Choking on Obamacare

[Hayabusa Rider]

No it wouldnt.

Am I the only person that understands hospitals and drug companies WANT to stay in business? They wont close their doors just because they cant get 100 grand from heart surgery. They will have to be more efficient when the massive influx of easy money dries up, yes, but you guys a

So if no one buys a Chevy they'll sell them for a thousand?

 

[Dman8777]

Carl's is currently spending $12 million a year for health care for 21,000 direct employees. That's about $570 per year per employee. The premiums for a typical group PPO plan are at least $6000 a year. That should tell you something about why Carl's is complaining: It doesn't give jack about its employees.

Of course, with no requirement for health care coverage for employees, it's a giant race to the bottom by fast food companies. Carl's wouldn't be competitive if it offered decently-subsidized group policies to all it's employees. Maybe a hamburger would need to be priced 10 cents higher (just a wild guess) to cover the added costs.

But with a broad requirement that ALL fast-food companies have to follow, there will no longer be a competitive disadvantage to providing health care coverage. No more race to the bottom. Everyone's hamburgers will cost 10 cents more (or whatever).

The American public will be subsidizing everyone's health care by paying that extra 10 cents. And note that those currently insured are already paying for the health care of the uninsured, since the rates of health care providers have to include a pad to cover the costs for the uninsured. The difference is the system will have a much larger base, and the funding of health care for the currently uninsured will be much more organized.

Obamacare is a far more rational system than our current system.

Very well put. The same is also true of the catalytic converter example someone else mentioned. When the regulation affects all companies the same, there is no competitive disadvantage.

To the people railing against regulation, there are plenty of examples where regulation works. Businesses in northern Europe face plenty of regulation but fare no worse than American companies while supporting cheaper, single-payer health care systems and paying higher taxes.

The problem in the US is that reactionairy politicians fight every form of regulation as a matter of principle, even when the need for regulation is brutally obvious (see recession of 2008). The result is that whichever form of the regulation that makes it through is so watered down and useless that it may or may not burden businesses but doesn't do squat to address the underlying issue and help Americans.

 

[fskimospy]

Very well put. The same is also true of the catalytic converter example someone else mentioned. When the regulation affects all companies the same, there is no competitive disadvantage.

To the people railing against regulation, there are plenty of examples where regulation works. Businesses in northern Europe face plenty of regulation but fare no worse than American companies while supporting cheaper, single-payer health care systems and paying higher taxes.

The problem in the US is that reactionairy politicians fight every form of regulation as a matter of principle, even when the need for regulation is brutally obvious (see recession of 2008). The result is that whichever form of the regulation that makes it through is so watered down and useless that it may or may not burden businesses but doesn't do squat to address the underlying issue and help Americans.

Actually the superior efficiency of single payer systems in Europe make it not just so that their companies are no worse off than ours, it actually gives them a competitive advantage over US firms. It's yet another economic advantage of instituting the obvious choice for health care systems.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually the superior efficiency of single payer systems in Europe make it not just so that their companies are no worse off than ours, it actually gives them a competitive advantage over US firms. It's yet another economic advantage of instituting the obvious choice for health care systems.

It's part of the reason that Canadian auto assembly plants have a competitive advantage over American plants.

 

[cybrsage]

Even the French are being forced to change their system as it is slowly but surely going to eat up over 100% of their GDP unless they change it.

The British are decentralizing their healthcare system, having learned that one system run by the central government is failing.

Obama and his sychophants think that we should model our system after these two failing systems...and believe it will not magically fail here.

Each state should be allowed to create their own system, or not create one, as the people of that state choose. A state level system is easier to manage, easier to find and fix problems with, and will have far less overhead and waste than any fed run system could ever have. Each state can learn from the failings of the other states and alter their own system, creating a slowly changing system for the better.

A one size fits all system cannot work in a nation where each state needs a different size...

 

[WackyDan]

Carl's is currently spending $12 million a year for health care for 21,000 direct employees. That's about $570 per year per employee. The premiums for a typical group PPO plan are at least $6000 a year. That should tell you something about why Carl's is complaining: It doesn't give jack about its employees.

Of course, with no requirement for health care coverage for employees, it's a giant race to the bottom by fast food companies. Carl's wouldn't be competitive if it offered decently-subsidized group policies to all it's employees. Maybe a hamburger would need to be priced 10 cents higher (just a wild guess) to cover the added costs.

But with a broad requirement that ALL fast-food companies have to follow, there will no longer be a competitive disadvantage to providing health care coverage. No more race to the bottom. Everyone's hamburgers will cost 10 cents more (or whatever).

The American public will be subsidizing everyone's health care by paying that extra 10 cents. And note that those currently insured are already paying for the health care of the uninsured, since the rates of health care providers have to include a pad to cover the costs for the uninsured. The difference is the system will have a much larger base, and the funding of health care for the currently uninsured will be much more organized.

Obamacare is a far more rational system than our current system.

They spend so little because their employees make so little in an industry with high employee turn over. Why the fuck should the burger flipper who is making minimum wage who has no unique skills have the employer carry a $6000 a year plan on his ass?

I'm professionally employed, and my employer spends north of $12k a year besides my contribution. I generate in excess of $50 million dollars a year in revenue for my employer. My last employer, I generated almost $200 million a year in revenue.

* I used to work in a restaurant... I moved up.

Get my point? Who is producing more and therefore earning the better health plan?

Another great point... They don't have to offer a health plan at all, but they do.

 

[shira]

Even the French are being forced to change their system as it is slowly but surely going to eat up over 100% of their GDP unless they change it.

The British are decentralizing their healthcare system, having learned that one system run by the central government is failing.

Obama and his sychophants think that we should model our system after these two failing systems...and believe it will not magically fail here.

Each state should be allowed to create their own system, or not create one, as the people of that state choose. A state level system is easier to manage, easier to find and fix problems with, and will have far less overhead and waste than any fed run system could ever have. Each state can learn from the failings of the other states and alter their own system, creating a slowly changing system for the better.

A one size fits all system cannot work in a nation where each state needs a different size...

You've picked the two worst examples of UHC as "proof" that UHC doesn't work? And you blame the growing cost of health care on UHC? America doesn't have UHC - the states are already in charge here, yet our health care costs are DOUBLE those of the rest of the first world and are growing at least as fast as in countries with UHC. And even with America's high expenditures, the life expectancy in America is the worst among first-world countries. Yet you argue that UHC is bad?

You also need to get your facts straight, you moron. France's annual health care expenditures are currently about 11% of GDP. But you see 100% on the horizon. Great argument.

 

[mattpegher]

This link might give you some insight, now the report was from before the AHCA was passed, so we do not have any idea if the AHCA will slow or increase the rate. But sans the AHCA, this is what you might be looking at.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8947/MainText.3.1.shtml

Thanks for the link

 

[fskimospy]

You've picked the two worst examples of UHC as "proof" that UHC doesn't work? And you blame the growing cost of health care on UHC? America doesn't have UHC - the states are already in charge here, yet our health care costs are DOUBLE those of the rest of the first world and are growing at least as fast as in countries with UHC. And even with America's high expenditures, the life expectancy in America is the worst among first-world countries. Yet you argue that UHC is bad?

You also need to get your facts straight, you moron. France's annual health care expenditures are currently about 11% of GDP. But you see 100% on the horizon. Great argument.

Don't forget the US's are more than 16% of GDP with our health care inflation being some of the worst in the world. It's very odd to complain about how bad the French system's costs are when they are beating the pants off us.

 

[mattpegher]

We tried a completely free market health system with no insurance. It didn't work. We tried employer based insurance. It has failed. Time to try a single payer system.

I suggest we avoid the single payer option as well as it is likely to fail as well. Lets go directly to government health care. Controlling cost by controlling financing just doesnt work. Eliminate financing completely will save about 30%. Sure beurocracy will chew up some of that savings.

I have provided UHC for the last 15 years. Everyone that comes to my ER gets care. Many for free. Sure those that can pay, pay more to make up the cost.

Just be warned this is going to get much worse before it gets better.

 

[mattpegher]

No it wouldnt.

Am I the only person that understands hospitals and drug companies WANT to stay in business? They wont close their doors just because they cant get 100 grand from heart surgery. They will have to be more efficient when the massive influx of easy money dries up, yes, but you guys a

Hospitals are closing left and right. They are efficient as they can be. Nurses make very little for level of education they have. Most other employees make very little. Technology costs a great deal.

The hardest part is that with insurance companies negotiating rate as low as 10% it is difficult to determine what these technologies should cost.

 

[mattpegher]

We need to go one way or the other. And this may seem in stark contrast to my post above.
From the inside, I will say that the best way to spur efficency is to increase competition.
The ER Doctors ideal health care system.
1. Decouple from employement. - only consumers make sound decisions regarding their own care, employers do not.
2. Eliminate group benefits - everyone can buy insurance at the same rate based on age/smoking history.
3. Give all tax payers a 12000/year tax break (of tax owed not gross) if you buy health insurance.
4. Encourage High deductible with HSA - take the 5k deductible and put it away in an HSA.
5. All available insurances in the state are options - make the insurance companies compete as well.
6. Tort reform - no more jackpot settlements
This is actually the only way to limit the over use of technology.
If you come to the ER and want a CT you are going to get a CT even if I know you dont need one. Because if I am wrong or it seems like I might have been wrong years latter, even 1 in a 1000 times, I will likely get sued for 10 million dollars. I will see about 5000 patient/ year even at a rate of 1/100000 that is 10 million dollars every 10 years/physician. Thats why my malpractice insurance cost 90k/yr.

 

[cybrsage]

you argue that UHC is bad?

No, and had you not been blind by hatred you would see this. I very clearly and explicitly said FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BASED healthcare is bad. STATE RUN IS NOT.

Stop blinding yourself by hatred, it turns you into a fool.

You also need to get your facts straight, you moron. France's annual health care expenditures are currently about 11% of GDP. But you see 100% on the horizon. Great argument.

Again, you need to stop letting your hatred blind you. You do this quite often, and it makes you look silly. It is stupid to copy a failing system. Take the good from the system and do not copy the bad. The British are already learning from their own mistakes, as are the French. It would be stupid to purposefully repeat the mistakes they made instead of learning from them.

France claims it long ago achieved much of what today's U.S. health-care overhaul is seeking: It covers everyone, and provides what supporters say is high-quality care. But soaring costs are pushing the system into crisis. The result: As Congress fights over whether America should be more like France, the French government is trying to borrow U.S. tactics.


The problem is that Assurance Maladie has been in the red since 1989. This year the annual shortfall is expected to reach €9.4 billion ($13.5 billion), and €15 billion in 2010, or roughly 10% of its budget.


Ironically, France is actually in the midst of shifting to a fee-for-service system for its state-run hospitals. The hope is that it will be easier for the government to track if the money is being spent efficiently, compared with the old system of simply giving hospitals an annual lump-sum payment.


In theory, Assurance Maladie should be able to contain hospital costs the same way it does with doctors: by harnessing its position as the dominant payer in the health-care system. In practice, it doesn't work that way.
The state hospital of Le Havre, called Groupement Hospitalier du Havre, or GHH, has nearly 2,000 beds and is one of the most financially strapped in France. A 2002 report by France's health-inspection authority found that the hospital had a track record of falsifying accounts in order to obtain more state funds.
Philippe Paris was hired about two years ago to help fix the hospital's spiraling costs. He is cutting 173 jobs out of the staff of 3,543.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html

France says its costs are spiraling out of control. But you know more than they do about their own healthcare system...I keep forgetting, you consider yourself omnipotent.

 

[shira]

No, and had you not been blind by hatred you would see this. I very clearly and explicitly said FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BASED healthcare is bad. STATE RUN IS NOT.

Stop blinding yourself by hatred, it turns you into a fool.



Again, you need to stop letting your hatred blind you. You do this quite often, and it makes you look silly. It is stupid to copy a failing system. Take the good from the system and do not copy the bad. The British are already learning from their own mistakes, as are the French. It would be stupid to purposefully repeat the mistakes they made instead of learning from them.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html

France says its costs are spiraling out of control. But you know more than they do about their own healthcare system...I keep forgetting, you consider yourself omnipotent.

I repeat: Stop using France as the paradigm for UHC, you're arguing from the extremes. There are plenty of countries with UHC doing a lot better than France. Why don't you cite THOSE UHC systems? Why not Japan? Why not Germany? Why not Sweden?

ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOVE. DON'T EVADE. DON'T SIDE-STEP. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

 

[Ausm]

I repeat: Stop using France as the paradigm for UHC, you're arguing from the extremes. There are plenty of countries with UHC doing a lot better than France. Why don't you cite THOSE UHC systems? Why not Japan? Why not Germany? Why not Sweden?

ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOVE. DON'T EVADE. DON'T SIDE-STEP. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

He never does answer any questions just spouts off talking points, great candidate for the Right Wing Troll removal tool.

 

[werepossum]

It's not completely asinine, nor is it completely true.


Well, quite possibly yes. If a car costs $20,000 the manuf. might sell 8,000 units annually. If you mandate catalytic converters be added and the price increases to $20,500 the manuf. might sell 7,750 annually. If an assembly line worker can make 250 units annually then the manufacturer's labor needs drop from 32 workers to 31 workers. Additionally, net revenue for the manufacturer dropped by $1,125,000.

If the car itself costs $16,000 to build and the catalytic converter costs $450 to purchase then net material costs dropped by $512,500. The Company's profit margin is affected by $612,500. That's an additional 8 jobs at $50k/yr + $25k/yr in benefits. Total jobs lost by the manufacturer: 9.

This is, obviously, a hypothetical scenario using numbers I made up but it illustrates the point that regulations that increase operational costs CAN cost jobs.



Yes, it does. Obviously to the car manufacturer it doesn't, but to the public it does. There are a few key questions though:
1. Will the manufacture of 7,750 catalytic converters create more jobs than were lost by the car manufacturer? If one person can make 2000 catalytic converters per year then you need 4 workers. That's not a good trade-off. If one person can make 500 catalytic converters then you need 16 workers, so that may be a good trade-off.
2. Is the catalytic converter company new or existing? If it's new then it might add more jobs since you'll have to account for supervisors, HR, accountants, etc. If it's existing then it's possible that the workers will be the only jobs added since an existing company might be able to absorb them into the current infrastructure. Additionally, a new company would need to buy equipment which would give a one-time spur further down the line whereas an existing company might be able to add a shift with no new equipment.
3. How are catalytic converter jobs paid compared to can manufacturing jobs? If the car manufacturer loses 9 workers and the catalytic converter manufacturer gains 9 workers but the catalytic converter workers are paid 75% as much as the car manufacturer workers, that's a net loss to society.

So, yes, gov't regulation can cause the loss of jobs. It can also create jobs. It can cause jobs to shift to lower-paying industries and it can cause jobs to shift to higher-paying industries.

Excellent explanation. Additional regulations always cause a net loss in jobs and societal wealth. That doesn't make regulations bad, it just means that regulations aren't free and should always be examined on a cost versus benefit basis.

 

[werepossum]

We need to go one way or the other. And this may seem in stark contrast to my post above.
From the inside, I will say that the best way to spur efficency is to increase competition.
The ER Doctors ideal health care system.
1. Decouple from employement. - only consumers make sound decisions regarding their own care, employers do not.
2. Eliminate group benefits - everyone can buy insurance at the same rate based on age/smoking history.
3. Give all tax payers a 12000/year tax break (of tax owed not gross) if you buy health insurance.
4. Encourage High deductible with HSA - take the 5k deductible and put it away in an HSA.
5. All available insurances in the state are options - make the insurance companies compete as well.
6. Tort reform - no more jackpot settlements
This is actually the only way to limit the over use of technology.
If you come to the ER and want a CT you are going to get a CT even if I know you dont need one. Because if I am wrong or it seems like I might have been wrong years latter, even 1 in a 1000 times, I will likely get sued for 10 million dollars. I will see about 5000 patient/ year even at a rate of 1/100000 that is 10 million dollars every 10 years/physician. Thats why my malpractice insurance cost 90k/yr.

Excellent post. We need to decouple health insurance from employment for competitive reasons. And we very much need to change malpractice from a lottery for lawyers into an actual examination of the competency of health care providers. Right now malpractice insurance has next to nothing to do with competency because a lawyer just has to make jurors feel sorry for someone, not prove a lack of care. Meanwhile a truly dangerous doctor can continue to practice because his failures are hidden under confidentiality agreements until he can no longer buy coverage. It's the worst of all possible worlds, but as you say, as long as failure to run expensive tests opens doctors up to lawsuits, even with no diagnostic reasons to run those tests, our care is going to be very expensive.

Unfortunately our entitlement mentality means we feel that "someone else" should be paying for our health care, so we're much more likely to end up with a huge, bloated, and inefficient federal system that keeps the worst aspects of our current system.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I repeat: Stop using France as the paradigm for UHC, you're arguing from the extremes. There are plenty of countries with UHC doing a lot better than France. Why don't you cite THOSE UHC systems? Why not Japan? Why not Germany? Why not Sweden?

ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOVE. DON'T EVADE. DON'T SIDE-STEP. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

How about this? Does Sweden have a Republican and Democrat party who would rather fight to the death of their nation rather than cooperate? Do they mishandle or even have the equivalent of something that's relatively simple to handle like the Iraq war? Given the history of legislative prudence and cooperation why do you think it will be handled any better than any other major pieces of legislation which are childsplay by comparison? When we cannot deal with easy things like medicaid reform and social security, what possible assurance can you give that this will be handled any better especially when it's been demonstrated that political concerns override other considerations?

I suggest you put your faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because based on past performance you are likely to get something better from him. That's the issue, not whether UHC is ultimately needed but that there is a sort of religious fervor that insists it must happen and that the political waters will part. They will most certainly not.

 

[cybrsage]

I repeat: Stop using France as the paradigm for UHC, you're arguing from the extremes. There are plenty of countries with UHC doing a lot better than France. Why don't you cite THOSE UHC systems? Why not Japan? Why not Germany? Why not Sweden?

ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOVE. DON'T EVADE. DON'T SIDE-STEP. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Relax dude. Ask your doctor to up your meds....they are not helping any more.

France is used because, for years, everyone touted France as the best system on the planet. Since you do not believe this, I will quote WHO:

In 2000, health care experts for the World Health Organization tried to do a statistical ranking of the world's health care systems. They studied 191 countries and ranked them on things like the number of years people lived in good health and whether everyone had access to good health care. France came in first. The United States ranked 37th

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273

It is now failing. If a system is touted as being the best but is now failing, we should watch it and learn from it. Claiming we should not do so is stupid. It is wise to learn from the mistakes of others.

I cited the UK because Americans are more like the UK than any other nation. Our nation is loosely based on theirs, due to our beginnings. We need to watch them closely, as their mindset and ours is much alike. It only makes sense to watch a system from a people much like us and find both the good and bad in it. Ditch the bad, take the good.

The Japanese are VERY different from us in a cultural sense. This does not mean we should not scan their system for the good, but we cannot easily learn from their system. Just compare the differences between how Americans living in New Orleans reacted to Katrina (looting, shooting, etc) and how the Japanese reacted to the tsunami and nuclear meltdown (complete opposite of what Americans did).

The others? Sure, post about them. Explain the good and bad in both. Show why we should follow them. They most likely have some great items in them.


None of this addresses the central issue that NO EU NATION WOULD EVER WANT AN EU ONE SIZE FITS ALL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FORCED ONTO THEM. They each want their own individual system for their own unique people. The US is the same, each state should have their own individual system for their own unique people. A one size fits all Fed Gov healthcare system is a bad idea.

 

[cybrsage]

He never does answer any questions just spouts off talking points, great candidate for the Right Wing Troll removal tool.

gingle gingle The Forum Jester appears to fill the thread with laugher and merriment.

I love this guy, he is a perfect professional fool.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I never answer any questions and just spout off the Left's talking points, I'm a great candidate for the Left Wing Troll removal tool.

FTFY

 

[cybrsage]

Ausm has me on ignore, then talks about me. I find his actions to be cute, perfectly in line with him being a professional fool. He is the perfect Forum Jester. Others try to take the job from him, but he is far and away the best at it.

 

[Ausm]

FTFY

I would answer your questions if you would have enough cognitive brain power to pose a question.

 

[sm625]

It just amazes me that anyone could possibly think that such a huge bill could possibly be good for anyone. But almost every single piece of scum who voted for that boondoggle will get sent back to washington every 2 or 6 years. So who is to blame really?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I would answer your questions if you would have enough cognitive brain power to pose a question.

The fact the answer would be nothing more than Left Talking points there's no reason to ask even a simple question of you.