Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Republican Healthcare Plan
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 140 of 187 (798073)
01-30-2017 4:20 PM


The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
They didn't tell us how much of the $826 billion Max Baucus (2009) plan would cost in say 2014 verses say 2020.
The media didn't tell us how much per year the plan would cost.
Specifically:
How much went to the "generous" subsidies for insurance purchasers. (whether mandated or not)
How much went to the prescription drug "donut hole" closing.
How much went to the Medicaid expansion.
How much went to the Community Health Centers.
The biggest failure of the media was to even ask how much consumers would have to pay to get the insurance (after subsidies did their part) through the mandated premiums (not to mention deductibles).
THE RESULT?
Now Obama, Max Baucaus, etc. pushed a plan that had pathetically low subsidies to help people make the MANDATED insurance purchase.
To make matters worse, look at the 2010 "reconciliation" (ahem) fixes that were rammed through.
Before the Reconciliation vote (after the Republicans took Ted Kennedy's seat and nocked Democrats down to 59 Senate seats), the Senate passed a $826 billion plan that required people to pay for insurance (at least 6% of income would be required to be spent on the high-deductible Bronze plan), and it also offered a Medicaid expansion that only covered 90% of expansion costs in 48 states (plus 100% of costs in Nebraska and Louisiana).
When Scott Brown took Kennedy's seat in early 2010, the House had to pass the Senate bill (which had several parts the House disdained: tax-payer funds to pay for abortion, no "public option", smaller insurance subsidies, and a Medicaid expansion that only went up to 138% of the poverty line as opposed to the House's 150%) with all of its deep flaws.
The one good part of the Senate bill (despite all the bitter pills that would cause the bill to end up being a rough assault on, especially, lower-income Americans) was that the Medicaid mandate was fully funded for Nebraska and Louisiana (100% in those two states as opposed to 90% everywhere else). The so-called Affordable Care Act actually did have a few - and only a few - mandates funded!
That was until the Senate reconciliation vote which slipped through (via a simple majority vote) a poison pill (supported by Obama) which choose to gut the 100% Medicaid expansion coverage for Nebraska and Louisiana. The Terminator Governor of California pushed for Obama to spend the extra $2-3 billion per year to fully fund the Medicaid expansion in ALL states (meaning all states would get 100% funding for all future Medicaid enrollees due to ACA changes as opposed to just 90%), but Obama nickel and dimed in an area that would have made a vital difference to the ACA and its feasibility in being ultimately successful.
Now consumers are forced to pay about $200-$500 billion a year in premiums (unfunded but mandated), but states, due to a Supreme Court decision in June 2013, don't have to pay the very small amount to make up the 10% difference between the covered funds for the Medicaid expansion and the uncovered funds.
It would have been about $2-3 billion per year in additional federal funding to pay for the 100% Medicaid expansion funding inside of an A.C.A. that saw radical foundational change to the health care policy in our nation. A rather insignificant funding amount (with no real disruption in peoples lives) ON THE MEDICAID PART for an otherwise fundamentally intrusive overhaul from the federal government which has hurt consumers badly.
The Affordable Care Act might have succeeded had (non-disabled) men in Nebraska, Texas, South Carolina, etc. gained free health care (as Medicaid is) with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level (about $17000 per year incomes in 2017), but that was prevented by bad policy. It was a change that would have benefited businesses monumentally, as they would have been able to avoid all health care responsibilities for minimum wage workers. No mandates, just a small amount of federal funding that would have worked magic (compared to the intrusive nature of most of the rest of the ACA).
The ACA is a failure (and Hillary had no plans to pay the difference to avoid the "unfunded mandate" Medicaid issue that allows states to refuse the expansion) and alternatives need to be sought.
John McCain had a plan in 2008 that ended the federal governments policy of giving tax breaks to businesses to pay for health care. He would have sent the hundreds of billions of federal dollars directly to Americans (about $5000 per year would have been sent to individuals) to pay for health insurance.
That is one idea.

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by JonF, posted 02-02-2017 1:34 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 143 of 187 (798595)
02-03-2017 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by JonF
02-02-2017 1:34 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
quote:
Plus back billing. That's a sweet deal for hospitals and will significantly increase health care bankruptcies. My late wife's care was probably in the 2-2.5 million range. Back billing would have wiped me out even though I have first-class health insurance
I know a lot of (even young)people that have $500,000 to $600,000 in debt because Obama didn't make any effort at all to provide Medicaid to people when he had the chance.
I'm referring to the 2013 "deal" where Democrats simply voted on a permanent Bush tax cut for those making $250,000 to $450,000, without ANYTHING in return. The Bush tax cuts (which cost about $500 billion per year) were automatically going to expire, and $4.8 trillion over 10 years was going to be available to reduce the deficit (automatically) or to pay for a single payer system( with a major political push THAT IS).
The cuts were allowed to expire only for those making over $450,000 but all others were made permanent. So $4.2 trillion out of the $4.8 are permanent.
No attempt to get $30 billion over 10 years to close the "unfunded mandate" gap and get millions more Medicaid. Democrats didn't care. It wasn't even an issue.
quote:
The ACA isn't all that bad. But the Republican "plan" is guaranteed to be far worse for the consumers. They've made many promises that nobody will lose insurance. A pathetic lie. The leadership is being very careful to say everyone will have access to medical care unless, of course they can't pay for it.
It is terrible!
The Bronze plan requires a severe 6% income grab from lower income folks (for premium charges) then they get deductibles that are around $5000, then when "coverage" kicks in, only 60% of the health care bill is covered (assuming its a covered expense and in the narrow "network" of allowed doctors, facilities, hospitals, etc. which is increasingly unlikely).
In 2014, $2 trillion was spent on non Medicare, non Medicaid, non VA healthcare. MLR (Medical Loss Ratio) statistics and studies showed that insurance companies take up 15% to 20% of that cost. In 2009, the MLR for insurance companies was 75-80 on average while Medicare was under 1%!)
A Single Payer system would reduce absolute medical costs by at least 15% right away and have brought the total national bill to $1.7 trillion or less. Reduced health bills by 15% or more right away.
If the government had a no deductible plan that covered 50% of all costs in a single payer system, then it would be far superior to the Bronze plan, and only cost the government $850 billion (at most), while the health care consumers pay the other $850 billion.
Bills would be 60% cheaper to health consumers but with no deductible.
Where to get the $850 billion though?
The remaining Bush tax cuts are half of that amount.
A 25 percent tax on sugary drinks would bring in $42-$45 billion per year.
Nobody really knows what the Obama subsidies cost ($60-70 billion per year?), but that funding can be applied.
A 1% tax on those making over $250,000 per year brings in a little over $20 billion per year. A flat 1% on everybody would bring in about $100 billion per year.
A 1% value added tax on everything (food, car purchases, house purchases) would bring over $200 billion per year. (I think)
The mortgage interest deduction is now over $100 billion per year in costs.
BACK TO OBAMACARE AND THE MANDATES.
On Obama care, do we even know if making everybody buy insurance is a better policy than simply having high-risk pools to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions?
What is the price for a high-risk pool? I mean a government fund that helps the "uninsurable" buy insurance (which is very expensive for sure) in a world where ObamaCare never existed.
What is the total price to consumers who have to buy those expensive insurance policies required under ObamaCare? Easily hundreds of billions, thought the media didn't tell us)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by JonF, posted 02-02-2017 1:34 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by JonF, posted 02-03-2017 5:43 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2017 4:25 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 146 of 187 (798902)
02-06-2017 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by JonF
02-03-2017 5:43 PM


Re: The media did a piss poor job on covering the ACA in 2009/2010 and also after.
quote:
I notice your reply has no connection with the points I made.
Are you in favor of back billing?
Given that the Republicans will not initiate or raise any taxes, do you think they will produce a plan under which nobody loses meaningful insurance? (I'm not including meaningless plans that guarantee bankruptcy if you get any moderate to severe illness).
They will perhaps try to do things that terrify me, such as tort reform, forcing down the price of drugs through regulations (complaining of the drug companies "20% profit margin or something), limit coverage or knee replacements, artificial hips, Medicare coverage of electronic devices, etc.
All things that Obama's "economic team" (Ezekiel Emmanuel, Orzag, Daschle, etc.) wanted to do.
All things Max Baucus wanted to do.
All things Karen Ignagni and the Obamacare supporting insurance companies supported.
They complain that we have like 7 times the MRI machines per hospital that England does.
Tort reform alone will give doctors the right to refuse to run life-saving tests. And they will indeed refuse to listen to their patients concerns and requests for tests.
Tort reform will save 1% to 5% in medical costs per year. (at a severe cost to healthcare)
But they can claim it will "control costs".
Saving the country another 1% to 2% per year in healthcare costs (by ending insurance company profits) will be the motivation for the dreadful proposal of "negotiating with drug companies to lower prescription drug prices", which will destroy any hope of a cure for cancer and many other things.
Both the right and left want to do these things.
ObamaCare was brought to us by Max Baucus (a Democrat) and Charles Grassley (a Republican) and they agreed with Ben Bernanke that we need a health care board that is a parallel to base closure boards for military bases to deny care and treatment to people in the name of saving costs.
The cost savings were dropped for fear of political pushback that would sink ObamaCare.
But the elites on all sides are pushing for "DEATH PANEL" policies (like Tort Reform).
Beware.
I'll document my claims in a future post with credible sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by JonF, posted 02-03-2017 5:43 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by JonF, posted 02-06-2017 12:20 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 147 of 187 (798903)
02-06-2017 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by NoNukes
02-05-2017 4:25 PM


Reply to NoNukes and my January 2013 reference.
quote:
Your suggestion that the Democrats could have gotten single payer healthcare in 2013 is a ridiculous. At that point in time, Democrats were forced to rely on Senate fillibusters and presidential vetos just to keep Obamacare from being repealed.
....
I'm for a single-payer system. But the idea that the democrats could have gotten any improvements to the ACA, and single-payer in particular, in 2013 is laughable.
I was talking about the Medicaid expansion funding issue in that 2013 reference.
January 2010
Obama and the congress brought us the ObamaCare law in early 2010. It had a Medicaid expansion with just 90% of NEW (via ObamaCare changes ) Medicaid bills covered.
June 2012
The Courts gave states the right to refuse the Medicaid expansion due to the fact that it was an "unfunded mandate" as the 2010 policy change did indeed lack the remaining 10% of funding required to cover all costs states would see via the new law Washington passed called ObamaCare.
January 2013
After 4 years of Democrats passing temporary extensions of the Bush tax cuts (all $500 billion per year of them), they passed a permanent extension of the cuts for all but those making over $450,000 per year. It was while Obama had proposed (on the campaign trail in 2008 and 2012) letting them expire for those making over $250,000 in yearly incomes.
The Obama campaign promise would have brought in $880 billion over 10 years.
The Senate give away (which made the cuts permanent for those making from $250,000-$450,000 per year as well as all below) cost over $200 billion and only brought in about $650 billion per year.
Democrats did this giveaway without addressing the fact that the appropriations for the NIH (a yearly budget of around $30 billion per year from the federal government) remained about 20% below 2003 levels (when adjusted for inflation), and no Democrat called for closing that gap (which would cost only about $6 billion per year) and infact the gap wasn't closed.
So much for cancer cures!
So much for diabetes and brain illness cures for the elderly!
(cures for these illnesses would reduce the scary "40% of GDP costs for healthcare in 2050" - the excuse for death panel policies like Tort Reform and such - down to 25% according to Newt Gingrich)
(real "cost savings" in health care should center on increased research budgets not denying care! This is an urgent issue we need to be aware of)
There also was no demand for an extra $3 billion per year to close the "unfunded mandate" 10% gap in Medicaid expansion funds. (my point was only this, not single payer proposals)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2017 4:25 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 154 of 187 (799134)
02-07-2017 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by JonF
02-06-2017 12:20 PM


The ACA in 2009/2010 and JonF
quote:
Again I notice your reply has no connection with the points I made.
Are you in favor of back billing?
Given that the Republicans will not initiate or raise any taxes, do you think they will produce a plan under which nobody loses meaningful insurance? (I'm not including meaningless plans that guarantee bankruptcy if you get any moderate to severe illness).
My reply does have more to do with than you think.
Look at the history of ObamaCare.
Max Baucus and Charles Grassley proposed "ObamaCare" in 2008 BEFORE Obama was elected (But without a "Public Option" and with massive cuts to services). They feel that "ObamaCare" (I'll continue to use the anachronistic name) will become law regardless of which party wins the White House.
Obama and his economic team (mainly led by the asshole Ezekiel Emmanuel plus Peter Orzog) came into the picture in January 2009. Orzog and Emanuel were on the page with Baucus/Grassley and claimed that there was over $700 billion per year (yes YES YES: per year!) that could be cut in healthcare expenses.
Obama, in May 2009, met with Grassley and Baucus (along with a bipartisan group of Senators)and Grassley was enthusiastic about everything except he had concern with the "Public Option". Grassley, Baucus, etc. wanted massive "cost controls" like slashes in medical equipment coverage by Medicare.
The Health Insurance lobby is enthusiastically in favor of "ObamaCare" in the early days (May 2009-July when Obama accepts the individual mandate PLUS the hope that so-called "cost controls" seem a possibility ie. massive cuts to coverage plus going after co-called "Big Pharma" and such) when it looked like it would be steam-rolled with massive cuts to American healthcare. They didn't like the Public Option at all though..
NOW THE RELEVANCE.
Olympia Snow (Republican from Maine who loved "ObamaCare) got concerned when Obama decided to oppose too many cuts in medical coverage (against the wishes of his economic team plus Baucus and Grassley), and she didn't like it being funded by taxes. She still voted for ObamaCare in committee, but ended ip opposing the floor vote when Harry Reid opposed allowing amendments.
Grassley got hell over "Death Panels" (though the issue was muddied with many other things like end-of-life-care counciling issues) in August of 2009, and decided to vote against final passage (though he was a fundamental player in shaping the legislation).
You talk about "meaningful insurance" but ObamaCare only resulted in meaningful insurance because Obama decided to not go after even deeper Medicare cuts (he only cut funding but not services as everybody else wanted to do) like negotiation of prescription drug prices, draconian cuts to funds for Oxygen machines for those with COPD, etc. (which the insurance industry wanted to see happen to Medicare patients).
ObamaCare should concern us all because this nation escaped, by the skin of its teeth, permanent destruction of healthcare.
Peter Orzag wanted $700 billion per year cut out of health coverage (especially from Medicare and Medicaid but also lots of cuts related to what hospitals are able to but in terms of equipment) and the GOP/Democratic congress agreed with him.
Back billing might be a cost savings proposal that can be reversed, but a lot of other things will be irreversible. Find a single nation in Europe that has reversed damaging "cost controlling" measures like policies that prevent pharmaceutical companies from making even tiny profits (all prescription drug profits come from the U.S.A. and they aren't huge)Look at the terrible shortage of screening equipment in those nations.
Think "back billing" is dangerous? Look at what will happen with "tort reform". Arrogant doctors are a problem today (like when a man gains 50 pounds in 2 weeks and is very sick, yet no doctor takes his requests seriously - then the death, only days later, causes an autopsy which shows that there was an infection in the bladder/intestinal area that caused the guy to fill with shit and die from sepsis)but will be 1 trillion times worse of the insurance industry gets its way on this one and ends the possibility of accountability via a POSSIBLE (today!) lawsuit.
Back billing is nothing compared to what both Republicans and Democrats (and the insurance industry) want.
Worry about the $400 billion in paperwork costs that the insurance industry adds o the healthcare bill.
Worry about the fact that U.S.A. doctors now spend over 50% of their time on paperwork issues for the insurance industry.
Worry about the 1.5 million health insurance workforce that sees their parasitic livelihood at stake if they don't spread smear propaganda about the evils of "BigPharma" (which only has about $40-$50 billion in profits a year - which encourages trailblazing research that can potentially reduce costs in the long run if not already) and "wasteful health spending" like oxygen machines and preventive care machines that detect cancer.
The health insurance behemoth is slandering away at the movers and shakers for science and research which we vitally need. And they own the congress.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by JonF, posted 02-06-2017 12:20 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by JonF, posted 02-07-2017 7:46 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 160 of 187 (799231)
02-08-2017 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by JonF
02-07-2017 7:46 PM


Re: The ACA in 2009/2010 and JonF and this "back billing" issue.
quote:
Immediately followed by a long post in which there is no mention of the issues my questions raised. Quite a performance.
You make it clear you are in favor of bankrupting poor Americans by back billing and unaffordable meaningful health insurance. Pretty vile.
That was "clear" to you?
Thanks for admitting that I am "clear" anyway.
You then said:
quote:
Back billing (AKA balance billing) is incredibly despicable.
Say a hospital's standard charge for a procedure is $10,000. But your insurance company has negotiating power and forces them to accept $8,000 when they do the procedure on you.
Back billing allows the hospital to bill you for the "missing" $2,000. Makes the hospital happy. Ensures that any major illness will bankrupt you whether or not you have health insurance.
ObamaCare had lots of changes. There is an issue of the hospital "chargemaster" fees (where all of those $500 aspirin pills come in) which hospitals charge those without insurance, but insurance companies never ever pay (if I remember the issues correctly).
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), in the Max Baucus (D Montana) Committee, got an amendment passed that enabled people to get the "chargemaster" fee eliminated and reduced to the same level insurance companies pay. I forget the exact details (I'll look into it and see if I can get my phone to do long posts on EvC) but it would have eliminated most health care bankruptcies from previous years.
Grassley won re-election in 2016, so he would control the Senate Finance Committee, unless he moved somewhere else. He would raise hell if anybody wanted to do this "back billing" issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by JonF, posted 02-07-2017 7:46 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 02-08-2017 1:31 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 161 of 187 (799233)
02-08-2017 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by RAZD
02-08-2017 8:02 AM


The ACA in 2009/2010 and drug prices.
quote:
"With that in mind, there are some obvious flaws in that system. First, it will be hard for small states to negotiate prices down, especially when it comes to drugs. If smaller states can band together with larger states then they will have more bargaining power. ... "
That's why it needs to be a coalition of blue states, willing states, but certainly even a small state like RI would have more bargaining power than small companies and even some of the medium and larger ones. We have some 1.06 million people as of 2015. Combining with MA, CT, NY would of course help.
Billy Tauzan (the former Louisiana congressman)represented the prescription drug industry during ObamaCare. His industry agreed to take $80 billion out of their profits and GIVE THEM to Obama so he could close the "donut-hole" in the 2003 Bush-era prescription drug bill. That bill cost the government less than the CBO projected in 2003. The former director of the CBO (Douglas Holtz-Aiken or something spelled like that) pointed out in 2010 that the Bush prescription drug plan only cost about $70 billion per year, and that it was under budget.
So there was a "free" closing of the donut hole.
An even sweeter deal.
Did you know that a 25 cents tax on sugary drinks would pay at least half (and perhaps 2/3rds) of the total cost of the TOTAL 2003 Bush law AND COMBINED ADDITIONAL COVERAGE from ObamaCare?
A 0.5% payroll tax (matched by the employer) would cover the entire benefit for the elderly. Senior citizen coverage accounts for most prescription drug costs. That same payroll tax would cover close to 100% of prescription drug bills for those not on Medicare and Medicaid.
ObamaCare costs 6% of income for poor people and has $6000 deductibles, and everybody thinks it is such a wonderous policy.
And it isn't the prescription drug industry that causes doctors to spend 50% (instead of 10% to 20% as it should be) on medical paperwork.
Want the doctor shortage to end? (in addition to the cost explosion)
Go after the insurance companies, not the drug industry.
Even Dr. Howard Dean wants the left to stop going after the vital prescription drug industry and he will tell you how small their costs really are. (his concern is research and development being harmed severely)
Billy Tauzin took his job as the drug industry's lobbyist because he was told by a doctor that he had an anal caner that gave him less than a 1% chance to live. Then a drug just came out. He was attacked by Obama during the 2008 campaign (Tauzin was named in an Obama ad as a corrupt congressman who wrote the 2003 prescription drug coverage law then went on to join the drug lobby for $2 million a year). But then he funded Pro-Obama Care ads (in the summer of 2009 and after) as part of his industry's appreciation that even more severe laws weren't part of ObamaCare.
Tauzin was asked by a reporter about Obama'a previous attack on him. He laughed and said that those sorts of things "just roll off of my back", and that Obama's 2008 attack ad left out the fact that he got a grim cancer diagnosis (with the miraculous life saving pill that came out just in time) BETWEEN HIS WRITING OF THE 2003 PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT LAW AND THEN HIS ACEPTING OF THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG LOBBY JOB!
His industry closed the Medicare "donut-hole" (which now saves seniors about $2000 a year in bills!) for free. And his industry gave more free benefits to fulfill the $80 billion over 10 years it have given to fund ObamaCare (in fact the entire ObamaCare bill over 10 years was $826 billion, so that was 10% right there).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2017 8:02 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2017 4:15 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 164 of 187 (799483)
02-10-2017 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by RAZD
02-08-2017 4:15 PM


Re: The ACA in 2009/2010 and drug prices.
quote:
Sugary drinks should also include sugar substitutes ... because they are even more unhealthy than high sugar consumption.
I remember reading a Wall Street Journal issue (it must have been no later than 2015 when I could grab an issue for free every day at a Manhattan place)that Diet Pepsi had to change their formula because enough Americans were on to Aspartame. The article mentioned that Sucralose was even more toxic. Also, there was an Israeli study (that I copied from a health magazine) which showed increased glucose intolerance from Sucralose and other artificial sweeteners. (though the study didn't show Aspartame making glucose intolerance receptors weaker so it was let off the hook on that one)
The WSJ is one of the few publications that presents views like these however. The publication is even critical of mental health pills at times.
quote:
And make it $0.50 so it can cover medicaid expansion
I read in America's Bitter Pill that a sugary drink tax of 10% would have brought in $170 billion over 10 years, in 2009.
Google
I was calling for a tax that would bring in about $45 billion a year.
Your tax is $90 billion per year.
That would have covered the entire ACA without all the other changes.
Added to the ACA, it would seem to triple the amount of subsidies. The ACA was $826 billion over 10 years, but a lot of that included other things than insurance subsidies.
The Medicaid expansion only cost around $90 billion over the entire 10 years, your tax would be that much in just 1 year!
The entire NIH research budget is around $80 billion per year with $30 billion coming from the federal government (the rest from donations). The NIH can only fund grants to 1 in 6 applicants (it is a sad 1 in 10 for cancer grant applicants), and the average is $159,000 per grant. The Director Allen Francis (or Francis Collins, I forget his name) said that back in the year 2000, they were able to fund 1 in 4 grants (the 25th percentile) and those projects were just as successful as the 16th percentile as an average. He said that the NIH made it a point to study the effectiveness of expansive grant abilities to a larger number of research applicants.
I suppose $40 billion per year can bring things back up to the 25th percentile, like they were in 2000 when there was a larger amount of money.
It is ironic that we spend less than $1 billion per year on Alzheimer's and dementia research while it costs over $200 billion per year to the economy to treat. It will rise to $1.1 trillion in 2050.
Sugar harms brain health, so a tax would make sense. It sure does cause cancer.
Here is a link showing what we spend per year on drugs. The Chicago Tribune is first up on the recent IMS health estimates.
Google
quote:
By Tribune news servicesContact Reporter
April 14, 2016, 7:34 AM |Trenton, N.J.
U.S. spending on prescription drugs rose 8.5 percent last year, slightly less than in 2014, driven mainly by growing use of ultra-expensive new drugs and price hikes on other medicines.
A report from data firm IMS Health estimates patients, insurers, government programs and other payers spent a combined $309.5 billion last year on prescription medicines.
The IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics is forecasting that annual increases in U.S. prescription drug spending will slow to 4 to 7 percent through 2020, after rising around 10 percent in each of the past three years. It predicts spending will reach $370 billion to $400 billion in 2020.
The totals are based on net prices paid after deducting discounts and rebates that manufacturers give to insurers and other payers. In prior years, IMS based its report list prices before those deductions.
The costs are starting to jack up, I must admit.
Remember that Medicare and Medicaid (plus the VA) don't negotiate prices down , like private insurers do, plus they have sicker patients.
For now, I doubt non Medicare, non Medicaid spending is much more than $125 billion a year, but things are changing.
The ACA brought lots of new customers for Big Pharma and the hospitals, so that Obama was able to get $80 billion in taxes and rebates from the Pharm industry and $155 billion from hospitals (though Medicare and Medicaid cuts)to help pay the $826 billion deal called ObamaCare. That book I references showed some interesting details of the negotiations where the case was 100% clearly made that both industries would still come out ahead in net profits even after the cuts due to new customers and government funded insurance coming into play.
A prescription drug plan for everybody (not in Medicare or Medicaid) could perhaps get $10 billion or more a year in "givebacks" (like happened with the ObamaCare deal) from the industry in exchange for a universal coverage plan. I would like to see a national Prescription Drug plan that covers 95% of drug bills for those not on government programs. For now, it would only cost about $100 billion (or a little more) a year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2017 4:15 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 165 of 187 (799486)
02-10-2017 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by JonF
02-08-2017 1:31 PM


Re: The ACA in 2009/2010 and JonF and this "back billing" issue.
JonF, I will try to post paragraphs from the book I referenced by Stephen Brill. (America's Bitter Pill see the google links in last post)
He wrote a piece for Time magazine that talked about the Obama White House not writing the exact rules for 2 years after the ACA passed. It should have only taken weeks.
I need to start to use my phone so I will have a lot more internet time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 02-08-2017 1:31 PM JonF has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 174 of 187 (803468)
03-30-2017 11:32 PM


Dangerous situation RECENT STEPHEN BRILL March 29 Washington Post article.
I have a copy of the March 29 Washington Post and Stephen Brill actually admitted he is "carrying water for the insurance companies " in his How to Keep Trump Honest on Obamacare article. I will paste 3 breathtaking paragraphs soon but can't right now. He said that insurers are on consumers side because they "pay medical bills " and want to save money on bills just like the consumers they cover. He then jumped right to the issue of Trump keeping "his promise to bring prescription drug prices down to where they are in every other developed country, which is at least 40 percent below what we pay, based on my research." The Brill sleight of hand is as breathtaking as it is sly. The insurance companies ALREADY negotiate prices down as Brill points out in his book but leaves out in the article. In this article, he slides from the issue of private insurance premiums and deductibles, as his piece is (bait and switch tactic aside ) about, to the issue of Medicare. Most readers won't notice or even be aware of the particulars especially the separate issues of Medicare bills compared to exploding private insurance premiums and deductibles. He then also fails to mention that all profits will then be eliminated and that ironically will solve the Prescription Drug price problem for good. No more R and D will happen and no new drugs will be developed which will mean that all drugs will be older drugs which in turn will have the patents expire (per the existing law ) in seven years. That "solution " would have worked wonders had we used it in 2000 when prescribed drugs costed 100 billion dollars a year. If not for allowing the 15 to 20 percent profits in the prescriptiondrug industry then the added costs from newly developed drugs since then wouldn't need to be an issue as the lifesaving discoveries wouldn't exist and thus OUT with the 300 billion dollar prescription drug costs per year Americans must pay. That includes the 45 billion that went to profits last year. Save that 1 percent in total health care costs and Brill speculates "could translate into a drop of 6 to 8 percent in premiums " reduced for Medicare beneficiary costs. The insurance company premiums and deductibles should be proof of the near total irrelevancy of this dangerous idea. Paul Krugman actually made a 100 flawless article in a recent New York Times issue. He said that Obama Care is having premium and deductible problems simply due to underfunded subsidies. Correct. He said that Obama Care has cost less than a third of the projected costs forecasted when it passed nearly a decade ago and it actually makes up a taxpayer funded expense of only 0.7 percent of GDP. An increase in subsidies of just 0.2 percent would eliminate alot of the brutal deductibles and would help solve 2 problems at once. The lower deductibles would have the effect of attracting insurance purchasers while the increased customer dollars would keep insurance company profits high enough that the result would be lower chances of premium and deductibles getting raised by the private insurers themselves. All while the government covers the costs of most of the 6000 dollars in deductibles the poor consumers suffer from.

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-31-2017 12:25 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 176 by NoNukes, posted 03-31-2017 1:34 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 175 of 187 (803469)
03-31-2017 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by LamarkNewAge
03-30-2017 11:32 PM


Re: Dangerous situation RECENT STEPHEN BRILL March 29 Washington Post article.
Typing is hard for a number of reasons. I am going to have to point out that Krugman actually said that the ObamaCare costs are only two thirds of the best projections from around 2010. Only 0.7 percent of GDP if you confine costs to the amount that the government pays for the subsidies, Medicaid expansion, Medicare Drug changes, and other additional services. I guess that means the cost is around 140 billion dollars a year and the 826 billion dollars for the first 10 years were a major distortion since the beginning of the major funding wouldn't be till around the middle of the decade. I find it so ironic that Obama Care supporters used ignorance as a weapon to ( in their minds ) help make the program sellable (as if Americans would know what the practical difference would have been between 82 billion dollars a year and whatever the actual yearly cost was assumed to be ), when all this nickel and dime-ing seems to be the best observable explanation for the massive failure that Obama Care has genuinely been and ultimately always will be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-30-2017 11:32 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 177 of 187 (803472)
03-31-2017 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by NoNukes
03-31-2017 1:34 AM


Re: Dangerous situation RECENT STEPHEN BRILL March 29 Washington Post article.
My heart just about stopped! See March 29, 2017 Washington Post article, Trump now says he wants to work with Democrats by Abby Phillip, Ashley Parker, and David WEigel. "One of the few Democrats that Trump talked with on health - care issues was Zeke Emmanuel... who has met with Trump three times since the election. " O dear God! The end of any meaningful "health care " for all but the rich could be around the corner FOR EVER AND EVER, A-MEN!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by NoNukes, posted 03-31-2017 1:34 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 178 of 187 (803530)
04-01-2017 4:40 PM


Brill quote
quote:
Am I carrying water for the insurance companies? It took me a while, but after four years of writing about the ins and outs of Obamacare and the health-care economy in general, I came to what should have been an obvious realization: When it comes to health care, the insurers however lousy their customer service and opaque or worse their practices are the only industry players on the consumers’ side of the equation. Like us, they pay medical bills. Everyone else dispenses them.
Which brings us to a third way Trump could enhance, rather than undermine, the opportunity for his constituents to get affordable health care. He simply has to keep his promise to bring prescription drug prices down to where they are in every other developed country, which is at least 40 percent below what we pay, based on my research. He could do it by using Medicare’s negotiating power, through a legislated set of price controls, or both.
The 40 percent cut could translate into a drop of 6 to 8 percent in premiums that the president has said are far too high. And it could reduce Medicare spending by $350 billion to $500 billion over 10 years, far more than the rejected Trump-Ryan bill was projected to save.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...a0-1489b735b3a3_story.html
Washington post has a disclosure that he works for an insurance company at bottom of print article.
Brill is influential.
His 2012 Time piece was well received and frequently referenced.
His 40% figure ignores rebates which make a difference of some $50 billion a year I think.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024