American Health Care Reform

[Gao Bohan]

"In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance (from a private health insurance company) or face a $695 annual fine."

That's 2014. It gets even better. By 2016, it will be $695 or 2.5 percent of total household income, whichever is greater.

[lbksig]

Malpractice insurance only accounts for about 2% of medical costs. The major source of the high cost of medical care is corporate greed.

That 2% is only what goes directly to malpractice insurance. It doesn't account for other associated costs like legal fees, unnecessary testing, etc. Here's what the CBO said in 2009 on tort reform and it's effect on medical costs.
Letter from CBO Director to Senator Orrin Hatch (PDF)

CBO now estimates, on the basis of an analysis incorporating the results of recent research, that if a package of proposals such as those described above was enacted, it would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of the direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums, as discussed earlier, and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services. (That reduction is the estimated net effect of the entire package listed earlier, although some components of that package might increase the utilization of physicians’ services, as has already been noted.) CBO’s estimate takes into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.

In the case of the federal budget, enactment of such a package of proposals would reduce mandatory spending for Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program by roughly $41 billion over the next 10 years (see Table 1). That figure includes a larger percentage decline in Medicare’s spending than in the other programs’ or in national health spending in general, a calculation based on empirical evidence showing that the impact of tort reform on the utilization of health care services is greater for Medicare than for the rest of the health care system. One possible explanation for that disparity is that the bulk of Medicare’s spending is on a fee-for-service basis, whereas most private health care spending occurs through plans that manage care to some degree.

As far as "corporate greed" goes, you fail to provide any evidence for that either. Here's a list of industries by net profit margin %. Healthcare plans, as an industry, has a net profit margin of 4.8%. Some companies are higher, some are lower. Accident and Health Insurance is 7.5%. By comparison, the soft drink beverage industry has a profit percentage of 11%, beer brewers have 14.5%, big tobacco has 17.2% and the software industry has 21.4%.

While the healthcare industry makes profit, which it then uses to expand market share, pay dividends or a invest in new technology, it's not a very high percentage. I would expect it to be much higher with how the states have turned health care providers into cartels.

[BigJohn]

It is a single payer system, and non-transferable. Joys of a strongly federal system.

And you can still get health services when you are out of province billed back to your home province's system. There's reciprocity, so in effect it is transferable.

[Mucha Man]

Malpractice insurance only accounts for about 2% of medical costs. The major source of the high cost of medical care is corporate greed.

That 2% is only what goes directly to malpractice insurance. It doesn't account for other associated costs like legal fees, unnecessary testing, etc. Here's what the CBO said in 2009 on tort reform and it's effect on medical costs.
Letter from CBO Director to Senator Orrin Hatch (PDF)

CBO now estimates, on the basis of an analysis incorporating the results of recent research, that if a package of proposals such as those described above was enacted, it would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of the direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums, as discussed earlier, and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services. (That reduction is the estimated net effect of the entire package listed earlier, although some components of that package might increase the utilization of physicians’ services, as has already been noted.) CBO’s estimate takes into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.

In the case of the federal budget, enactment of such a package of proposals would reduce mandatory spending for Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program by roughly $41 billion over the next 10 years (see Table 1). That figure includes a larger percentage decline in Medicare’s spending than in the other programs’ or in national health spending in general, a calculation based on empirical evidence showing that the impact of tort reform on the utilization of health care services is greater for Medicare than for the rest of the health care system. One possible explanation for that disparity is that the bulk of Medicare’s spending is on a fee-for-service basis, whereas most private health care spending occurs through plans that manage care to some degree.

Could you explain in English how the savings translate into the opposite being a worrisome outcome? $41 billion saved over ten years? $11 billion in one year? Please, this is not serious. If this is the best that tort reform can hope for then Chris is right. Malpractice and the threat thereof is a very minor part of the cost of health care.

[Gao Bohan]

The CBO analysis of tort reform has already been discussed. Medical malpractice would be lowered from 2% of total health care costs to 1.5% of total health care costs. We should take our savings where we can find it, but tort reform is hardly a panacea.

[Mucha Man]

...tort reform is hardly a panacea.

Tort reform is meaningless you mean.

[Gao Bohan]

Tort reform is meaningless you mean.

That's taking it a bit far. Another potential upside is to lower the legal risk of entering and remaining in the medical profession. We're facing a severe shortage of primary care physicians and nurses over the next 20 years.

[TaipeiD]

Malpractice insurance only accounts for about 2% of medical costs. The major source of the high cost of medical care is corporate greed.

And how does Obamacare address corporate greed?

If it weren't for Republican and Liebercrat obstructionism, a public option could have been passed, which would have addressed it very well.

But at least "Obamacare" beats "Republicare", which goes like this: "Pay through your nose to the greedy corporations."

Obamacare requires everybody to buy health insurance from greedy corporations, otherwise fines will be imposed (on top of new taxes imposed on the self-employed and professional investors).

"Republicare" as you point out, does not require everyone to buy health insurance. Atleast they have the option of not buying insurance, if the premiums offered by "greedy corporations" are ridiculously expensive.

[TaipeiD]

The costs are starting to pile up.

"WASHINGTON – AARP's endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Now the seniors' lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.
In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.

And AARP adds that it's changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101104/ap_ ... 5naGVhbHRo

Founded in 1958, AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization that helps people 50 and over improve the quality of their lives.

AARP has offices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

As a social welfare organization, as well as, the nation’s largest membership organization for people 50+, AARP is leading a revolution in the way people view and live life.

[zyzzx]

Obamacare requires everybody to buy health insurance from greedy corporations, otherwise fines will be imposed (on top of new taxes imposed on the self-employed and professional investors).

"Republicare" as you point out, does not require everyone to buy health insurance. Atleast they have the option of not buying insurance, if the premiums offered by "greedy corporations" are ridiculously expensive.

The reform also places limits (in theory) on how greedy those corporations can get - they have to spend a certain (high) percentage of their premiums on actual health care. The bill also prevents people from getting screwed by ridiculously expensive plans by providing a subsidy so that you will not have to pay more than a certain percentage of your income.