Re: Heathcare bill cost back to 1.2 TRILLION wow,it's like a rancid pork sandwich.
posted at 11/8/2009 8:24 PM EST
In Response to Re: Heathcare bill cost back to 1.2 TRILLION wow,it's like a rancid pork sandwich.
[QUOTE]I can guess about your age, you must be on Medicare, and the only insurance policy that you ahve the ability to change is the supplemental. 70yrs, I had 3 ins policy's ,drop one (AARP). So you think congress is going to do a better job than you, like medicare. My doctor bills medicare (congress) as a last resort or he would be out of Practice. There needs to be reforms but not all this stuff. This is worst than IRS. In this bill you will still have to buy insurance. How is this going to change ins company's cost, just look at MA. I worked at wholesale house, they gave better coverage in other states ? also whose paying for my medicare,YOU. Whose profiting Pharmaceuticals. This bill will be forever changing, depending on who's in power. I just "hope" your right for my kids sake.You can bet Congress want be in it, They don't even pay their taxes.
Posted by chiefhowie[/QUOTE]
Again chiefhowie, you have it backwards. Your doctor bills Medicare for all that Medicare covers, because your supplemental insurance will NOT cover it anything that Medicare will cover. That is why your supplemental insurance costs so little. How else do you explain an insurance policy for a 70 year old costing less than a 30 year old's policy.
And, I am glad that you are thinking about your kids (mine too). If this thing keeps going up the way it is, your kids and mine have no chance of affording insurance when they need it, specially if they are unlucky to come down with a major illness. For you on medicare, whatever they pass, you will be OK. Nobody is going to touch Medicare benefits (and rightfully so).
I know I am right because I can measure what we do and what what cost vs. other industrialized countries. Our system overall costs us 2-3 times more than ANY other industrialized country, and yet, they have better results (they live LONGER and HEALTHIER than us). How can anybody explain this?
I don't think this is a panacea, by the way. This is nothing but a step in the right direction. We must also institute cost controls. The biggest cost driving factor is fee-for-service. I was shocked when looking at an analysis of 2 similar sized towns in TX, with same demographics, and same health profile and life expectancy. Yet cost per person was 70% higher in one of them vs. the other. The only difference between the 2 was a prevalence of private fee-for-service in one vs. a heavy reliance on managed care in the other. That tells me that in the one that has 70% higher cost, we are giving practitioners an incentive to game the system by loading up on unnecessary procedures. It is also logical. You cannot setup a system that is based on self-serving, and not expect people to take advantage of it.