Healthcare Reform Myths and Countering Facts
by run75441
Portions of this post originally appeared in HealthBeat Blog as written by Maggie Mahar; Myths & Facts About HealthCare Reform: Who Wins & Who Loses? and Myths & Facts about Health Care Reform Part 2: Doctors Who Take Medicare
Healthcare Reform Myths and Countering Facts
The media has fun chumming the airwaves with misinformation on the passed Healthcare Reform Legislation and what it means for most doctors, hospitals, patients, Medicare and Advantage recipients, and also state budgets. It sells news and attracts readers.
Myth 1: Healthcare Reform is a Give-Away to the Insurance Industry
_ It is true that millions of people will be forced to buy healthcare insurance by 2014which will result in $millions in new premiums. It is also true that many of these new customers are the very same ones cast adrift by these companies because of the expenses of insuring them.
– In 2010, Medicare will slash Medicare Advantage Payments by 5%. In 2011, Medicare Advantage Payments will be frozen. Over 10 years, $132 billion will be cut from Medicare Advantage.
– In 2011, the MLR will be applied to all premiums charged. For Group coverage this amounts to 85% of all premiums must be paid out in medical expenses. For Individual coverage the percentage is 80%.
– In six months (2010), all healthcare plans will have to provide preventative service at no cost.
– In 2010, insurance companies will no longer be able to drop the seriously ill unless they can prove fraud or intentional deceit. Denial of service is appealable to the Comptroller as established in the Manager’s Amendment.
– In 2011, the cap is removed from how much can be paid out over a patient’s life time. In 2014, the yearly cap is removed.
– In 2011, states will have greater power to insist upon justification for premium increases from insurance companies.
_ Myth 2: In 2014 when the mandate for healthcare insurance begins, the healthcare insurance companies will capture millions of “new” customers.
– Yes this is true and as discussed above, however many of these new insurees will be the ones cast off in the past by insurance companies due to ill health and the resulting high expense. These new insurees will bring a greater liability than those presently insured to their higher costs.
– 15 million of the 47 million uninsured today have incomes between $25,000 and $50,000. As established in a 2009 Kaiser Study, 11% of the uninsured in this category are in poor health which will also result in higher payouts.
(Rdan update…slightly edited for clarity)
Myth 3: Reform Legislation will cut 21% in Medicare payments to Doctors
– The much advertised 21% cut in Medicare payments to Doctors has nothing to do with today’s Healthcare Reform legislation. It originated with 1997 legislation which detailed fees surpassing an established “Sustainable Growth Rate,” Medicare payments to all doctors would be cut. Congress keeps negating this automatic cut yearly rather than changing the 1997 legislation.
– Why is the Sustainable Growth Rate still Law? The Bush administration used the SGR to make the budget appear to be leaner and included the hypothetical cuts in his budget. President Obama has not incorporated the cuts in the budget and Congress has yet to change it.
(Myth # updated…Rdan)
Myth 4: Healthcare Reform will cause Doctors not to take more Medicare Patients and drop those they have today.
– This myth is tied to the slashing of Medicare payments by 21%. Under the new health care reform legislation there is a 10% incentive for primary care doctors, a 10% incentive for general surgeons, and a 5% incentive for mental health services.
– There is also differential for geographical differences such as seen in South Dakota as compared to New Jersey.
– In 2013, Medicaid payments for primary care doctors will be raised to match Medicare payments.
A popular message to seniors is the loss of their personal doctors and care as a result of the new healthcare legislation. The reality is they will gain more care as payments to primary care physicians will increase as well as those to general surgeons. The same holds true for the general populace. In 2008, the AMA estimated there was ~$24 billion in charity care, much of which was used for uninsured patients. With reform, it is expected the amount of charity care will decrease. At the same time, doctors such as Oncologist Allen Mondazac are preparing for the deluge of new patients who will be insured in the earlier stages of cancer rather than later stages as seen presently due to being uninsured.
The media, anti-Social Security/Medicare groups, and others have repeatedly used scare tactics associating rising healthcare costs ultimately to an aging baby boomer population leading to the demise of the US as both programs together become more burdensome and in need of offsetting benefit cuts. In no way will an aging baby boomer population negate the several decades of SS Trust Fund today or tomorrow as much as the AEI, Peterson, Heritage, Cato, Concord, etc. wish such to happen and neither will a population of retirees negate productivity gains which offset worker to retiree ratios. As long as Labor receives the benefit of those productivity gains in fair proportion to that allocated to capital in the form of higher wages which Labor hasn’t since the eighties; the ratio is adequate and only minor adjustments to SS Payroll Withholding are needed to balance payouts to revenues for SS to make up for the ~2% overall difference. Medicare will need small increases to its taxes to stabilize its Fund. What the media has not targeted is the reason for rising healthcare costs which directly impacts Medicare.
Asenescent citizenry is playing only a minor role in the ongoing climb in the nation’s health care bill—from $585 billion (the sum we laid out in 1990) to over $14 trillion (the amount we are projected to spend in 2030, assuming we continue in our profligate ways)” Uwe Reinhardt 2008 World Healthcare Conference, http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Healthcare/Maggie%20Agenda.pdf “Getting Better Value from Medicare.” Indeed, of the projected $14 trillion healthcare costs in 2030, $728 billion can be attributed to age and gender. So what are the cause(s) of rising healthcare cost?
The healthcare industry will continue developing new stuff for every age group,’ Reinhardt explains. ‘Will that ‘new stuff’—in the form of new drugs, devices, tests, and procedures—be worth it? Some of it will be and some of it will not.’
The US has the only global healthcare program unregulated and managed for the highest return possible in profits. Innovation of products, medicines, and procedures having a low benefit and return as compared to cost has been the #1 culprit for rising healthcare cost. In a 2006 Health Affairs study, spending on new heart disease technology increased while survival rate remained flat. It appears to be the same for the “me-too” drugs which mimic older technology with little or no increase in results and having a higher cost and subsequent price. New and improved in medicine is not delivering what it being advertised to do. 1 of 3 healthcare dollars is spent on ineffective procedures, unnecessary hospitalizations, and over priced drugs and devices no better than the predecessors with little or no improvements in outcomes
Rather than target Social Security, Medicare, baby boomers, and the elderly as the issues, perhaps it is time to get to the root causes of healthcare costs.
Dan/Run, most of your answers instead of countering the myths zre actually saying: Yes its true, BUT look at this side of it!
The telling ?myth? is number four. That fewer Drs would be taking new Medicare patients is not a myth at all. It is happening as we speak and more Drs are refusing or announcing their plans to refuse new Medicare patients. Medicaid has already been devastated, and rasing payments to the medicare rates will not fix it.
Recent reports have shown just how badly we have been lied to over the funding and budget issues associated with this abomination. No amount of piling on of more “Yes, But,” will change most voters’ views.
OK, is the fact that the new law did not cut Medicare payments to doctors a “yes, but” as CoRev claims? Well, no. It is simply a fact. Also worth noting is that CoRev picks out one “myth” and insists it is the important one. Why is it more important than the others? Because CoRev says so, presumably because he wants to divert attention to the one argument he feels he can back up with headlines. There is surely no reason to focus on only one of the issues Rdan raises, merely because CoRev tells us to.
Is there a “yes, but” in the business about medical insurance companies getting new clients? Yes, sadly. But “sadly” only because of a rhetorical slip on Rdan’s part. One of the fundamental goals of the bill was to expand medical insurance coverage, so I don’t know what that is included as a “myth”. Since it is included as a myths, and Rdan does qualify the statement, CoRev takes this point. He does so, though, in a way that doesn’t really help the case he seems to be trying to make. Expanded coverage was a goal, and it will be achieved now that the bill has passed. But, but, but, it does what it was intended to do.
CoRev’s spinning this as a “yes, but” presentation is, of course, a plea for ignorance and a prediction (hope) that ignorance will prevail. Rdan’s “but” (sorry, couldn’t resist) points out details that show the blunt form of the “myth” to be short of important detail. CoRev cheers for ignoring detail and going for the propaganda. Nothing new there. Oh, and we are naturally treated to CoRev’s personal view about voters’ views, presented as fact. More of that good ole politician speak – “What Mucans want is..” blah, blah. CoRev has no better claim to know what voters think than any other hack.
One quibble with this – “the “me-too” drugs which mimic older technology with little or no increase in results and having a higher cost and subsequent price.”
The “me-too” drugs are generally more expensive because they qualify for patent protection by changing slightly the chemical make-up of the drug, not because there is much additional cost in developing or producing them. If they were costly to produce, the incentives for “me-too” pharmacology would be a good bit different.
Myth 4: Healthcare Reform will cause Doctors not to take more Medicare Patients and drop those they have today.
– This myth is tied to the slashing of Medicare payments by 21%. Under the new health care reform legislation there is a 10% incentive for primary care doctors, a 10% incentive for general surgeons, and a 5% incentive for mental health services.
The italics section is true.
Some additional information;
1) physician changes in the 21% cut range from a 6% increase for primary care docs to a 42% decrease for cardiologists.
2) some physicians are already rationing new Medicare and Medicaid patients, and are calculating the impacts of dropping the programs (my guess is not many will drop, but many will rationing, especially cardiologists
Correction:
I dropped a phrase somehow…
“The italics section is true, for the time being, and is subject to change quickly.”
I have clarified Myth 2….thanks kharris.
As adjustments to reimbursements are made, so professional expectations of remunerations must be made. As a member of the poor cousin relation in mental health who has consistently recieved cuts from private insurance, I fail to sympathize much. Any adjustments will be painful as part of actual service delivery, and probably uneven and rarely “fair”. My sympathy for one or another however means little…much adjustment in how much income one is entitled too for medical practice of any specialty is being reviewed and will change…the pie is shrinking.
This is Run’s post.
Ruasty, said: “– This myth is tied to the slashing of Medicare payments by 21%. ” Actually, many of the cuts in access by Drs was because of low and slow payments before the iomplementation of this bill. This bill will exacerbate that original issue.
KH, since you have no counter argument(s) to my points you make more personal comments.
BTW, KH, if Drs are already self rationing access, then further rationing will not help in any way those millions targeted by this bill. That’s kinda important, when considering all the other myths, warts and lies associated with passing this bill.
RDan – that may all be true, but if this is not done very carefully there will be less access for many patients to some services.
The bill is full of all kind of future readjustments and reregulations that were not talked about during the debate. IF I ever get done working 14 hour days on this I will write something about that.
(damn computer is being naughty so I hope this gets posted properly)
Now that would certainly be welcomed. Even an introduction. I will divert all funds made from our advertising division to this endeavor. Please send the material first.
Dan, if I also had access to all funds from the advertising division, I too would be happy to write another article. Of course, I do understand that the funds would have to exceed the amount needed to buy a beer (domestic, draught) at the local pub.
Keep the money in the beer fund.
I am currently writing a couple of pieces on how the Obama administrations attempt to increase EMR usage will blow up in a bureaucratic snarl. Will extract a short piece for the Bears.
CoRev,
I will gladly disperse all funds for beers when I can buy one along with you on account.
STR,
But begging worked this time. Thanks.
run states:
“The media has fun chumming the airwaves with misinformation on the passed Healthcare Reform Legislation and what it means for most doctors, hospitals, patients, Medicare and Advantage recipients, and also state budgets. It sells news and attracts readers.”
So… “[t]he media” (all media) disseminates nothing but “misinformation” in regards to HCR because it is “fun” to mislead readers who are more apt to buy news if it is misleading? A generalization with such a ridiculous premise might be difficult to substantiate… but then that would explain the lack of examples throughout the post.
CoRev
i can’t tell myth from truth here, but it’ll be a cold day in hell before i let doctors who won’t take medicare patients cow me from controlling medical care costs. Some Doctors are honest. Maybe most of them. But plenty of them live like millionaires by over treating patients and billing the insurance companies, including Medicare. We don’t need ’em.
Love
I hope the media has fun chumming the airwaves, because that’s what they do for a living.
And yes, the public prefers news that is misleading. Have you ever heard of an outfit called Fox News? I mention them because they are more obvious than, say, NPR.
Sorry about the lack of examples. I suggest you pick up a paper. Any paper. or tune into a News program. Any program.
All well and good, but the kicker is that it’s still just private insurance sold by raping, murdering thieves who don’t give a freaking damn about America or anyone who lives here, AND it’s a lot more expensive because of that.
I made thhis popint in a prior discussion of the same issue, Medicare cuts and physician income. I’ll certainly not cry for the medical profession’s income levels. But it does strike me as odd that physician incomes are subject to a type of control by government action. So too variousl other professions such as teachers and other government workers. So why not insurance company executives, bankers and such other professionals that enjoy income levels for greater than the highest paid practicing physicians have ever dreamed about? It just seems odd that some categories of work are subject to control, but not others.
coberly,
Why are you “sorry”? Are you defending ‘run’, or everyone whose thinking has not surpassed the need for generalizations to make a point: “And yes, ‘the public’ prefers news that is misleading.” Or is it the common bond of unsupported claims (same example, actually your entire comment is almost nothing but examples of generalizations and unsupported claims). So… is there some sort of pact that I am unaware of? A club perhaps where membership is based on believing such things as ‘all who produce news are lacking integrity in the exact same way, and all who consume news are fools of a feather’. Naturally, only members of this club, those who understand the clever use of generalizations and the disregard for support, are the ones who fit in neither category. They have elevated ‘their’ thinking to a higher level?
Jack, I think you are misinterpreting the term “control”. Influence? Yup! But, few Drs’ incomes are actually controlled by Govt. Teachers are Govt employees, so they would by definition be controlled
love
usually i get along with you. but i think run has hit a nerve and until you calm down there won’t be much point in arguing.
Rusty, said: “– This myth is tied to the slashing of Medicare payments by 21%. ” Actually, many of the cuts in access by Drs was because of low and slow payments before the implementation of this bill. Its enactment will exacerbate that original issue.
KH, since you have no counter argument(s) to my points you make more personal comments.
BTW, KH, if Drs are already self rationing access, then further rationing will not help nor change access for those millions targeted by this bill. That’s kinda important, when considering all the other myths, warts and lies associated with passing this bill.
Dan, any time you visit our area, I would be pleased to purchase, for your specific enjoyment, a beer and the best crab cake that you have ever had. But, of course, said purchase(s) requires some seed money from the advertising Div.
Are there no myths as to the benefits of new healthcare bill and its ability to control cost? What does the sentence “provide preventative service at no cost” mean. I would think that providing a service always imposes a cost.
The US is neither unregulated and unmanaged. Try opening a medical school without certification and see if their graduates can practice. Try producing a drug without approval from the FDA and see if you can legally sell it. Make a mistake as a doctor and see if you won’t be sued. If an indigent person shows up the law says they have to be treated. Therefore the regulators and the courts are heavily involved in practice of healthcare in this country.
There are a lot of myths the break for both sides of the issue, some are correct, some wrong, some part right and part wrong. Many statements are uncorrect, like calling the healthcare system in the U.S. unregulated.
The big lie here is the claim that the incorrect myths mostly go against big government.
Cardiff
a person can see what’s wrong with your first sentence: “control cost” is not the same as “no cost.”
i think the smart people think that providing preventive care will control costs by, ahem, preventing serious illness, or treating them while the treatment is still cheap.
Why is there no commentary on the biggest myth? The HC Bill will lower Fed Govt costs and help reduce the deficit. I refuse to add more detail as that one statement is untrue (a lie).
CoRev
i’d be a little slow to take on the CBO. even the Trustees don’t exactly lie about their numbers, though they do put on a pretty good show of misdirection in the narrative and especially in the summary.
my guess… i have no idea… is that the HC bill has details in it that should lower the costs of Federal expenditures on other medical care programs, such as Medicare and SSI. Otherwise I’d say I share your fears that a government subsidy of the insurance industry seems like an unlikely way to lower the costs to consumers not to mention taxpayers.
rusty:
“The much advertised 21% cut in Medicare payments to Doctors has nothing to do with today’s Healthcare Reform legislation. It originated with 1997 legislation which detailed fees surpassing an established “Sustainable Growth Rate,” Medicare payments to all doctors would be cut. Congress keeps negating this automatic cut yearly rather than changing the 1997 legislation.”
The italicized is true; but, it is not the result of the recent healthcare reform bill. It is the result of 1997 legislation passed to control the rising healthcare costs. Each year Congress negates it and passes it on to another year similar what Congress has done with the AMT. Rather than fix the issue, Congress kicks it to the next year.
As far a specialists rusty, I believe you know the reason why the shift is occuring between primary as opposed to specialist care. The end results do not warrant the addition cost, Benefit received versus Cost. The Dart mout study, which I assume you are aware of, supports this.
KHarris:
The Me-too drugs typically cost the same or more because of licensing by the patent controlling company who licenses the new company to produce.
CoRev:
What doctors are refusing to take new patients? The costs haven’t changed as of yet. Medicaid does have an issue because recouping the costs is 30% less than medicare payments. I do not know what more doctors means nor do I know what recent reports means.
Rdan:
Yes indeed it is my post amd the back biters are out in numbers with little evidence or fact to back them up.
CoRev:
The 21% cut has not relation to healthcare reform.
Taos:
How??? They are 87th in profits amongst 215 corporations and at 3.4% profits. How are they raping Americans with profits? Or is it the rising cost of healthcare that is the issue?
coberly:
Elmendorf is a Feldstein protege. Think he is left leaning?
Yep.
CoRev,
Nice try, but no. There is substance to how a discussion is done. Your approach to discussion is questionable, and I questioned it. A personal attack would be along the lines of “CoRev is typically among the most dishonest and partisan of commenters at this blog.” See? That’s personal.
So, just to avoid allowing CoRev’s attempt at diversion to stick, I’ll say again, arguing that only the sound bite is to be considered, while the details should be ignored is to argue for ignorance. CoRev’s central point was that Run’s post was all “yes, but”. The “but” in each case was pionting out detail CoRev’s response argues that what matters is the misleading sound bite, rather than the detail.
The claim is not that the health care package will lower costs. That is simply not what its proponents said. The goal was to lower the pace of rise in cost for service provided. The designers of the program – those with knowledge to describe its goals with any accuracy – said very cleary that the total cost of medical care would go up because the amoung of care provided would go up. That was one of the goals of the program. Feature, not bug. Again, the goal was to control the pace of rise in costs, not reduce costs. In addition, the claim that the deficit would be lower than otherwise relied on increasing government revenues and on reducing the rise in costs.
So, in conclusion, CoRev’s declaration that there has been a lie had its own imbedded lie. That lie was imbedded in his statement about costs.
Who was it among our forefathers who asked to be confronted with intelligent adversaries, because intelligent adversaries help us sharpen our own views? Anyhow, one of the problems with a) this blog, b) US political culture and c) the press is that the right is represented by people who either don’t bother or lack the capacity to challenge policy on a legitimate basis. Instead, they resort to sneering, lies, mistatement and distraction. Sort of takes the fun out of the game.
run
sorry i don’t know what i said that promts this reply.
i don’t trust “left leaning” politicians or economists any more than i trust the right. well, maybe a little more. but it’s the difference between trusting a maniac at the door with a knife and a smiling man in a suit at the kitchen table with a bottle of something he doesn’t wnat you to see.
kharris
oh, the advresaries are intelligent enough. but they find that sneering, lies, mistatement, and distractions serve their purpose better than “intelligent argument.”
you see, intelligent arguments for why such and such a policy will make them rich by making you poor don’t win elections.
run
on 3.4% profits they do it on the volume. and on the salaries that are not profits. when you are handling 15% of the Gross Domestic Product, you don’t have to have a high profit margin to make a lot of money. All you have to do is help the doctors to charge enough money so that people have to buy insurance. And of course pay yourself a decent salary.
btw
the human brain thinks in “generalizations.” no way around it. with care and experience you can refine the generalizations, but the guy whose last experience with something yellow and black in a tree was a banana is going to react differently from the guy whose last experience was a leopard.
Coberly, Cardiff, K Harris
Coberly: Insurers do not make high profits on volume.
First, they are not handlng 15% of GDP. Only about 1/3 of
all healthcare bills are paid by private insuers.
Govt pays about 50%– the rest is out-of-pocket, etc.
Secondly, often private insurers are simply “administrering” the plan for large
corporations. They are not taking the risk (or making the profits) if premiums
are higher than reimbursements.
So private health insurance is a much smaller business than you assume.
It’s also labor intensive and paper-intensive. So many people swtiching in and out of
plans all of the time, so much marketing to get employers to include your plan, so
many people to reimburse.
Insurance Company CEOs are paid exorbitant salaries–but that’s not even a drop in the bucket when you
look at total revenues or profits.
Look at the health insurance stocks. Even though they’ll get many new customers, Wall Street does
not see insurers as winners under this legislation.
In fact, under reform legilsation, many will go under. (I say this based on being a financial reporter
for many years, writing about insuers s well as other countries.)
The best non-profit insurers will do well.
Cardiff “Provide preventive services at no cost” means no co-pay, and you don’t have to pay down your deductible before receiving preventive care at no cost. This is what many European countries do–one reason their outcomes are better.
As for the U.S. health system being “unregulated”– what that means that those who profit from our system are not regulated as they are in every other developed country in the world. In other coutnries, government negotiates prices with drug makers– they are not allowed to simply set prices wherever they choose. In other countires, government often negotiates doctors fees. This is because health care is a necessity–like heat or light. And these countires regulate health care prices they way we regulate utlillities that sell gas & electricity. We want to make sure that these necessities are affordable.
In other countries, government also regulates capacity because it knows that excess capacityi leads to overtreatment. So it regulates how many hospitals can be built, how many hospital beds. It pays for med school education and makes sure that there are enough slots for primary care docs–and not too many slots for dermatologists.
Conservatives and Republicans will tell you that our health care system is NOT REGULATED– and they view this as a good thing. They believe in “laissez far capitalism” and don’t see any reason why the healthcare industry is any different from an industry that makes thin-screen TVS.
CoRev– No one has said that health care reform will lower health care costs. They have said that reform will “break the curve” (Don’t you read newspapers? Haven’t you run into that phrase?) Break the curve means break the inflation curve. Right now the cost of care is going up 6 1/2 % to 8% a year –and has been going up at that rate for 10 years. Private insurers are paying out 8% more each year in reimbursements to docs, hospitals and patients. This is why they’re not making much money –even though they keep hiking premiums.
The goal of reform is to bring health care inflation down to where it’s no higher than the CPI (consumer ppice index measuring inflation in other parts of the economy.) This is spelled out in the legislaiton.
K Harris– You’re right. IF you want facts on healthcare , see my blog http://www.healthbeatblog.org Reader’s commetns tend to be much better informed.
Maggie Mahar.
Maggie Mahar
thanks.
i would say that even 5% of GDP is a lot of money to be making a 3% profit on. and you seem to agree about the salaries of the bosses… i mean, who gives a damn about mere shareholders?
i have never been one of those who “blame the insurance companies.” it seems to me the problem is that the patients think someone else is paying (or ought to pay), so they get more care than they need, and that doctors (some, not all) provide more services than the patient needs, a lot of it thoroughly worhtless, and the insurance companies play a very evil game… no doubt entirely necessary to them… of denying payment or refusing coverage. at the end of the day the cost of medical care is about twice what it “needs” to be, even by european standards, which are a little ovegenerous by my standards.
but i think i agree with you for the most part, and appreciate the honest, thoughtful note.
Run said: “What doctors are refusing to take new patients?” Many! But the issue is are there many Drs not taking new or for that matter, any Tricare/Medicare/Medicaid patients. Go back and research Buff’s commentary re: the N. VA area and access to Drs by Tricare/Midicare/Medicaid patients. Go back an research my comments re: my very own Dr.
It’s not only happening. In some areas it is prevalent.
KH, make the counter argument. Or, are you just doing your typical Hit & Run attempt at strangling a discussion. You know where I stand on your approach to discussion. Very seldom do you add anything. Just because you do not like the point does not make it less cogent.
coberly,
When your have put your foot in your mouth… stop trying to talk, (it starts to come out the wrong hole). (We did after-all just spend a year regurgitating this HCR stuff, were you unable to participate during the month or two that insurance industry profits were being covered, almost endlessly?)
Yep, I been following this since 1997, still have my copy of the bill somewhere.
The problem with specialists, and there is a problem, is there are many kinds of specialists and subspecialists, and differing numbers in differing regions, some are involved in trauma, and etc.
My concern is the fix will create new problems (laws of unintended consequences).
For example, new docs do not want to be general surgeons, because of lousy reimbursements. Problem is, beside appendicitis and hot gall bladders, general surgeons are the front line of a lot of trauma care. The shortage is a real problem.
Very complicated. We need to proceed carefully.
I don’t think it is so much misleading as trying to simplify a really massive bill with many moving parts phasing in over various time lines.
For example, there is some rerregulation of nursing homes none of youhave probably heard about. Just one example.
Maggie, I’m sorry, but read my comment again please. Ignore the first part as it is poorly phrased and doesn’t actually represent what i was trying to say, but the second part is worth discusssing.
Moreover, which part of the HC Bill gives us that cost curve reduction? Be careful to not just list cost shifting schemes.
This is supposed to be an economics-related website. What is missing is the simplest concept of economics–prices, in general, are a function of supply and demand. The demand for healthcare, due to an aging population is rising. So where in the HELL are the new medical schools opening up? Someone try and list 5 new accredited medical schools that have opened over the past 10 years? Not only is the aging population driving up demand, the rapid population growth is pushing up demand.
The only answer I can come up with is that the physician/AMA cartel is refusing to license new physicians to protect their fiefdom. We should be flooding the floor with new doctors, thus driving up competition for patients and suppy. Imagine how much worse it will get with universal coverage. The lines for treatment will get much longer. Then patients will blame the Democrats, citing “Obamacare” as the culprit.
The real culprit are the doctors who won’t permit an influx of new physicians by restricting the creation of new medical schools.
Tax Lawyer, you may very well be correct, but I would feel much more comfortable with some evidence, or at least a cite.
The Boomers have perturbed the entirety of the past 50+ years of society. Being beyond the leading edge some of it has been easy to see, the pepsi generation commencials, the “never trust anyone over 30” commentary, the availability of jobs and even the growth of our economy, etc. Now they are pertubing the HC industry.
Remember many of the Drs are of that generation. So, we have another looming problem as they choose to retire. We should keep this in mind: “Don’t push too hard, as they may leave earlier than later.”
“The real culprit are the doctors who won’t permit an influx of new physicians by restricting the creation of new medical schools.”
I have heard this analysis of the medical profession before, but have never seen any reference to the process that would provide support for the concept that doctors or the AMA
have control over the number of and size of medical schools. Do you have a reference for
information that supports the point?
Also, is it the doctors’ fees that are the significant driver of health care costs? More likely it is the hospital related costs and the “advances” in medical science. There are diagnostic procedure available today that were barely dreamed of thirty years ago. They are very expensive. Huge expenses are incurred in efforts to keep the near dead alive. That may be a necessity of our modern morally conscious society, but the severely ill can be kept alive longer at great expense. Whose to decide when to “pull the plug?”
Strangely enough in the current environment of health care funding, wherein costs are sky rocketing, there are hospitals closing because they are going broke. How does one explain that?
love
you have an image problem. your head is not as big as you think it is.
suppose i was not here for your brilliant analysis of insurance company profits. suppose i had a different take on that discussion. suppose my logic is better than your logid.
suppose you sober up.
tax attorney:
Here are 7 since 2008:
AT Still University School of Osteopathic Medicine in Mesa, Arizona 2007
University of Arizona College of Medicine Tucson 2007
Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Parker, Colorado 2008
The Commonwealth Medical College in Scranton, PA
Lincoln Memorial University DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine in Harrogate TN 2007
Texas Tech University School of Medicine, ElPaso, TX 2008
Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke, VA 2010
There are another 14 more planned schools to open by 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_schools_in_the_United_States
Tax Lawyer
actually, the economics is “assumed”, where it is more honest than appealing to “laws of economics” as if they actually meant anything in the real world.
i have been told, and i believe it, that the problem with health care costs is NOT the increasing age of the population, but the increasing availabliity of expensive procedures … which no doubt contribute to the increasing age of the population.
point here, is go a little slow and try to get more of the facts before you accuse everybody of ignoring the simple stuff you read about as a sophomore.
CoRev
it ain’t the boomers. you will have to trust me on this: people were every bit as stupid before the boomers came along.