• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iowa Medicaid is Burning

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
20,181
Reaction score
21,525
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
In the wake of a new government report last week ("'Stubborn and absurd.' Iowa's ombudsman slams private Medicaid managers for denying medical care to disabled"), the commentaries on Iowa's ongoing experiment with privatizing its Medicaid program are getting more scathing.

Iowa Medicaid is burning
Nothing to see here. It's just Iowa's health care safety net that's ablaze.

Complaints about Iowa's Medicaid have doubled in the past year, says a scathing report issued by the state's ombudsman Kristie Hirschman. For-profit contractors, hired in 2016 when then-Gov. Terry Branstad hurriedly privatized the system, are denying claims at an increasing rate, which Hirschman labeled "stubborn and absurd." Health care providers recently griped that the entire system is an unsustainable house of cards that's undercutting necessary programs for the handicapped and infirm.

Gov. Kim Reynolds earlier this year acknowledged systemic problems, though she's been less than forthcoming with corrective measures. Iowa Legislature this past month basically admitted this whole Medicaid boondoggle isn't going well, passing legislation that, at the very least, established timetables for payments to providers.

Iowa's experiment with privatized Medicaid is a failure by every objective measure. The promised savings to state coffers are a tiny fraction of what was predicted. Almost daily, Iowans are telling their stories about a claim denial for treatment required for them to function. Profit-driven Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) have every motivation to deny services. They, too, have complained that the $4 billion program isn't generating the expected revenue. And a general lack of transparency is pervasive throughout the failing system.

This has not been handled well.
 
In the wake of a new government report last week ("'Stubborn and absurd.' Iowa's ombudsman slams private Medicaid managers for denying medical care to disabled"), the commentaries on Iowa's ongoing experiment with privatizing its Medicaid program are getting more scathing.

Iowa Medicaid is burning


This has not been handled well.

Privatization of services is not necessarily bad, as long as the government maintains it's role as the regulator and enforcer of standards. Where these types of problems occur, even within the government run services (not privatized), it is usually due to government oversight failures.

Hurriedly enacted laws, of any type, are rife with such problems. Government legislation should be minimal and methodical in its formation. That takes time, effort, and intelligence - other than time, these are things not usually attributed to government action.
 
Privatization of services is not necessarily bad, as long as the government maintains it's role as the regulator and enforcer of standards. Where these types of problems occur, even within the government run services (not privatized), it is usually due to government oversight failures.

Hurriedly enacted laws, of any type, are rife with such problems. Government legislation should be minimal and methodical in its formation. That takes time, effort, and intelligence - other than time, these are things not usually attributed to government action.

Medicaid is half state run and half federal.
You are right there is lack of oversite.

The people in charge of managing this are not managing it.
It can get straightened out but it is a matter of when and how.
 
It's the Republican way. The preview of a Republican led healthcare system.

You realize that Medicare is privately run right?
 
YOU people in Iowa voted for this ****; eat it ........................ MAGA .................
 
You realize that Medicare is privately run right?

That's not completely true. It is publicly administered, but the government contracts with private insurers for payment and claims processing as well as provider networks / enrollment.
 
That's not completely true. It is publicly administered, but the government contracts with private insurers for payment and claims processing as well as provider networks / enrollment.

And really this is even worse than even fully govt run healthcare (like the VA). Crony capitalism take the worst of govt incompetence and pairs it with the worst of capitalist profit seeking. The businesses have no incentive to keep quality high, because the money just keeps flowing from the govt. And the govt has no incentive to keep quality high, because the benefit is basically 'free' and in high demand, and they can use it to buy votes and stay in office, without ever really changing anything.
 
And really this is even worse than even fully govt run healthcare (like the VA). Crony capitalism take the worst of govt incompetence and pairs it with the worst of capitalist profit seeking. The businesses have no incentive to keep quality high, because the money just keeps flowing from the govt. And the govt has no incentive to keep quality high, because the benefit is basically 'free' and in high demand, and they can use it to buy votes and stay in office, without ever really changing anything.

Medicare has higher satisfaction rates among its beneficiaries than any private healthcare plan. Americans With Government Health Plans Most Satisfied

There is a reason why no country on earth wants our healthcare system.
 
Among the 1% of the people you asked, they mean.

Well its not a conspiracy. It would be like any other poll in that they try to get a representative sample of beneficiaries.
 
Well its not a conspiracy. It would be like any other poll in that they try to get a representative sample of beneficiaries.

And like any other poll, the result would be a guess. Surveys are not fact. The question is how much are we paying, and what quality service are we getting. And its not just payroll tax. Half of medicare is funded by general revenue, which means the top 50% who pay income tax.
 
And like any other poll, the result would be a guess. Surveys are not fact. The question is how much are we paying, and what quality service are we getting. And its not just payroll tax. Half of medicare is funded by general revenue, which means the top 50% who pay income tax.

The vast majority of seniors would be uninsurable without Medicare or massive subsidies. A 70 year old man to a health insurer is about the same risk as a hardcore alcoholic with 5 DUIs is a to an auto insurer. Insurers are guaranteed to lose money on seniors, and every year a senior turns older, their risk to the insurer goes up that much more.

Health insurance doesn't work like any other form of insurance. If it did, there would be a maximum value of your life based upon what your life is economically worth. Thus a CEO would have a much higher maximum value of their life than a Janitor or a child would. Moreover, every year past the prime value of your life, your maximum life value would be worth less and thus the insurer would pay out less and less as you got older before it considered you a total loss. For example, a 35 year old corporate attorney might be worth 2 million before an insurer would consider them a total loss. In comparison, a child would only be worth 100k or so before they were considered a total loss because their future economic value is entirely speculative. An 80 year old grandmother might only be worth 20k before she was considered a total loss. That is how insurance typically works, you insure someone based upon their value at that time and human beings rapidly depreciate in value after their prime working years. So this notion that you could just privatize insurance for seniors without subsidy and just leave it all the markets is nonsense. Hardly any of them would ever be able to afford their premiums.
 
The vast majority of seniors would be uninsurable without Medicare or massive subsidies. A 70 year old man to a health insurer is about the same risk as a hardcore alcoholic with 5 DUIs is a to an auto insurer. Insurers are guaranteed to lose money on seniors, and every year a senior turns older, their risk to the insurer goes up that much more.

Health insurance doesn't work like any other form of insurance. If it did, there would be a maximum value of your life based upon what your life is economically worth. Thus a CEO would have a much higher maximum value of their life than a Janitor or a child would. Moreover, every year past the prime value of your life, your maximum life value would be worth less and thus the insurer would pay out less and less as you got older before it considered you a total loss. For example, a 35 year old corporate attorney might be worth 2 million before an insurer would consider them a total loss. In comparison, a child would only be worth 100k or so before they were considered a total loss because their future economic value is entirely speculative. An 80 year old grandmother might only be worth 20k before she was considered a total loss. That is how insurance typically works, you insure someone based upon their value at that time and human beings rapidly depreciate in value after their prime working years. So this notion that you could just privatize insurance for seniors without subsidy and just leave it all the markets is nonsense. Hardly any of them would ever be able to afford their premiums.

Who said anything about insurance? Insurance should cover unexpected costs, not expected ones. Everything else should be paid with cash. Once everyone is doing that prices and quality will return to reasonable levels.
 
Who said anything about insurance? Insurance should cover unexpected costs, not expected ones. Everything else should be paid with cash. Once everyone is doing that prices and quality will return to reasonable levels.

Routine healthcare is not what is driving our high healthcare costs. A visit to your GP is 100 dollars or so out of pocket on a HSA compatible plan. Generics run 10 to 30 dollars a prescription. That's not what drives high healthcare costs though. Even if everyone paid for routine care completely out of pocket, our healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP would be just as high as they are now.

Chemotherapy - 15k to 50k a month.
Critical care - 10k to 30k a day.
Surgeries - 10k to 300k.
Non-Generic Drugs - $50 dollars to $70,000
Chronic disease care - 10k to 500k a year.
 
Routine healthcare is not what is driving our high healthcare costs. A visit to your GP is 100 dollars or so out of pocket on a HSA compatible plan. Generics run 10 to 30 dollars a prescription. That's not what drives high healthcare costs though. Even if everyone paid for routine care completely out of pocket, our healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP would be just as high as they are now.

Chemotherapy - 15k to 50k a month.
Critical care - 10k to 30k a day.
Surgeries - 10k to 300k.
Non-Generic Drugs - $50 dollars to $70,000
Chronic disease care - 10k to 500k a year.

Those prices are inflated too, but if people want them they should pay for them. Not make me pay for them. That will drive the price down.
 
Those prices are inflated too, but if people want them they should pay for them. Not make me pay for them. That will drive the price down.

Of course they are inflated. It is because necessary healthcare doesn't conform to the laws of supply and demand. Say you need cancer treatment. Your choice is to agree to pay whatever they choose to charge you for that treatment, or die a slow and horrible death. As a consumer, you have very little power to negotiate better pricing in such circumstances (in contrast to completely elective care like plastic surgery). This is why no other country does healthcare like we do it.
 
Of course they are inflated. It is because necessary healthcare doesn't conform to the laws of supply and demand. Say you need cancer treatment. Your choice is to agree to pay whatever they choose to charge you for that treatment, or die a slow and horrible death. As a consumer, you have very little power to negotiate better pricing in such circumstances (in contrast to completely elective care like plastic surgery). This is why no other country does healthcare like we do it.

No other country has the best quality health care that can be afforded. There is a reason that the US leads every other country in medical innovation. That reason is profit.

As you say though, if you cant afford cancer treatment, you die. That how the world works. We cant live forever. Wanting to live forever is what gives humans a purpose in life. Thats why we work hard, innovate, and try to get rich. Removing that just leads to what every other country has. Stagnation and leechers.
 
No other country has the best quality health care that can be afforded. There is a reason that the US leads every other country in medical innovation. That reason is profit.

As you say though, if you cant afford cancer treatment, you die. That how the world works. We cant live forever. Wanting to live forever is what gives humans a purpose in life. Thats why we work hard, innovate, and try to get rich. Removing that just leads to what every other country has. Stagnation and leechers.

Wow....
 
Who said anything about insurance? Insurance should cover unexpected costs, not expected ones. Everything else should be paid with cash. Once everyone is doing that prices and quality will return to reasonable levels.



BWWWWAAAAAAAHHHHHH... that's funny! :doh

When do surgeons start providing total knees for chickens?
 
Of course they are inflated. It is because necessary healthcare doesn't conform to the laws of supply and demand. Say you need cancer treatment. Your choice is to agree to pay whatever they choose to charge you for that treatment, or die a slow and horrible death. As a consumer, you have very little power to negotiate better pricing in such circumstances (in contrast to completely elective care like plastic surgery). This is why no other country does healthcare like we do it.

Actually that's not the reason. Say you need cancer treatment. The drugs, research etc, radiation, surgery etc.. cost a lot to develop and to have. BUT the number of people that have that cancer are pretty tiny compared to the rest of the population. there is not enough volume to lower the price.. so.. you pay a lot for that cancer treatment.. and for a number of other things as well as the costs are spread out to other things that have more volume. Its called cost shifting.
 
Actually that's not the reason. Say you need cancer treatment. The drugs, research etc, radiation, surgery etc.. cost a lot to develop and to have. BUT the number of people that have that cancer are pretty tiny compared to the rest of the population. there is not enough volume to lower the price.. so.. you pay a lot for that cancer treatment.. and for a number of other things as well as the costs are spread out to other things that have more volume. Its called cost shifting.

I am not fully buying that explanation. Even cancer drugs that have been on the market well over a decade can still be extraordinarily expensive. Moreover, you have huge variations between hospitals as to costs, markets and so on. Markets where one health system owns the entire market for a metro will typically have much higher costs than those where there is more competition and thus they must compete to be covered under insurance networks. Moreover, its well exceeded the rate of inflation and is much more expensive than the same cost of treatment would be anywhere else on earth. That alone tells you the market is extraordinarily dysfunctional.

Also, the lifetime risk of cancer is 38%. Not exactly a small market.
 
Last edited:
Medicaid is half state run and half federal.
You are right there is lack of oversite.

The people in charge of managing this are not managing it.
It can get straightened out but it is a matter of when and how.

Medicaid is fully state run.

It’s partially federally funded.

This is an issue of trying to deregulate and pretend that the private sector can deliver better or equal quality for less cost. It doesn’t work for health care.

Illinois is going thru a similar process, forcing managed Medicaid on people, leading to headaches for providers, problems for patients, but profits for insurers.
 
Back
Top Bottom