Obamcare question

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

There's no real competition now.....it's all segregated by state. Get rid of the state by state restrictions and throw in some tort reform and costs will at the very least level off.

oh I agree we need tort reform but I will like to point out in states that start doing that for medical cases found it did not have any effect on cost.

And yes the state by state restrictions need to be removed but I do not see that solving the problem. If we want competition it needs to be very heavily regulated with very sharp teeth in enforcement because we clearly have proof that what we have now is not working it has caused cost to get massively out of hand.

[mcrain]

I find it funny that "know it all" is a derogatory term. I would think people would want to know more, instead of relyling on guesses or bumbling around ignorant of the facts.

[ugahairydawgs]

Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime

And yes the state by state restrictions need to be removed but I do not see that solving the problem. If we want competition it needs to be very heavily regulated with very sharp teeth in enforcement because we clearly have proof that what we have now is not working it has caused cost to get massively out of hand.

I honestly think the tort reform would go much further to curb costs than increased regulation. Too many docs have to order far too many unneeded tests in order to cover their backside. Most folks don't care cause they have a co-pay plan, so they are going to pay their small flat fee and then the insurance company has to eat the rest. There's a fine line to be toed here, but we have to get docs out of the practicing scared situation they are in now to help drive down insurance costs.

As far as regulation goes....what do you have in mind in addition to what is already on the books?

[ericrwalker]

Originally Posted by mcrain

I find it funny that "know it all" is a derogatory term. I would think people would want to know more, instead of relyling on guesses or bumbling around ignorant of the facts.

I wish people would, I agree 100%.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by VulchR

Anybody know what the deal is for Americans living overseas? (Why pay for insurance when I am required to pay UK taxes for the NHS?)

I believe the whole point of the law is that as many people as possible have insurance. If you're covered by the NHS, I don't see what your issue is. Most expats employed by multinationals probably have insurance. I'm sure there are a few free lancers out there who live in the third world where insurance maybe isn't available, but I'll be they make up a tiny minority.

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

There's no real competition now.....it's all segregated by state. Get rid of the state by state restrictions and throw in some tort reform and costs will at the very least level off.

I don't know that tort reform is going to change things, but I was very disappointed that Obamacare was not national in scope. All we'll see out of this is more of the rightwing states offering little or nothing while the progressive states really make an effort.

The costs are also going to be outrageous for states with small populations, MT, WY, ND, SD, AK, etc are going to to have large administrative costs in relation to the population served.

Hopefully the fact that so many republican states have opted out of creating their own exchanges, the feds will be able to show that a national exchange makes more sense than dozens of small ones.

----------

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

I honestly think the tort reform would go much further to curb costs than increased regulation. Too many docs have to order far too many unneeded tests in order to cover their backside. Most folks don't care cause they have a co-pay plan, so they are going to pay their small flat fee and then the insurance company has to eat the rest. There's a fine line to be toed here, but we have to get docs out of the practicing scared situation they are in now to help drive down insurance costs.

As far as regulation goes....what do you have in mind in addition to what is already on the books?

Can you prove this? It's my understanding that in states where tort reform has been enacted, there has been little or no change in medical costs.

Drs are simply too specialized to know everything about all diseases, especially those that are low on the radar screen. I think what would make more sense is for Drs to be able to spend more time with a patient. Now, they have 5 minutes and their only way of assessing the patient is by running a battery of tests. I also think that long term, digital patient records will eliminate the duplication of testing.

I don't believe that eliminating a patient's right to legal recourse is going to accomplish anything other than make a CEO's bonus bigger.

[mcrain]

Tort reform claims are out of line with the reality of the situation. See for e.g. NY Times.

In addition, the selling of insurance across state lines is nothing more than an attempt by insurance companies to set up their base of operations in states that have low taxes and little to no regulation. In other words, they want to maximize profits while providing inferior products. State regulations ensure that only insurance that meets certain standards are sold within the State. What we should do is have nationwide insurance requirements equal or greater than the most stringent state standards, and then allow companies to sell across state lines.

$5 says no insurance conpany would agree to that.

Tort reform did not lower healthcare costs in Texas. See this link.

More tort reform info here.

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs

I honestly think the tort reform would go much further to curb costs than increased regulation. Too many docs have to order far too many unneeded tests in order to cover their backside. Most folks don't care cause they have a co-pay plan, so they are going to pay their small flat fee and then the insurance company has to eat the rest. There's a fine line to be toed here, but we have to get docs out of the practicing scared situation they are in now to help drive down insurance costs.

As far as regulation goes....what do you have in mind in addition to what is already on the books?

Well the laws on the book lack the teeth they need. Also the enforcing of the laws is poorly done mostly due to the lack of teeth and power in the departments and agencies in charge of them. Many times the certain congress members block or defund the enforcement departments