Health Care will cost 6.5 Trillion

[ben stein fan]

I thought Obama wanted a health care bill that would not increase the national deficit.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/27/obamacares-cost-could-top-6-trillion/

[Just Win]

BSF,


If that is "Deficit NEUTRAL" I have a 28 inch waist and am 21 again. More lies and subterfuge from the extreme left.

[NCVol]

I was almost going to take the analysis seriously until I saw "previous" was to an article pointing to the miracles of the Laffer Curve.  Any organization that can with a straight face present a table of federal collections by rich people at 1980 and 1988 and then conclude with no analysis that voila!  PROOF that the laffer curve works is pushing propaganda and not economic analysis.  It's the kind of analysis JW or Knowledge would do, for goodness sakes.  

[native]

NCVOL, will providing the country with healthcare not bring the cost of healthcare down. I know that unlike the republicans, the healthier the nation the less the national deficit.

[NCVol]

I've actually become supportive of a single payer system, or something like it, for the very simple reason we have the most expensive, by far, per person cost and still leave millions uninsured, millions more underinsured, virtually everyone a job loss and serious illness away from financial ruin, and even with that we have only similar outcomes medically, with practically no real incentives to cut costs. 

I was reading the other day about how the drug companies manipulate reimbursement to get folks to demand non-generics.  The way it works is if I have a $50 co-pay for name brand, $5 co-pay for generics, the drug company will reimburse me 100% of my co-pay, making it cheaper for me to request the name drug.  For the system, it might mean replacing an $175/month drug (the generic) for one costing $900/month.  And the drug company is out the $50 co-pay.  So what.  That's the kind of stuff that really is amazing that it can occur, and it can occur since there is no incentive for anyone to cut the costs. 

[GRAY]

a- cite your source for the above example
b-  one could still choose a $5 co-pay if one wishes, especially considering the length of time one can wait for a reimbursement.

[GRAY]

here...

[NCVol]

As to the chart, it's worthless as you can see, and the "analysis" accompanying it was even worse.  

As you found, the link to the chart was embedded.  Here is a link to a WSJ article about copays.  

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804603437163631.html

And you don't have to pay and get reimbursed, typically (or often at least, as I've seen this personally) you get a card in the mail that you simply hand to the pharmacy and it covers the copay just like your insurance covers the main cost.  Depending on the program, the patient can find it CHEAPER out of pocket, right there in line, to get a full cost brand name versus a generic that costs a fraction.  

British drug maker AstraZeneca PLC's program for Nexium (the No. 2-selling drug in the U.S., behind Lipitor) is typical of the new co-pay subsidies. Under the program, the company will pay a patient's out-of-pocket costs for the heartburn drug beyond $25 and up to $75 a month. To get the discount, patients simply hand to their pharmacist a rebate card, which they can obtain through their doctor, or by calling the company or -- starting this month -- simply by printing one from the drug's Web site.

BTW, this little exercise probably saved me about $800 next year. One of the drugs mentioned (Enbrel) has a rebate program I wasn't aware of, so I went to the website, applied, printed out a card, and will have my copay waived next year for the most part.  Excellent news, but if there was a generic (there isn't one even close) that benefit for me would mean that everyone else in my plan paid more for my drugs since I'd have preferred the VERY expensive name drug over a generic that cost me MORE. 

[Dementia_Madness]

 If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -P.J. O'Rourke

[Sasquatch]

"Be thankful that we're not getting all the government we are paying for." Will Rogers

[NCVol]

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -P.J. O'Rourke

Yeah, brilliant comment by an economic genius.  Where there is "socialized" medicine it costs on average less than half here in the "free market" U.S. system.  In England, for example, we already pay more in taxes per person for healthcare than the entire system costs there, and their system covers everyone.  Literally, all the private dollars could disappear and we'd have more per person to allocate to healthcare than England. 

[Dementia_Madness]

Yeah, brilliant comment by an economic genius.  Where there is "socialized" medicine it costs on average less than half here in the "free market" U.S. system.  In England, for example, we already pay more in taxes per person for healthcare than the entire system costs there, and their system covers everyone.  Literally, all the private dollars could disappear and we'd have more per person to allocate to healthcare than England.  

Ncvol parrots his big flat slobbering god... Michael Moore...

We pay more in TAXES PER PERSON than their "entire British system costs" WHAT?!? Run that by me again.

You ever hear of you get what you pay for? This is the truth and even NC cannot deny this when the government pays for something it usually costs more than what you or I pay for it....If the government is paying for ALL health-care in America, does anyone actually believe it is going to cost us less? Do you know that IF YOU ARE UNINSURED OR paying out of your pocket OR PAYING CASH you are usually charged about 60% less than what insurance companies and welfare recipients pay?

Yikes NC I am afraid your defense for socialism is making you a little loopy... most Brits pay over 40% of their wages in taxes....



Look everyone once again NCVOL is not supporting or defending socialism....