Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 54

Thread: Where are the Savings?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    Are you accusing me of manufacturing these links?
    No, I'm not accusing you of anything.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Ok, so this bill plans to save money by buying less MRI scanners and other health equipment and perform less tests which means less skilled people doing those tests and by removing administration positions? If I understand that correctly then hospitals and doctors offices will loss jobs and presumably the companies that make health care equipment will have to reduce staff...GE and what not.
    There will be fewer of these jobs PER INSURED, PER INSURED. Needless to say there will be more insured people. Like I said, you are just playing dumb.
    We're #37, We're the USA

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/16/781839/-Late-afternoon-early-evening-open-thread

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by modulus View Post
    There will be fewer of these jobs PER INSURED, PER INSURED. Needless to say there will be more insured people. Like I said, you are just playing dumb.
    Who cares about per insured? The argument YOU make is that we have health care costs over twice as much as other countries. This is done PER CAPITA. You quoted it yourself numerous times! Don't try to change that now.
    Quote Originally Posted by modulus
    It certainly would.

    * On a per capita basis also the U.S. spent the highest with a total of $7,290 which is TWO-AND-HALF TIMES the OECD average
    http://www.4forums.com/political/394143-post15.html

    If we are +$6,000 per capita how is this bill getting us to other countries around $4,000 per capita? Where is the money being removed? Are jobs going away? Less nurses and doctors? Less people making equipment? Less hospitals being constructed? What?!

    Stop avoiding the question I'm asking. It is you who is playing dumb

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    My second question is, where exactly in this bill does it say we are going to do what you claim?
    The Democrats’ proposals would start the complicated but vital task of replacing the system's current incentives, which encourage providers to spend as much as possible, with rewards for wellness, efficiency and high-quality care. By attacking the demand that leads to overconsumption of services, the bills should slow the growth of healthcare costs over the long term.

    The House and Senate bills use a combination of approaches to change the way medical services are delivered and paid for, focusing mainly on Medicare (which, after all, truly is a government-run healthcare program). These include numerous demonstration projects that explore ways to better coordinate treatments among doctors, hospitals, pharmacies and other providers; deter medical errors; improve follow-up care; and promote procedures that are more valuable to patients over the long run. Should these projects be deemed successful, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would have the authority to apply the techniques systemwide without asking Congress for permission.

    Cost control's the key - Los Angeles Times
    We're #37, We're the USA

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/16/781839/-Late-afternoon-early-evening-open-thread

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,636
    That's garbage. No government entitlement such as this one is ever cost effective. This is a wallet-clearing government boondoggle.

    And I doubt Barack Obama is a born-again Christian. He lies constantly. He is incapable of telling the truth. The last year bears that out.

    These people are wicked, lying socialists. They're screwing up America bad. They need to be thrown out of office.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    232
    [QUOTE=Easyrider;395444]That's garbage. No government entitlement such as this one is ever cost effective. This is a wallet-clearing government boondoggle.

    And I doubt Barack Obama is a born-again Christian. He lies constantly. He is incapable of telling the truth./QUOTE]

    The truth is here. Take a close look.

    Per Capita Health Expenditures by Country, 2007 — Infoplease.com
    We're #37, We're the USA

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/16/781839/-Late-afternoon-early-evening-open-thread

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    232
    [QUOTE=Easyrider;395444]That's garbage. No government entitlement such as this one is ever cost effective. This is a wallet-clearing government boondoggle.

    And I doubt Barack Obama is a born-again Christian. He lies constantly. He is incapable of telling the truth./QUOTE]

    The truth is here. Take a close look.

    Per Capita Health Expenditures by Country, 2007 — Infoplease.com
    We're #37, We're the USA

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/16/781839/-Late-afternoon-early-evening-open-thread

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    A simple question really...if this bill supposedly reduces health care costs per person then who is getting less money? Please see the below graph to answer this question.

    http://biglizards.net/Graphics/Foreg...bution2007.jpg

    I'm honestly asking...will doctors get paid less? Will people making health care equipment get paid less? All of the above? It won't all come from the health insurance companies, in fact, they will probably benefit (the large ones that is).

    Just tell me...who gets less money.
    In theory the preventative care provided would allow us to catch conditions sooner, resulting in decreased utilization of hospitals, specialists, and equipment.

    In reality, I dont think there is enough information about the bill out there for an informed opinion. Personally I am still trying to slog through the text of the bill. Personally I dont think it is going to work, so it is difficult to motivate myself to read hundreds of pages of it.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    In theory the preventative care provided would allow us to catch conditions sooner, resulting in decreased utilization of hospitals, specialists, and equipment.

    In reality, I dont think there is enough information about the bill out there for an informed opinion. Personally I am still trying to slog through the text of the bill. Personally I dont think it is going to work, so it is difficult to motivate myself to read hundreds of pages of it.
    Why does it work in every other OECD country?
    We're #37, We're the USA

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/16/781839/-Late-afternoon-early-evening-open-thread

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by modulus View Post
    The Democrats’ proposals would start the complicated but vital task of replacing the system's current incentives, which encourage providers to spend as much as possible, with rewards for wellness, efficiency and high-quality care. By attacking the demand that leads to overconsumption of services, the bills should slow the growth of healthcare costs over the long term.

    The House and Senate bills use a combination of approaches to change the way medical services are delivered and paid for, focusing mainly on Medicare (which, after all, truly is a government-run healthcare program). These include numerous demonstration projects that explore ways to better coordinate treatments among doctors, hospitals, pharmacies and other providers; deter medical errors; improve follow-up care; and promote procedures that are more valuable to patients over the long run. Should these projects be deemed successful, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would have the authority to apply the techniques systemwide without asking Congress for permission.

    Cost control's the key - Los Angeles Times
    Why won't you answer my question? Where are the savings? Who ends up with less? This is very straight-forward, why can't anyone answer.

    We are $6,000 per capita or more..others are at $4,000 per capita or less. That $2,000+ is coming from _________________. Just fill in the blank: cuts to doctors? Less equipment? What!?

    Geesh

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    In theory the preventative care provided would allow us to catch conditions sooner, resulting in decreased utilization of hospitals, specialists, and equipment.
    Well this doesn't answer my question though. With this bill, where is the money coming from? Are we cutting doctors jobs? I hate to use a Krugman thing but this looks like an "underpants gnomes" theory.

    1) Pass Senate Bill
    2) ???????
    3) Save $3,000 per capita.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Well this doesn't answer my question though. With this bill, where is the money coming from? Are we cutting doctors jobs? I hate to use a Krugman thing but this looks like an "underpants gnomes" theory.

    1) Pass Senate Bill
    2) ???????
    3) Save $3,000 per capita.
    It is the "per capita" that is important. We are not going to be saving any money on a cash flow basis. In theory we are going to be treating more people for the same money. Essentially the goal is a gain in efficiency.

    The problem I am seeing is that so far I have not seen anything in the bill that really touches on waste in our health care system. I have used this example before. A while back I injured my ankle. I went to the doctor to get it checked even though I was fairly certain it was just sprained. He agreed that it was probably just sprained, but sent me down for an MRI just to be sure.

    Why a $3000 MRI instead of a $70 X-ray? I don't know, and when I asked him, he did not really seem to know. The MRI gives better detail, but in checking for broken bones that is not really a consideration. He said that was just the protocol they use now.

    If we want o0ur health care system to work for everybody at a reasonable price, inefficiencies like that need to stop. The price of prescription drugs needs to be brought down and the American people need to be educated enough to understand that the "need money for research" excuse that the drug companies use to explain away their 2000% markups is BS....over 80% of medical research for new prescription drugs in this country is ALREADY funded by taxpayer dollars through NIH grants. Using the cost of that research...which we already paid for...to justify a 2000% markup is insane.

    We need to remove medical exemptions from anti-racketeering and price fixing laws. We need to overhaul our horribly outdated patent system when it comes to drug formulations and medical devices.

    The new bill does not do any of that....at least not the parts I have seen. The new bill basically focuses on getting more people insured and putting more money in the insurance companies pockets. While we may see a slight efficiency gain from increased preventative care, I dont think the savings will be enough to come anywhere close to "fixing" the system.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by modulus View Post
    Why does it work in every other OECD country?
    I am speaking of the plan as a whole, not just the concept that replacing emergency care with preventative/early care would decrease costs.

    I don't think that there is any doubt that it is more efficient to provide preventative care/early care than it is to wait until the situation has degenerated to the point that you are in ICU. That is why, for example, my family insurance not only covers the cost of a mammogram 100%, they send my wife a $100 check every time she gets one. IT is cheaper for them in the long run to bribe women to get screened.

    IMO the biggest problem with the health care system in the US is that the cost is largely carried by our employers. American businesses are already struggling to be competitive in the world market. I can say with 100% mathematical certainty that if we do not find a way to decrease these costs and get them off our companies backs, they will not be able to remain competitive. It is just too much of a financial burden for them to bear going forward.

    Unfortunately the entire debate has been framed primarily by the dishonest and the foolish. You see idiotic references to mythical things like "free market health care" and even see some people foolish enough to argue that we currently HAVE free market health care. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    I can't even count the number of times that I have seen people argue against health reform because in the UK they have to WAIT to see a doctor. When you point out that studies have shown that waiting times in the US are actually LONGER than those in the UK, they come back with "But we can CHOOSE". IF you have to wait for doctor a or doctor b, you are CHOOSING your doctor, you don't get to choose whether or not to wait.

    BUT...health reform does not necessarily have to mean single payer, and it CERTAINLY should not mean more insurance. The decision is not "socialized medicine or NONE", nor is it "socialized medicine or free market medicine". It is a shame that people are dumb enough to believe that things have to be that simplistic.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    It is the "per capita" that is important. We are not going to be saving any money on a cash flow basis. In theory we are going to be treating more people for the same money. Essentially the goal is a gain in efficiency.

    The problem I am seeing is that so far I have not seen anything in the bill that really touches on waste in our health care system. I have used this example before. A while back I injured my ankle. I went to the doctor to get it checked even though I was fairly certain it was just sprained. He agreed that it was probably just sprained, but sent me down for an MRI just to be sure.

    Why a $3000 MRI instead of a $70 X-ray? I don't know, and when I asked him, he did not really seem to know. The MRI gives better detail, but in checking for broken bones that is not really a consideration. He said that was just the protocol they use now.

    If we want o0ur health care system to work for everybody at a reasonable price, inefficiencies like that need to stop. The price of prescription drugs needs to be brought down and the American people need to be educated enough to understand that the "need money for research" excuse that the drug companies use to explain away their 2000% markups is BS....over 80% of medical research for new prescription drugs in this country is ALREADY funded by taxpayer dollars through NIH grants. Using the cost of that research...which we already paid for...to justify a 2000% markup is insane.

    We need to remove medical exemptions from anti-racketeering and price fixing laws. We need to overhaul our horribly outdated patent system when it comes to drug formulations and medical devices.

    The new bill does not do any of that....at least not the parts I have seen. The new bill basically focuses on getting more people insured and putting more money in the insurance companies pockets. While we may see a slight efficiency gain from increased preventative care, I dont think the savings will be enough to come anywhere close to "fixing" the system.
    So in short the best case scenario is we go from $6,000 per capita to.......$6,000 per capita. Basically this would mean less care for the already insured and more care fore the under insured..well, some of them.

    This seems optimistic to me.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    A while back I injured my ankle. I went to the doctor to get it checked even though I was fairly certain it was just sprained. He agreed that it was probably just sprained, but sent me down for an MRI just to be sure.

    Why a $3000 MRI instead of a $70 X-ray? I don't know, and when I asked him, he did not really seem to know. The MRI gives better detail, but in checking for broken bones that is not really a consideration. He said that was just the protocol they use now.
    Does that answer your question, Steve? I had a a similar experience. I had a kidney stone and I was sent to CT scan twice. You may need CT scan to find the dimensions of the stone. The second time it was used to find if the stone has moved. You do not need a CT scan for that. They also performed four blood tests. A new visit for another consultation and another blood test. I was puzzled by that. Back then I did not know that people have already identified this as an inefficiency in the system.

    BTW, there are provisions in the bill to remove incentives for providing quantity of service.
    We're #37, We're the USA

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/16/781839/-Late-afternoon-early-evening-open-thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •