RAND predicts health-care reform will lower cost, expand coverage

The smart folks at RAND — an actual real-life think tank, as opposed to an ideological group masquerading under the think-tank name — have taken a look at what’s likely to happen to health insurance coverage as a result of the health-care reform package signed into law earlier this year.

Among other things, the RAND study published in the New England Journal of Medicine finds that work-based insurance will grow in importance under the reform, a prediction that “is very robust to variations in modeling assumptions.”

In other words, they’re pretty damn sure about it.

“Although the model allows employers to drop coverage in response to the reform, we estimate that the law will result in a large net increase in employer-sponsored insurance offers. We predict that the number of workers offered coverage will increase from 115.1 million (84.6% of the approximately 136.0 million U.S. workers) to 128.7 million (94.6%) after the reform. This increase is not driven by penalties levied on employers with more than 50 workers. In fact, the probability of being offered coverage increases proportionately more for workers at small firms than for workers at large firms, even though small firms are not subject to penalties….

The large increase in offers provided by small businesses is driven primarily by two factors: greater demand for coverage by workers due to individual penalties for being uninsured and the availability of new, often lower-cost insurance options (because of administrative savings, for example) for small businesses that offer coverage on the exchanges.”

The folks at RAND further believe that insurance plans offered through exchanges set up under the law will be particularly appealing to business, “owing to wider risk pooling, low administrative costs, and expanded choices.” In fact, the study predicts, “firms making decisions on the basis of costs and benefits of their insurance options, including new subsidies and penalties, will frequently choose to offer insurance rather than to drop coverage and allow their workers to buy individual coverage.”

Of course, that’s not quite the health-care Armageddon that political opponents of the proposal have predicted. But hey, why listen to research conducted by non-partisan, highly trained experts in health care analysis when you can believe people such as John Boehner instead?

481 comments Add your comment

Midori

September 2nd, 2010
12:01 pm

sorry to go off topic Jay – but another oil rig has exploded off the Louisana coast :(

Bruno

September 2nd, 2010
12:12 pm

“But hey, why listen to research conducted by non-partisan, highly trained experts in health care analysis when you can believe people such as John Boehner instead?”

Maybe you can try listening to someone who actually works in health care, Jay:

The third-party billing system adds layers and layers of unnecessary administrative costs to every health care transaction and opens the door wide open for fraud and abuse. Instead of reducing our reliance on the third-party billing system, Obamacare increases it. Simple logic will tell you that costs are going up and not down.

RW-(the original)

September 2nd, 2010
12:15 pm

Midori,

That explosion has been downgraded to a fire and there was only one injury.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I thought Jay B was quoting Rand Paul here at first glance. Anyhow, employer based insurance is the core of the problem in the first place. More of it can’t be good.

Palin fan

September 2nd, 2010
12:16 pm

The economy’s reaction to ObamaCare shows that it is a disaster and the country did not want it. Socialized medicine will make more Americans suffer just like it does in France and England.

Jay

September 2nd, 2010
12:20 pm

All forms of health insurance involve third-party payers, Bruno. It’s a pooling of the risk.

Your solution is to have us pay for cancer treatments, heart attacks, etc., individually, out of pocket? You’re going to have a lot of dead patients and out of work doctors under that kind of system.

Third party poolers of risk are an absolute necessity, whether those poolers are governments, employers or insurance companies.

Bubba Bob

September 2nd, 2010
12:21 pm

So one group thinks it will lower and another thinks it will raise….

The truth is we won’t know until several years from now. It’s a shame the bill is so complicated that it wasn’t read and no one can really judge it’s effects.

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
12:21 pm

Dream on ………………

I have some land to sell you in Florida also.

NowReally

September 2nd, 2010
12:25 pm

If it wasn’t for employer based insurance the number of uninsured (middle class) would have skyrocketed 30 years ago.

The more employers who offer insurance was bound to grow, it’s the best way to acquire insurance period. The people I know who pay for their own insurance out of pocket, without employer contributions are less happy with the cost and coverage. Their coverage is usually skeleton based, with a heck of a lot of out of pocket expenses.

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
12:26 pm

“OFF TOPIC” #1

Headline: “BBC had “massive bias to left:” director general”

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.91cc350cfed23f483b23ec44acc183c7.201&show_article=1

Hey, Mr. Director General ……. you need to come over here and check out our “Mainstream Media”.

@@

September 2nd, 2010
12:26 pm

I may not care for Bruno’s “approach” to women, but he knows his stuff when it comes to what increases cost in health care.

I read your comments at Kyle’s, Bruno. You are right on the money about wherein the problem lies.

(Reuters) – U.S. companies are cutting healthcare costs further amid a continuing sour economy, scaling back benefits and shifting a greater share of the expense to employees.

The health law aims to expand access to coverage and help more small businesses offer coverage to their workers, but many of its provisions do not take effect for years.

The unintended consequences at a time when citizens are less able to cope.

Obama and his congress fail when it comes to thinking things thru to their logical conclusion.

Saul Good

September 2nd, 2010
12:26 pm

Better to spend a Trillion dollars over THERE instead of over HERE and actually “help” US Citizens… so glad so many on the right are running on “over-turning” the health care plan…and they have not ONE plan to replace it with something “better”…

They had 8 years…6 in 100% control of all 3 houses… I’ll ask those on the right to name the bills offered during the first 6 years of Bush being in office that sought to overhaul the health care in our nation. All while health care costs “skyrocketed” for the average American under his administration… with many, many, many who became “un-insured” during those years.

Those that supported Iraq from the start…please feel free to explain just HOW we “added” to the “lives” of US Citizens by doing so… also let me know how we could not have “helped” our nations citizens with that same $$$? It’s like shipping jobs overseas… glad the Bush and Cheney friends made lots of money while people were denied insurance coverage or could not afford it when their companies dropped their plans…

Funny (actually SAD) that those on the right will fight SO HARD for things that KILL humans and bankrupt a nation…and will then FIGHT SO HARD “against” things that will help THEM personally. I know for a “fact” that not everyone here on the right has health insurance. It’s simply “impossible” that all of you on the right have insurance. So go ahead and work on doing away with it…instead…let’s attack Iran or North Korea… you know…the 2 countries which DID in fact start Nuke programs while Bush was in office and idiots were buying McMansions to hang their flag off of (which they now can’t pay for…WHY? because we invested in IRAQ instead of investing in our nation)…

Saul Good

September 2nd, 2010
12:29 pm

@@

September 2nd, 2010
12:26 pm

I know you like to research things…so do tell…what was the “increase” under Bush for health care costs? Also feel free to add the number of those who LOST their insurance coverage under Bush…you know..during the “rah rah years” of our “full steam ahead” economy we had during the early and mid 2000’s….

Bubba Bob

September 2nd, 2010
12:29 pm

Saul,

Maybe we don’t want the government telling us what we have to buy. Maybe we think the Constitution is supposed to limit what the government can do. Even if we don’t have ‘it’ we may rather do without it than have it forced on us.

Bruno

September 2nd, 2010
12:31 pm

“Your solution is to have us pay for cancer treatments, heart attacks, etc., individually, out of pocket? You’re going to have a lot of dead patients and out of work doctors under that kind of system.”

Not at all, Jay. My (capitalistic) solution is to return health insurance to its rightful place as a hedge against catastrophic loss–i.e. high deductibles and copays. Using “insurance” for each and every health care transaction is just plain foolish, IMO.

“Third party poolers of risk are an absolute necessity, whether those poolers are governments, employers or insurance companies.”

If the goal is to make all health care a “shared cost”, then single-payer is the only sensible way to go. Making the purchase of for-profit insurance plans mandatory is the most expensive way to go.

Mick

September 2nd, 2010
12:32 pm

saul

Don’t you realize that we have the best health care system in the world? Yeah for the rich and richer.

Saul Good

September 2nd, 2010
12:32 pm

Scout…and you need to check out #1 rated Fox and Rush…MSM? The “right” owns it…or does a rich Saudi own Fox? (well at least he’s 2nd banana)… and I KNOW how much you LOVE Muslims. See my post downstairs…

Keep up the good fight!

September 2nd, 2010
12:33 pm

Scout….whats the matter? Can’t discuss the blog subject with any sensible commentary? If you have a problem with the RAND report, there are credible methods to discuss

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
12:33 pm

“OFF TOPIC” #2

Listen to Al Sharpton get his clock cleaned ………….

http://michellemalkin.com/

Tim Flagler

September 2nd, 2010
12:33 pm

RAND is certainly credible, BUT Lisa Murkowski (former R-AK), Galen Institute, House Republicans, President of Aetna insurance, Lewin Group, and many other high profile experts say the health care reforms will increase cost and decrease coverage. Rather than puff up RAND’s one study, check out many studies (and their pros and cons) here: http://www.healthcarereform.procon.org.

Saul Good

September 2nd, 2010
12:34 pm

Mick…don’t worry…all of those “right” posters here have GREAT insurance…all of them… and their costs went DOWN under Bush. Don’t you know that??? ;-)

Doggone/GA

September 2nd, 2010
12:35 pm

“It’s a shame the bill is so complicated that it wasn’t read”

You can repeat those lies all you want…they NEVER become true.

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
12:35 pm

Saul & Good Fight:

Is someone there with a knife to your throat making you read my posts ?

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
12:36 pm

Tim Flagler @ 12:33:

Thank you sir but the libs. won’t bother. They run on emotion …….. not logic.

Bruno

September 2nd, 2010
12:37 pm

“I may not care for Bruno’s “approach” to women”

I’m a sweetheart in “real life”, @@. I know it, you know it, and the American people know it.

Keep up the good fight!

September 2nd, 2010
12:37 pm

Not at all Scout…I ignore most of your nonsense. Just hoping that maybe one day you’ll decide to join intelligent discussion.

barking frog

September 2nd, 2010
12:37 pm

the md(milliondollar) degree is why health care costs
will continue to grow.

Bubba Bob

September 2nd, 2010
12:38 pm

Doggone,

Baucus, one of the main sponsers admitted it.
“Said Baucus: “I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language. We hire experts.”"

They hire “experts”…..right.

Tell me one person that you know of that voted for the bill that read it.

AmVet

September 2nd, 2010
12:39 pm

The people I know who pay for their own insurance out of pocket, without employer contributions are less happy with the cost and coverage.

NowReally, being the rube that I am (and accuse others of!) I paid for private medical insurance for decades. An endless list of legalized thieves like United Health Care, BCBSGA, etc…, though I was honorably discharged in 1977.

I always viewed the VA as for other guys “more deserving”.

About seven years ago I got so fed up with the horrific “non-service” of some insurance company and was rally unable to pay the ever-escalating premiums – not to mention that I had a $10,000 deductible! – I finally listened to reason, and another vet buddy, and joined the VA system.

About a year later I became deadly sick with massive blood clots but miraculously survived. And on a scale of 1 to 10 the VA was a 10. (I’ve since discarded my old rule about nobody gets a 10 – these guys really do.) Every step of the way, up to this very day.

I am blessed and never thought I would be saved, literally and financially, by an organization that I enlisted in 38 years ago.

I truly feel sorry for most non-veterans and the criminal debacle that they must now endure…

Mick

September 2nd, 2010
12:39 pm

scout

Why is it that one groups lord is always better than the others? Jesus talked about health care with the telling of the good samaritan and the beatitudes. Some moderns christians believe that if you accumulate wealth, you are blessed. The less fortunate among us are cast as lazy bums, not all but many. Malkin is a loon.

Bruno

September 2nd, 2010
12:39 pm

“I thought Jay B was quoting Rand Paul here at first glance”

RW–Your clue should have been the lack of an accompanying racist photo of Lester Maddox.

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
12:43 pm

Mick:

Do you believe that Jesus miraculously healed people ?

Mick

September 2nd, 2010
12:45 pm

scout

Although it is my opinion that malkin is not a worthy resource for reliable information, I challenge you to watch rachel maddow for the full hour, no one on tv gets the FACTS more correct than her – she presents totally fact based information. Please check her out.

AmVet

September 2nd, 2010
12:46 pm

“It’s a shame the bill is so complicated that it wasn’t read”

What is the shame is that like many or most bills, they are actually at least partially written by the thousands of K-Street lobbyists who advocate FOR and protect at all costs the big corporations who handsomely reward them and AGAINST we the people.

Ostensibly under the canard that they have the “knowledge” needed to do so…

Mick

September 2nd, 2010
12:46 pm

scout

With god, nothing is impossible.

Midori

September 2nd, 2010
12:46 pm

AmVet,

when I got sick with my initial gall bladder attack, I went to the VA Hospital Emergency Room.

My cost?

$17!!!! :)

Saul Good

September 2nd, 2010
12:46 pm

Bruno: “If the goal is to make all health care a “shared cost”, then single-payer is the only sensible way to go. Making the purchase of for-profit insurance plans mandatory is the most expensive way to go.”

That IS the direction we should have gone…but as long as people eat crap and watch Dancing With The Stars while being couch potatoes…. our health costs will continue to skyrocket… I mean the gov’t can’t “force” people to get off their a$$es and quit smoking…but those who do (sit on their a$$es and smoke) need to pay a BIGGER share… because we ALL fund Medicaid and the BIGGEST cost is “end of life”… much spent on those who made the WRONG choices in life (not all…)…but…we DO spend so much on of our $$$ on those who simply sat around smoking, and stuffing their bodies with crap the majority of their lives…THEY cause some of the BIGGEST “costs” we all finance. $500K for a triple bypass for someone who smoked since they were 14 and who was obese? I mean…do we SAVE them? Of course we do ALL we can to save them… but why does THAT person get to help bankrupt the nation and medicaid? Yes…they deserve healthcare… but this nation needs to STOP being a nation becoming MORE obese and if so…we’ll save LOTS of money..because too much $$$ is spent on those who never cared for their bodies in the first place…

Lil' Barry Bailout

September 2nd, 2010
12:47 pm

Sorry Jay, but common sense and a long history of disastrous outcomes from other massive federal intrusions and “entitlement” programs says otherwise. Somehow we’re to believe that covering more people and dictating gold-plated benefits while driving providers out of the market is going to decrease health care spending AND reduce the deficit?

You’d have to be one of the many brain-dead Idiot Messiah acolytes to believe such a fantasy. Let us hope there is a good Oprah show on election day so the parasites stay on the couch.

When Democrats lose, Americans win.

Midori

September 2nd, 2010
12:48 pm

Mick,

you are spot on about Rachel.

All facts; very little “emotion”.

Unlike our wingnut bretheren.

When you look at conservative television, all you get is fear, anger and lies.

Nothing but emotion.

Scout really needs to keep his projection in check.

Granny Godzilla

September 2nd, 2010
12:48 pm

If we found the third tablet on Mt Sinai, the one Moses couldn’t carry (he only has two hands afterall) and carved into that stone tablet were the words “Health Care will lower cost and expand coverage”
the GOP would claim Stanley Anne Dunham got there just before Moses and planted it.

Saul Good

September 2nd, 2010
12:48 pm

Scout… nope…but I saw that someone called you out for NOT being a Marine..and YOU never answered. maybe you were…maybe you were not…it’s the internet..you can be ANYONE who you wish to be…but you DO dodge questions you simply can’t answer.

Union

September 2nd, 2010
12:49 pm

we know we have medicare fraud and abuse to the tune of billions.. and all of a sudden im supposed to believe the govt is gonna get it right this time?

Mick

September 2nd, 2010
12:49 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout

When republicans win, americans lose.

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
12:49 pm

Mick:

Then why didn’t He provide “Universal Health Healing” ?

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
12:51 pm

Saul :

I was the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Twice.

AmVet

September 2nd, 2010
12:52 pm

Nice Midori! And salute!

My little six day “adventure” complete with 5 and half days in the ICU, two operations, dozens of other tests, procedures, injections, etc, cost me about $70.

And now ironically, the VA is the Gold Standard of health care that the do-everything-better-than-the-government “free market” is desperately trying to keep up with…

Saul Good

September 2nd, 2010
12:53 pm

Scout: if you say so…I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt…and I appreciate what you did by serving. Yet again I’ll say: This is the “internet” and your word is only as good as what you say in the past which can be found “truthful” or not.

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
12:54 pm

Saul:

You must mean “popeye” from last night. I’ve had my reply ready since this morning but haven’t seen him yet. However, since you brought it up I will give YOU a preview …………… :o

popeye says:

“No sailor here scout. But, I’ll put my ribbons against yours any day of the week….and, in the day you would have called me SIR…”

Ribbons huh? Well, if you were in the Air Force or Coast Guard you probably do have more than me. You guys got one for making it to the mess hall and back. And if you were in the Army, well, that stands for:

“A”in’t “R”eady to be a “M”arine “Y”et.

P.S. And in the day you would have had to call me “Marine” and I’ll take that over “sir” in any other outfit any day of the week.

Union

September 2nd, 2010
12:54 pm

screw health care reform… i have benny hinns email address.. so im set!

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
12:55 pm

Saul:

Ask me any question about the Corps you want to …………….

Mick

September 2nd, 2010
12:55 pm

scout

There will be the poor and the sick among us always – we have a duty to help our brothers and sisters less fortunate because but for the grace of god that could be you or I.

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
12:56 pm

Mick:

Are you out there ?

AmVet

September 2nd, 2010
12:56 pm

“You guys (non-Marines) got one for making it to the mess hall and back. And if you were in the Army, well, that stands for:…”

Gomer, that you were young, dumb and full of ___ then is forgivable.

That you have apparently learned zero about being a real man subsequently is not…

Doggone/GA

September 2nd, 2010
12:57 pm

“every page”

Not reading “every page” is not the same thing as not reading the bill.

TaxPayer

September 2nd, 2010
12:57 pm

Boehner, like Chambliss, is an expert on tanning beds. I hear they’re really upset about being required to pay a tax on their day-glo orange complexions.

AmVet

September 2nd, 2010
12:58 pm

And though not directed at me, as for the “Jesus” question, of course not.

At least no more or less than I believe Hercules slew the Hydra…

BADA BING

September 2nd, 2010
12:59 pm

Granny, Moses came down the mountain with 20 Commandments. The people were not thrilled with them so he went back up to haggle. When he came down he had good news and bad news. “Good news, I got them down to 10. The bad news, Adultry is still in”!

Jefferson

September 2nd, 2010
1:00 pm

The insurance tycoons and hospital administrators making big bucks as if they are the health care providers with expensive degrees would only take their fair share (read way less) it would not cost so much.

Mick

September 2nd, 2010
1:00 pm

scout

I do take offense at your insult toward the coast guard, we took many losses in nam going up those rivers. Jarheads always get a little carried away about their tough guy image, we are all brothers in arms.

Poor Boy from Alabama

September 2nd, 2010
1:02 pm

Tim Flagler @ 12:33

Thanks for your post. You’re dead on.

The Chief Actuary for Medicare and Medicaid did an analysis of the impacts of Obamacare back in April. Among other things, he noted:

1. Total spending (public and private sectors combined) on health care will be higher under Obama care between 2010 and 2019 than if Congress had done nothing at all.

2. The number of people covered by employer-sponsored health insurance will drop between 2010 and 2010. We’ll see big increases in the number of folks who buy their own insurance and those covered by CHIP and Medicaid.

Nobody knows the full impacts of Obamacare. For one thing, many of the regulations have yet to be written and many of the agencies needed to implement it have not been created. All projections at this point are educated guesses.

Rand’s point of view is helpful, but JB is kidding himself and his readers if he thinks Rand cracked the code and knows more than all of the other folks you referenced.

Soames

September 2nd, 2010
1:02 pm

Jay,

I don’t think anyone knows what the true actual costs and affects of the Healtchcare Reform legislation will be until after it has been in affect for a few years. Anyone claiming that it will definitely lower or raise costs on taxpayers is full of crap in my humble opinion. Modeling is fun but how accurate will it truly be? Only time will tell.

The only problem I might have with it is the way it may be paid for. If only certain “income brackets” are footing the bill for it, then I am firmly against. All for one and one for all…is that socialist? LOL

and a good day to ya……

Union

September 2nd, 2010
1:02 pm

coast guard = puddle jumper

AmVet

September 2nd, 2010
1:02 pm

Though silly and irrelevant, what is it with Boner’s “glow”?

He is the George Hamilton version of the neo-cons.

http://www.danceanddance.com/dancers/George_Hamilton.jpg

Careful, Mick! You’re gonna get swift-boated!

Saul Good

September 2nd, 2010
1:03 pm

Scout…I said what I did above…and again say: if you served our nation…i thank you for your service. I don’t need you to “prove” it to me. Not unless you want to provide you “long form” Honorable Discharge for all of us to see. ;-)

Myself? I’ve never doubted your service…even though you and I disagree on most EVERYTHING. :)

Soames

September 2nd, 2010
1:03 pm

Jefferson – Don’t forget drug companies :)

Bruno

September 2nd, 2010
1:04 pm

Jay–Just so you don’t have to take my word on anything, I dug out my copy of “Personal Risk Management and Insurance, Volume 1″, which was the required text to take Level III of the actuarial exam in the early 1990s. In it, they divide health care costs into three categories (pages 41-42):

(1) Ordinary medical care expenses are those that are more or less routine–treatment of small illnesses or injuries, routine dental care, etc……….Expenses of this type can normally be handled within the family budget, and there is no financial need for insurance or some other means of financing the expenses.

(2) Extraordinary expenses are those that go beyond what is routinely expected–for example, expenses associated with an appendectomy or a broken wrist. The extent to which a family can meet such expenses depends a great deal on its financial situation. When insurance or some other plan is not available, a larger emergency fund is in order.

(3) Catastrophic medical expenses are those that can cause severe financial problems……The extremely large expenses associated with an organ transplant, for example, are beyond the capacity of most families to handle without insurance or some other source of funds.

Saul Good

September 2nd, 2010
1:04 pm

AmVet

September 2nd, 2010
1:02 pm

Holy effin’ &&#(@)&$!!! Too funny!

N-GA

September 2nd, 2010
1:05 pm

@@ – You posted “(Reuters) – U.S. companies are cutting healthcare costs further amid a continuing sour economy, scaling back benefits and shifting a greater share of the expense to employees.”

That’s correct. Companies are cutting back on healthcare (usually offering free low cost plans and charging for the better plans that once were free or subsidized). They are also cutting back on contributions to 401k (and related) plans (matching funds), training, tuition reimbursement, bonuses, child care and other benefit-related expenses. This makes profits look better and employees can do little because the job market provides little mobility for unhappy workers. Not unexpected.

I’ve followed the Rand Group for at least 25 years. They offer corporations (and government) recommendations, critiques, analyses, etc. on many topics from disaster recovery (business continuity), executive security (how to prevent a kidnapping and what to do if it does occur), etc. Most of what they’ve published is thorough and well thought out. They generally avoid offering simple opinions, instead providing comprehensive data to support their conclusions…all available for a fee, of course.

TaxPayer

September 2nd, 2010
1:05 pm

Scout is no Marine. He all but said so last night. At best, he might get away with calling himself an EX-Marine.

Granny Godzilla

September 2nd, 2010
1:05 pm

Commandant of the marine corp twice?

Commandant of the Marine corps is also one of the joint chiefs….

@@

September 2nd, 2010
1:06 pm

Bruno:

I’m a sweetheart in “real life”, @@. I know it, you know it

I wouldn’t go that far.

Saul:

My interest in blogging, “exchange of ideas” has waned. I’m not so much into wasting my valuable time on jay’s behalf.

I may drop in on occasion, but don’t look for too much interaction from moi.

Mick

September 2nd, 2010
1:06 pm

union

navy=squid

Don’t forget shallow water sailor. However, when you are out in your boat in the ocean and things go wrong, its not the navy or marines they call.

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
1:06 pm

Saul:

Aye, aye sir.

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
1:07 pm

Mick:

Of course we should …………. the problem is always the best way to do it.

You didn’t answer my question @ 12:49

Mick

September 2nd, 2010
1:08 pm

bada@12:59

Too funny!!!

A private sector employee

September 2nd, 2010
1:08 pm

“The smart folks at RAND — an actual real-life think tank, as opposed to an ideological group masquerading under the think-tank name”

They are probably more objective than most, but far from objective. Funding of any “think tank” invariably tells the tale…. and the tale told here is (at best) middle-left of the political spectrum. So lets stipulate that they are telling the truth… that it is cheaper to treat the 300lb indigent non-compliant patient with a diabetes and a failing heart who hasn’t worked in 30 years via Obamacare than through emergency rooms and present methods. Well, it probably IS cheaper over all. But is is MUCH more expensive to those who will actually foot the bill for this (read: top 50% of tax payers). And the Rand study says NOTHING about quality of care , or increased wait times for everyone else who doesn’t get a hospital bed (including the guy who is actually footing the bill for all of this).

We have only to look at the federal income tax to know that the top 50% of taxpayers will fully pay or subsidize the bottom 50% and greater and greater levels. We have only to look at our healthcare system to understand the shock of 30 million people coming into it. And we have only to look at the whims of politicians to know that the 50% who do pay will wait in line for healthcare behind the 50% who don’t pay.

AmVet

September 2nd, 2010
1:08 pm

Union, maybe you can clarify.

To give a combat veteran the Rove/Saxby Royal Treatment, did he need a Silver Star?

Or was anybody fair game?

@@

September 2nd, 2010
1:08 pm

Same goes for you N-GA.

I’m off to the market.

Normal

September 2nd, 2010
1:09 pm

Mick,
Served with some “Coasties” in my day. Good men. all. especially in “Nam.

Scout,
Started my Career taking young healthy Marines to the beach and bringing back broken and dead ones. Never saw the appeal…

Union

September 2nd, 2010
1:09 pm

mick..

“Don’t forget shallow water sailor. However, when you are out in your boat in the ocean and things go wrong, its not the navy or marines they call.”

thats the only time you call a “boy” to do a “mans” job 8)

- fair winds and following seas -

barking frog

September 2nd, 2010
1:10 pm

‘joint chiefs’

—————–
for some reason that’s always funny to me….

Saul Good

September 2nd, 2010
1:10 pm

Union: “coast guard = puddle jumper”

yeah…unless you live in a COASTAL state…you know one like GA…those “protecting” our borders which FAR outweigh the AZ border…but cha neva hear of those on the right talking about beefing up our OTHER borders…like the Canadian one…where a terrorist can row a boat on the St. Lawrence or simple walk in for thousands of miles.

Truth be told… not ONE TERRORIST attack in our nation happened because of those who came through Mexico to get here…yet the “right” likes to shout about how “keeping our borders safe” is MORE important compared to watching our seas…and the COAST GUARD who watches our borders…a place WAY more likely that a terrorist would approach from.

Union

September 2nd, 2010
1:11 pm

amvet –

i think anyone is fair game… (fyi – havent been back to a va hospital in 20 years)

N-GA

September 2nd, 2010
1:11 pm

@@ re your 1:08

huh?

Mick

September 2nd, 2010
1:11 pm

scout

**Then why didn’t He provide “Universal Health Healing” ?**

He does, he’s just been outsourcing it to benny hinn.

Doggone/GA

September 2nd, 2010
1:12 pm

“And though not directed at me, as for the “Jesus” question, of course not.”

I do, but Scout might not like the reason. Psychosomatic diseases are very real…but because they are caused by the person’s mind and not an actual diseases agent or injury, they CAN be “miraculously” cured if the person believes they can be.

stands for decibels

September 2nd, 2010
1:13 pm

I thought Jay B was quoting Rand Paul here at first glance.

I’m trying to imagine a world where Jay had become such a fanboy of the Kentucky Senate hopeful that he’d spell his first name in all-caps…

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
1:13 pm

Union:

Did you know that Eddie Alpert (Green Acres) got a silver star for doing that at Tarawa?

Union

September 2nd, 2010
1:13 pm

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
1:14 pm

Taxpayer:

Good grief, of course I’m not in now ……. I got out in 1968.

Keep up the good fight!

September 2nd, 2010
1:15 pm

Scout… while I have no basis to challenge your claim to have served this country and I thank all who serve/served, I do question your claim office/rank/title of Commandant of the Marines (twice) Thirty-four men have served as the Commandant of the Marine Corps. I do not see any that have had served twice. Perhaps you can clarify your claim.

Commadant list and info

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
1:15 pm

Doggone/GA:

Ah, but what about the passage where he restored a missing limb ?

AmVet

September 2nd, 2010
1:16 pm

Union, they have a great sign in front of the VAH down on Clairmont, “The price of freedom is on display here every day.”

Funny how life changes isn’t it? When we older dogs got out, most were disregarded or disrespected. Now people can’t drool over themselves fast enough to “thank” a vet. Even though this war is as idiotic as the one during our time was…

I may drop in on occasion, but don’t look for too much interaction from moi.

Maybe kam knows, but I’ve lost track. Is that the fourth or fifth time?

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
1:17 pm

Keep up the good fight!:

Good grief ……….. ARE YOU SERIOUS? Do you not know a joke when you see one? And no Commandant has served TWICE.

Geez, I thought you would laugh at that one.

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
1:18 pm

Mick:

O.K. ……….. if you won’t answer ……… you won’t answer.

Keep up the good fight!

September 2nd, 2010
1:19 pm

Now I am even more confused. You left the Marines in 1968. The 3 officers who served as Commandant of the Marines from 1951 – 1975 are all dead…

Wow…maybe I can be in miracles.

Mick

September 2nd, 2010
1:19 pm

scout

That was a serious question? I thought you were joking with me.

Scout

September 2nd, 2010
1:20 pm

Mick:

What the heck is this ?

The Commandant authorized the Coast Guard Bicentennial Unit Commendation (ribbon) effective 2 January 1990. Awarded by the Commandant, to all Coast Guard members, including selected Reservists, civilians, and Auxiliarists, serving satisfactorily during any period from 4 June 1989 to 4 August 1990. The Bicentennial Unit Commendation may not be awarded to any individual whose entire service subsequent to 4 June 1989 is not honorable. People of other Services who were assigned to and served with the Coast Guard during this period are also eligible for this award.

Soothsayer

September 2nd, 2010
1:20 pm

Unsurprisingly, the two wars in the Middle East have taken their toll on the people’s trust in the state. Support for continued interventionism abroad continues to wane, as it becomes clear that neither of the wars has much to do with global terrorism or the protection of American freedoms. However, the state has once again shifted policy to cope with the change in public opinion.

The fear of terrorism has by and large been replaced by the alleged threat of capitalism and animal spirits. The threat once again becomes greed, and as usual, there is only one solution — embracing the state. Naturally, the masses have once again fallen for this appeal to fear. Without government intervention, alleges the regime, the country will fall into a spiral of poverty and misfortune. The people, otherwise free, will find themselves the downtrodden slaves of the free market.

The government thrives on creating these false dichotomies: war or invasion, militant anticommunism or a global communist revolution, war or terrorism, economic interventionism or economic misery. It offers the masses two choices, utopia or hell. The one, it claims, can only be provided by the state, while the other is the product of an unprotected and anarchic society. These illogical fears have tended to win over reason, and the government continues to grow unchecked.

A century of war, corruption, interventionism, and inflation have failed to dissuade the public from apathetically accepting government growth. This phenomenon can perhaps be explained by noting the collective rejection of reason and logic, spread through the system by the ranks of intellectuals and academics who willingly accept this transition to irrationalism. For whatever reason, bureaucratic expansion has been left virtually unopposed.

This is a great article. Well worth the 10 mins it will take you to read it.

Union

September 2nd, 2010
1:20 pm

amvet – had a little “accident” there.. misdiagnoses.. cost me a lot of pain.. i know there are great ppl that work there.. but i was sent home.. only to end up in another hospital for 30 days.. sigh

sorry.. i digress… back to fighting the liberals!

Bruno

September 2nd, 2010
1:20 pm

“the md (milliondollar) degree is why health care costs will continue to grow.”

Barking frog–You growl the truth, although the front-end costs to get the MD degree are rather steep and the hours are long. From top to bottom, salaries in health care are out of line with what the rest of the country earns, however.

“I mean the gov’t can’t “force” people to get off their a$$es and quit smoking…but those who do (sit on their a$$es and smoke) need to pay a BIGGER share…”

Saul–A study done by PriceWaterhouseCooper concluded:

“Our research found that wasteful spending in the health system has been calculated at up to $1.2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion spent in the United States, more than half of all health spending. Defensive medicine, such as redundant, inappropriate or unnecessary tests and procedures, was identified as the biggest area of excess, followed by inefficient healthcare administration and the cost of care necessitated by conditions such as obesity, which can be considered preventable by lifestyle changes.”

“because we ALL fund Medicaid and the BIGGEST cost is “end of life”

Actually, Medicare, not Medicaid, primarily finds “end of life expenses”. Either way, we’re wasting a lot of money there as well:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/end-of-life-care_n_627573.html

“_Hospitalizations during the last six months of life are rising: from 1,302 per 1,000 Medicare recipients in 1996 to 1,441 in 2005, Dartmouth reports. Treating chronic illness in the last two years of life gobbles up nearly one-third of all Medicare dollars.”