Back to SoWal Lounge

Health Care Debate Fact versus Fantasy

Beach Fanatic
1,089 views1
From the week's Walton Sun

www.waltonsun.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From total truth to pants on fire, let’s bust some health care myths

Last weekend was great. After the coldest winter since the Ice Age, Saturday was a blue-sky, Chamber of Commerce day. At The Seaside Rep’s Pookie’s Patsy Party in Midtown Seagrove, Dread Clampitt closed their set with “Black Rose,” I had never heard a band cover it but I remembered the lyrics.

On Sunday, health care reform legislation passed and Monday morning the sky had not fallen. Then the stock market closed Monday afternoon higher — hardly a harbinger of socialism running amok.

There is a lot of disinformation from both sides regarding health care. The Pulitzer prize-winning PolitiFacts.com   and The Walton Sun combine to bust a few myths.

Here’s a little secret that no politician — liberal, conservative, Democratic or Republican — wants you to know. Even with the legislation that passed the House of Representatives, the fiscal challenge of rising health care costs is still being avoided. Neither Democratic nor Republican politicians seem willing to face head-on the hard and difficult choices our country must make.

Every problem can’t be solved with a tax cut, and costs of government programs can’t be ignored.

Here’s another little secret for you. If you are currently receiving government-subsidized insurance — a.k.a. Medicare — there is no way that gravy train can continue to run at its current speed unless someone pays higher taxes. With or without health care reform, unless benefits are reduced, taxes will be going up. Shoot me if you like, but I’m just the messenger. It’s math.

Bottom line: Americans can’t handle the truth.

According to Minority Leader John Boehner, the legislation would “force Americans off their current health coverage and on to a government-run plan.” The truth is most Americans will see no change at all in their current insurance plans. Mr. Boehner is simply wrong and a greater threat to him is the danger tanning beds pose. President Obama, meanwhile, claims that preventative care provisions in health care reform will save money. The truth is individuals will save money by early treatment but extra screening procedures drive up overall costs.

PolitFact.com   heaps special scorn on lies that go beyond the pale.

Nancy Pfotenhauer gets the “Pants on Fire” award for her insistence that millions of Americans will lose their health insurance coverage under health care reform. The opposite is true. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 94 percent of Americans will have health insurance. Another “Pants on Fire” prize goes to a chain e-mail that erroneously purports a “Health Choices Commissioner will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None." There will be boards that will make recommendations on a general basis but they will not evaluate individual cases or deny anyone coverage.

Health insurance costs are a constant complaint. Proponents often tout that reform will lower insurance costs. President Obama said, “The costs for families (in the individual market) for the same type of coverage that they’re currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.” PolitFacts rated that a half truth. While costs may decrease for some plans, people (like my family) who buy highdeductible, lower-cost plans will see their premiums increase because they will have to buy insurance plans that cover more.

Any reform is akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic unless insurance costs are contained.

If our insurance premiums continue their current trajectory, my wife and I will be paying over $46,000 annually by the time I am Medicare-eligible. The Republican plan touted by Rep. Paul Ryan would replace Medicare for people under 55 with government vouchers for private insurance. Mr. Ryan needs to put down whatever he is smoking if this is the alternative.

If our daughter lived in any other industrialized nation her pre-existing condition (Crohn’s Disease) would be treated so that she could enjoy a normal life. However in this nation, which I still believe is the greatest ever, she does not qualify for individual health insurance. Our alternatives are A). we bankrupt ourselves; B). let her go untreated, or C). hope she qualifies for group coverage.

The debate should be what kind of a nation we want to be.

Buz Livingston is a certified financial planner. He operates Livingston Financial Planning Inc. focusing on hourly financial planning and investment management. Contact him directly at 850-267-1068 or at buz@ LivingstonFinancial.net  .

BUZ LIVINGSTON
Just Plain Talk

Edited

Replies

22
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#2
Health insurance costs are a constant complaint. Proponents often tout that reform will lower insurance costs. President Obama said, “The costs for families (in the individual market) for the same type of coverage that they’re currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.” PolitFacts rated that a half truth. While costs may decrease for some plans, people (like my family) who buy highdeductible, lower-cost plans will see their premiums increase because they will have to buy insurance plans that cover more.


Healthy individuals who currently enjoy high deductible plans will see their costs rise substantially. If you're 30-40, have an HDHC, and rarely visit the doctor, your probably paying around $1500.00 a year. Once this law kicks in the same person would have to pay around $5000.00 a year.

You won't see Obama trumpeting this achievement in his weekly radio address, I can assure you of that.
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#3
Similarily, families will see their premiums rise to around 13K a year assuming they are paying less today.

Edited

Lynnie avatar
SoWal Insider
#4
30Ashopper, where are you finding these numbers? I would rather take that extra premium I'd be paying and pay for a couple of families.
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#5
30Ashopper, where are you finding these numbers? I would rather take that extra premium I'd be paying and pay for a couple of families.

eInsurance estimates for currently available high deductible plans, and CBO estimates for the cost of an approved "bronze plan" once the mandate kicks in.

I had an HDHC when I was 41, and I paid around $1500.00 a year. When the mandate kicks in, my plan would not be legal, and I would have to purchase a plan that fits within the guidelines Obamacare sets out for "bronze" coverage. The CBO estimates the cost of a plan like that in 2016 will be around $5000.00 per year.

I am Obamacare's *****!

Edited

Lynnie avatar
SoWal Insider
#6
Then, pay the fine for not buying, right? My plan was $208/mo. with, I think, a $1,000 deductible and higher copays, maybe $40/visit. RX Brand was $30 and Generic was $15.

I don't understand how this law can make a plan illegal?
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#7
Then, pay the fine for not buying, right? My plan was $208/mo. with, I think, a $1,000 deductible and higher copays, maybe $40/visit. RX Brand was $30 and Generic was $15.

I don't understand how this law can make a plan illegal?

One of the ironies of Obamacare - someone who purchases a healthcare plan specifically designed to lower healthcare expenditures gets punished through a 2% taxable income fine... revenue that's used pay for somebody elses non-cost controlling healthcare coverage.
AndrewG avatar
Beach Fanatic
#8
You can't use common sense with Progressives. They just see you as a speedbump.

Progressives are going to lose so bad they will be afraid to use the Progressive label. They will go back to calling themselves democrats and liberals so they can get elected again.
Beach Fanatic
#9
I would like a country that pays now for what it spends and quits stealing from thte next generations.
rapunzel avatar
Beach Fanatic
#10
I would like to be the kind of country that takes care of it's older people and it's poor people, but allows the working people, people whose families make less than $88,000 per year, to suck it up and lose everything if they get sick. And for those who are already sick and can't get coverage -- sucks to be you. Get a job (but only with a large corporation with more than 200 employees, so you don't lose your job after being put through medical underwriting).

Wait, no...I would prefer the other kind of country, actually. The kind that cares about personal responsibility. If you live in this country and you get very ill, you do not go without treatment. If that was the case, people might be really reluctant to go without insurance. But those who choose to (or let's face it, have to) go without insurance are not contributing to the healthcare system, a system that shifts costs to the paying patients and where trying to figure out the real price of anything is so impossible as to make any kind of market based controls a fantasy. We are already paying for the healthcare of these people, only it's being delivered as inefficiently and expensively as possible -- late and in the ER. The uninsured are contributing little or nothing. No one turns them away from the emergency room when they are truly sick or in danger of losing life or limb.

An open market for insurance policies and a requirement for personal responsibility...what is socialist about that?
AndrewG avatar
Beach Fanatic
#11
You assume the quality of healthcare wont suffer and everyone will get access to decent care.

If everyone gets access to free crappy healthcare what have you really accomplished? Does it make you sleep better at night? You'll still have to pay out of pocket if you want quality care. That's what Canadians have to do and they still wait.

It seems like a noble cause but it will result in another entitlement gone horribly wrong. We can't afford it.
Beach Fanatic
#12
I would like to be the kind of country that takes care of it's older people and it's poor people, but allows the working people, people whose families make less than $88,000 per year, to suck it up and lose everything if they get sick. And for those who are already sick and can't get coverage -- sucks to be you. Get a job (but only with a large corporation with more than 200 employees, so you don't lose your job after being put through medical underwriting).

Wait, no...I would prefer the other kind of country, actually. The kind that cares about personal responsibility. If you live in this country and you get very ill, you do not go without treatment. If that was the case, people might be really reluctant to go without insurance. But those who choose to (or let's face it, have to) go without insurance are not contributing to the healthcare system, a system that shifts costs to the paying patients and where trying to figure out the real price of anything is so impossible as to make any kind of market based controls a fantasy. We are already paying for the healthcare of these people, only it's being delivered as inefficiently and expensively as possible -- late and in the ER. The uninsured are contributing little or nothing. No one turns them away from the emergency room when they are truly sick or in danger of losing life or limb.

An open market for insurance policies and a requirement for personal responsibility...what is socialist about that?


I think STATES requiring health insurance is not a bad idea. I also think open markets are a good thing.
I don't want the national government involved. One size fits all generally goes to the lowest common denominator.
We would all be better of if the medicaid system was dismantled and the states allowed to manage their own healthcare.
rapunzel avatar
Beach Fanatic
#13
I think STATES requiring health insurance is not a bad idea. I also think open markets are a good thing.
I don't want the national government involved. One size fits all generally goes to the lowest common denominator.
We would all be better of if the medicaid system was dismantled and the states allowed to manage their own healthcare.

You know, I just don't agree. Maybe if people were like tumbleweeds, and could pull up stakes and move to the state of their choice to suit their healthcare and insurance needs...that's not the way the world works. The way states currently regulate healthcare is insane. Some states have competant insurance commissioners and good laws, others just don't. Insurance companies operating out of North Carolina and Alabama never pay their claims, Kansas and Missouri always deny pre-authorization for any expensive procedure. Florida and New York pay way too much for out of network services, driving up premiums.

If it weren't a federal law, only about ten states would cover breast reconstruction following a mastectomy -- because it's way easier for insurance companies to lobby at the state level and scare people with threats of premiums going up because of mandates.

Our states are diverse, but the huge differences in healthcare from state to state don't make sense. You'd have to dismantle Medicare to make it work, too.
Beach Fanatic
#14
You know, I just don't agree. Maybe if people were like tumbleweeds, and could pull up stakes and move to the state of their choice to suit their healthcare and insurance needs...that's not the way the world works. The way states currently regulate healthcare is insane. Some states have competant insurance commissioners and good laws, others just don't. Insurance companies operating out of North Carolina and Alabama never pay their claims, Kansas and Missouri always deny pre-authorization for any expensive procedure. Florida and New York pay way too much for out of network services, driving up premiums.

If it weren't a federal law, only about ten states would cover breast reconstruction following a mastectomy -- because it's way easier for insurance companies to lobby at the state level and scare people with threats of premiums going up because of mandates.

Our states are diverse, but the huge differences in healthcare from state to state don't make sense. You'd have to dismantle Medicare to make it work, too.


You are right, this is the fundemental disagreement, big central government vs. government closer to those governed.
I think we should dismantle all federal healthcare programs. The individual states should manage the care if it's citizens. The citizens can choose what they want. Citizens in Alabama have differnent needs from citizens in Virginia and the best care is delivered by getting the control of the delivery system closest to those served.
We cannot afford these huge programs at the National level, we are driving our country into bankruptcy.
Matt J avatar
SWGB
#15
You are right, this is the fundemental disagreement, big central government vs. government closer to those governed.
I think we should dismantle all federal healthcare programs. The individual states should manage the care if it's citizens. The citizens can choose what they want. Citizens in Alabama have differnent needs from citizens in Virginia and the best care is delivered by getting the control of the delivery system closest to those served.
We cannot afford these huge programs at the National level, we are driving our country into bankruptcy.

You're over generalizing. One neighbor has different needs from another neighbor.

I thought you were pro small government, why duplicate one government entity 51 times?
Beach FanaticAuthor
#16
So What

Similarily, families will see their premiums rise to around 13K a year assuming they are paying less today.

Given the current insurance premium inflation rate (just doing nothing), our rates will rise from 6600 to 13459 in four years.

Insurance premiums RISE as you get older. It's one of the reasons Medicare came into existence. Folks couldn't afford the premiums.

It's math. But thanks for the idea for a column!
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#17
Given the current insurance premium inflation rate (just doing nothing), our rates will rise from 6600 to 13459 in four years.

Insurance premiums RISE as you get older. It's one of the reasons Medicare came into existence. Folks couldn't afford the premiums.

It's math. But thanks for the idea for a column!

Outlier forcasts have premium growth at around 133% for the last decade, and that's for all-you-can-eat care. We're talking about HDHCs, which you should know aren't the same, since you have one. Kaiser estimated growth in standard deductable plans over the next dacade may grow between 130%-160% without any type of reform being passed.

Where did you get your figures?
Matt J avatar
SWGB
#18
Outlier forcasts have premium growth at around 133% for the last decade, and that's for all-you-can-eat care. We're talking about HDHCs, which you should know aren't the same, since you have one. Kaiser estimated growth in standard deductable plans over the next dacade may grow between 130%-160% without any type of reform being passed.

Where did you get your figures?

What time frame is that?
Beach FanaticAuthor
#19
Outlier forcasts have premium growth at around 133% for the last decade, and that's for all-you-can-eat care. We're talking about HDHCs, which you should know aren't the same, since you have one. Kaiser estimated growth in standard deductable plans over the next dacade may grow between 130%-160% without any type of reform being passed.

Where did you get your figures?

You betcha.

My wife (who passed the CPA exam) computed our annual increase (19.5%) for EACH of the last two years.

Took our annual premium-simple math.

Plugged those numbers into my trusty HP 10B and solved for future value.

Forecasts are fine and dandy but these are real numbers.
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#20
You betcha.

My wife (who passed the CPA exam) computed our annual increase (19.5%) for EACH of the last two years.

Took our annual premium-simple math.

Plugged those numbers into my trusty HP 10B and solved for future value.

Forecasts are fine and dandy but these are real numbers.

So for the next four years, your rates increase as you would expect them, assuming your two year is an accurate long term average. If they rise less, you'll pay more in 2014. Beyond that, your healthcare will be of a higher cost to providers, and will be paid for by younger generations forced into the system, higher taxes on income, and cuts to medicare. What do you anticipate your annual premium increases to be after 2014?
Beach Comber
#21
Social justice, Social justice. The only thing relevant about this stupid pharase is that everybody will be equally miserable. You know I can think of a few political movements that used this evil phrase to move their political agendas. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro and Chavez. Obama can't stand the fact that some people are better off than others. The fact is that this nation has moved more people out of poverty than any nation in the world through capitalism! Not social justice contracts that redistribute wealth. This whole healthcare thing is a joke. It will only farther divide our country by ensuring that premiums go up for everybody and making top quality healthcare only available to those with money. The gov will simple not pay physicians enough money to see the gov insured patients and drug companies will either close down unprofitable US-locations which in turn will drive existing companies prices higher. So get ready for cash only practices like they have in NY city where only the wealthy receive top care. Now the poor and the middle class will be stuck with substandard care and crappy 50 yr old generic drugs that cause more side effects than the actual disease! Social Justice???
30A Skunkape avatar
Skunky
#22
Social justice, Social justice. The only thing relevant about this stupid pharase is that everybody will be equally miserable. You know I can think of a few political movements that used this evil phrase to move their political agendas. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro and Chavez. Obama can't stand the fact that some people are better off than others. The fact is that this nation has moved more people out of poverty than any nation in the world through capitalism! Not social justice contracts that redistribute wealth. This whole healthcare thing is a joke. It will only farther divide our country by ensuring that premiums go up for everybody and making top quality healthcare only available to those with money. The gov will simple not pay physicians enough money to see the gov insured patients and drug companies will either close down unprofitable US-locations which in turn will drive existing companies prices higher. So get ready for cash only practices like they have in NY city where only the wealthy receive top care. Now the poor and the middle class will be stuck with substandard care and crappy 50 yr old generic drugs that cause more side effects than the actual disease! Social Justice???

You have no idea what you are talking about. Pharma stock has done quite well over the last several months, including stable performance following Obama signing the bill into law. There are incentives to pharma in the law, one of which is making it more difficult to bring generic drugs to the market. By the way, your misconception about 'crappy' generic drugs is a big factor in our health system being crazy expensive. I challenge you to name a single generic drug that causes more side effects than the disease it is intended to treat, and a brand name drug that is proven to be any more effective with a better side effect profile. The stage is yours...
Matt J avatar
SWGB
#23
Social justice, Social justice. The only thing relevant about this stupid pharase is that everybody will be equally miserable. You know I can think of a few political movements that used this evil phrase to move their political agendas. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro and Chavez. Obama can't stand the fact that some people are better off than others. The fact is that this nation has moved more people out of poverty than any nation in the world through capitalism! Not social justice contracts that redistribute wealth. This whole healthcare thing is a joke. It will only farther divide our country by ensuring that premiums go up for everybody and making top quality healthcare only available to those with money. The gov will simple not pay physicians enough money to see the gov insured patients and drug companies will either close down unprofitable US-locations which in turn will drive existing companies prices higher. So get ready for cash only practices like they have in NY city where only the wealthy receive top care. Now the poor and the middle class will be stuck with substandard care and crappy 50 yr old generic drugs that cause more side effects than the actual disease! Social Justice???

That is a true statement, if you are living in the 50's and 60's, the problem is that we are on the downward curve of the bell for capitalism. In the 50's and 60's any average Joe could graduate high school and provide for a family of 4 with his wife staying home, be assured of health care, and retirement. Try that today without selling drugs and having a good front to funnel the cash through.

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.