The Cost of Doing Nothing on Health Care

[dtotire]

The Cost of Doing Nothing on Health Care
By REED ABELSON
Published: February 26, 2010




Suppose Congress and President Obama fail to overhaul the system now, or just tinker around the edges, or start over, as the Republicans propose — despite the Democrats’ latest and possibly last big push that began last week at a marathon televised forum in Washington.

Then “my health care” stays the same, right?

Far from it, health policy analysts and economists of nearly every ideological persuasion agree. The unrelenting rise in medical costs is likely to wreak havoc within the system and beyond it, and pretty much everyone will be affected, directly or indirectly.

“People think if we do nothing, we will have what we have now,” said Karen Davis, the president of the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care research group in New York. “In fact, what we will have is a substantial deterioration in what we have.”

Nearly every mainstream analysis calls for medical costs to continue to climb over the next decade, outpacing the growth in the overall economy and certainly increasing faster than the average paycheck. Those higher costs will translate into higher premiums, which will mean fewer individuals and businesses will be able to afford insurance coverage. More of everyone’s dollar will go to health care, and government programs like Medicare and Medicaid will struggle to find the money to operate.

Policy makers, in the end, may be forced to address the issue.



>.snip<
And many argue that putting off the inevitable has an additional cost. The Commonwealth Fund estimates that the nation would be spending hundreds of billions of dollars less than it does today if any of the health care legislation proposed by previous administrations had been enacted, assuming that they reduced costs by about 1.5 percentage points. If President Nixon’s plan had passed, the United States might be spending a trillion dollars a year less than it does now, and President Clinton’s plan would have reduced spending by some $500 billion a year.
>.snip<



more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28abelson.html?hpw

[zipplewrath]

1. What's the cost of doing "this"?

The reality is that passing this bill may only accelerate the affect that the author is referencing. Only by then the GOP may be in charge and we'll get the health insurance reform they want. The biggest problem with the current bill is that it is health insurance reform and does little to reduce the rate of growth of the cost of health care. The only true solution will be single payer (including the tort reform that the GOP wants so bad)and the public option was the only potential path in this bill to get there. Without it, this bill will do little to address the problem the author sees.

[90-percent]

2. The outcome is obvious

With the special anti-trust exemptions most insurance companies enjoy the moment will soon come that insurance costs become more expensive than your entire salary.

I can't do the math, but with rate hikes of 30 to 60% per year it will only take a few more years for health insurance costs will exceed the entire income of most of us!

-90% Jimmy

[Demeter]

3. The Biggest Cost of This Year's Fandango

is the complete loss of trust in Candidate Obama, the Democratic Party, and the government suffered by too many voters. All the promises were broken, for no good reason.

And as any parent will agree: "I don't want to" is NOT a good reason.