Skip to main content

View Diary: White House to begin Obamacare promotion blitz (82 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not the insurance, the providers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Willa Rogers

    Until they are willing to do some price controls, and restrict the tie-in-deals like docs ordering fancy-schmancy tests from a lab/MRI/whatever that the doctor owns, insurance can't be affordable. And the fraud seems to be a hemorrhage, and will likely get worse when more people have insurance or Medicaid.

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBraden, htowngenie
      Until they are willing to do some price controls
      But try and pass that bill over the objection of basically all of the Health Care industry. A few years down the line? When they're acclimated to increased regulation? Sure, maybe. Three years ago? No way.
      •  Medicare has had price controls since the 1980's (0+ / 0-)

        I don't remember exactly when but I'm pretty sure it was in the late 1980's.  
        Universal health care (well, maybe nearly universal) would have been simple as falling off a log if they'd just have put everyone on Medicare.  

        We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

        by david78209 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 06:07:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So why does the cost keep going up? (0+ / 0-)

          I should have added my thoughts on why Medicare keeps getting more expensive.  There's the obvious demographic factor -- we've got more people over 65.  Also, they're living about 3 years longer, on average, than they were when Medicare went into effect in 1965.  The number of years you could expect to keep on living the day you blew out 65 candles has gone up from about 15 more years to about 18 since Medicare started.  Before that, from 1900 to 1965, it stayed remarkably constant.  Your chance of making it to sixty five improved a whole lot, but once you got there how many more birthdays you could expect stayed at about 15.

          Another thing that Medicare did was make you likely to survive more serious illnesses before you died.  Nobody's measured this; defining 'serious illness' episodes would be hard enough, and comparing over decades would make it a lot harder.  But I've been in practice since 1979, and I practiced with my father until 2002 and absorbed some of his insights.  He entered practice in 1950.  I'd guess that before Medicare, someone over 65 had a 50/50 chance of surviving his first serious illness.  That means your life expectancy at age 65, measured not in years but in serious illnesses survived, would have been less than one.  With Medicare, it's probably over two serious illnesses on average, maybe three.  

          So what are we buying with all that money spend on Medicare?  Three more years of good health, or of chronic illness and misery?  I'd argue that we're getting over three more years of good health.  I think fewer seniors suffer a prolonged decline now.  

          Is it worth it?  We'd probably get more mileage out of better care for pregnant ladies and children.  But we can afford both -- especially if we pass on the latest war we've been offered.

          We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

          by david78209 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 06:33:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site