• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

NYT: Obamacare Chaos - NYT??????

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
2
Location
Montgomery, Al
Not a very optimistic look ahead for the future of healthcare in the U.S. The Liberals finally see the disaster looming.
WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Health Chaos Ahead
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 25, 2013

It was always going to be difficult to implement Obamacare, but even fervent supporters of the law admit that things are going worse than expected.

Josh Haner/The New York Times
David Brooks

Implementation got off to a bad start because the Obama administration didn't want to release unpopular rules before the election. Regulators have been working hard but are clearly overwhelmed, trying to write rules that influence the entire health care sector — an economic unit roughly the size of France. Republicans in Congress have made things much more difficult by refusing to provide enough money for implementation.

By now, everybody involved seems to be in a state of anxiety. Insurance companies are trying to put out new products, but they don't know what federal parameters they have to meet. Small businesses are angry because the provisions that benefited them have been put on the back burner. Health care systems are highly frustrated. They can't plan without a road map. Senator Max Baucus, one of the authors of the law, says he sees a "huge train wreck" coming.

I've been talking with a bipartisan bunch of health care experts, trying to get a sense of exactly how bad things are. In my conversations with this extremely well-informed group of providers, academics and former government officials, I'd say there is a minority, including some supporters of the law, who think the whole situation is a complete disaster. They predict Obamacare will collapse and do serious damage to the underlying health system.

But the clear majority, including some of the law's opponents, believe that we're probably in for a few years of shambolic messiness, during which time everybody will scramble and adjust, and eventually we will settle down to a new normal.

What nobody can predict is how health care chaos will interact with the political system. There's a good chance that Republicans will be able to use unhappiness with what is already an unpopular law to win back the Senate in 2014. Controlling both houses of Congress, they will be in a good position to alter, though not repeal, the program.

The law's biggest defenders will then become insurance companies and health care corporations. Having spent billions of dollars adapting to the new system, they are not going to want to see it repealed or replaced.

The experts talk about the problems that lie ahead in cascades. First, there is what you might call the structural cascade. Everything is turning out to be more complicated than originally envisioned. The Supreme Court decision made the Medicaid piece more complicated. The decision by many states not to set up exchanges made the exchange piece more complicated. The lines of accountability between, for example, state and federally run exchanges have grown byzantine and unclear.

A law that was very confusing has become mind-boggling. That could lead people to freeze up. Insurance companies will hesitate before venturing into state exchanges, thereby limiting competition and choice. Americans are just going to be overwhelmed and befuddled. Many are just going to stay away, even if they are eligible for benefits.

Then there is the technical cascade. At some point, people are going to sit at computers and enroll. If the data process looks like some 1990s glitchmonster, if information doesn't flow freely, then the public opinion hit will be catastrophic.

Then there is the cost cascade. Nearly everybody not in the employ of the administration agrees this law does not solve the cost problem, and many of the recent regulatory decisions will send costs higher. A study in California found that premiums could increase by an average of 20 percent for people not covered by federal subsidies. A study by the Society of Actuaries found that by 2017 costs could rise by 32 percent for insurers covering people in the individual exchanges, and as high as 80 percent in states like Ohio.

Then there is the adverse selection cascade. Under the law, young healthy people subsidize poorer, sicker and older people. But the young may decide en masse that it is completely irrational for them to get health insurance that subsidizes others while they are healthy. They'll be better off paying the fines, if those are even enforced, and opting out. Without premiums from the young, everybody else's costs go up even higher.

Then there is the provider concentration cascade. The law further incentivizes a trend under way: the consolidation of hospitals, doctors' practices and other providers. That also boosts prices.

Over all, it seems likely that in some form or another Obamacare is here to stay. But the turmoil around it could dominate politics for another election cycle, and the changes after that — to finally control costs, to fix the mind-boggling complexities and the unintended consequences — will never end.

Regulatory regimes can be simple and dumb or complex and sprawling. When you build complex, it takes a while to work through the consequences.
 
I'm no expert on the health industry but it always seemed that the place to start to bring costs under control was with tort reform. Cut out the million dollar lawsuits because some kid's tonsils bled after being removed and you'd go a long way towards being able to reduce other costs.

A second issue for me is the complete removal of the hospital patient from the details of his hospital bill. The average patient has no idea what it all cost, and no idea what he was charged for on a daily basis while there. Just have the hospital send the bill to the insurance company.

The third issue is the collusion between hospitals and doctors to run up charges on patients. I saw this first hand when I worked during college at a local hospital's emergency admit center. One particular Dr., a black guy, regardless of what his patient's illness was, would run every test in the book when they were admitted.

I recall working one weekend and seeing a black patient, who was drunk and nothing more, being discharged by the regular hospital emergency room doctor. He refused to leave and called Dr. Kinchen. Kinchen gives orders to admit the guy to the hospital but the place was literally full....no beds. So, what to do? Kinchen put him in INTENSIVE CARE!!!!

This was, of course, all charged to Medicaid.

On Monday I complained to my supervisor about what I'd seen and asked how the hospital could possibly accept such flagrant abuse of the system by a doctor. She replied, "the hosptial is getting paid as well so they don't care".

:mad:
 
How can liberals be so damn dense? What the hell did they think was going to happen? Maybe the whole mess will collapse under it's own weight and we'll be left with simple supply and demand. Maybe a liability waiver could be created to protect physicians.
 
what will it take to remove Obama care, and go back to where we were?? is it at all even possible?
 
Traveler said:
How can liberals be so damn dense? What the hell did they think was going to happen? Maybe the whole mess will collapse under it's own weight and we'll be left with simple supply and demand. Maybe a liability waiver could be created to protect physicians.

Oldtimer ??? Care to answer for YOUR liberals ?
 
Traveler said:
How can liberals be so damn dense? What the hell did they think was going to happen? Maybe the whole mess will collapse under it's own weight and we'll be left with simple supply and demand. Maybe a liability waiver could be created to protect physicians.

They did create one to protect physicians... it's called planned parent hood, where you can kill and maim and not be held responsible.

I think Obama care has several provisions as well, like the re-hospitalization provisions and the decline of care to the elderly.

I can't wait to see how daddy government is going to resolve all the crying when the mental babes have to meet reality... however, most probably won't be able to recall what it was like 5 years ago when health care and insurance was a fraction of the cost today, much less a couple years from now.
 
Cut out the million dollar lawsuits because some kid's tonsils bled after being removed and you'd go a long way towards being able to reduce other costs.

but insurance fraud.. is often encouraged by federal laws.. often to complex for anyone to actually understand, leads to lawsuits with no practical merit..

laws such as the disabilities act cost US billions in unseen costs*..

a simple test of actual damages before an arbitrator before a case is heard by a judge would dismiss a huge proportion of the cases...


locally I have seen our street corner sidewalks replaces at least a half dozen times in the last ten years.. due to lawsuits.. no one can figure out what is actually needed as the statutes for the blind contradict the wheelchair requirements..

so our insurance fund pays lawyer fees and a 'settlement" to the person who sues.. the feds chip in and we dig up the corners.. and put in new sidewalk corners.. only to get sued again..

this year I have seen one set replaced twice,.. before the concrete set..

they just finished at the end of the street and we were already sued again...

doctors and hospitals live with this madness as well.. can you imagine how much of that cost is not seen by US, yet billed to our insurance?

a simple requirement to show actual damages, and fault would end a huge portion of the stupid lawsuits..
 
Would auto insurance go up or down, for paying customers, if you had millions of people that had the coverage, but didn`t pay the premiums
 
hypocritexposer said:
Would auto insurance go up or down, for paying customers, if you had millions of people that had the coverage, but didn`t pay the premiums

Depends, is it free auto insurance? :D
 
hypocritexposer said:
Would auto insurance go up or down, for paying customers, if you had millions of people that had the coverage, but didn`t pay the premiums

a lack of coverage is about the same as not paying...
Insured drivers pay a hefty price for fellow motorists who have no policies — $10.8 billion

"Most of the people that do have insurance have coverage that includes uninsured motorist coverage … to protect them (if) they're injured in an accident caused by another motorist who does not have insurance,"

Automobile insurance is compulsory in every state except New Hampshire

"Laws in most states have proven ineffective in reducing the numbers of drivers who are uninsured," Worters says. "Some drivers can't afford insurance, and some drivers with surcharges for accidents or serious traffic violations don't want to pay the high premiums that result from a poor driving record. It is costly to track down violators of compulsory insurance laws, and unless the odds of getting caught are high and the penalties severe, drivers will continue to flout the law."

New Hampshire has a uninsured rate of 11% the same as NJ..
in new jersey you can not register a car without proof of insurance..
you can not get it inspected without proof of insurance.. yet we still have 11% who do not have coverage

with ranges between 10 to 28% being the norm... how can we expect better compliance with healthcare insurance out of that same population..

currently we have approximately 16.3% without healthcare coverage..


it they want more covered.. get people working and get the costs under control.. and the percentage will decrease.
 

Latest posts

Top