Skip to main content

View Diary: Pssst...PPACA Saves Money -- Pass it on! (44 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  lol, yeah, we have a difference of opinion (0+ / 0-)

    The PPACA extends health care to essentially all Americans.

    Coverage in America really isn't the problem. What coverage means is the problem. Most medical-related bankruptcies, for example, involve people who had health insurance. Companies that offer health insurance spend far more per worker per year than the entire cost of healthcare in other advanced economies. We haven't decided what healthcare is or who should pay for it. That's a lot of decision-making left to happen.

    It insures free annual checkups - and all that other stuff I listed.

    No, it shifts the cost of annual checkups from co-pays and deductibles to premiums. They're not free. Med schools aren't reducing tuition. Specialists aren't giving some of their income to primary care physicians. There is no cost savings; it's a cost transfer. etc.

    As for Pete Peterson and the Catfood Commission.  Too bad you've bought into that FDL misinformation campaign.

    This is one of the things that's really sad about the meta wars. How one could possibly equate opposition to Pete Peterson as a misinformation campaign is simply beyond me. How one could support a Democratic President creating a body staffed with people designed to cut entitlements while protecting financial bailouts and defense spending is just beyond my comprehension. Not only is the deficit obviously not a major concern - look at the trillions spent on corporate welfare - but people like Alan Simpson and David Cote have no business being anywhere near a body investigating what to do about the federal budget.

    If you're interested in defending the assault on social insurance, then our differences are way too far to bridge. But it could lead to some interesting conversations. See you around.

    Ask your Member of Congress what they're doing to put Americans back to work.

    by washunate on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 11:52:19 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  What a pile of shit... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joedemocrat

      You list zero health care problems left to be addressed.

      You state that health insurance coverage in America is not a problem when 40 million Americans can't afford health insurance and some 40,000 die unnecessary deaths each year because they can't afford health care.

      You argue that "free"/no out-of-pocket cost to individuals will do nothing to save health costs.  Clearly finding problems early means 'cheaper to treat'.

      You state that President Obama created a commission "staffed with people designed to cut entitlements while protecting financial bailouts and defense spending" which is simply a lie.

      And then you end this post of misinformation with "See you later" rather than listing the health care issues which we need to next address.

      Pathetic....

      "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

      by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:01:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  okay, I'll bite (0+ / 0-)

        You state that President Obama created a commission "staffed with people designed to cut entitlements while protecting financial bailouts and defense spending" which is simply a lie.

        What's the purpose of the fiscal commission? Why are the people involved qualified to pursue this purpose?

        You list zero health care problems left to be addressed.

        I understand why you would ignore my statement, because it's a pretty strong indictment:

        We haven't decided what healthcare is or who should pay for it. That's a lot of decision-making left to happen.

        If you really think that going from a $25 or $50 co-pay to no co-pay for an annual physical is a major change to the American healthcare system, that's cool, that's your belief. But I don't know why you refuse to accept that there's another legitimate perspective, which is the argument that these tweaks just don't amount to much in comparison to the aggregate size of the problem. And the evidence which would support such a claim is the fact that healthcare continues to be too expensive. We continue to ration care based upon ability to pay, and this shortcoming makes all of us worse off. Growth in healthcare costs continues to outstrip growth in the rest of economy. Drug dealers, hospital franchises, and others continue taking excess profits at the expense of consumers. For goodness sakes, PPACA didn't even allow Medicare to negotiate volume discounts in its procurement process. It didn't even give consumers the choice of buying into a government-run health insurance plan.

        That's why I said I'll see you around. I enjoy the conversation, but we're pretty much beating a dead horse here. I think both our positions are pretty clear.

        Ask your Member of Congress what they're doing to put Americans back to work.

        by washunate on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 02:25:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •   National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn

          Reform

          From the Commission's Charter...

          Description of Duties.

          The functions of the Commission are advisory only. The Commission shall propose recommendations to balance the budget, excluding interest payment on the debt, by 2015. This result is projected to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio at an acceptable level once the economy recovers. In addition, the Commission shall propose recommendations to the President that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government.

          The Commission shall provide its advice and recommendations, analysis, and information directly to the President. In providing the President this advice, the Commission should reflect the judgment and views of the members of the Commission. To meet these objectives, the Commission will conduct such activities as necessary. The President may direct the Commission to provide its analysis, information, and advice and recommendations to any agency with responsibilities relevant to the mission identified in the Charter, to Congress, or any other relevant congressional committee.

          http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/...

          How are the members qualified?

          Who is on the commission?

          The commission is composed of 10 Democrats and eight Republicans.

          Six members were chosen by the president. He appointed co-chairs Erskine Bowles, a Democrat who was White House chief of staff for President Clinton, and Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming (watch their interview on the NewsHour). He also named three Democrats: Alice Rivlin, a former vice chair of the Federal Reserve who also served as director of the Congressional Budget Office and the White House budget office; Andrew Stern, retiring president of the 2.2 million-member Service Employees International Union; and Ann Fudge, former head of Young & Rubicam Brands, a global marketing and communications company. He also named one Republican: David Cote, the CEO and chairman of Honeywell, a technology and manufacturing company.

          Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi each picked three congressional Democrats: Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who chairs the Senate Finance Committee; and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate; Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., a member of the Budget and Ways and Means committees; and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee; and

          Rep. John M. Spratt Jr., D-S.C., chairman of the House Budget Committee.

          Congressional Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner also appointed three members each. They are Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has sponsored legislation aimed at spending cuts; Sen. Michael Crapo, R-Idaho, a member of the Senate Budget Committee; Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee; Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee; Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, an outspoken proponent of deficit reduction; and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the top Republican on the House Budget Committee.

          Bruce Reed, the CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council and a former Clinton White House official, serves as executive director for the commission

          Link

          "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

          by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 04:41:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I ignore what statement? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn

          This one?

          Coverage in America really isn't the problem. What coverage means is the problem. Most medical-related bankruptcies, for example, involve people who had health insurance. Companies that offer health insurance spend far more per worker per year than the entire cost of healthcare in other advanced economies. We haven't decided what healthcare is or who should pay for it. That's a lot of decision-making left to happen.

          1. I pointed out to you that coverage certainly is a problem for 40 million Americans.
          1. The PPACA guarantees that people will not be dropped from their coverage if they get really sick - an end to cost caps.  And annual out of pocket expenses are limited.
          1. One of the reasons that companies spend large amounts for employee health care is that each family policy is charged almost $1,000 each year to defray the costs of treating the uninsured.  With people being able to seek medical treatment earlier and in less expensive settings (rather than hospital emergency rooms) those costs will disappear from existing policies.
          1. We know who will pay for health care.  For those with limited incomes, there will be either free government paid for health care.  For others there will be generous federal subsidies which will fade out as people's incomes exceed the federal median level.

          You really should know this stuff.  It's very basic information....

          "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

          by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 04:50:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, health care costs are rising faster... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn

          than some other parts of our economy.

          I'd like to see some data on excess profits.  

          I'd be extremely surprised to see that hospitals are making excessive profits, most seem to be struggling to keep going.

          Drug companies, I recall hearing make about a 10% return on capital, standard profits.  But I haven't found anything to prove/disprove that.  I did find a statement that drug company profits "amount to only about 2 percent of total health care spending".

          For people to blame drug and insurance company profits for their predicament is just ignorant. People simply do not know what drives costs," said Uwe E. Reinhardt, the James Madison Professor of Political Economy at Princeton University. "What drives prices is the amount of services people are getting, plus the prices doctors and hospitals charge for those services."

          Humphrey Taylor, chairman of The Harris Poll, a service of Harris Interactive, added: "These findings show how little most people understand the economics of health care. Increased profits of insurers and drug companies (if they have increased at all) cannot possibly account for the increases in premiums. Many health-care economists attribute the increased cost of care to increased demand and utilization, increased prices and the increased use of expensive tests and treatments. Most people, as shown here, do not think of these as the main drivers of increased health-care spending."

          Link

          "They were overwhelmed by the learned ignorance, the accepted say-so of the times." Teale

          by BobTrips on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 05:01:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Uh..nobody ever said it was to be free (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn

      In regard to this

      In regard to this

      No, it shifts the cost of annual checkups from co-pays and deductibles to premiums. They're not free

      Did anyone ever say that expanding access to health care would ever be free?  The goal of spreading the cost of prevenative care through premuims is so all people can get prevenative care. This is a fairer way. Why should the middle class and the wealthy be able to get prevenative care but not the poor?

      Again, we need to focus on what the bill accomplish not its shortcomings. To do otherwise just feeds into the right wing attack machine..

      "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

      by joedemocrat on Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 12:26:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (73)
  • 2016 (57)
  • Elections (47)
  • Environment (46)
  • Media (43)
  • Republicans (39)
  • Hillary Clinton (37)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (35)
  • Civil Rights (33)
  • Law (33)
  • Iraq (32)
  • Culture (32)
  • Barack Obama (32)
  • Jeb Bush (30)
  • Climate Change (30)
  • Economy (27)
  • Labor (25)
  • Bernie Sanders (21)
  • Congress (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site