Cost of Health Care Continues to Rise

[finnbow]

Truth be told, nobody fully understands the impacts of the health care reform bill. All laws have unintended consequences, for better or for worse. One's views of the impacts of the bill are colored either by their own vested interest or their ideology. It may be a great thing, it may suck, and it may be somewhere in between. It'll be years before we know (or think we know), but we still won't agree for the same reasons we don't agree now. Even if it appears to succeed beyond all expectations, will the GOP concede that fact?

For example, did the New Deal help stop the Great Depression or was it WWII? Did Reagan cause the fall of the Soviet Union? Was the Iraq invasion the right thing at the time? We have a better idea now than then, but we still don't agree.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Truth be told, nobody fully understands the impacts of the health care reform bill. All laws have unintended consequences, for better or for worse. One's views of the impacts of the bill are colored either by their own vested interest or their ideology. It may be a great thing, it may suck, and it may be somewhere in between. It'll be years before we know (or think we know), but we still won't agree for the same reasons we don't agree now. Even if it appears to succeed beyond all expectations, will the GOP concede that fact?

For example, did the New Deal help stop the Great Depression or was it WWII? Did Reagan cause the fall of the Soviet Union? Was the Iraq invasion the right thing at the time? We have a better idea now than then, but we still don't agree.

Nicely put.

In other words, I suspect that health reform may cost me more, but I don't care, so long as I see some benefit to myself and others. Some folks don't care about any of that, they just don't want to pay any more whatever the outcome. Or, put more bluntly,---they're cheapskates. The big question is; Will we see increased benefit? I don't think anyone just wants to pay more for the same ol' same ol'. (As they say here, in the Swamp.)

It seems to me that in the (recent) pre-reform debate days, healthcare was costing us more and more every year, to the tune of double percentage digits and all we ever got was less coverage, less people covered and higher premiums. Talk about being charged more for nothing, that's being charged more for less.

Have we as a society forgotten that that's what started this whole thing in the first place?

Maybe we should just go back to bartering chickens? It would only seem to fit right in with the mentality of some. How about that, Whell? What kind of coverage do you think you could get me for a half dozen yardbirds? I'll even personally gaurantee them as "salmonella free".

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

It seems to me that in the (recent) pre-reform debate days, healthcare was costing us more and more every year, to the tune of double percentage digits and all we ever got was less coverage, less people covered and higher premiums. Talk about being charged more for nothing, that's being charged more for less.

Have we as a society forgotten that that's what started this whole thing in the first place?

It is not coincidental in my opinion that the government's encroachment in the health care system has coincided with the increased per capita spending in health care. Medicare changed the marketplace in which health care is delivered, and costs have risen exponentially since. It made the marketplace much larger, and created more demand for medicine. Also, the introduction of the HMO following the Health Maintenance Organization act of 1973, created huge demand.

Health care is subject to the same laws of supply and demand as any other commodity: as demand increases and supply remains static or increases more slowly than demand, prices rise.

http://www.nursingcenter.com/library...icle_ID=630811

http://www.nber.org/digest/apr06/w11609.html

"The overall spread of health insurance between 1950 and 1990 may be able to explain at least 40 percent of that period's dramatic rise in real per capita health spending."

What started this? Dramatically rising costs, and the public's clamor to "fix" it. They turned to the same folks to fix it who fueled the increases in per capita spending (and the resultant increase in health insurance costs), and we'll likely get more of the same.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

It is not coincidental in my opinion that the government's encroachment in the health care system has coincided with the increased per capita spending in health care. Medicare changed the marketplace in which health care is delivered, and costs have risen exponentially since. It made the marketplace much larger, and created more demand for medicine. Also, the introduction of the HMO following the Health Maintenance Organization act of 1973, created huge demand.

Health care is subject to the same laws of supply and demand as any other commodity: as demand increases and supply remains static or increases more slowly than demand, prices rise.

http://www.nursingcenter.com/library...icle_ID=630811

http://www.nber.org/digest/apr06/w11609.html

"The overall spread of health insurance between 1950 and 1990 may be able to explain at least 40 percent of that period's dramatic rise in real per capita health spending."

What started this? Dramatically rising costs, and the public's clamor to "fix" it. They turned to the same folks to fix it who fueled the increases in per capita spending (and the resultant increase in health insurance costs), and we'll likely get more of the same.

So, I take it that chicken bartering is not the answer?

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

So, I take it that chicken bartering is not the answer?

Dave

LOL!

[merrylander]

Ah so, it is medicare that caused the price of lotrel (Novartis BP drug) to rise in excess of 10% per year, glad to have that all explained and here I thought it was simple greed. You learn summat every day.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Ah so, it is medicare that caused the price of lotrel (Novartis BP drug) to rise in excess of 10% per year, glad to have that all explained and here I thought it was simple greed. You learn summat every day.

I like how the pharmaceuticals come out with a new drug, then when it's patten expires they do the same drug in time release and when that patent runs out they combine that drug with another common drug in one tablet and patent it again! Meantime the more effective drug whose patent has long since expired is off the market completely!

And the worse part of all this? Knuckleheads who are victimized by this clamor about there profits being their rights.
Clue: You will never get to that level of wealth so stop supporting things that you hope "one" day might benefit you.

How was this for an early morning post?

Rather caustic and cynical?

thanks

[Grumpy]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I like how the pharmaceuticals come out with a new drug, then when it's patten expires they do the same drug in time release and when that patent runs out they combine that drug with another common drug in one tablet and patent it again! Meantime the more effective drug whose patent has long since expired is off the market completely!

And the worse part of all this? Knuckleheads who are victimized by this clamor about there profits being their rights.
Clue: You will never get to that level of wealth so stop supporting things that you hope "one" day might benefit you.

How was this for an early morning post?

Rather caustic and cynical?

thanks

I would say its a pretty good one for the morning. And spot on..

[whell]

To amplify a point, I suggested earlier in this thread that insurance carriers might face challenges in remaining profitable in the environment created by PPACA. Earlier this week, Harvard Pilgrim announced they were exiting the individual insurance market. Now comes word from Principal Financial that they are also exiting the health insurance market due to health reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/he.../01insure.html

Also interesting is the plight McDonalds now finds itself in: having to go hat in hand to federal regulators because the "catastrophic health coverage" plans that McDonalds offers to employees would no longer be allowed under PPACA.

"If you like your current plan, you can keep it." "We will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice, and provides coverage that every American can count on." Both quotes by Barak Obama. Looks like things are not quite turning out as planned.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

To amplify a point, I suggested earlier in this thread that insurance carriers might face challenges in remaining profitable in the environment created by PPACA. Earlier this week, Harvard Pilgrim announced they were exiting the individual insurance market. Now comes word from Principal Financial that they are also exiting the health insurance market due to health reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/he.../01insure.html

Also interesting is the plight McDonalds now finds itself in: having to go hat in hand to federal regulators because the "catastrophic health coverage" plans that McDonalds offers to employees would no longer be allowed under PPACA.

"If you like your current plan, you can keep it." "We will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice, and provides coverage that every American can count on." Both quotes by Barak Obama. Looks like things are not quite turning out as planned.

Methinks there's a bunch of Kabuki dancing going on to set the stage for a Republican repeal of the PPACA. With antics such as this McDonalds thing, the public will get behind the future screwing the GOP will give them. BTW, I hope McDonalds' health plan is better than their hamburgers.