Where will the health care savings come from?

[BattyDem]

Let's say we have a public option that is affordable and has a competitive reimbursement rate. That should be an incentive for insurance companies to lower their rates, right? I assume that's why they're fighting so hard against it.

But what if there isn't a public option or the reimbursement rates are so low that most providers won't accept it. Then what? How will costs be lowered? If the government is not going to negotiate lower drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies and they're not going to impose rate restrictions on insurance companies, what's going to make the prices come down? :shrug:

I know there's no official bill yet, but have cost controls been addressed in detail? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks. :hi:

[Wapsie B]

1. Real cost controls have not been addressed by providers.

Administrative costs for example remain unchecked.

[BattyDem]

5. Thanks for the info.

:hi:

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. The only thing that is certain is that the present structure of spiraling cost

increases and coverage denials is unsustainable. Anybody who believes that things should be left the way they are, or that insurance companies can fix this is delusional.

[BattyDem]

4. Exactly!

We can't go on the way we are. In a few more years, no one except the rich will have insurance. :-(

[SoCalDem]

12. exactly, and WHO is going to agree to accept less money?

stockholders of med/rx/hospital corporations? Fat chance
doctors? should they have to ?
nurses? don't we already have a shortage of nurses?

The only was to SAVE money, is for SOMEONE to start collecting LESS..

who's that gonna be?

Buehler??

[BattyDem]

14. And that's why reform has triggered a "war"

:-(

[RDANGELO]

3. The national exchange might help some.

That is where all of the insurance companies are supposed to compete with one another. Although, from what I understand, there a lot of companies. but there are only about five of them that dominate the country right now. If you ask me, if you tell them that they can't discriminate on health conditions and there is no public option, the premiums are going to go through the roof.

[BattyDem]

7. Yeah ... that's what I was thinking.

If they're going to be forced to cover everyone, then what's going to stop them from raising their rates? Even if the reform bill won't allow them to charge higher rates for people with pre-existing conditions, what's going to stop them from raising rates on everyone? Sure, they'll "compete" in the exchange, but if the big companies get together and agree that they won't drop premiums below a certain level, where's the competition going to come from? :shrug:

[karynnj]

21. That would require collusion, which is illegal

Though the steel companies simply followed a leader. If the industry is really an oligopoly, they might have to be regulated, which is fair as they benefit from subsidies.

[Riverman]

6. Easy! Extend Medicare to all who want it, cut the Pentagon to pay for it!

We give our hard earned tax revenues to Congress who gives it corporations who make trillions selling war materials back to the Pentagon who use those materials to kill people! And, half the population according to the latest polls think that Obama and Congress want "Death Panels" under his Health Care reforms?

Where are all these people shouting about the cost of government run health care when government run wars are bankrupting the treasury, our families and our souls?

[BattyDem]

10. Ding! Ding! Ding!

As far as I'm concerned, that's a winning idea! :toast:

Unfortunately, there's no political will to do it. :-(

[harun]

19. I agree. Withdraw from Afghan and Iraq, cut military spending 50%

and pass H.R. 676.

Done, what's next?

[Warpy]

8. 30%-46% of every dollar an insurance company takes in

is eaten up by administrative costs. Those costs include salaries, worker bee paychecks, facilities, equipment, and profit margin. They also include boiler rooms full of people whose job it is how to reduce risk to the company by denying coverage, finding out ways to deny care, and find technicalities that allow them to rescind policies (some standing for years) as soon as the holder gets sick.

Given a low overhead public option that provides them with the first competition they've ever had to face, they'll have no alternative but to start trimming that outrageous administrative overhead.

Administrative overhead is the place to cut costs, not cutting care.

[BattyDem]

13. Ah yes ... I forgot about their ridiculous administrative costs.

But like you said, they'll need the competition from the public option. Otherwise, they'll be no incentive to trim their budgets.

[DailyGrind51]

9. Only "single payer" would have cut out the "middlemen"!

[BattyDem]

16. I totally agree.

But it was taken off the table. No wait ... that's not true. It was never even on the table! :grr:

[Union Yes]

11. Eliminate Ins Co executive super salaries.

[BattyDem]

17. That works for me!

:toast:

[T Wolf]

15. Very simple. Just deny care and coverage to repukes. That by itself will save enough

wasted funds to pay for health care for the rest of us.

Leave them to fight with the insurance companies.

[BattyDem]

18. I like that idea!

:toast:

Can we start with the "Heil Hitler" lady?

[karynnj]

20. The only thing I can think of is that they are supposed to

create a chart that easily compares the various offered plans. This is harder to do than one would think on your own because there is no standard set of information. You also will have a lot of new people entering the market because they have to but and many have subsidies. If even one company decides to significantly reduce their cost to gain market share, it could trigger a downward spiral - though how much it could end up bringing costs down is a question.

[femmocrat]

22. In the town halls, Pres. Obama said....

he would discontinue the subsidies to insurance companies (under Medicare). I think it was $171 billion?

He also said that converting the electronic medical records would save money, as well as eliminating duplication of diagnostic tests.

I can't remember exactly, but I think 2/3 of the cost would come from savings and 1/3 from lowering the tax exemptions on the wealthiest people.

Maybe you could find it in the transcripts if they are on-line. Those are really good questions, BTW.

[BattyDem]

26. Thanks for responding.

:-)

All of that will control costs and save money in the system, which is great! However, I still don't understand how those savings will be passed along to us if there's no public option or at the very least, some kind of regulation, to drive down insurance premiums.

[leftstreet]

23. A lot of us will die n/t

[lonestarnot]

24. Money saved with competition and $172 billion annual subsidy to private health care, just

for starters. Then there are the uninsured folks for whom we are paying now. See. Not hard. :hi:

[BattyDem]

25. Thanks for the info, but how will that lower the costs for us?

Yes, insurance companies will be subsidized and there won't be "hidden costs" in the system to cover the uninsured, which saves money on care - but why is it assumed that the insurance companies will pass the savings on to us and lower their premiums?

If there's a public option with good reimbursement rates, then fine ... I get it. There will be competition and the insurance companies will have to lower their rates to survive.

But ... many people are saying we should support reform even if there's no public option because it will eliminate exclusions based on pre-existing conditions and it will prevent people from being dropped from their health care plan. I agree 100% that we need those reforms, but how will those reforms alone lower premiums for us?

An exchange is supposed to create competition, but if the only competitors are the companies we have now, why would they lower their premiums? What's to stop them from setting the premium at $15,000 or $20,000? It's possible that one company may offer lower rates to gain a bigger market share, but I don't anticipate a "low-rate" bidding war simply because every company knows that will drive down profits for all of them. They certainly don't want that.

We've heard about things that will save the government money, save the insurance companies money and save money in the system, but if there isn't a public option or some other force that will drive down insurance premiums, I don't understand how that savings will be passed along to us.

[lonestarnot]

27. Costs will come down when repetitive, unnecessary tests are not repeated

because someone is to lazy to get the one done last week. Costs will go down when dollars are spent wisely as opposed to persons who pay for insurance not really having coverage when they need it. Fucking insurance is just a scam. When do people get that?

[BattyDem]

28. I agree, insurance companies need to go!

But it will be the insurance companies saving money because they won't have to pay for multiple tests. I don't expect them to pass that savings along to us with lower premiums. Do you?

[Cleita]

29. Well you could start with the CEO of United Health Care who makes

$100,000 an hour. Think of how many insurance policies that could buy for the year. When you multiply his wages for the year....well you get it. Factor in all those fat cat health care industry executive's salaries and all the other money they spend like in trying to keep us from getting universal health care and advertising, and paying bonuses to claims adjusters who deny claims, I think there is a lot of money to be redirected to actual health care. However, I'm not holding my breath because it seems our politicians are reluctant to make a public option a real competitive force to be reckoned with.