Interesting article on Obama health care plan

wowza · May 17, 2009

Your logic is flawed.
When you pool a group of people, the cost to the individual goes down because the medical costs of the sick can be buffered by the premiums of more healthy people. 1 guy out of 10 who gets sick makes premiums go up significantly more than 1 guy out of 100 who gets sick. The population size is too small so that the costs cannot be sucessfully buffered.
Unfortunately this idea doesnt work for decreasing the costs of the whole country. If you are part of a smaller group- you will be paying closer to the actual cost of your actual care because your costs cannot be buffered by healthy people. It doesnt increase the cost of your care- just the costs you see. If we pool the entire country into 1 plan, it is not going to decrease the cost OF THE SYSTEM; that is fixed based on prevalence of disease and the cost of treating disease. Thus the average cost to the individual is not going to change we will just be re-distributing costs.
Second- the system is not broken. People get timely care- they just have to pay for it. You just dont agree with that idea.
If you want a solution i have one that involves a national health care plan for those uninsured:
Create a national health care plan that has certain restrictions-
1) if you currently smoke or use illegal drugs you are not eligible. Evidence of either of these disqualifies you for 2 years.
2) If you are obese by body fat measurements (not BMI) and not handicapped or elderly, you are not elligible.
3) As an adult if you did not graduate from high school and do not have a valid excuse- you are not eligible.
4) If you are non-compliant with your medications and not from side effects, you are kicked out
5) Only US citizens or those who have green cards are eligible.
Those who are not eligible and those who want to pay for it, can always get private insurance.
Then people would have some motivation to stop all these crappy lifestyle habits and lose some weight. We almost overnight would have a healthier, more compliant population and a better educated populace in one foul swoop.

I think i should run for president

Magsulfate, BSN, RN · May 17, 2009

Thank you...

For some reason I am at lost for words, but all I have to do is wait a few minutes, and someone will say it for me, lol.

Thank you.. My particular favorite quote in this one is.........

"Second- the system is not broken. People get timely care- they just have to pay for it. You just dont agree with that idea. "

We have been paying for our healthcare since the dawn of this country. I pay for mine. And I do work for my money, I work hard, so yes.. I am very selfish. I am selfish when I see what is being done with my money and how someone making $10k a year gets in return every february thousands of dollars from the IRS and even though I've already paid in $6000, I have to pay even more or I'll be breaking the law.

I don't think any healthcare act that this administration comes up with will be any more fair than the tax system we are under. Why not fix the tax system first, since it is way more broken than the health care system.??

Your logic is flawed.
When you pool a group of people, the cost to the individual goes down because the medical costs of the sick can be buffered by the premiums of more healthy people. 1 guy out of 10 who gets sick makes premiums go up significantly more than 1 guy out of 100 who gets sick. The population size is too small so that the costs cannot be sucessfully buffered.
Unfortunately this idea doesnt work for decreasing the costs of the whole country. If you are part of a smaller group- you will be paying closer to the actual cost of your actual care because your costs cannot be buffered by healthy people. It doesnt increase the cost of your care- just the costs you see. If we pool the entire country into 1 plan, it is not going to decrease the cost OF THE SYSTEM; that is fixed based on prevalence of disease and the cost of treating disease. Thus the average cost to the individual is not going to change we will just be re-distributing costs.
Second- the system is not broken. People get timely care- they just have to pay for it. You just dont agree with that idea.
If you want a solution i have one that involves a national health care plan for those uninsured:
Create a national health care plan that has certain restrictions-
1) if you currently smoke or use illegal drugs you are not eligible. Evidence of either of these disqualifies you for 2 years.
2) If you are obese by body fat measurements (not BMI) and not handicapped or elderly, you are not elligible.
3) As an adult if you did not graduate from high school and do not have a valid excuse- you are not eligible.
4) If you are non-compliant with your medications and not from side effects, you are kicked out
5) Only US citizens or those who have green cards are eligible.
Those who are not eligible and those who want to pay for it, can always get private insurance.
Then people would have some motivation to stop all these crappy lifestyle habits and lose some weight. We almost overnight would have a healthier, more compliant population and a better educated populace in one foul swoop.

Magsulfate, BSN, RN · May 17, 2009

I think i should run for president

I agree... you have the experience :)

Honnête et Sérieux · May 17, 2009

They're still better off than many Americans, who don't have health care at any cost. Not the old, not the poorest of the poor, but the working not-quite-poor and middle class.

First, you don't know that to be true.

Second, it's a deflection; someone unconditionally claimed that NHS recipients could just get private insurance. That was the point I was responding to.

It amazes me how people just fire off unsupportable generalizations, and frequently challenge me to write at a much higher level then they do themselves.

Koyaanisqatsi-RN · May 18, 2009

Man oh man, where do I even start?

How about here...first you said this

When you pool a group of people, the cost to the individual goes down

Then, hilariously, you said this:

Thus the average cost to the individual is not going to change

Which is it?

Moving on...

Unfortunately this idea doesnt work for decreasing the costs of the whole country. If you are part of a smaller group-(?????) you will be paying closer to the actual cost of your actual care because your costs cannot be buffered by healthy people. It doesnt increase the cost of your care- just the costs you see. If we pool the entire country into 1 plan, it is not going to decrease the cost OF THE SYSTEM; that is fixed based on prevalence of disease and the cost of treating disease. Thus the average cost to the individual is not going to change we will just be re-distributing costs.

First of all, yes the average cost to the individual would change. You yourself admitted that. And I have NO IDEA what you are talking about when you're talking about a smaller group. I explicitly said the entire country would be included. That's a lot of people. A large risk pool = less costs to each individual. Do you want to me to post some links regarding how a risk pool works to help you out here?

Second...yes, actually, a single large risk pool would actually reduce overall costs as well. Are you aware at the moment how many employees are employed by most hospitals whose sole purpose is to negotiate with for-profit insurance companies? Do you know how much wasted money is spent training, retaining, and keeping those folks up to date? Can you imagine a better use for that money? Can you agree that reducing their workload and knowledge base to one payer leads to a streamlined and simplified system? (not to mention one unmotivated by profit, much like the police and fire protection you now enjoy)

Further, a single payer system encourages people to use preventative medicine, rather than waiting until the last minute to go to the ER which incurs costly and unecessary fees, most often shouldered by the public anyway. 20 dollars worth of antibiotics is a lot cheaper than meningitis later on. Won't you agree?

Third, do you know how basic economics work? Are you aware that one very large customer has immense negotiating power? Can you imagine the buying power of a single-payer system to negotiate drug costs etc?

Second- the system is not broken. People get timely care- they just have to pay for it. Y

Are you aware that the standard of care we receive is either poorer or on par with other countries who utilize a public health plan (or at the very least, price ceilings on health services and insurance)? Why do you suppose that is?

If you want a solution i have one that involves a national health care plan for those uninsured:
Create a national health care plan that has certain restrictions-
1) if you currently smoke or use illegal drugs you are not eligible. Evidence of either of these disqualifies you for 2 years.
2) If you are obese by body fat measurements (not BMI) and not handicapped or elderly, you are not elligible.
3) As an adult if you did not graduate from high school and do not have a valid excuse- you are not eligible.
4) If you are non-compliant with your medications and not from side effects, you are kicked out
5) Only US citizens or those who have green cards are eligible.
Those who are not eligible and those who want to pay for it, can always get private insurance.
Then people would have some motivation to stop all these crappy lifestyle habits and lose some weight. We almost overnight would have a healthier, more compliant population and a better educated populace in one foul swoop.

This is embarrassingly terrible. First of all, who are you going to hire to oversee all of this? How much will that cost? Who gets to decide what a "good excuse" is for not graduating high school? What about the immense cost to our country in terms of dollars with regards to lost productivity due to illness and disease?

CRNA2007 · May 18, 2009

Probably the same way the Obama administration will measure saved jobs.

I read somewhere today that they were considering paying providers for the QUALITY of care they give.
Hm. I wonder how they would measure THAT!
I can only imagine.

CRNA2007 · May 18, 2009

Wow, so it's selfish to want to keep more of what you earn, but not selfish to take from another individual that which you did not earn? The system we have right now is not broken and works just fine. The broken part comes in to play with all the medicaid abuse we have in the system. I have a novel concept make people work and provide for themselves.

What people like you never seem to understand is how a risk-pool works. If we are all paying into the same system, the risk/cost goes DOWN. Have you ever worked for a small company? Did you notice how sky-high the insurance cost was? There's a reason for that.
Yes, I know you want to be selfish and care only about yourself and your family. Fine. At least be smart about it. I am not knocking selfishness, I'm just saying that it is in our best interest to cover everyone and keep costs DOWN.
The system we have right now is broken, and I am sick of argung with people who say stuff like "MY MONEY" all the while offering zero alternatives or ideas. The system right now is completely worthless, and some people are too ideological to see it.

CRNA2007 · May 18, 2009

You really believe that is all it is going to cost? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAH

Actually the overall cost is going to be about $2,500 per household. This amount can easily be taken from federal budget already allocated for programs which are defunct, no longer work and are simply drains on the economy. This is precisely what the plan is. Obama's complete plan is to isolate programs that can be cut out that will pay for this so that nobody feels any greater tax impact from the universal health care implementation.
Check out the Obama perspective instead of listening to what Rush Limbaugh has to say:
http://healthreform.gov

wowza · May 18, 2009

Man oh man, where do I even start?
How about here...first you said this "When you pool a group of people, the cost to the individual goes down "
Then, hilariously, you said this: "Thus the average cost to the individual is not going to change"
Which is it?

Actually it's both. The two are not mutually exclusive and are different, you just missed the distinction.

In context, the first compares when you have very few people to buffer costs. They pay closer to their costs.

The second compares the AVERAGE cost to the individual ie the average cost of the system divided among the individuals in the system. This is a fixed cost based on the cost of the system. Some will end up paying more under this system; some will pay less. Regardless the average cost is not going to change because those that pay more will be factored out by those that pay less.

Magsulfate, BSN, RN · May 19, 2009

Actually it's both. The two are not mutually exclusive and are different, you just missed the distinction.
In context, the first compares when you have very few people to buffer costs. They pay closer to their costs.
The second compares the AVERAGE cost to the individual ie the average cost of the system divided among the individuals in the system. This is a fixed cost based on the cost of the system. Some will end up paying more under this system; some will pay less. Regardless the average cost is not going to change because those that pay more will be factored out by those that pay less.

Right. If everyone was going to pay the same... it would average out.. but not everyone is going to pay... some people will not pay at all.. while others will pay a lot.

UKRNinUSA, RN · May 19, 2009

Since Medicare is going to be insolvent by 2020, and health care inequities of our current system are well documented,I would beg to differ that our healthcare system is NOT broken. No wonder Medicare is going bankrupt when you have a pool of high-end users -the only logical solution is to expand Medicare to all to dilute the user pool and therefore lower costs.

If your goal is to provide for quality healthcare for all, why wouldn't you?

If your goal is to line the pockets of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries in the vain hope that you will one day be so privileged, then go ahead keep the current system.

It amazes me that the very people that want government intervention in our lives kept to a minimum oppose a woman's right to choose, oppose euthanasia and are pro capital punishment. Highly illogical!

Honnête et Sérieux · May 19, 2009

Since Medicare is going to be insolvent by 2020, and health care inequities of our current system are well documented,I would beg to differ that our healthcare system is NOT broken. No wonder Medicare is going bankrupt when you have a pool of high-end users -the only logical solution is to expand Medicare to all to dilute the user pool and therefore lower costs.
If your goal is to provide for quality healthcare for all, why wouldn't you?
If your goal is to line the pockets of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries in the vain hope that you will one day be so privileged, then go ahead keep the current system.
It amazes me that the very people that want government intervention in our lives kept to a minimum oppose a woman's right to choose, oppose euthanasia and are pro capital punishment. Highly illogical!

The illogical element is the inaccurate definition of people's position.

Prolife people are not prolife because the specifically want to oppose people's capacity to choose, they are prolife because they think it's wrong to kill unborn babies. Even Obama points out that the positions of people need to be clarified in order to have rational discussion.

And I don't know how it's illogical to think that killing people just because they are old is wrong while simultaneously thinking that executing the most insidious and vile of criminals is just.

If you take that position, then you'd have to acknowledge that it's "highly illogical" to believe that euthanasia is OK while believing capital punishment is wrong. It rather shows the lack of logic in defining other people as illogical.