Obama address to Congress

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Show me this evidence.

Well, just by running the CBO numbers on Obamacare.

The best estimates for ObamaCare put the cost at $1.6 trillion over 10 years, with a benefit of 20 million people getting insurance who aren't now (out of 47 million). Divided by 10 years, this comes out to $8000/person/year, or $666.66/person/month. Bear in mind, this includes children; the spending for an uninsured family of four per year works out to $32,000, not $8000. Also bear in mind that the 20 million will not be insured immediately, but for the sake of simplifying the numbers, we'll say they will be from day 1, for all 10 years.

$666/person/month.

Sure is cost effective.

[EddyBeers]

What a speech by Obama, an absolute homerun. And the Republicans looked good on their rebuttal afterwards as well. I loved how sick Boehner looked during the speech, it was like he was down to his last bottle of fake suntan lotion. Joe Wilson fired off a desperate salvo as the Republican caucus sat their in awe at the political greatness of this man, and watched their dreams of protecting the health insurance lobby likely go up in smoke.

Azure, I ran the numbers, it costs $232 a person. I would love to see your independent site that said it is $666, that seems like an awfully convenient number that likely came directly from the K Street Project.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, like here in Alberta where as a province of 3.6 million people we're running a $1.1 billion dollar health care deficit.

Sure is cost effective.

I know that my open-heart surgery as child would have been way more cost effective in the States.

Because I'd be dead.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Actually, there's piles of evidence (some already linked in this thread) that shows that single-payer systems are significantly more cost-efficient. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

Run the numbers the CBO provided on Obamacare.

Tell me how paying $666/person/month is cost effective.

[Pastiche]

That is not evidence that a single-payer system is less cost effective. That's evidence that it will be costly to insure the people without insurance. In a vaccum it looks costly. Meaning that it also isn't evidence that any other scheme will be more cost-effective.

This is like arguing with a jar of mayonnaise.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Azure, I ran the numbers, it costs $232 a person. I would love to see your independent site that said it is $666, that seems like an awfully convenient number that likely came directly from the K Street Project.

You ran the numbers?

Do tell how.

The CBO isn't the K Street Project.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

What a speech by Obama, an absolute homerun. And the Republicans looked good on their rebuttal afterwards as well. I loved how sick Boehner looked during the speech, it was like he was down to his last bottle of fake suntan lotion. Joe Wilson fired off a desperate salvo as the Republican caucus sat their in awe at the political greatness of this man, and watched their dreams of protecting the health insurance lobby likely go up in smoke.

Azure, I ran the numbers, it costs $232 a person. I would love to see your independent site that said it is $666, that seems like an awfully convenient number that likely came directly from the K Street Project.

LOL what do the Republicans have to do with it? Obama can't even convince his own party.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

That is not evidence that a single-payer system is less cost effective. That's evidence that it will be costly to insure the people without insurance. In a vaccum it looks costly. Meaning that it also isn't evidence that any other scheme will be more cost-effective.

This is like arguing with a jar of mayonnaise.

So you're actually saying that a program that will be running at a deficit year after year is cost effective?

What kind of screwed up reasoning is that?

I thought the idea of a single-payer system is to eliminate bloated health care costs and reduce how much it costs per person to receive health care?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

LOL what do the Republicans have to do with it? Obama can't even convince his own party.

Eddy is just making sure he can blame the Republicans when the plan fails.

Which it will of course. Obama has to convince 44 of his own party members to vote for it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I know that my open-heart surgery as child would have been way more cost effective in the States.

Because I'd be dead.

And a single payer system will magically just erase those costs? Even if they're not directly passed onto the consumer?

We must really live in a utopia.

Either way, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. My argument is that a single payer system isn't always more cost effective.

Lets look at Medicare for example. When it was passed in 1965, Congressional acturaries estimated that it would cost around $3.1 billion in 1970. Actual cost? $6.9 billion. Really cost effective.

House Ways and Means analusts estimated in 1970 that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual cost in 1990? 10x more. Medicare cost a record $110 billion in 1990. Even as it struggled to keep pace with the private market. Really cost effective right there.

Now in 2009, Medicare spending is $314 billion and growing by 10%.

Really cost effective right there.

I wonder who underestimated the costs back then?

Could it have been the Democrats? Who controlled both branches of government at a 2:1 ratio in the House, and 32 more Senate seats?

No, it couldn't have been. The Democrats would NEVER underestimate health care costs.

[peter12]

The Atlantic has a brilliant piece up on reforming healthcare, including the huge drawbacks of a single payer system.

Indeed, I suspect that our collective search for villains—for someone to blame—has distracted us and our political leaders from addressing the fundamental causes of our nation’s health-care crisis. All of the actors in health care—from doctors to insurers to pharmaceutical companies—work in a heavily regulated, massively subsidized industry full of structural distortions. They all want to serve patients well. But they also all behave rationally in response to the economic incentives those distortions create. Accidentally, but relentlessly, America has built a health-care system with incentives that inexorably generate terrible and perverse results. Incentives that emphasize health care over any other aspect of health and well-being. That emphasize treatment over prevention. That disguise true costs. That favor complexity, and discourage transparent competition based on price or quality. That result in a generational pyramid scheme rather than sustainable financing. And that—most important—remove consumers from our irreplaceable role as the ultimate ensurer of value.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

[MarchHare]

We must really live in a utopia.

Either way, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. My argument is that a single payer system isn't always more cost effective.

Lets look at Medicare for example. When it was passed in 1965, Congressional acturaries estimated that it would cost around $3.1 billion in 1970. Actual cost? $6.9 billion. Really cost effective.

House Ways and Means analusts estimated in 1970 that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. Actual cost in 1990? 10x more. Medicare cost a record $110 billion in 1990. Even as it struggled to keep pace with the private market. Really cost effective right there.

Now in 2009, Medicare spending is $314 billion and growing by 10%.

Really cost effective right there.

I don't think you're understanding the argument at all.

Yes, single-payer healthcare is expensive. Nobody is disputing that. What we're saying is that to provide the same quality of healtcare service, the US system of multiple private insurance providers is even more expensive. Single-payer systems have substantial cost-savings and efficiencies compared to the alternative.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't think you're understanding the argument at all.

Yes, single-payer healthcare is expensive. Nobody is disputing that. What we're saying is that to provide the same quality of healtcare service, the US system of multiple private insurance providers is even more expensive. Single-payer systems have substantial cost-savings and efficiencies compared to the alternative.

Barely. Both systems do not address the singular problem of our current healthcare system, costs will continue to rise uncontrollably until something is done about the way we view our own health and happiness.

It's clear that you don't understand his argument at all. Medicare IS single-payer and it is just as guilty for hiding costs and removing incentives for more effective and efficient healthcare.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Azure

You ran the numbers?

Do tell how.

The CBO isn't the K Street Project.

Well, I was just pulling a number out of thin air, but the actual CBO projections on the bill coming out of the ways and means committee shows a net increase of 65 billion to the national deficit over a ten year period

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

By the end of the 10-year period, in 2019, the coverage provisions would add $202 billion to the federal deficit, CBO and JCT estimate. That increase would be partially offset by net cost savings of $50 billion and additional revenues of$86 billion, resulting in a net increase in the deficit of an estimated $65 billion.

By 2019, CBO and the staff of JCT estimate, the

number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 37 million, leaving about 17 million nonelderly residents uninsured (nearly half ofwhom would be unauthorized immigrants)

Using the actual numbers presented by the CBO (65 Billion) and the actual number of people helped, as estimated by the CBO (37 Million) it appears that it would cost $175 dollars per yer per person helped, which is about $14.63 a month.

Do you actually have CBO numbers that show 1.6 trillion as the net cost and 20 million as the number of uninsured that would receive assistance? Here is their website if you want to actually cite it http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't think you're understanding the argument at all.

Yes, single-payer healthcare is expensive. Nobody is disputing that. What we're saying is that to provide the same quality of healtcare service, the US system of multiple private insurance providers is even more expensive. Single-payer systems have substantial cost-savings and efficiencies compared to the alternative.

Except we're not even talking about a true single-payer system here.

We don't even know if the public option will on the table for SURE. And all my costs are associated with what Obama is proposing, and not with the single-payer system.

I'm not disputing that a true single payer system, perhaps even like the one we have here in Canada, albeit managed a lot better than what we have, could save money.

But that would require that the US burn everything down and build it all from scratch. Something they're not willing to do.

My problem from the START has been a 'federal' government run program. And the costs associated with THAT.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Atlantic has a brilliant piece up on reforming healthcare, including the huge drawbacks of a single payer system.



http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

Looks like a good article. But where does that passage that you quote address draw backs of a single-payer system? Beyond the near insane insinuation that universal coverage is bad because it creates incentives for people to be unhealthy. Is that is your argument?

Coverage creates perverse incentives for unhealthy living? Is that your final answer?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Looks like a good article. But where does that passage that you quote address draw backs of a single-payer system? Beyond the near insane insinuation that universal coverage is bad because it creates incentives for people to be unhealthy. Is that is your argument?

Coverage creates perverse incentives for unhealthy living? Is that your final answer?

The current healthcare reforms are taking place only within the arena of partisanship. They don't, in any way, address the massive problems that are implicit in the system.

As well, universal coverage does create bad incentives, at the very least for putting decisions regarding healthcare costs in the hands of state bureaucrats, rather than the actual customers.

See this story about a women who was refused treatment for her premature baby because it didn't meet the required age for life-saving treatment under government guidelines.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Azure

Except we're not even talking about a true single-payer system here.

We don't even know if the public option will on the table for SURE. And all my costs are associated with what Obama is proposing, and not with the single-payer system.

I'm not disputing that a true single payer system, perhaps even like the one we have here in Canada, albeit managed a lot better than what we have, could save money.

But that would require that the US burn everything down and build it all from scratch. Something they're not willing to do.

My problem from the START has been a 'federal' government run program. And the costs associated with THAT.

Well, that explains why we appear to be talking past each other -- we're not debating the same topic.

I'm arguing in favour of the the cost benefits of a universal, government-run single-payer system as implemented in most OECD countries. You're arguing specifically against Obama's plan.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Speaking of mountain of lies: Apparently according to Obama's speech the 45 million uninsured is now just at 30 million. With unemployment at record highs how did 15 million Americans all of a sudden get insured.

They didn't. The 15 million in that count was made up of illegal aliens. Good on Obama for using the real number. Lots of lies on both sides of this deal.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Actually, I can understand why they don't want more taxes, having lived there for 11 years. Americans pay a lot of tax, especially the middle class. The highest earners pay considerably less than they do here, but the vast majority of people are being taken to the cleaners by a government that doesn't even give them basic entitlements.

To me, there are two possible models for taxation and governance: very low taxes, low entitlements and higher taxes and more generous social programs. The U.S. has high taxes and no social safety net to speak of. They're getting screwed.

And this post should answer the repeatedly asked question of why American's don't trust the government to run health care. We can't afford to trust them.