Chancer

U.S. Healthcare Legislation Investment Impact

You claim spending of $1000 per household. But liberal Democrats have to give subsidies, because households lack $1000 to spend. They have to get the money from OPs (other people) after passing through the hands of the middleman (government) to skim off their bureaucracy cost.

It is a fact (by polls) that those who can afford healthcare, but do not want to spend "their own money" for it, are willing to spend only $100 to $200 per month (unrealistic).


On Nov 09 02:45 PM zagrebzagreb wrote:

> We all due respect, I find it absurd that the author does not account
> for the vast increase in market that most all device manufacturers,
> pharma corporations, etc will witness: More people covered, more
> healthcare coverage, more money spent on the industry...
>
> Currently the budget office is estimating roughly $120 billion a
> year in added expenditures. That's around $1,000 per household. Any
> other industry would be jumping for joy, but healthcare is next to
> the energy industry when it comes to playing nice with government
> and the public... ANYTHING that restricts freedom is greeted negatively,
> never mind the necesity of it.
>
> Additionally, if you don't think taxes on devices will simply be
> past along to the patient / insurer you haven't been paying attention
> to business in America. Companies will not lower margins; they will
> not absorb taxes.
>
> Just my opinion, but I work for a device manufacturer and help set
> pricing and deal with insurance reimbursement issues everyday.

Why Health Reform Won't Distort the Insurance Business Model

A lot of information on the various problems have been stated here. Unfortunately, real change would be to be to start over from scratch; which Obama and the libs will not do. They will not touch malpractice reform because it offends trial lawyers. One simple reform would be to limit attorney fees to 12% (like work. comp. in many states) in medical malpractice lawsuits.

When people talk about European systems, they fail to mention that doctors in Europe only make about $75,000 annually. You cannot get people into medical school (and the debt) here with that payoff.

Obama and Democrats have complete power, 90% of the media in their pocket, and support from all their interest groups. Nationalized single payer healthcare is what they want (as Obama has been recorded as saying). It is their RESPONSIBILITY to explain their plan honestly and understandably. If that fails, It is their own FAULT 100%. It does not matter what the opposition says. Obama's own statements, often lies, distortations, and falsehoods, has contributed to the confusion. Obama and the Democrats own the failure.

Obama's Healthcare Reform: 2 Winners, 2 Losers

How about leveling the playing field by a requirement that ALL (Medicare, Medicaid, the new ObummerCare, and private insurance) reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals must be the same (equal)? Why should government plans pay less for the same procedure?

You could set reimbursement rates for all healthcare with a price control board. This, of course, will hurt doctors and hospitals. Private insurance costs would be reduced. The government could control healthcare costs which is what all the politicians are screaming about.

I really do not care if for-profit insurance survives. My insurance is non-profit. But I do not want the government running it. I think it should be paid by premiums- not taxes.