Comments on: CBO Report Disputes Conservative Scare Tactics Regarding Public Option

By: » The Congressional Budget Office And Cost Savings Liberal Values

» The Congressional Budget Office And Cost Savings Liberal Values — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:29:49 +0000

[...] cause. Conservatives ignore the predictions of the Congressional Budget Office which show that the public plan would not be a threat to private insurance companies. They had no concern about their predictions as to the cost of the Iraq war. They certainly [...]

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:48:59 +0000

“If you don’t want to spend this much on health care you can always go for a single payer plan. Countries with single payer plans both spend less money and tend to show less growth.”

Indeed, by pure numbers, ‘socialized medicine’ is the least expensive health care in the world. Other ways of acheiving comparable levels of coverage cost more because the cost sharing mechanisms are less efficient. This is not say that ‘communist hospitals’ are the way to go (though I certainly favor them, as everyone knows by now, for reasons of pure economics) if we are willing to pay for a strictly regulated and carefully subsidized private system or a genuine hybrid system.

I think a public option is a good idea and that debunking false claims about public options or nationalized health care are important factors in changing the political landscape so that one or the other becomes a workable goal. So I certainly approve of someone with more hard medical knowledge than me doing just that.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:21:08 +0000

That estimate is a bit high. Reason is biased, and this article is hardly very accurate. With regards to the numbers, the US spends about 16% to 17% and France spends about 9.5-10% of GNP. Another comparison of significance is that they spend about $6100. Despite these differences France both has universal coverage and has a much better health care system than the US.

Regardless of how they want to play with the numbers, the US has the lowest quality health care system in the industrialized world while spending the most and leaving the most uninsured.

France does probably have the most expensive health care system in the world (which correlates with it having the highest quality by most measurements). If you don't want to spend this much on health care you can always go for a single payer plan. Countries with single payer plans both spend less money and tend to show less growth.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:55:53 +0000

At least not everyone pretends we currently have a free market:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/135127.html
Huh — I did not know that France spends 11% of GDP on health care.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:15:08 +0000

The fun begins when insurance rates and coverage obligations get set by Federal legislation.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:52:11 +0000

If anything the current actions in Congress show how much reluctance there is to any form of national system. I think this will only happen if we reach a crisis point where the private insurance system is no longer viable–which can happen in the next several years if nothing is done. Health care reform including stronger regulation of the insurance industry now is the best shot to prevent a totally government run system.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:25:27 +0000

For better or for worse, I agree that, even without a public option, this is a fork in the road. If a bill passes and health care requirements get solidly Federalized, then a national system is in the works.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:07:02 +0000

The politcal status, which can change at any point, and the facts of the matter are two different things. It is still worth pointing out the facts on the public plan until the matter is settled.

By: Jim Z.

Jim Z. — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:46:49 +0000

Your post points out how the Right is being refuted by the CBO on the issue of a public option, an element of health care reform that you have already, and often, declared to be irrelevant to a successful and worthy bill. Why bother now that a public option is as good as dead?

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:56:03 +0000

Fritz,

I don't think much of the analysis at all. It distorts the CBO report. It also manages to make things scarier since it is difficult to imagine numbers of this size. He says the cost will be $1 trillion over the next decade based upon his faulty interpretation of the data. Even if that is true that would mean spending ten percent more per year than the government now spends on health care. While significant, this amount of spending is not catastrophic, and would be less with any cost savings measures which are not scored due to the manner in which the CBO makes its estimates.

His analysis is also rather absurd in down playing the problems of the uninsured.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:37:01 +0000

Ron, what do you think of this analysis? http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02188.html

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:14:48 +0000

Not any that I can think of.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:45:33 +0000

I was just wondering if Medicare acceptance was required for any other Federal programs.

Fritz — typing class

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:32:31 +0000

There conceivably might be small private hospitals which cater to the rich for things like cosmetic surgery which opt out of Medicare but it wouldn't be practical for most hospitals. The big advantage of participating in Medicare is that they promptly send payment directly to those who participate. Opting out of Medicare would mean having to get payment directly from the patient.

This isn't unique to Medicare. With most private plans you get paid based upon their fee schedule.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:18:47 +0000

Ron — do any hospitals reject Medicare pricing? Are they allowed to?