Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]
First, let's look at one other FACT not much discussed about PPACA, that the unions got "waivers" for ("cadillac" plans).
Huh? What does this have to do with anything?
PPACA turned ALL of the "private" medical care insurance into the "public option" since ALL "private" insurance has a MANDATED benefit list including minimum AND maximum (what must be covered AND what may not be covered) under ANY legal insurance policy, the real mission of the IPAB.
Good. Most people are not doctors and/or actuaries; they have no idea whether they need to be covered for some specific ailment. People just want to have their medical bills covered, and it isn't right that people rely on their insurance only to discover that treatment for some condition is specifically excluded from coverage on page 53, section 9B of the insurance policy. By mandating what procedures are and aren't covered, it makes it much easier for customers to compare insurance plans on the important factors (e.g. premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums) and reduces the opportunity for abuse by insurance companies. This is a good thing.
The IPAB will indeed pick and choose what INSURANCE may pay for, and WORST OF ALL, not as you have implied; you state the choice will be made between treatment ontions A, B and C and the most "cost effective" will be allowed, yet leave out the OBVIOUS fact that "none of the above" will ALWAYS be an option. If procedure A costs $100K and "saves" 4 of 10, procedure B costs $10K and "saves" 2 of 10 and procedure C costs $200K and saves 6 of 10; then which is the most cost effective?
If you are unwilling to consider cost-effectiveness in determining coverage, then you are part of the problem you are complaining about. It is precisely that attitude that causes medical costs to spiral out of control.
The "easily digestable" number of variables SHOULD include gender an height/weight, as they are MAJOR factors in assessing cost risk for medical care insurance, just as age and smoking are. Hmm...
No. You don't control your gender and height. I'm OK with making weight a factor as long as the premium spread is relatively small...probably less than the 1.5-to-1 spread insurance companies can charge smoking, since weight is not entirely behavioral like smoking is.
If I give a "poor" person AFFORDABLE medical care insurance that has a $2,500 annual deductable, how much MORE care is that giving them?
It'll at least cover them for catastrophic coverage, which is better than no insurance at all. And IIRC the maximum annual deductible will be $2,000 for "qualified plans" (i.e. plans eligible to be offered on the health insurance exchanges).
This is a SCAM to be "tweaked" into FREE care for the "poor" paid for by the non-poor, and YOU know it.
Poor people actually getting health care...imagine that. The horror, the horror! I love how you frame this criticism in such an accusatory way, like you automatically assume that I would share your revulsion to such an idea. :lol:
Many NON-EMERGENCY things are now going to be FREE, only in the sense that the PATIENT does not pay for them, but NOT "free" at all when it comes to the REAL costs of medical care given; even a moron KNOWS that you can not add 10% more people and make costs go down, especially when 8 out of those 10 are not paying their own costs.
So rather than study the cost-effectiveness of procedures and stop funding the wasteful ones, your solution is instead to keep doing as many wasteful procedures as the doctor wants and just letting poor people die. Yep, clearly you're the fiscally responsible one of the two of us.
Look at REAL costs WITHOUT any private insurance (20%) overhead:
What is the cost per person annually for medicaid
What's your point? Medicaid is not directly comparable to private insurance for a variety of reasons. First of all, Medicaid recipients are poorer on average than private insurance recipients, and therefore more likely to be in worse health. Second of all, Medicaid covers some of the really expensive procedures after patients have already been financially ruined by medical bills, whereas private insurance patients covers proportionally more patients who never need health care at all.
