I am no expert but here is an excerpt from a report in a Mckinsey Consulting journal that puts the costs in perspective…. “At 17 percent of GDP, US costs are about 70 percent higher than those of our developed global competitors. The costs that employers incur for providing health benefits must also be added to this overhead. Physicians and hospitals are paid through many different insurance policies, each with its own fee levels, benefit exclusions, and rules, adding to the provider’s administrative burden. The Johns Hopkins health system, for example, deals with about 700 distinct insurance carriers, each with its own rules. The Duke University health system employs close to 900 billing clerks. The administrative burden shouldered by American providers is greater by far than that in any other country. Finally, one should include in administrative costs the value of the time patients must devote to claims processing, a good part of which in the United States is still paper based. Most other nations now have fully electronic payment systems.”
I like the idea of a tax credit for insurance and the use of competition to keep insurance rates low. The fact that I can still choose my private insurance is appealing as well. I would like to see a higher limit on how much of the HSA can be rolled into an IRA, but I understand why it is not allowed. It still beats a tax hike to pay for ‘universal’ helathcare by a longshot.
Something the current administration doesn’t understand is that sometimes if not mostly, improvements are best accomplished by modest, reasoned increments. No band-standing, universal(code for government run) is necessary. They democrats want to destroy the current system so there will be no comparisons anymore, just one great gray mass of bureaucracy that grow and grows like fungus. Compare the UPS to the US Mail and you get the idea.
It is good that we are seeing a wealth of plans and opinions being discussed about healthcare. I really can not evaluate this plan at this time until more details are revealed at this point it leaves much to be desired if the goal is to decrease the exorbitant cost of care and cover all Americans. This is a very complex issue. The reality is that our system is crippled by a tremendous amount of administrative cost built in on the provider side that does not exist in other systems. This is one area where the market system has been extremely inefficient compared to its peers. We have to address costs on many levels to truly have an effective health care policy. If we do not businesses will suffer greatly due to the burden of the exponential rise in health care cost as the population continues to age and life expectancy lengthens.
Are the administrative costs on the provider side higher than they would be if the service were provided by government? In other words, who charges a higher admin cost, private or government?
In P&C we have H03, H06, etc. In Commercial lines we have ISO forms. Where is the standardization of Health coverage?
You get a great rate then find out it covers nothing. We need protection from carriers trying to offer lower cost premiums with no coverage when you need it.
Two major factors driving the cost of health care are Malpractice Insurance and Educational Expenses. Neither party has brought forward a plan to address these costs.
I would guess that conservatives are against this proposal because it gives validity to many misnomers and half truths that have been advanced by those seeking universal healthcare. In other words, it provides an alternate plan based on a premise that conservatives don’t buy into.
This proposal could be picked apart for a lot of reasons, but here’s one. The second point mentioned is that no one would be denied based on age or health. Here’s how that plays out. If an insurer is going to insure a person that is a greater risk, they need to collect more premium. A company may deny someone because they don’t write that level of risk. If the person wants really wants insurance, they can get it, but they will have to pay more and not all companies will take them. Enter the Gov’t proposal. The gov’t will say you have to take them and you can’t charge them more than you charge everyone else. The insurer will say we have to get more premium to cover that risk. They will raise everyone’s rates to spread out the extra risk. The healthy will pay more to subsidize the unhealthy. What if the gov’t says you can’t deny them, and you can’t raise rates? The insurer says help us out, we need more premium to cover the increased risk. The gov’t says I’ve got the answer. The young healthy people who don’t need or want insurance, they’re not paying into the system. The gov’t will mandate that those people have to have insurance. Again, the healthy will subsidize the unhealthy.
The progressive lefties are just in this for control over your healthcare and your quality of life. The republicans offering up this proposal may have noble intentions. Then again, it’s plausible at this point that they are on the same progessive train.
This is Marxism. They’ll deny it, and claim it’s not Marxism because they have the enlightenment and compassion that Marx didn’t have. I call bs.
Please people, stop calling everything you don’t like “Marxism”. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I know Marxism, after all. If you don’t like it, or want people to oppose it, just stick with calling it “Nazism” or “Islamofacism”
…it’s called Social Security and Medicare. So, all you dingbats labeling every new proposal from the Obama people sa “socialist” or “marxist”, let’s see you rip up your Social Security or Medicare cards.
This Republican plan has some interesting ideas. Some of the ideas have been taken from the Democrat proposal. This is encouraging as whatever results will be a blending of both. May it be successful and not leave the “have nots” up the creek.
I will gladly rip up my SS card if they will kindly stop taking my money. I am 32 and have been working and paying taxes for 16 years. I don’t expect the system to pay me when I hit a certain age. I believe I can manage my money better than the government can, and I am willing to accept the responsibility if I blow it.
As for health care reform, the end result will certainly be a combination of several plans– neither “side” will give in to the other without some concessions. The GOP’s plan sounds like they’re at least considering what the people want…
Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. The fundamental flaw with too much control in the hands of a few, is the assumption that they will never become greedy.
Got laid off and bam, there goes our health insurance. Need to wait one month for unemployment to kick in. In the meantime, I have to come up with a check for $750 to keep my Blue Cross in force for a month. Been living hand to mouth while I was working, driving an old car, no vacations, living pretty close to the bone. The office was too small to offer COBRA now I am SOL until I find a new job. There needs to be some kind of temporary medical assistance for the newly unemployed who cannot fall back on COBRA. Hope we don’t fall seriously ill anytime soon.
A dual system allowing both private and government owned, funded by national sales tax, and operated like the Veterans Administration http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html would serve those happy with what they have and a government system would care for those under served. All government funded care would be delivered through the government care system controlling the problems with access, cost, quality, and malpractice. No government money would be spent in private systems. For individuals government care would be free. Businesses large or small selecting government care would be totally relieved of all health care burdens. Costs to taxpayers will be drastically cheaper than anything now proposed. An OMB study of this dual option will scream for adding a national health care option.
What about cost, it seems this is something that no one truly wants to address. Insurance companies only set prices based on what they expect to actuarily pay for claims, expenses and a small profit. So the solution is to control costs. Is the American public ready to have the conversation about what drives these costs?? I am a skeptic on this. The majority of Americans hear “universal health” and envision that they will be able to go to the doctor, hospital, clinic whenever they want and get any and all services that they want, without any or minimal costs? This is unrealistic, the money has to come from somewhere. Are people prepared for the time when their Mother, who is 85, obese, has heart problems and high blood pressure goes to the hospital is told to go home, we are not going to operate and she gets nothing but hospice care? Is the American public prepared to not spend tremendous amounts of money at the end of life and discuss these issues? Until we are, we will continue to see double digit increases in health care costs. If we are going to have a discussion on nationalized health care, we have to discuss ALL the problems that are driving the costs: end of life issues, poor food and health choices, malpractice issues, reimbursement rates for health care to name a few.
Your (Republcan’s) ability to ridicule as opposed to provide positive analysis or contribution is legendary. Your inaction and inability to work to solve anything for real people is likewise legendary and I might add, immoral. The party of ‘NO’ continues to advance the cause of greed over compassion, ignorance over fact, and lies over truth. Way to go…you must be proud!
As it has been said, Medicare is a Government program that is imperative to the Elderly. My husband was diagnosed with ALS and died. Without Medicare and the great doctors and incredible care he received, I don’t know what we would have done. People need to understand that a public option as competition to the current private insurance carriers will help all of us have good insurance with low premiums and continue to take care of the elderly and others who need Medicare. The Republicans and their planted members at the various town hall meetings are scarring people. To all of you Republicans who continue with the appalling comments about a choice of a public option need to stop. I am offended by your actions. Tell the people the truth. If you don’t agree with Government run healthcare then I would expect you would not accept Medicare when you reach age 65….correct??????
I think most of the hospital cost comes because of the cost of the testing. Most high tech equipment as gone down in price. Medical equipment manufacturer could get take credit for reduced cost. This is so offset there lack of a mass market. This will may test prices go down and employ the many engineers now laid off. The last new real test was the MRI in 1985.
How are we going to be any different than the Canadians who die waitting for their chemo/ radiation treatments to be approved through government redtape? angie
Obama wants welfare medical for Acorn, disfunctional, uneducated, disconnected–His constituency!! Illegals no! Against the law–Aiding and abetting
criminals. A Federal Court case to cease and desist. 80% of American citizens satisfied with their coverage. Just another power grab for Big Gov. Vote republican for Country-break the dictatorship, PLEASE!!!!!
i am so depressed of the ignorance of a big part of the american public.the government plan can operate at a loss,which all other gov programs do!!!every program has been grossly underestimated,and you havent seen nothing yet baby.this is a disaster.remember medicare?it eventually cost 9 times more than what the fat cats said!!!!!!!!!!this is alot worse.how can,or will,a private insurance company operate,while depending on a profit to stay in business,while its competitor,the government,doesnt need a profit to keep on running?this plan is designed to force people to the option,because they can outlast any corporation.they print the money.what chance does the private sector have.why cant private insurance companies compete across state lines?wow,what a thought!!!but they are not allowed by the government to do so,while at the same time the same people will make sure that the gov option will be absolutely allowed across state lines?people,you owe it to yourself,nd your family,to really learn the motive behind all of this.you cant make a stance from an emotional point of view.they have to be backed up by facts.the facts are every where.will you listen????
I am no expert but here is an excerpt from a report in a Mckinsey Consulting journal that puts the costs in perspective…. “At 17 percent of GDP, US costs are about 70 percent higher than those of our developed global competitors. The costs that employers incur for providing health benefits must also be added to this overhead. Physicians and hospitals are paid through many different insurance policies, each with its own fee levels, benefit exclusions, and rules, adding to the provider’s administrative burden. The Johns Hopkins health system, for example, deals with about 700 distinct insurance carriers, each with its own rules. The Duke University health system employs close to 900 billing clerks. The administrative burden shouldered by American providers is greater by far than that in any other country. Finally, one should include in administrative costs the value of the time patients must devote to claims processing, a good part of which in the United States is still paper based. Most other nations now have fully electronic payment systems.”
I like the idea of a tax credit for insurance and the use of competition to keep insurance rates low. The fact that I can still choose my private insurance is appealing as well. I would like to see a higher limit on how much of the HSA can be rolled into an IRA, but I understand why it is not allowed. It still beats a tax hike to pay for ‘universal’ helathcare by a longshot.
Something the current administration doesn’t understand is that sometimes if not mostly, improvements are best accomplished by modest, reasoned increments. No band-standing, universal(code for government run) is necessary. They democrats want to destroy the current system so there will be no comparisons anymore, just one great gray mass of bureaucracy that grow and grows like fungus. Compare the UPS to the US Mail and you get the idea.
It is good that we are seeing a wealth of plans and opinions being discussed about healthcare. I really can not evaluate this plan at this time until more details are revealed at this point it leaves much to be desired if the goal is to decrease the exorbitant cost of care and cover all Americans. This is a very complex issue. The reality is that our system is crippled by a tremendous amount of administrative cost built in on the provider side that does not exist in other systems. This is one area where the market system has been extremely inefficient compared to its peers. We have to address costs on many levels to truly have an effective health care policy. If we do not businesses will suffer greatly due to the burden of the exponential rise in health care cost as the population continues to age and life expectancy lengthens.
Are the administrative costs on the provider side higher than they would be if the service were provided by government? In other words, who charges a higher admin cost, private or government?
WE DO NOT NEED A GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE. I AGREE IT NEEDS TO BE REFORMED; BUT NOT RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Twis tis weediculas, twee need gwovernment to twake care of wus.
In P&C we have H03, H06, etc. In Commercial lines we have ISO forms. Where is the standardization of Health coverage?
You get a great rate then find out it covers nothing. We need protection from carriers trying to offer lower cost premiums with no coverage when you need it.
Two major factors driving the cost of health care are Malpractice Insurance and Educational Expenses. Neither party has brought forward a plan to address these costs.
I would guess that conservatives are against this proposal because it gives validity to many misnomers and half truths that have been advanced by those seeking universal healthcare. In other words, it provides an alternate plan based on a premise that conservatives don’t buy into.
This proposal could be picked apart for a lot of reasons, but here’s one. The second point mentioned is that no one would be denied based on age or health. Here’s how that plays out. If an insurer is going to insure a person that is a greater risk, they need to collect more premium. A company may deny someone because they don’t write that level of risk. If the person wants really wants insurance, they can get it, but they will have to pay more and not all companies will take them. Enter the Gov’t proposal. The gov’t will say you have to take them and you can’t charge them more than you charge everyone else. The insurer will say we have to get more premium to cover that risk. They will raise everyone’s rates to spread out the extra risk. The healthy will pay more to subsidize the unhealthy. What if the gov’t says you can’t deny them, and you can’t raise rates? The insurer says help us out, we need more premium to cover the increased risk. The gov’t says I’ve got the answer. The young healthy people who don’t need or want insurance, they’re not paying into the system. The gov’t will mandate that those people have to have insurance. Again, the healthy will subsidize the unhealthy.
The progressive lefties are just in this for control over your healthcare and your quality of life. The republicans offering up this proposal may have noble intentions. Then again, it’s plausible at this point that they are on the same progessive train.
This is Marxism. They’ll deny it, and claim it’s not Marxism because they have the enlightenment and compassion that Marx didn’t have. I call bs.
Please people, stop calling everything you don’t like “Marxism”. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I know Marxism, after all. If you don’t like it, or want people to oppose it, just stick with calling it “Nazism” or “Islamofacism”
A deserted island with palm trees, mangos and pineapples is starting to look better and better!
…it’s called Social Security and Medicare. So, all you dingbats labeling every new proposal from the Obama people sa “socialist” or “marxist”, let’s see you rip up your Social Security or Medicare cards.
This Republican plan has some interesting ideas. Some of the ideas have been taken from the Democrat proposal. This is encouraging as whatever results will be a blending of both. May it be successful and not leave the “have nots” up the creek.
I will gladly rip up my SS card if they will kindly stop taking my money. I am 32 and have been working and paying taxes for 16 years. I don’t expect the system to pay me when I hit a certain age. I believe I can manage my money better than the government can, and I am willing to accept the responsibility if I blow it.
As for health care reform, the end result will certainly be a combination of several plans– neither “side” will give in to the other without some concessions. The GOP’s plan sounds like they’re at least considering what the people want…
Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. The fundamental flaw with too much control in the hands of a few, is the assumption that they will never become greedy.
Got laid off and bam, there goes our health insurance. Need to wait one month for unemployment to kick in. In the meantime, I have to come up with a check for $750 to keep my Blue Cross in force for a month. Been living hand to mouth while I was working, driving an old car, no vacations, living pretty close to the bone. The office was too small to offer COBRA now I am SOL until I find a new job. There needs to be some kind of temporary medical assistance for the newly unemployed who cannot fall back on COBRA. Hope we don’t fall seriously ill anytime soon.
A dual system allowing both private and government owned, funded by national sales tax, and operated like the Veterans Administration http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html would serve those happy with what they have and a government system would care for those under served. All government funded care would be delivered through the government care system controlling the problems with access, cost, quality, and malpractice. No government money would be spent in private systems. For individuals government care would be free. Businesses large or small selecting government care would be totally relieved of all health care burdens. Costs to taxpayers will be drastically cheaper than anything now proposed. An OMB study of this dual option will scream for adding a national health care option.
What about cost, it seems this is something that no one truly wants to address. Insurance companies only set prices based on what they expect to actuarily pay for claims, expenses and a small profit. So the solution is to control costs. Is the American public ready to have the conversation about what drives these costs?? I am a skeptic on this. The majority of Americans hear “universal health” and envision that they will be able to go to the doctor, hospital, clinic whenever they want and get any and all services that they want, without any or minimal costs? This is unrealistic, the money has to come from somewhere. Are people prepared for the time when their Mother, who is 85, obese, has heart problems and high blood pressure goes to the hospital is told to go home, we are not going to operate and she gets nothing but hospice care? Is the American public prepared to not spend tremendous amounts of money at the end of life and discuss these issues? Until we are, we will continue to see double digit increases in health care costs. If we are going to have a discussion on nationalized health care, we have to discuss ALL the problems that are driving the costs: end of life issues, poor food and health choices, malpractice issues, reimbursement rates for health care to name a few.
Your (Republcan’s) ability to ridicule as opposed to provide positive analysis or contribution is legendary. Your inaction and inability to work to solve anything for real people is likewise legendary and I might add, immoral. The party of ‘NO’ continues to advance the cause of greed over compassion, ignorance over fact, and lies over truth. Way to go…you must be proud!
As it has been said, Medicare is a Government program that is imperative to the Elderly. My husband was diagnosed with ALS and died. Without Medicare and the great doctors and incredible care he received, I don’t know what we would have done. People need to understand that a public option as competition to the current private insurance carriers will help all of us have good insurance with low premiums and continue to take care of the elderly and others who need Medicare. The Republicans and their planted members at the various town hall meetings are scarring people. To all of you Republicans who continue with the appalling comments about a choice of a public option need to stop. I am offended by your actions. Tell the people the truth. If you don’t agree with Government run healthcare then I would expect you would not accept Medicare when you reach age 65….correct??????
I think most of the hospital cost comes because of the cost of the testing. Most high tech equipment as gone down in price. Medical equipment manufacturer could get take credit for reduced cost. This is so offset there lack of a mass market. This will may test prices go down and employ the many engineers now laid off. The last new real test was the MRI in 1985.
How are we going to be any different than the Canadians who die waitting for their chemo/ radiation treatments to be approved through government redtape? angie
Obama wants welfare medical for Acorn, disfunctional, uneducated, disconnected–His constituency!! Illegals no! Against the law–Aiding and abetting
criminals. A Federal Court case to cease and desist. 80% of American citizens satisfied with their coverage. Just another power grab for Big Gov. Vote republican for Country-break the dictatorship, PLEASE!!!!!
i am so depressed of the ignorance of a big part of the american public.the government plan can operate at a loss,which all other gov programs do!!!every program has been grossly underestimated,and you havent seen nothing yet baby.this is a disaster.remember medicare?it eventually cost 9 times more than what the fat cats said!!!!!!!!!!this is alot worse.how can,or will,a private insurance company operate,while depending on a profit to stay in business,while its competitor,the government,doesnt need a profit to keep on running?this plan is designed to force people to the option,because they can outlast any corporation.they print the money.what chance does the private sector have.why cant private insurance companies compete across state lines?wow,what a thought!!!but they are not allowed by the government to do so,while at the same time the same people will make sure that the gov option will be absolutely allowed across state lines?people,you owe it to yourself,nd your family,to really learn the motive behind all of this.you cant make a stance from an emotional point of view.they have to be backed up by facts.the facts are every where.will you listen????