Weren't We Told Health Care Reform Would Contain Costs?

[Cats Cats Cats]

I am sure it will make things less expensive.  If there is anything I am convinced of it is that:

1. Government is excellent at containing costs.
2. All Government programs operate more efficiently than private sector programs.
3. The quality of care that government can require/provide always exceeds what can be purchased in the private sector.  
4. Money taken by Government is always spent in accordance to its primary and original purpose.

I mean, have there ever been ANY exceptions to the above?

I certainly can't find any!

I would have liked a public option with 1) the cost to consumers required to be = to the cost incurred for the program.  I could definitely see the public option running with 1) money going to other things and 2) the program running at a huge defecit.  But as long as we keep voting republican #1-4 aren't a problem, right!

http://www.visualeconomics.com/healthcare-costs-around-the-world_2010-03-01/

Yes, health care costs are 17% of the GDP.  Should we go with a plan where it is 9% of GDP?  No, lets stick with this one!

[nathanm]

Gaspar, your sarcasm is great, but Medicare wastes less money on overhead than private insurance, it was cheaper to have grunts doing KP duty in the Army rather than paying contractors to do it, and despite being snowjobbed with a vast sum of near-fraudulent mortgages in 2008 after the investment banks stopped packaging MBS for the mortgage companies, FHA has still managed to keep itself afloat without massive intervention (although they are having to make changes to shore up the balance sheet), unlike most of the banks.

So yeah, sometimes government does a better job than private industry. Often they don't.

Oh, and public universities are less expensive and are better in almost every measure than private (read: investor-owned) schools.

There are some things in this world where the profit motive does not force good results, often because it's difficult or impossible for consumers to be informed about their choices or have few to no choices.

[Conan71]

Just as I figured excuses and obfuscation.  Apologies essentially.

[nathanm]

Just as I figured excuses and obfuscation.  Apologies essentially.

I think you may need to re-read the posts on this thread. You're wishing someone would defend the bill, but nobody is.

[Gaspar]

You're wishing someone would defend the bill, but nobody is.

Thank you for making that crystal clear. 

The evolution of opinion is beautiful.

[nathanm]

Thank you for making that crystal clear. 

The evolution of opinion is beautiful.

And you make the mistake of believing that all of us who aren't defending the bill are also against the bill. The closest I can get to defense of it is to say that it's better than what we had before. The closest that I can get to condemnation of it is saying that it didn't go nearly far enough.

[Conan71]

So this is what "better than nothing" looks like, eh? 

I have a hard time with this whole nonsense about Republicans watered down the bill.  Democrats own this as they passed this using reconcilliation and had majorities in the House and Senate.  I simply don't see the point if costs are not contained.  This was going to make it more efficient, remember?

[Gaspar]

And you make the mistake of believing that all of us who aren't defending the bill are also against the bill. The closest I can get to defense of it is to say that it's better than what we had before. The closest that I can get to condemnation of it is saying that it didn't go nearly far enough.

No that's not bad.  It's basically in line with the old "Anyone but Bush" bumper stickers.

Well. . .you got it on both counts!

[nathanm]

So this is what "better than nothing" looks like, eh?  

I have a hard time with this whole nonsense about Republicans watered down the bill.  Democrats own this as they passed this using reconcilliation and had majorities in the House and Senate.  I simply don't see the point if costs are not contained.  This was going to make it more efficient, remember?

Sort of. It is better that kids with preexisting conditions can't be denied coverage and that lifetime caps on benefits were outlawed.

We haven't seen the effect of most of the bill yet, though. The complaints at this stage are utterly ridiculous. Most of the provisions aren't in force yet. I've said many times that I agree that the limited cost containment measures in the bill probably didn't go far enough. Of course, given that they're not in effect yet, who knows?

Republicans didn't water down the bill, the Senate did that on its own, in some misguided attempt at bipartisanship. There's no point in attempting that when the other side refuses to sit at the table, but try they did. Senate Democrats were idiots on that. If I wasn't aware of how much worse Senate Republicans are, I'd be all for tossing the bastards out. As it is, I'm happy for every primary challenger to Harry Reid and his league of quitters.

We need a stronger left, not so this country can be shifted radically leftward, but to counterbalance the continuing descent into bats***insanity that has been gripping the Republican party of late. It's not as if you have to worry about someone marching in and implementing Communism. Even Fidel Castro has finally figured out that it doesn't work very well.

Edited to add: And what the heck is with this thread anyway? Of course it's going to cost more to insure 10% more of the population. If the modest cost controls do end up working, by 2019 or so we'll be better off than we were before the new law...

[Conan71]

Nathan let me tell you what is stuck in my craw: we were told this would "fix" health care for everyone. They were finally going to put the screws to big pharma, ruthless health insurers, and major HC corps. They capitulated to their donors who helped get them elected- all of the above.  They simply should have called this what it really will become: massive Medicaid expansion. However, that wasn't marketable as a lot of people have a strong distaste for entitlements. "Health care reform" sounds like a far better legacy than ultimately putting 31mm more Americans on our much maligned Medicare.

[nathanm]

I see you've been reading the Heritage Foundation's blog. The more likely number is 16 million, not that that's really important. It was stated very clearly that part of the new law was subsidizing insurance for the poor. I don't know on what planet 133% of poverty isn't "poor."

[Red Arrow]

I don't know on what planet 133% of poverty isn't "poor."

Remulak.  It's not really a town in France.

[Conan71]

Actually Nathan if you had fully read my first post on the topic you'd know that figure came from left-slanted op-eds in USA Today & HuffPo. Seems everyone besides you knows this, including the President and Secretary Sebelius. But maybe they've just been trolling Freep

[nathanm]

Actually Nathan if you had fully read my first post on the topic you'd know that figure came from left-slanted op-eds in USA Today & HuffPo. Seems everyone besides you knows this, including the President and Secretary Sebelius. But maybe they've just been trolling Freep

That phrase "massive Medicare expansion" is direct from their talking points.

Either way, if you look at the projections, there is indeed a jump in spending, thanks to the greater number of people covered, but you'll see that toward the end of the period, projected growth in spending is lower under the current law than new law.

In almost all years, projections for out of pocket expenses are lower. Until 2014, growth in spending is lower under new law compared to old law. In 2014, there's that pesky one time jump. Whether you like it or not, the cost curve over the long term has been moved downwards. CBO's numbers from earlier this year show this more clearly, as they use a much longer horizon.

Edited to fix broken link..stupid bbcode being not like HTML

[Conan71]

That phrase "massive Medicare expansion" is direct from their talking points.

Either way, if you look at the projections, there is indeed a jump in spending, thanks to the greater number of people covered, but you'll see that toward the end of the period, projected growth in spending is lower under the current law than new law.

In almost all years, projections for out of pocket expenses are lower. Until 2014, growth in spending is lower under new law compared to old law. In 2014, there's that pesky one time jump. Whether you like it or not, the cost curve over the long term has been moved downwards. CBO's numbers from earlier this year show this more clearly, as they use a much longer horizon.

Even adding 16mm to the Medicare rolls would be considered massive, why dispute the point just because you have an issue with the Heritage Foundation?  It's a valid description of what is going on.  

Another issue I've got with this is the assumption that just because 31mm more people will have paid access to health care that they will use it, or that it won't become abused and over-used and costs won't be greater.  It's like economic theory, it takes into account everything but human behavior which is less than predictable or reliable.  There are simply some people, regardless of cost or their ability to pay, who will avoid seeing a doctor until they are in serious deep smile with their health.

See if you can fix your link, it's not working, I'd love to see what it says.