Riddle me this - Gingrich: Republicans have 'zero' health care ideas

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Boston (CNN) – Former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich reprimanded his fellow Republicans in unusually harsh terms Wednesday, blaming GOP members of Congress for developing "zero" alternatives to President Obama's health care reform law.

Gingrich, who was speaking at the opening session of the Republican National Committee's summer meeting, fielded a question about "Obamacare" and recalled that Republicans were able to block Bill Clinton's health care reform effort in 1994 because they had "a positive alternative approach" to health care.

more
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/14/gingrich-republicans-have-zero-health-care-ideas/

So let me get this straight - republicans don't have a healthcare plan .. but all democrats had to offer the American people was the republican, Romney, the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation with input from the NRA, healthcare plan .. Obama and the democrats had none of their own.

Amazing

They've had THREE years to prepare for this plan, yet they still have to delay major parts of the plan to try to avoid another democratic crash in the 2014 midterms.

Unbelievable

At what point will democrats recognize had badly .. and easily they've been played on healthcare?
 
I think Newt is correct. At least in terms of the national party. If you want to address health care, first and foremost you must address what is driving the costs up. Until you do that, you are just shuffling around different ways to pay more.
 
Superfreak said:
I think Newt is correct. At least in terms of the national party. If you want to address health care, first and foremost you must address what is driving the costs up. Until you do that, you are just shuffling around different ways to pay more.
Click to expand...

The major factor driving up costs is the uninsured. So how do you wanna fix that?
 
Superfreak said:
No, it is not. The costs are what drive up the numbers of uninsured.

The main driver of costs:

1) Obesity
2) Number of doctors
Click to expand...


I know you really really think that is true, but have you really looked into it? I mean, what percentage of total health care spending today is related to obesity and related diseases?
 
I would add stress to obesity.

I don't know if there are any metrics out there, but I can't imagine what the difference in stress levels are like today compared to 30-40 years ago. We've evolved into this 24/7 working culture - a strange goal for a technologically advanced society.

Stress is debilitating, and leads to all kinds of health problems.
 
Superfreak said:
No, it is not. The costs are what drive up the numbers of uninsured.

The main driver of costs:

1) Obesity
2) Number of doctors
Click to expand...

really? Number of doctors? But weren't the anti-ACA people screaming we wouldn't have enough doctors if everyone got insurance?

I know obesity is one of your pet peeves, but cancer and heart attacks and transplants use up a lot of money. Now if you want to say "lifestyle factors" - sure. Also, we're living longer with more chronic diseases - which costs more. And technology improves, everyone wants the latest - it's pricier. Heck, look at AIDS - thank goodness we now have treatments that allow people with AIDS to live a lot longer; but that means we spend more treating them. Look at premature kids or kids with diseases like cystic fibrosis - living longer, costing more.

But hey, let's get some facts:
http://www.regence.com/transparency/regence-and-reform/what-drives-up-health-care-costs.jsp

It's the prices: There are two primary factors to consider: unit cost of medical goods and services and the amount of care delivered. According to the 2011 Milliman Medical Index, unit costs for medical goods and services are the biggest driver of overall health care cost.

Even though number of in-hospital days was nearly the same from 2009 to 2010, the cost of those days went up more than 10 percent.
It's the waste: The Institute of Medicine calculates that in 2009 alone, the most recent figures available, the U.S. wasted more than one-third of the $2.5 trillion dollars we spent on health care. The IOM identifies $765 billion wasted through:

Unnecessary services
Frequency
Defensive medicine
Unnecessary use of high-cost services
Administrative waste
Duplicative costs of administering different plans
Unproductive documentation
Inefficiently delivered services
Medical errors
Uncoordinated care
Inefficient operations
Too-high prices
Prices higher than competitive levels
Excessive variation in service prices
Fraud
Medicare/Medicaid fraud
Insufficient investment to detect fraud
Missed prevention opportunities
Poor delivery of clinical prevention services
It's where we live: The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care has documented more than two decades of regional variation in Medicare patients, both for standards of care received and cost of care delivered.

Costs vary from $5,200 to more than $17,000 per person depending on region.
Diabetes management: Not everyone gets equally effective care, ranging from 66.6 percent of the time in Albuquerque, N.M to 86.5 percent in Burlington, Vt. This can lead to inequitable outcomes, severe long-term health consequences and higher costs.
Solutions

Each of us has a role in helping health care become more efficient, affordable and effective.

Improve health. Our public and private sector health organizations should help us be healthier. According to the World Health Organization, Americans lead high-income countries in:
Higher body mass index rates, which correlates thigher disease rates
Higher rates of chronic disease, especially those most affected by lifestyle, like diabetes, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure and lung disorders
Improve quality. Adopting different delivery and payment models can better coordinate care, improve patient outcomes, reward quality and promote wellness
Reduce waste. The Institute of Medicine's Health Care Imperative identifies $463 billion in savings through best practices for providers and insurers
Expand access. Federal health reform has already extended coverage to those under 26 and high-risk individuals. In 2014, subsidies will help those with lower incomes to get publicly funded coverage, and private insurers must accept everyone who applies
Increase awareness. Consumer awareness about how to compare treatment effectiveness and costs can influence quality and affordability. Visit Regence's consumer education site, WhatsTheRealCost.org
Click to expand...
 
Dungheap said:
I know you really really think that is true, but have you really looked into it? I mean, what percentage of total health care spending today is related to obesity and related diseases?
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120409103247.htm

Apr. 9, 2012 — Obesity now accounts for almost 21 percent of U.S. health care costs -- more than twice the previous estimates, reports a new Cornell University study.
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...ricans-more-in-healthcare-costs-than-smoking/

http://www.rwjf.org/en/research-pub...est-drivers-of-cost-in-u-s--health-care-.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4508878&page=1

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/09/fact.check.obesity/index.html
 
SO like, I looked into it a little bit and estimates of obesity-related healthcare spending in the United States in 2011 range up to $210 billion at the high end. Total health care spending inthe United States in 2011 was $2.7 trillion. So, like, obesity as the number 1 driver of cost increases is just not plausible.
 
tekkychick said:
really? Number of doctors? But weren't the anti-ACA people screaming we wouldn't have enough doctors if everyone got insurance?

I know obesity is one of your pet peeves, but cancer and heart attacks and transplants use up a lot of money. Now if you want to say "lifestyle factors" - sure. Also, we're living longer with more chronic diseases - which costs more. And technology improves, everyone wants the latest - it's pricier. Heck, look at AIDS - thank goodness we now have treatments that allow people with AIDS to live a lot longer; but that means we spend more treating them. Look at premature kids or kids with diseases like cystic fibrosis - living longer, costing more.

But hey, let's get some facts:
http://www.regence.com/transparency/regence-and-reform/what-drives-up-health-care-costs.jsp
Click to expand...

1) That is part of the problem with ACA, it will make the current lack of doctors worse, not better.

2) I did not mean to imply that obesity was the sole big boy in terms of problems. Everyone wanting the newest tech and newest drugs as you mention is a part of the rising costs as well... a big part. But out of those, it is obesity that is causing problems. The other two are designed to fix problems. (though another pet peeve is the amount we are over medicated)

As for those with AIDS and other chronic problems, unless we find a cure, I don't see how we can reduce costs there (unless the costs of drugs/tech comes down). But with obesity, we can make those who are obese pay more for health care as an incentive to get healthier. That (IMO) is as it should be. If you cost the system more, you pay more. If you can't afford it, get in better shape. It isn't rocket science. If you have a genetic disease that causes obesity, that is another story. But I would bet that is a very small number of the obese.
 
Dungheap said:
SO like, I looked into it a little bit and estimates of obesity-related healthcare spending in the United States in 2011 range up to $210 billion at the high end. Total health care spending inthe United States in 2011 was $2.7 trillion. So, like, obesity as the number 1 driver of cost increases is just not plausible.
Click to expand...

Except for the studies that show it is and the study that shows it is 21% of health care costs and the study that shows it is number one... yeah, except for all of that.
 
Superfreak said:
I think Newt is correct. At least in terms of the national party. If you want to address health care, first and foremost you must address what is driving the costs up. Until you do that, you are just shuffling around different ways to pay more.
Click to expand...

How about we all stop beating around the bush when lives are at stake. Single-payer, more specifically, Medicare for All is the one and only best option.

Remove 'over 65' from Medicare, keep your own insurance, no mandate, infrastructure already in place, one of the most popular programs in American history .. and even republican seniors love it.

Health care reform in America done.
 
Thing1 said:
I support a full-scale ban on Waffle Houses.
Click to expand...

I don't think we need to ban anything. But we can make the obese pay more for health care since they cost the system more. Then maybe they can eat McD's once a month instead of three times a day. (yes, I am exaggerating... but I think you get my point)
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120409103247.htm



http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...ricans-more-in-healthcare-costs-than-smoking/

http://www.rwjf.org/en/research-pub...est-drivers-of-cost-in-u-s--health-care-.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4508878&page=1

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/09/fact.check.obesity/index.html
Click to expand...


Looking at that write up of the Cornell study, I'm not sure what figure they're using for total U.S. health care costs, but whatever it is it is way way way too low. I mean, 190 billion as 20.6% of total health care spending would put total spending at abut $950 billion. Actual total U.S. health care costs are almost three times as high.

This is what I'm using for total health expenditures:

http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statist...onalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf
 
Newly revealed Obamacare delay draws fire
August 14, 2013

Obamacare might not be a "train wreck," but the wheels sure do keep coming off of it.

Yet another delay in a key part of the Affordable Care Act gave critics more ammunition and raised further questions about the Obama administration's authority to delay implementing sections of the law without congressional approval.

The delay—which came to light Tuesday and relates to limits on out-of-pocket medical costs—also inflamed a leading patients' rights organization that originally backed Obama's efforts to reform health insurance. The controversy comes less than 50 days before new ACA state health exchanges begin signing up uninsured individuals on Oct. 1

---

Last month, the Obama administration announced that it was delaying by one year the ACA mandate that large employers offer affordable insurance to their workers in 2014. It also revealed a one-year delay in procedures to verify incomes of people claiming eligibility for government subsidies to buy insurance on the state health exchanges.

On Tuesday, The New York Times published a large story highlighting another delay until 2015. The ACA, as passed by Congress, capped total out-of-pocket medical costs at $6,350 for insured individuals, and $12,700 for families. But the administration is now delaying those caps for group health plans that use multiple service providers, such as plans having one administrator for major medical coverage and another for prescription drug benefits.

The delay means that in 2014, plans that have that segregated arrangement will automatically have those maximum amounts only on out-of-pocket major medical costs.

And if, for instance, a group benefit plan already has a cap in place for separately administered out-of-pocket drug benefits, then that plan's new maximum in 2014 for those benefits must not be in excess of $6,350 for individuals, and double that for families. That means affected people would be on the hook for potentially twice the amount of money they would otherwise have been next year because of the delay.

But if there is not already a cap in place for such separate benefits, then there will be no limit on the out-pocket costs for those benefits through 2014, because of the delay. That means that people needing, for example, cancer medications could find themselves facing tens of thousands of dollars in extra costs.

---

But it will also force a number of people, particularly those seriously ill, to pay a lot more money.

"This has consumer impact," said Bryce Williams, managing director of exchange solutions for professional services company Towers Watson. "You have a key consumer protection that is going away."

For consumers, he said, this delay is the most significant of all the delays.

Marc Boutin, chief operating officer of the National Health Council of 107 patient advocacy organizations, said that when his group first heard about the delay last April "we thought it was some kind of mistake."

Questions about the delay's legality aside, "the impact for people with chronic, and life-threatening issues could be life and death," Boutin said. "Out-of-pocket costs are designed to compel people not to seek health care, which for the people I represent is the kind of care they need to live."

Boutin blasted the administration's rationale for the delay, saying that insurance plans and administrators "had three years to get ready for this," and to resolve the issue of their computer systems communicating about the out-of-pocket cost data.

more
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100959960
 
blackascoal said:
How about we all stop beating around the bush when lives are at stake. Single-payer, more specifically, Medicare for All is the one and only best option.

Remove 'over 65' from Medicare, keep your own insurance, no mandate, infrastructure already in place, one of the most popular programs in American history .. and even republican seniors love it.

Health care reform in America done.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is it does not address the rising health care costs. Add to that the fact that it is already trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and I don't think that can work. We must address rising costs before changing (or at least at the same time) the way we pay for the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top