What's so objectionable to liberals about the co-ops?

[MikeWaters]

Besides the obvious answer that because they are not govt.-run, but are instead run by its members, it is that much father away from single payor, which is the ultimate goal.

Is the govt.-run plan somehow going to contain costs in a way that co-ops cannot? If so, how?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Besides the obvious answer that because they are not govt.-run, but are instead run by its members, it is that much father away from single payor, which is the ultimate goal.

Is the govt.-run plan somehow going to contain costs in a way that co-ops cannot? If so, how?

When have they ever worked in health care (Blue Cross and Blue Shield gave it up for a reason)? Why use a co-op with significantly higher administrative costs than a public plan (estimates of about 15% versus 4%)? That's just throwing money away for no reason.

[MikeWaters]

So a public plan with no administrative cost containment, that will accept anyone, and pays 30 percent less to docs and hospitals--is what is going to save the day?

And oh yeah, it will be run by govt bureacrats who will make all the administrative decisions of what is covered and who gets paid what.

And it won't cost the poor or middle class a dime!

(No wonder dems are in free fall)

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So a public plan with no administrative cost containment, that will accept anyone, and pays 30 percent less to docs and hospitals--is what is going to save the day?

And oh yeah, it will be run by govt bureacrats who will make all the administrative decisions of what is covered and who gets paid what.

And it won't cost the poor or middle class a dime!

(No wonder dems are in free fall)

Of course there is administrative cost containment with a public plan (look at Medicare, for example). A plan must accept everyone. Otherwise, "universal" health care looks an awful lot like what we have now. As for docs and hospitals, it is extremely premature to be stating as fact what payments will be made to anyone.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Of course there is administrative cost containment with a public plan (look at Medicare, for example). A plan must accept everyone. Otherwise, "universal" health care looks an awful lot like what we have now. As for docs and hospitals, it is extremely premature to be stating as fact what payments will be made to anyone.

1. Medicare does not have the administrative hurdles that prevent overuse and inappropriate use (that's why the fraud rate is high).

2. A plan that will accept anyone will cost a lot of money. It will contain the very sickest people. I don't believe any of their cost estimates.

3. To hold down these costs, they will do what medicare and medicaid currently do--slash payments. So you will have a doc shortage in the first place (see MA), then you will underpay. Then docs will opt out. And what happens next? It becomes illegal to not accept the public insurance. And suddenly we are on the precipice of single payor which is just what the liberals want.

They know it won't work, and then they will try to foist more govt control.

[Tex]

Rasmussen numbers:

- 54% of likely voters say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option (including 66% of Independents)
- Voters oppose the current proposed plan, 53-42%
- 51% think passage of the proposed plan will make health care worse; 26% better, 17% no change
- 51% think passage of the proposed plan will make health care costs increase; 19% costs go down, 21% no change
- Voters oppose a single-payer system 57-32%

No question Obama is losing the debate.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

1. Medicare does not have the administrative hurdles that prevent overuse and inappropriate use (that's why the fraud rate is high).

Do you think it is higher than private care fraud rates?

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/200...3/gvsd0804.htm

2. A plan that will accept anyone will cost a lot of money. It will contain the very sickest people. I don't believe any of their cost estimates.

Sure, it will cost a lot of money. But will it cost more than what we currently do? Studies don't think so.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi.../full/22/2/230

"Nonetheless, in the long run, Medicare has enjoyed an advantage in slowing per enrollee health care spending growth, relative to private insurance."

Medicare accepts all comers too, regardless of health. Furthermore, who do you think is paying right now for many people with severe health issues who would sign up for a public plan? We are. Many such people can't obtain health insurance (pre-existing conditions) or can't afford the insurance available to them. Those people still get treated- on our dime.

3. To hold down these costs, they will do what medicare and medicaid currently do--slash payments. So you will have a doc shortage in the first place (see MA), then you will underpay. Then docs will opt out. And what happens next? It becomes illegal to not accept the public insurance. And suddenly we are on the precipice of single payor which is just what the liberals want.

They know it won't work, and then they will try to foist more govt control.

Perhaps that is what will be done to hold down costs- certainly very early to make that statement though. Tort reform, focusing on preventative care, reduction in administrative fees, enhanced competition, etc. will drive down costs substantially.

[MikeWaters]

The only private insurance fraud cited in your example is where the insurer ripped off the doctors.

Researchers pointed to a January settlement by UnitedHealth Group, totaling $450 million, over allegations that the insurance firm manipulated out-of-network prices for physician services, resulting in an estimated 10% to 28% increase in costs. The Litigation Center of the American Medical Association and State Medical Societies, along with other physician organizations, had sued United, which denied any wrongdoing.

You could argue that medicaid and medicare have it built-in to rip off doctors.

Medicare can slow growth because they can arbitrarily cut their reimbursements and providers have no recourse (at least not the recourse they do with private insurance).

Medicare certainly does not accept all comers. Me, for example, I can't buy medicare.

Like I said before, private insurance subsidizes Medicare. A doctor that only has medicaid and medicare clients will go under very quickly.

You aren't concerned about the administrative costs. You are concerned about lack of govt. control. But you aren't honest enough to say it.

And that's why Obama is going to lose this one (he loses even if it passes). Because the public knows he is lying.

[MikeWaters]

You could spend the rest of your life reading articles about medicaid and medicare fraud.

I won't bother to link them.

You know what I like about medicare (I deal with it all the time). I *never* get a phone call from Medicare questioning whether the level of care is appropriate.

Of course, I try to act ethically, and I certainly don't commit fraud. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when the cat is away, the mice come out to play.

Medicare does do audits. They obviously don't audit everything, or even close to everything. And that's where you read about the all the fraud busts.

[MikeWaters]

I'll point out that Cali's only stated objection to co-ops is that he believes they will have more administrative costs. Therefore he wishes to prevent membership control (of a co-op) and instead have government control by bureaucrats.

He does like to change the topic when it doesn't suit him.

Obama himself can't even mount a credible argument of why co-ops are inferior to a public plan.