Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (8513)	8/21/2009 1:44:59 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

Medicare costs have been rising slower than the private sector, around 5-6% vs. 8-9%. And this is despite caring for a sicker population. Well, hell. That would be no surprise if true. Medicare has been cutting reimbursements for years. And who picks up the slack? Providers. Patients. PRIVATE Medigap policies paid for by patients. All government has to do to save Medicare dollars is to say, "Hey, this year, we're cutting your RVS multiplier." That's it. There is nobody to discuss it with. It is the law. And costs are shifted to private insurance companies which you so ardently bash.

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (8513)	8/21/2009 6:59:48 AM
From: Brumar89	3 Recommendations Respond to of 42652

I figured someone would answer both to #1. I see your answer to #2 is Medicare is controlling costs. Then I have to ask why has Obama said Medicare is “going broke” (Colorado) and is “unsustainable” and “running out of money” (New Hampshire). And it’s “in deep trouble if we don’t do something, because as you said, money doesn’t grow on trees” (Montana). podiumpundits.com It doesn't seem that Medicare can be both a success at controlling costs and a financial failure too. So one of you must be wrong. If you're right and Obama is wrong about this fundamental fact about Medicare, do you think we can trust his judgment on health care overall? Re. #3, we all know Medicare pays less than other providers and non-Medicare patients therefore effectively subsidize Medicare. Those health providers who aren't willing to have their other patients subsidize Medicare and don't want to make do on what Medicare pays simply don't take Medicare patients. If all health services were cut back to the Medicare payment levels, what would that do to the quality of health care? Ane would the temptation (already present) to make up the slack by fraud increase? Do you see problems there?

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (8513)	8/21/2009 11:06:22 AM
From: Little Joe	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Because that doesn't address one of the fundamental problem, which is that the growth of health costs is far outstripping our ability to pay for it. And what is your idea for controlling health care costs. lj

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (8513)	8/21/2009 1:44:30 PM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Respond to of 42652

the growth of health costs is far outstripping our ability to pay for it. Perhaps we need to put the patient back in control of their medical expenditures. There is a perverse impact on people's attitudes about medical expenditures caused by inclusive insurance plans. Just pay $500 (or $1000 or whatever) per month premium and everything is paid for. The demand for expensive treatments increases when the cost of a procedure does not directly impact a person's financial well being. Instituting government rationing makes the decision less accountable to the individual. It might be an improvement for a few. It is definitely a downgrade for the vast majority.