Choking on Obamacare

[werepossum]

Ok but you probably won't read any of this but your're completely WRONG....

This is consistent with my own speculation as to why competitive bidding was stripped from health reform.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/why-was-competitive-bidding-stripped-from-health-reform/

When the Senate stripped these reforms from the final health care bill DeFazio successfully pushed it through the House on February 24, 2010 by a bi-partisan vote of 406 to 19.

http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=208&Itemid=20

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/page-2/LED-274304/Hospital-MAs-Continue-Apace-in-2011##

Don't forget the Public option was stripped out too.

But now you're arguing a different point - that some things were stripped out of "health care reform" rather than out of the ACA. My point is that the ACA passed exactly as written, with the exception of Vitter's amendment, NOT that there was no more progressive legislation offered. The ACA was the very most that the Democrat President and leadership could get past Senate Democrats; there are always leftists eager for more drastic changes.

 

[werepossum]

This reminds me of the famous anti trust suit that the US started against GE and Westinghouse. They were colluding and rigging the price of gov't bids to decide who got which contract by the phase of the moon. I truly feel that both insurers and healthcare providers collude to milk the consumer. If it were true that having multiple hospitals in an area should lead to lower prices (ie competition), then medical costs should go down. But the simple fact that it does not matter if I go to hospital A or B the price is pretty much the same, indicates that either they are colluding or the fixed costs are the same (which I highly doubt, otherwise why would the second hospital been built).

Anecdotal evidence of this is when I went for my gallbladder surgery. It was not emergency surgery, but was necessary due to very large gallstones. My surgeon happens to have privileges at several local hospitals owned by different corporations, so I shopped around the price. The total cost difference on the surgery between them was about $200. Now on a $10K surgery that difference is 2%, tell me that is not collusion.

Another explanation would be low margins and pricing set largely by what is negotiated with the largest insurance providers.

 

[piasabird]

Bread lines coming soon.

 

[jstern01]

Another explanation would be low margins and pricing set largely by what is negotiated with the largest insurance providers.

Which goes back to the point, if the hospital's margins are so low, what rational could there possibly be to build another one in the same area? Crowding, doubtful. The low margin is probably a bogus argument, no one spends the tens of millions or more building a hospital with the expectation of low profit margins. My guess is that hospitals owners are doing just fine.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0...hester-america-most-profitable-hospitals.html

 

[Ausm]

But now you're arguing a different point - that some things were stripped out of "health care reform" rather than out of the ACA. My point is that the ACA passed exactly as written, with the exception of Vitter's amendment, NOT that there was no more progressive legislation offered. The ACA was the very most that the Democrat President and leadership could get past Senate Democrats; there are always leftists eager for more drastic changes.

Healthcare Reform and the ACA is synonymous in Left Wing circles.

 

[werepossum]

Healthcare Reform and the ACA is synonymous in Left Wing circles.

Umm . . . Okay. You specifically mentioned ACA several times, but if you are now going to say you actually meant something else, I have no problem with that. My comments were specific to ACA and certainly not meant to be extrapolated to every possible plan the left proposed or even voted on.

Since ACA was the most left wingers thought they could get with zero participation from Republicans I can't imagine that legislation to the left of that would be watered down to gain Republican support, especially since at the time the Democrats needed no Republican support to pass anything their tiny little Marxist hearts desired. But certainly it would be accurate to say that the far left had to water down what it would LIKE to have in order to get party unanimity on what it COULD have.

 

[Ausm]

Umm . . . Okay. You specifically mentioned ACA several times, but if you are now going to say you actually meant something else, I have no problem with that. My comments were specific to ACA and certainly not meant to be extrapolated to every possible plan the left proposed or even voted on.

Since ACA was the most left wingers thought they could get with zero participation from Republicans I can't imagine that legislation to the left of that would be watered down to gain Republican support, especially since at the time the Democrats needed no Republican support to pass anything their tiny little Marxist hearts desired. But certainly it would be accurate to say that the far left had to water down what it would LIKE to have in order to get party unanimity on what it COULD have.

Well I think I figured out your thought process and I hope you figured out my thought process as well.