The Cost of Not Having a Public Option »
Posted By Tumultuous 4 months, 1 week ago in NewsThe California Nurses Association just sent out a press release highlighting new report from the Commonwealth Fund that projects a 94% increase in health insurance premiums by 2020, if effective reforms aren't enacted.
Read Full Story at dailykos.com »
376 Views Share Story 27 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Tumultuous
Batman Quote:
Robin: "That's an impossible shot, Batman."
Batman: "That's a negative attitude, Robin."
http://adamwest.tripod.com/b-lectur.htm
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 27 (view all)
-
-
-
Mannix2009Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned5 Replies
-
90%
Jeboba4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
and yet there are STUPID people out there believing the GOP with their bought and paid for liars on radio and Faux News and their corporate buddies sponsoring screaming screwballs at town hall meetings. Wake up people! You are doing their dirty work for them so they can continue to rip you off! What kind of idiots are you?
Reply-
100%
PapaWolf4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>and yet there are STUPID people out there
Reply
Speaking of which, did you see John Stewart's interview with Betsy McCaughey, the person who basically started the "death panel" thing? It was QUITE amusing. He made her look like a fool.
-
-
NOT-THAT-ONEComment removed: Hard Banned7 Replies
-
14%
Georgia504 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Liberals suffer from the illusion that government will manage health care costs better than the market place.
Reply
Evidence? None. Government will respond to rising cost by reducing benefits and rationing care...same as all other governments on the planet with single-payer or outright socialist health care.
Oh yeah. And the California Nurses Association is a UNION. Need I say more?-
100%
NoWayMan4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Crazy cons like Georgia suffer from the illusion that private corporations are managing health care costs just fine and have the public's best interest at heart.
Reply
Evidence that Georgia is totally wrong and completely in denial?
Plenty. -
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
20%
simonsez4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Turning it into a government program isn't going to reduce price.
Reply
There are also substantial improvements in medicines, technological improvements in equipment and procedures taking place. The industry is not static, but continually improving.-
100%
bluetexasvalley4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, let's talk about those substantial improvements in medicine.
Reply
Patent about to run out on that lucrative drug? No problem, change ONE molecule and patent it as a new drug. Ka-ching!
Spending large amounts on research? Well, the research is for drugs that relieve symptoms, not those that cure. There's no profitto be made on patients who are cured, is there? $$$
As to technological improvements in equipment and procedures, who can afford to utilize them? Those with gold-plated insurance and the wealthy, that's who. People who can't even afford insurance sure can't afford $10,000 procedures. You have to be kidding.
The industry is not static, but continually improving their profits. -
33%
Endoscopy4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is the cost of having the public option under Obama care is having insurance companies killed in a few years. Barney Frank is on youtube saying that. The method is that ALL employers will be force to provide health insurance and the cost to the company for the public option will be 1/4 of the private insurance plans. The the taxpayer will have to provide the rest of the cost. Bye bye insurance companies.
Reply
-
-
33%
Endoscopy4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is the cost of having the public option under Obama care is having insurance companies killed in a few years. Barney Frank is on youtube saying that. The method is that ALL employers will be force to provide health insurance and the cost to the company for the public option will be 1/4 of the private insurance plans. The the taxpayer will have to provide the rest of the cost. Bye bye insurance companies.
Reply -
Neutral
lloydm654 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Taking of your self,sounds good,but are you willing to keep your appointments,and follow the doctors plan.I now see my primary Dr.I see my urologist annually, My cardiologist semi annually,and go for lab monthly.Believe me its a drag.By the way none of this completly covered by ins.The public option won't either,and if your not going to get these check ups you don't health care as much as you need life insurance.
Reply -
0%
oldslowjim4 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your assumption that check-ups and preventative care saves money is incorrect. Here are some words of wisdom from Charles Krauthammer.
Reply
"This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."
How can that be? If you prevent somebody from getting a heart attack, aren't you necessarily saving money? The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But, explains Elmendorf, we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case, "it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway." And this costs society money that would not have been spent otherwise.
Think of it this way. Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care."
In other words, where would YOU put the rationing point in preventative care? Do you recommend that everyone is tested for everything ANNUALLY, including MRI's and CAT scans, for early detection of tumors, etc? Or, should an individual have to wait until symptoms occur, which means you are already sick?
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.