Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit
If your Dad is over 62 and covered under Medicare Part D then we have been
paying for his drugs over the last 5 years.
According to research by the Partnership for Health Care Reform, the total government cost is almost twice as high for every enroll-ee to Part D from an employee plan. Five million retirees going into Part D would be an additional cost
of 2.7 BILLION per year.
|
Funny, he was upset that Obama (and this is a person who's generally against Obama mind you) wanted to kill Medicare Advantage as part of the legislation. When I explained that their benefits from Medicare Advantage -- even with his cash contribution -- consumed a higher rate of taxpayer money than regular Medicare he didn't seem to care because he felt he was being less dependent on the Government.
Quote:
|
Most of the increases over the last 10 years have come from increase in malpractice insurance, where every Doc will tell you there are 2 groups, those who have been sued and those about to be, and all the new high tech test costs.
|
I agree that lawsuits are a problem (and those predatory HMO's trying to kill off the independent practitioner) but tort isn't the root cause. I've seen numbers like 185B or so a year could be saved by tort reform, a lot for sure, but I can't believe it's the main driver behind increases.
They raise rates because they can.
Quote:
|
Tort reform and across state insurance competition is one way to reduce costs
|
And I support both. Kerry in 2004 proposed that medical malpractice cases should be moved to Federal courts where the standards of evidence were much higher, hence, making frivolous lawsuits more difficult to bring before a court.
I do think that interstate competition is an easy one the Dems should have used as barter to get some Repubs on board. I think it would have a dramatic impact on cost and there's really no counter argument that the average person can understand...it's basic competition and some states really have few choices available.
-spence