent" as all the talking heads are saying--by 2019 the average family will be paying over $36,000 a year for it's health insurance. If that is unaffordable, lots of employers will simply stop offering health insurance as a benefit and many families will have to join the tens of millions without any insurance at all.

We've argued vehemently about the "redistribution of wealth". If we all stand by and permit nothing to happen to seriously reform healthcare in this country, there will definitely be a redistribution of wealth. The wealthiest Americans will be a little angry because their insurance premiums went up. The poorest can't worry any more than they do now, using hospital ER's as their source of healthcare--there'll just be a lot more of them. It'll be the shrinking middle class who will see it's income redistributed, mostly to pay for healthcare for the indigent and poor.

Before any of us lock in to ideals that would make any sort of healthcare reform unacceptable to us, before we blast one another on this forum over one ideology or another, we need to think about the result if something very robust doesn't get passed. The politicians who are supposedly debating on our behalf won't have to worry--they'll still have their gold-plated Congressional health insurance. The executives in the healthcare industry will still be getting multi-million dollar bonuses. No one will have to hold a tag day for the doctors. It'll be us--you and me, Republican and Democrat--who will bear the brunt of their unyielding ideology, political partisanship and legislative ineffectiveness.

Think about it...please, just think about it.

Read the entire article at...http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/18/reinhardt.health.inflation/index.html?iref=newssearch

[Guest]

I ran across an article on CNN.com which not only provided a reiteration of the cost statistics for healthcare, but pointedly said who would pay for it. In the article it said...

"The price for...indifference will be high. If efforts at better cost containment fail once again, and health care costs rise -- as almost surely (they will) -- (those costs) will be borne entirely by the family...(The average) family's disposable income would be much higher if the growth of future health spending was better controlled. And, as noted, many smaller firms will stop altogether providing job-based health insurance."

I'm reading the word "indifference" as the public accepting either no healthcare reform legislation at all, or "reforms" which will be transparently ineffective. Regardless of our political or ideological preferences, this country has a huge problem. We all need to demand legislative solutions from our elected representatives. I wish I could say that the operation of the free market can reasonably be expected to solve the problem, but it hasn't and very likely will not in the future. As the author in the article notes, in less than a decade healthcare costs have doubled, consistently rising at an average annual rate of 8.4%. Unless that trend is reversed--the cost curve "bent" as all the talking heads are saying--by 2019 the average family will be paying over $36,000 a year for it's health insurance. If that is unaffordable, lots of employers will simply stop offering health insurance as a benefit and many families will have to join the tens of millions without any insurance at all.

We've argued vehemently about the "redistribution of wealth". If we all stand by and permit nothing to happen to seriously reform healthcare in this country, there will definitely be a redistribution of wealth. The wealthiest Americans will be a little angry because their insurance premiums went up. The poorest can't worry any more than they do now, using hospital ER's as their source of healthcare--there'll just be a lot more of them. It'll be the shrinking middle class who will see it's income redistributed, mostly to pay for healthcare for the indigent and poor.

Before any of us lock in to ideals that would make any sort of healthcare reform unacceptable to us, before we blast one another on this forum over one ideology or another, we need to think about the result if something very robust doesn't get passed. The politicians who are supposedly debating on our behalf won't have to worry--they'll still have their gold-plated Congressional health insurance. The executives in the healthcare industry will still be getting multi-million dollar bonuses. No one will have to hold a tag day for the doctors. It'll be us--you and me, Republican and Democrat--who will bear the brunt of their unyielding ideology, political partisanship and legislative ineffectiveness.

Think about it...please, just think about it.

Read the entire article at...http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/18/reinhardt.health.inflation/index.html?iref=newssearch


I am not aware of ANYONE at all saying do NOTHING !!!

I surely have trouble grasping this entire issue, but should we not address the cutting of costs as a separate item before trying to insure the 10% of americans who dont have it at the same time, OR are they totally interchanged.

I ask it that way because today I read on the OMB website an idea that is endorsed by the President that will cut costs.

This from that report...

"There are a number of steps that can be taken to bend the curve – health IT, investing in research into what works and what doesn’t, and changing incentives so that doctors and hospitals give you better care not just more care. But one of the most potent reforms is a change in the process of health care policymaking: empowering an independent, non-partisan body of doctors and other health experts to make recommendation about Medicare payment rates and other reforms."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/07/17/IMACUBend/

Am I oversimplyfing the problem in saying there seems to be a dialogue surrounding cutting cost by by doing it in the single most expensive way...that is insuring that the 10% not insured get insured. Should we not be addressing that issue by itself ?

I can take a beating on this if necessary since I admit feely to not having the answers or even new ideas, but such a large amount of money being spent at the most difficult time to be spending that kind of money !

[Guest]

I believe that both ideas are linked, Bucco. I know it would take a lot of financial analysis, but I'm guessing that simply providing insurance to those not currently insured wouldn't bend the cost curve very much, at least not very quickly. Think about it, if roughly 20% of the population is uninsured and we buy into the idea that by getting them care earlier in their illnesses, that costs would be reduced, I think it's easy to see that, while that would have a long term favorable effect, it would take a long time to "bend the curve" very much. I believe that the idea of insuring the uninsured is more a realization of a societal obligation to stop being the only country in the world that doesn't somehow provide healthcare for all it's citizens. I think it's more that than any significant cost savings projection.

No, I think that insuring the uninsured is only a part of the puzzle--maybe one of the smaller parts. In order for this to work, healthcare spending really must be reduced pretty dramatically and pretty quickly. I don't think there's any question--someone's ox will be gored.

There's one category of expense that I'm within spitting distance of--end of life healthcare costs. Both the statistics and my own personal experience shows how much money gets spent right near the end's of people's lives.

In the case of my mother-in-law, her healthcare cost over a quarter million dollars in just the last six months of her life! I don't think my wife or anyone else in the family would argue that all that expense extended her life even a week. Nor did it improve her quality of life very much in her last weeks and months. In spite of the arguments against "killing grandma", I'd have to say that this cost category is one that should get a lot of study. And the conclusions will probably affect me.

I don't intend to let that happen to me, if I can help it. I have a well-constructed Living Will and everyone in my family knows exactly what my wishes are. I think it's the counseling on this subject that was mentioned by President Obama that was villified as "death panels" and "killing grandma". That couldn't be farther from the truth, as far as I'm concerned. I only question why the people who are making such outrageous and inflammatory statements are doing so? Certainly they know better. If they're making such statements to support their personal or party ideology, shame on them. If they're doing it to further the wishes of special interests with whom they have a relationship, double shame!

[Guest]

I believe that both ideas are linked, Bucco. I know it would take a lot of financial analysis, but I'm guessing that simply providing insurance to those not currently insured wouldn't bend the cost curve very much, at least not very quickly. Think about it, if roughly 20% of the population is uninsured and we buy into the idea that by getting them care earlier in their illnesses, that costs would be reduced, I think it's easy to see that, while that would have a long term favorable effect, it would take a long time to "bend the curve" very much.

No, I think that insuring the uninsured is only a part of the puzzle--maybe one of the smaller parts. In order for this to work, healthcare spending really must be reduced pretty dramatically and pretty quickly. I don't think there's any question--someone's ox will be gored.

There's one category of expense that I'm within spitting distance of--end of life healthcare costs. Both the statistics and my own personal experience shows how much money gets spent right near the end's of people's lives.

In the case of my mother-in-law, her healthcare cost over a quarter million dollars in just the last six months of her life! I don't think my wife or anyone else in the family would argue that all that expense extended her life even a week. Nor did it improve her quality of life very much in her last weeks and months. In spite of the arguments against "killing grandma", I'd have to say that this cost category is one that should get a lot of study. And the conclusions will probably affect me.

I don't intend to let that happen to me, if I can help it. I have a well-constructed Living Will and everyone in my family knows exactly what my wishes are. I think it's the counseling on this subject that was mentioned by President Obama that was villified as "death panels" and "killing grandma". That couldn't be farther from the truth, as far as I'm concerned. I only question why the people who are making such outrageous and inflammatory statements are doing so? Certainly they know better.


Maybe you are right and since I am rushed will comment on only two items...

1. I disagree on your 20% as does the census bureau....UNLESS you are counting NON AMERICANS in your figures. I beleive that close to if not on 90% of all AMERICANS are insured.

2. I agree that ON BOTH SIDES, although you allude only to one, there have been outrageous claims and statements made. I found fault with Palin's comments on "death panels"...HOWEVER I suggest to you that there was in fact credence for her remarks, albeit what she said was inflammatory. The Senate committee scrapped the portion of the bill that addresses the advance planning BECAUSE IT WAS SUBJECT TO "improper implementment"

[Guest]

From a social standpoint, I really have little problem with providing health care to every American citizen who needs it via the US Public Health Service. If that's not good enough, I have no sympathy, as it's no different than dealing with "preferred physicians lists" and other cost-restrictive methods.

I can even be talked into including lawful permanent residents ("green card holders") into the mix.

I draw the line at providing taxpayer-subsidized coverage to folk here on a temporary visa of any kind, or anyone here illegally.

So, that cuts the numbers at least in half, and the dollar costs for providing additional coverage via USPHS has got to be billions less than this massive rewrite program which rewards illegals for being here and temporary visa holders for skimming the system.

[Guest]

If you permit me, following is what I wrote today to Representative Brown -Waite and our two Florida Senators...........


I don't pretend to be an expert on healthcare reform but I believe more should be done with the program already run by the Government, Medicare.

My wife recently fractured her ankle and her doctor gave her a prescription for a wheelchair. We requested a lightweight transporter type, because it would be for a short term and to get a lower priced model, as it was being covered by Medicare. This is what I learned; Medicare would be billed $60 month for 13 months. That adds up to $780.00. Reimbursement of the Medicare approved amount would equal $624.00 and our co-pay for the remaining balance would be $156.00. I asked if we just wanted to purchase the wheelchair what would it cost us. The answer $199.00, so herein, is a simple case of how Medicare is overcharged and yet Government allegedly controls it. This is where Congress could start with real change and real reform that would benefit all.

I would also like to point out that there are frequent media ads offering Diabetes Supplies and Motorized Wheel Chairs, all with the emphasis that they are covered by Medicare. I wonder why it is necessary to advertise what has now become a very profitable Government financed industry. Could it be that Medicare has created this industry and exercises little or no financial control and gives great financial rewards to the players? Maybe this should be another area worth looking into before Congress debates massive reform of the entire Nation's healthcare structure.

I would like to suggest that you personally take a leadership position to have Congress start fixing what is already under Government control. Fix Medicare first. Then look at what it costs our Nation to provide Healthcare for people who are in this country illegally.

Newt Gingrich has been quoted as saying, "Campaigning is easy, and governing is hard." It is time for Congress and The Administration to stop campaigning and to start governing.

[Guest]

I agree health care needs some reform I think everyone agrees on that but I just can't agree the federal government is qualified to run it. I have good health care and I am very thankful for it but this issue is near and dear to me because my husband is disabled. He has muscular dystrophy and has medicare as primary and a private insurer as secondary. One big problem I have with this bill is insuring illegal immigrants. Key word there is illegal. My ancestors immigrated to this country as most but they became citizens and learned the language.

[Guest]

the bait for the whatever health care reform is the savings to come from fixing Medicare admin and abuse. Why is it or has it not been a priority to recoup these savings for an existing program...Medicare...with KNOWN issues, including going belly up in less than a decade.
When the whatever reform is passed the future will still include a Medicare program that goes belly up in less than a decade. So does the bait, the savings go to fix the already existing program or go to finance the uninsured? It is a double edged sword. Either way there is insufficient funding.
Additionally NOBODY expects any savings to be recovered.

The issue of funding...being deficit neutral is being played down by all the political noise.

Fix existing programs first. Then justify the new programs with solid deficit neutral planning. Ooooppppss I forgot, that would be way beyond the capability of ANY politicians. Proven by continuous historical non performance.

The reform will be no different and we the people are being tricked into buying into it.

In my very humble opinion.

btk

[Guest]

the ills of health care (no pun intended). Medicare administration and abuse of the system by far too many providers. A health insurance industry that has been soaking the public for years with abusive increases. Pharmaceutical companies getting patents extended and generics blocked from the markets.
These are far from new issues. In all thr hype they are stated as KNOWN issues.....yet nothing over the years has been done about it.

So now the government wants everybody insured. Nice objective. As other posts have stated....fine make it a separate program with designated funding.

Just what has anybody seen or heard to convince them that, now the same crowd in Washington, with a new POTUS will do anymore than increase the cost exposure? Since when do we accept implement first, then figure out how to pay for it.

Fixing what we have includes throwing the incumbents out starting in 2010.

Then hope what ever smoke job is passed is reversible in time.

btk