ok: can someone tell me what good is left for the health care reform

[Coronita]

Ok folks,

For folks in the know. Can someone quickly explain to me what is left from the health care reform (obamacare) and how it’s suppose to benefit the greater good of people?

How much of the original reform bill is still intact?

What I have seen so far is:

1)My out of pocket insurance expenses have increased significantly.

2)The amount of coverage has decreased significantly

3)Company has reduced what it pays to insurance but passed more of the cost on to individuals.

4)And now lower appeals court is saying not everyone needs to pay for a mandatory insurance plan….

So what exactly is left in this “reform”?????

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Appeals-court-strikes-health-apf-2954064794.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

[EconProf]

The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.

[EconProf]

The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.

[EconProf]

The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.

[EconProf]

The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.

[EconProf]

The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.

[UCGal]

[quote=EconProf]The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.[/quote]

I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?

[UCGal]

[quote=EconProf]The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.[/quote]

I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?

[UCGal]

[quote=EconProf]The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.[/quote]

I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?

[UCGal]

[quote=EconProf]The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.[/quote]

I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?

[UCGal]

[quote=EconProf]The bill that was passed had nothing to do with reform. It merely expanded government into the medical sector with a Medicare-style approach. The unnecessarily expensive and doomed Medicare model was used with no thought given to incentives.
Real reform would have allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, reined in the tort bar, and incentivized both customers and providers to be less wasteful. For example, Health Savings Accounts and minor copays were sidelined.[/quote]

I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal]
I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?[/quote]

I agree UCGal. Big give away to the health insurance industry.

I believe we’d be better off with government-run health care for everybody. We should start with a comprehensive ban on drug advertising.

The rich would be better off also because could they could supplement their coverage with private pay-for-service or private health insurance.

Businesses would be more competitive because they would not have provide and deal with health care for employees.

*

Much of the bill has not yet been implemented. So flu’s private insurance rates (likely negotiated last year) are likely part of the “normal” appreciation that has taken place in the last decade.
http://healthreform.kff.org/Timeline.aspx

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal]
I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?[/quote]

I agree UCGal. Big give away to the health insurance industry.

I believe we’d be better off with government-run health care for everybody. We should start with a comprehensive ban on drug advertising.

The rich would be better off also because could they could supplement their coverage with private pay-for-service or private health insurance.

Businesses would be more competitive because they would not have provide and deal with health care for employees.

*

Much of the bill has not yet been implemented. So flu’s private insurance rates (likely negotiated last year) are likely part of the “normal” appreciation that has taken place in the last decade.
http://healthreform.kff.org/Timeline.aspx

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal]
I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?[/quote]

I agree UCGal. Big give away to the health insurance industry.

I believe we’d be better off with government-run health care for everybody. We should start with a comprehensive ban on drug advertising.

The rich would be better off also because could they could supplement their coverage with private pay-for-service or private health insurance.

Businesses would be more competitive because they would not have provide and deal with health care for employees.

*

Much of the bill has not yet been implemented. So flu’s private insurance rates (likely negotiated last year) are likely part of the “normal” appreciation that has taken place in the last decade.
http://healthreform.kff.org/Timeline.aspx

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal]
I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?[/quote]

I agree UCGal. Big give away to the health insurance industry.

I believe we’d be better off with government-run health care for everybody. We should start with a comprehensive ban on drug advertising.

The rich would be better off also because could they could supplement their coverage with private pay-for-service or private health insurance.

Businesses would be more competitive because they would not have provide and deal with health care for employees.

*

Much of the bill has not yet been implemented. So flu’s private insurance rates (likely negotiated last year) are likely part of the “normal” appreciation that has taken place in the last decade.
http://healthreform.kff.org/Timeline.aspx

[Author]

Posts