Stuck in a vicious health-care cost circle

[n2doc]

By Robert J. Samuelson

We’ve just gotten new evidence confirming the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — a.k.a., Obamacare. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that in 2010 employer-sponsored health insurance premiums soared. The average cost for a family policy jumped 9 percent to $15,073, with companies picking up 72 percent ($10,944) and workers the other 28 percent ($4,129). Health costs never decline, but the size of the increases surprised even experts.

You can’t blame the cost surge on the ACA, whose constitutionality the administration has now appealed to the Supreme Court. A few provisions (allowing children to stay on their parents’ policies until they’re 26; eliminating patient payments for some preventive services) probably added a percentage point or two to the total, reckons Kaiser. But that’s just the point: The study reminds us that runaway costs are the health system’s core problem; the ACA does nothing to solve it — and would actually make it worse.

The ACA focuses on insuring the uninsured, beginning in 2014. Well, if roughly 30 million or so Americans get insurance and no basic changes are made in the delivery system, then added demand will lead to higher costs, longer waiting periods, or both. The administration dealt with costs through complex proposals (“accountable care organizations,” “comparative effectiveness research”) that sound good but are unlikely to achieve large savings. Similarly, it cut Medicare costs on paper by reducing reimbursements in ways that some experts believe will be repealed.

So health spending remains uncontrolled — with severe consequences.

more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/stuck-in-a-vicious-health-care-cost-circle/2011/09/29/gIQAPoFd7K_blog.html

[xchrom]

1. all we wanted was a strong PO.

and here you can see why.

[dkf]

5. Would that have solved it? Really?

To my mind that only helped me get away from the fact that government is forcing me to pay a corporation.

I don't think it would do much for costs as I doubt Medicare does much to bring health care costs down.

There is something else really wrong with our system.

[Shagbark Hickory]

7. Even with a PO, the costs would have to be regulated. Because if they aren't...

Then the costs and who gets care will be controlled by the insurance cartels.

[mmonk]

2. We can burn our insurance cards.

We may have to eventually anyway.

[area51]

3. Anyone could have told the Obama administration,

and no doubt did, that forcing people at gunpoint to buy private insurance, which is basically a self-regulated industry, will lead to failure.

Each day, 273 people die due to lack of health care in the U.S.; that's 100,000 deaths per year. This is not only a moral issue, but a national security issue that we're so vulnerable given that our health care delivery system is so fragmented and dysfunctional.

We need single-payer health care, not a welfare bailout for the serial-killer insurance agencies.

We don't need the GingrichCare of mandated, unregulated, for-profit insurance that is still too expensive, only pays parts of medical bills, denies claims, bankrupts and kills people.

Republinazi '93 plan:

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005."

"We will never have real reform until people's health stops being treated as a financial opportunity for corporations."

"Employer-based health insurance has always been a bad idea. Your life should not depend on who you work for." -- T. McKeon

"Any proposal that sticks with our current dependence on for-profit private insurers ... will not be sustainable. And the new law will not get us to universal coverage ...." -- T.R. Reid, The Healing of America

"Despite the present hyperbole by its supporters, this latest effort will end up as just another failed reform effort littering the landscape of the last century." --John Geyman, M.D., Hijacked! The Road to Single Payer in the Aftermath of Stolen Health Care Reform

[Shagbark Hickory]

12. +! just doesn't seem adequate.

[midnight]

4. Anthony Weiner talking about P.O.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVVlb_UVcuw

[flamingdem]

6. ACA opens a path for Single Payer / Medicare for all.

It's a start and that's better than we've had before.

Women no longer have to pay for preventative care and no one pays for STD screening and other preventative measures.

There are many improvements and cost savings.

[Shagbark Hickory]

9. It really doesn't matter. The next administration is just going to repeal it or severly alter it.

Retubby candidates like Mittens support letting the states come up with their own healthcare legislation. For most states, that's really bad news. But if you happen to live in Vermont, it's pretty good news.

[flamingdem]

11. Obama will win in 2012, not Romney nt

[Shagbark Hickory]

14. You don't think Obamacare will be an issue in 2016? It will always be an issue.

I'm not saying Obama is going to lose this election. But Obamacare is an effective issue for the retubbies. We're never going to hear the end of it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. "Women no longer have to pay for preventative care and no one pays for STD screening and

other preventative measures."

That is dead wrong.

SOMEBODY is paying for those services - just not the people receiving them. Not directly.

Why do you think there was an explosion in health insurance rates?

Costs are costs, and must be paid. What was reduced was PRICE, not COST.

If the price paid does not cover the costs, then prices on other things MUST go up to cover those costs - prices on, for instance HEALTH INSURANCE.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. The ACA does control costs.

Insurers are now required to maintain no less than an 85% medical loss ratio.

[Shagbark Hickory]

10. They'll find a way to fudge the numbers.

[area51]

13. IIRC

ACA allows the insurance cartels to count investigating you for fraud as part of your "medical care".