WSJ: Ten GOP Health Ideas for Obama

[ChumpDumper]

What's the point of letting people buy insurance across state lines if the federal governemnt is going to step in and make the insurance across all state lines look the same?

Letting the insurance companies pick a state and then sell their policies nationwide under that state's rules gives the insurance companies the efficiencies you're looking for and it gives the consumers more options.

If the policy is governed under the same laws, what is going to make costs for the consumer go down?

[ChumpDumper]

Isn't the conclusion of the article basically the same of yours: that we need better evidence on this issue and that we need to challenge our assumptions?

I think the only difference is that you're happy with the conventional thinking, the author wasn't and looked for evidence that supported it: couldn't find none and found that previous socialized health-care expansions, like Medicare, had little to no impact.

Why did he limit himself to Medicare, especially when that is not the model for the current health reform scheme?

[mogrovejo]

No, the way I understand it, the conclusion from her article is that we shouldn't expand Medicare until there's 'more data'. But there's no reason to think we can get any more data on that subject under the current system. Unless we either take datasets from other countries where their 'Medicare' was expanded into a public option and extrapolate numbers from there OR we actually expand Medicare and get the numbers, there will be no conclusive data at all.

Which really adds nothing to the topic, hence my qualification as a strawman.

She doesn't limit herself to Medicare. And yes, she's saying two things: declaring that more people are dying because of lack of health-care insurance is not supported by the evidence; that without further data we should be cautions and not embark in radical, expensive and transformative government programs. It's a question of prudence.

If you're inferring causation out of correlation, it's a fair warning.

[coyotes_geek]

If the policy is governed under the same laws, what is going to make costs for the consumer go down?

The policies wouldn't be governed under the same laws. They'd be governed by the different laws across the different states. Give consumers the ability to look beyond their own state's borders and they benefit from having more options.

[ChumpDumper]

The policies wouldn't be governed under the same laws. They'd be governed by the different laws across the different states. Give consumers the ability to look beyond their own state's borders and they benefit from having more options.

So if they bought a policy from across the country, they would have to sue them across the country in the case of a dispute.

Sounds like a boon for consumers!

[coyotes_geek]

So if they bought a policy from across the country, they would have to sue them across the country in the case of a dispute.

Sounds like a boon for consumers!

So are you saying that consumers don't benefit from having additional options? Also, what health care remedies do you have in mind that don't involve the possibility of complicated lawsuits?

[ElNono]

She doesn't limit herself to Medicare. And yes, she's saying two things: declaring that more people are dying because of lack of health-care insurance is not supported by the evidence; that without further data we should be cautions and not embark in radical, expensive and transformative government programs. It's a question of prudence.

But a purported single-payor or mixed system would remove insurance entirely. It would provide better access to care, which has nothing to do with having insurance or not.
Something I mentioned a lot of posts ago and you seemingly either ignore or fail to comprehend.

At that point, being insured would be irrelevant. And you can't calculate the effects of that on mortality until such a system is in place. You simply can't extrapolate the numbers from studies of the uninsured on the current system.

There's other deeper issues also that go beyond mortality rates. How many bankruptcies are declared each year by the uninsured on medical-related expenses?

And BTW, I don't like the current proposal any more than you do, because it wouldn't address any of these concerns anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

So are you saying that consumers don't benefit from having additional options?

How much would it lower premiums?

Surely someone has run the numbers.

Just saying it will work doesn't make it so. Tort reform didn't lower premiums in Texas, although it purportedly gave them additional options.

[ElNono]

Tort reform didn't lower premiums in Texas, although it purportedly gave them additional options.

This is what most people fail to comprehend. Unless the private sector competes on quality versus a free public option, OR there's some sort of price fixing, the service providers will merely pocket the difference and keep the prices up. Most every other country on the planet already figured this one out.

Either that, or we keep the current system where your medical care depends on who employs you or your economic status.

[coyotes_geek]

How much would it lower premiums?

Surely someone has run the numbers.

As far as I know no one has run the numbers because no one has put something similar into an actual piece of legislation.

Now why are you opposed to giving consumers more options to choose from?

Just saying it will work doesn't make it so. Tort reform didn't lower premiums in Texas, although it purportedly gave them additional options.

Can you show me the data showing how tort reform specifically caused premiums to go up? Since both those events have already happened, unlike being able to sell insurance across state lines, surely someone has run those numbers. Merely observing that we enacted tort reform and premiums went up doesn't prove that tort reform was the reason. How do we know that premiums wouldn't have gone up as much had we not enacted tort reform?

[ChumpDumper]

As far as I know no one has run the numbers because no one has put something similar into an actual piece of legislation.

It doesn't have to be in a piece of legislation for someone to estimate its effect.

Now why are you opposed to giving consumers more options?

I am skeptical that it will result in lower bottom line costs for consumers. You have don't nothing to change my mind.

Can you show me the data showing how tort reform specifically caused premiums to go up? Since both those events have already happened, unlike being able to sell insurance across state lines, surely someone has run those numbers.

Um, premiums went up.

Not down.

Way up, in fact.

Tort reform was touted as a solution for rising health costs for consumers.

It didn't work.

[mogrovejo]

Explaining the difference between correlation and causation to simpletons is a lost cause. Thank God Palin is the stupid one.

[mogrovejo]

This is what most people fail to comprehend. Unless the private sector competes on quality versus a free public option, OR there's some sort of price fixing, the service providers will merely pocket the difference and keep the prices up.

Why? If they have to compete against each other, why would they be able to do that? If there's no serious compe ion, like in the current system, of course that's going to happen. But if there's compe ion, how would they resist to smart compe ors without passing some of the gains to the consumers? I mean, do we need a public option on restaurants to make sure that they don't keep the prices up?

As for the price fixing - people have been trying it for thousands of years. At least since the Romans. Unsurprisingly, it never worked. Like ever.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, you are the guys saying tort reform will help lower costs for consumers and keep beating the drum for it.

Why did it not help after it was enacted?

[mogrovejo]

But a purported single-payor or mixed system would remove insurance entirely. It would provide better access to care, which has nothing to do with having insurance or not.

Like the Medicare? Little effect. Maybe if the Medicare was extended to everybody things would change. Can't see why, but maybe.

At that point, being insured would be irrelevant. And you can't calculate the effects of that on mortality until such a system is in place. You simply can't extrapolate the numbers from studies of the uninsured on the current system.

Well, it seems to me that you simply have a problem with projection studies - and therefore as it can't be proved by empirical evidence that something won't produce good results, than something must be done. That's okay, but not very persuasive, I think.

In any case, the point of the article is that those who claim that lack of insurance is killing people don't have the evidence on their side.

[ElNono]

Why? If they have to compete against each other, why would they be able to do that? If there's no serious compe ion, like in the current system, of course that's going to happen. But if there's compe ion, how would they resist to smart compe ors without passing some of the gains to the consumers? I mean, do we need a public option on restaurants to make sure that they don't keep the prices up?

They're not interested in competing. They're happy to cater to the 55% of the population that can afford the services. That's what we have right now.
I mean, free market has been attempting to tackle this for ages and never succeeded. What makes you think all of a sudden will?

As for the price fixing - people have been trying it for thousands of years. At least since the Romans. Unsurprisingly, it never worked. Like ever.

Price fixing works pretty well for this specific case in many countries. Including the negotiated prices for medicines and services in countries like the UK and France. It's simply not seen as a business, but as a provided service, like Police, Fire Dept or the Postal service.

[ElNono]

Like the Medicare? Little effect. Maybe if the Medicare was extended to everybody things would change. Can't see why, but maybe.

No, not like Medicare. But you don't seem interested in talking about anything but Medicare.

In any case, the point of the article is that those who claim that lack of insurance is killing people don't have the evidence on their side.

Did anybody in this thread claim that? I think it was another instance of you talking to yourself.

[coyotes_geek]

It doesn't have to be in a piece of legislation for someone to estimate its effect.

Doesn't change the fact that I still haven't seen anyone do it.

I am skeptical that it will result in lower bottom line costs for consumers. You have don't nothing to change my mind.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to find out why you are so adamantly opposed to giving consumers more choices. So you're skeptical that it will lower prices. Fair enough. Don't you think consumers would still be better off having more options to choose from?

Um, premiums went up.

Not down.

Way up, in fact.

Tort reform was touted as a solution for rising health costs for consumers.

It didn't work.

Can you show me the numbers that identify tort reform as the reason premiums went up as high as they did? Insurance premiums are a summation of a bunch of different factors, tort reform being just one of them. Isn't it possible that tort reform actually did lower the costs it was intended to do so, but the combination of all the other factors still resulted in premiums going up?

[ChumpDumper]

Doesn't change the fact that I still haven't seen anyone do it.

That in itself is pretty telling to me.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to find out why you are so adamantly opposed to giving consumers more choices. So you're skeptical that it will lower prices. Fair enough. Don't you think consumers would still be better off having more options to choose from?

Will they? I can't say that is an automatically acceptable assumption either.

Can you show me the numbers that identify tort reform as the reason premiums went up as high as they did? Insurance premiums are a summation of a bunch of different factors, tort reform being just one of them. Isn't it possible that tort reform actually did lower the costs it was intended to do so, but the combination of all the other factors still resulted in premiums going up?

If that's the case, it is merely a boondoggle and blanket immunity for doctors, no matter their level of competency. That is the only measure any supporter has pointed to since tort reform.

Hooray, I guess.

[TeyshaBlue]

Why? If they have to compete against each other, why would they be able to do that? If there's no serious compe ion, like in the current system, of course that's going to happen. But if there's compe ion, how would they resist to smart compe ors without passing some of the gains to the consumers? I mean, do we need a public option on restaurants to make sure that they don't keep the prices up?

As for the price fixing - people have been trying it for thousands of years. At least since the Romans. Unsurprisingly, it never worked. Like ever.

You know, it just seems self-evident that increased compe ion would lower prices. I completely understand that.

Unfortunately, my electricity bill dissagrees.

It just doesn't follow that when you try to open up monopolistic combines of companies, that lower prices just fall out as a result.
You cannot realistically compare market forces behind restaurants to those behind insurance companies. Well, I guess you could if hamburgers cost $150.

[ElNono]

You know, it just seems self-evident that increased compe ion would lower prices. I completely understand that.

Unfortunately, my electricity bill dissagrees.

It just doesn't follow that when you try to open up monopolistic combines of companies, that lower prices just fall out as a result.
You cannot realistically compare market forces behind restaurants to those behind insurance companies. Well, I guess you could if hamburgers cost $150.

Of course you cannot. But for the free market freedom fighters everything is self-adjusting compe ion goodness...

[elbamba]

Can you show me the numbers that identify tort reform as the reason premiums went up as high as they did? Insurance premiums are a summation of a bunch of different factors, tort reform being just one of them. Isn't it possible that tort reform actually did lower the costs it was intended to do so, but the combination of all the other factors still resulted in premiums going up?

no.

[mogrovejo]

But a purported single-payor or mixed system would remove insurance entirely. It would provide better access to care

How do you know?

At that point, being insured would be irrelevant.

I spend most of my time in 2 countries with single-payer systems and I don't find being insured irrelevant. Quite the opposite.

And you can't calculate the effects of that on mortality until such a system is in place. You simply can't extrapolate the numbers from studies of the uninsured on the current system.

Again, she was answering to those who claim that people are dying because of lack of insurance. The article shows those type of claims aren't sustained by empirical evidence.

[mogrovejo]

You know, it just seems self-evident that increased compe ion would lower prices. I completely understand that.

Unfortunately, my electricity bill dissagrees.

Why so?

It just doesn't follow that when you try to open up monopolistic combines of companies, that lower prices just fall out as a result.

Nobody says that breaking a monopoly leads to lower prices. At least I certainly don't.

You cannot realistically compare market forces behind restaurants to those behind insurance companies. Well, I guess you could if hamburgers cost $150.

What do you mean by "market forces"? What about the market for laptops or TV sets, is that one better? A PC is more expensive than a cheeseburger, so I guess it works better.

[da_suns_fan]

1. Pay doctors differently to remove un-needed treatments. Im 29 and I think my doctor is always trying to get me to come in to rake in more fees from my insurance.

2. Tax high end plans

3. Subsidize poorer citizens.

4. A public option might work if it was a giant non-profit and not just an extention of medicare.

I dont think tort-reform or health saving accounts would do much.