Would this Fix Healthcare?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm sure all of those include government spending.

Well, think about it. If relatively high per-capita-expenditures on health care are undesirable, and if the graph includes government expenditures (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security), does the US have a health care problem, or does it have a social security and Medicare/Medicaid problem?

You blow your argument by including Social Security. Even though disabled individuals do collect social security, it is for basic living, not healthcare. Medicaid and Medicare cover healthcare.

And how does Obamacare address those two?

By expanding risk more to insurance companies, by creating a system where people can access healthcare earlier, when its cheaper instead of waiting for the emergency room and then winding up with huge costs that basically get "dumped" onto either the regional system or more general taxpayer funds.

Medicaid and Medicare work well for those who are on it. Its far from perfect, but folks get care for a relatively low price to society (compared with other options). The problem is the many who don't qualify and who don't get private insurance, either.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm sure all of those include government spending.

Well, think about it. If relatively high per-capita-expenditures on health care are undesirable, and if the graph includes government expenditures (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security), does the US have a health care problem, or does it have a social security and Medicare/Medicaid problem?

You blow your argument by including Social Security. Even though disabled individuals do collect social security, it is for basic living, not healthcare. Medicaid and Medicare cover healthcare.

to repeat: "(if you don't want to lump SS in there, then that's fine. We'll be down to Medicare/Medicaid which amounts to roughly 22% of total government expenditures.)"

What argument? I'm only asking questions... (wow.)

And how does Obamacare address those two?

By expanding risk more to insurance companies, by creating a system where people can access healthcare earlier, when its cheaper instead of waiting for the emergency room and then winding up with huge costs that basically get "dumped" onto either the regional system or more general taxpayer funds.

Medicaid and Medicare work well for those who are on it. Its far from perfect, but folks get care for a relatively low price to society (compared with other options). The problem is the many who don't qualify and who don't get private insurance, either.

1) Expanding risk? So, if risk increases, then what's to prevent the price of health insurance from rising? How does that "help" the problem?

2) Please provide empirical data on this. Otherwise, it's just your imagination at work.

RE: #3
Do you have any sources, any evidence? I know you'll say, "I posted them earlier," but that's bullshit because you can say that regardless of whatever your recent and different arguments have become.

[jj3044]

And how does Obamacare address those two?

By expanding risk more to insurance companies, by creating a system where people can access healthcare earlier, when its cheaper instead of waiting for the emergency room and then winding up with huge costs that basically get "dumped" onto either the regional system or more general taxpayer funds.

Medicaid and Medicare work well for those who are on it. Its far from perfect, but folks get care for a relatively low price to society (compared with other options). The problem is the many who don't qualify and who don't get private insurance, either.

1) Expanding risk? So, if risk increases, then what's to prevent the price of health insurance from rising? How does that "help" the problem?

2) Please provide empirical data on this. Otherwise, it's just your imagination at work.

RE: #3
Do you have any sources, any evidence? I know you'll say, "I posted them earlier," but that's bullshit because you can say that regardless of whatever your recent and different arguments have become.

Let me provide answers to questions #1 and 2. I work for a wellness company and we consult with many clients on implementing value-based benefit designs, incenting for taking care of yourself, basically.
1) It helps the problem because the law forces the healthier people to be insured. There are a lot of young Americans who, because they are young and "healthy", don't think they need coverage. I say "healthy" because there are a lot of chronic conditions that are "silent killers" because they do not have any symptoms until it is too late and damage has been done. With more people being insured, there are more healthy people to balance the unhealthy that have chronic, costly conditions, so in theory, cost goes down.
2) There are a plethora of case studies around that show the ROI (return on investment) for implementing a wellness program. One of my clients who have been incenting annual physicals for the past 3 years have had tremendous results. Their % of those getting an annual physical increased by 20%. Average costs for someone without a well visit was 13% HIGHER than those that DID have a well visit, and compared to their industry benchmark, their participants with a well visit were 30% lower than the industry benchmark of those with a well visit.

The program showed an increase in identified conditions in year one of the program, and then a sharp decrease in years 2-3. Another words, the physicians were identifying those conditions that otherwise would not have been identified until damage had been done (like high blood pressure for example), managing it, improving outcomes.

[Phatscotty]

It just so happens our people prefer top notch healthcare and don't want to wait for it to the point we are willing to pay for it.

It's funny that you say this when so very many of "our people" don't have access to that top notch healthcare.

Not even through the ER?

[Phatscotty]

There is a difference between Europe and America, and we intend to keep it that way.

When the "we" consists of people who flat out refuse to even truly CONSIDER other systems...
you are no different from any other blind bully that refuses to consider what people REALLY think.

We can take care of our people our own way.

I see, so you consider millions without insurance and a far, far greater number who have "insurance" that does not really cover enough to allow them to get effective health care to be "taking care of people"?

It just so happens our people prefer top notch healthcare and don't want to wait for it to the point we are willing to pay for it. People never talk about this reason that makes prices go up (just one of many reason), but it also drives delivery concepts and innovation and jobs and profits and tax revenues and economic growth.

Too bad your information is just fiction.... and that you cannot even be bothered to find out that fact.

If you want to consider other systems, then they have to be the kind of systems that are not built on taxation, because this fictional system runs on donations. It's apples and oranges. You guys are just so far up Europe's ass you can't help but troll it, even when half of Europe's "awesome" system is proving to be a complete failure.

our people who do not have insurance still cannot be turned away from the emergency room.

you are right. it is fiction, as the OP states.... We are not Europe. Of course I have looked at other systems, why the hell do you think we don't want to be like them!!!!!!

[Symmetry]

ITT thread Scotty thinks Canada, Israel, Japan, Australia and New Zealand are in Europe.

[Woodruff]

It just so happens our people prefer top notch healthcare and don't want to wait for it to the point we are willing to pay for it.

It's funny that you say this when so very many of "our people" don't have access to that top notch healthcare.

Not even through the ER?

Oh, I thought you said "top notch", not "do what you must to keep them alive". You see, what happens in an ER, while certainly quality, is not the sort of thing that is preventive in nature. I don't believe you can call it "top notch healthcare" when it's 100% reactive with no prevention in order at all.

[Woodruff]

ITT thread Scotty thinks Canada, Israel, Japan, Australia and New Zealand are in Europe.

And claims he's seriously looked at them, among others.

[BigBallinStalin]

And how does Obamacare address those two?

By expanding risk more to insurance companies, by creating a system where people can access healthcare earlier, when its cheaper instead of waiting for the emergency room and then winding up with huge costs that basically get "dumped" onto either the regional system or more general taxpayer funds.

Medicaid and Medicare work well for those who are on it. Its far from perfect, but folks get care for a relatively low price to society (compared with other options). The problem is the many who don't qualify and who don't get private insurance, either.

1) Expanding risk? So, if risk increases, then what's to prevent the price of health insurance from rising? How does that "help" the problem?

2) Please provide empirical data on this. Otherwise, it's just your imagination at work.

RE: #3
Do you have any sources, any evidence? I know you'll say, "I posted them earlier," but that's bullshit because you can say that regardless of whatever your recent and different arguments have become.

Let me provide answers to questions #1 and 2. I work for a wellness company and we consult with many clients on implementing value-based benefit designs, incenting for taking care of yourself, basically.
1) It helps the problem because the law forces the healthier people to be insured. There are a lot of young Americans who, because they are young and "healthy", don't think they need coverage. I say "healthy" because there are a lot of chronic conditions that are "silent killers" because they do not have any symptoms until it is too late and damage has been done. With more people being insured, there are more healthy people to balance the unhealthy that have chronic, costly conditions, so in theory, cost goes down.
2) There are a plethora of case studies around that show the ROI (return on investment) for implementing a wellness program. One of my clients who have been incenting annual physicals for the past 3 years have had tremendous results. Their % of those getting an annual physical increased by 20%. Average costs for someone without a well visit was 13% HIGHER than those that DID have a well visit, and compared to their industry benchmark, their participants with a well visit were 30% lower than the industry benchmark of those with a well visit.

The program showed an increase in identified conditions in year one of the program, and then a sharp decrease in years 2-3. Another words, the physicians were identifying those conditions that otherwise would not have been identified until damage had been done (like high blood pressure for example), managing it, improving outcomes.

1. Prices will still rise. If a company has to take on more risk, they'll simply increase prices to deal with it. Sure, many people without insurance will be compelled to get insurance, but this doesn't mean that these guys will all join each insurance company in proportional amounts in order to offset the additional risk which the companies must take in.

2. That sounds great, but is a wellness program Obamacare? How is that relevant?

[jj3044]

And how does Obamacare address those two?

By expanding risk more to insurance companies, by creating a system where people can access healthcare earlier, when its cheaper instead of waiting for the emergency room and then winding up with huge costs that basically get "dumped" onto either the regional system or more general taxpayer funds.

Medicaid and Medicare work well for those who are on it. Its far from perfect, but folks get care for a relatively low price to society (compared with other options). The problem is the many who don't qualify and who don't get private insurance, either.

1) Expanding risk? So, if risk increases, then what's to prevent the price of health insurance from rising? How does that "help" the problem?

2) Please provide empirical data on this. Otherwise, it's just your imagination at work.

RE: #3
Do you have any sources, any evidence? I know you'll say, "I posted them earlier," but that's bullshit because you can say that regardless of whatever your recent and different arguments have become.

Let me provide answers to questions #1 and 2. I work for a wellness company and we consult with many clients on implementing value-based benefit designs, incenting for taking care of yourself, basically.
1) It helps the problem because the law forces the healthier people to be insured. There are a lot of young Americans who, because they are young and "healthy", don't think they need coverage. I say "healthy" because there are a lot of chronic conditions that are "silent killers" because they do not have any symptoms until it is too late and damage has been done. With more people being insured, there are more healthy people to balance the unhealthy that have chronic, costly conditions, so in theory, cost goes down.
2) There are a plethora of case studies around that show the ROI (return on investment) for implementing a wellness program. One of my clients who have been incenting annual physicals for the past 3 years have had tremendous results. Their % of those getting an annual physical increased by 20%. Average costs for someone without a well visit was 13% HIGHER than those that DID have a well visit, and compared to their industry benchmark, their participants with a well visit were 30% lower than the industry benchmark of those with a well visit.

The program showed an increase in identified conditions in year one of the program, and then a sharp decrease in years 2-3. Another words, the physicians were identifying those conditions that otherwise would not have been identified until damage had been done (like high blood pressure for example), managing it, improving outcomes.

1. Prices will still rise. If a company has to take on more risk, they'll simply increase prices to deal with it. Sure, many people without insurance will be compelled to get insurance, but this doesn't mean that these guys will all join each insurance company in proportional amounts in order to offset the additional risk which the companies must take in.

2. That sounds great, but is a wellness program Obamacare? How is that relevant?

1) That is the point, they are taking on more healthy people which balances out the risk. The premium revenue from the healthy people offsets the extra premium needed for the sick.
2. It is relevant because the type of program that I mentioned is supported and encouraged through the healthcare law. Insurers are being tasked to come up with programs that do a better job of improving health... not just insuring Americans. I'm not sure if you read my other posts in the Obamacare thread about how the law should improve outcomes and increase access... but if not you should take a look.

Again, it isn't perfect, but it does make strides towards increasing access and improving outcomes, which should then decrease costs.