Dumb question: Do either Hillary or Obama's healthcare plans cap insurance costs?

[yurbud]

FRONTLINE did an excellent piece on healthcare around the world and looked at not only single payer and government run delivery, but also countries that have market-based systems.

The most striking difference with the market-based systems shown and any proposals I have heard from the candidates is controlling the cost of premiums.

In the market-based systems the show looked at, they did it two ways: make health insurance a non-profit business and capping the percentage of premiums they can spend on overhead--our private insurance blows six times as much on overhead costs that include profits, advertising, CEO salaries, and of course all those people who answer the phone to deny you coverage (or put you on hold until you go away and die).

If I recall correctly, both Hillary and Obama have said they would subsidize those who can't afford to buy the insurance, but when the government is the customer and there is no price control, the price tends to skyrocket (sort of like the defense contractors).

Link to show:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

[OzarkDem]

1. Clinton's does, Obama's does not

http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=11&c=16

Thanks for bringing this up. Its another reason why Obama's plan will fail. Even he knows it.

[yurbud]

8. from your link, it looks like Obama's plan has one of the two insurance cost controls I mentioned:

Promote insurer competition through the national Health Insurance Exchange and by regulating the portion of health plan premiums that must be paid out in benefits.

That means they can't take in a dollar in premiums and only give back fifty cents in claims.

[rinsd]

2. Hillary's plan ties premiums to income level

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/summary.aspx (detailed paper to the right)

Obama's plan talks about fair premiums but I do not see anything tying it to income level

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. No, she only limits how much the 'consumer' will pay -

the government will make up the difference, which is still open-ended. IOW, it will cost the government MORE.

[rinsd]

4. Yes she limits how much the consumer will be asked to pay. That is a price control.

That is what the OP is talking about.

I prefer Hillary's plan to Obama's as I see her mandate being a bigger force in swelling public health rolls eventually leading to public health dominance in the health care market but I think single payer is the best system.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. No, that's not a price control. It merely shifts the cost from the patient

to the government. Not only that, but it locks the system in place by which the industry can keep raising prices and thus keep collecting MORE government money while not directly stressing the patients, therefore the patients believe they are getting a good deal - until they see their tax bill. This will NOT lead to single-payer. It is designed to prevent single-payer. By the insurance industry.

[rinsd]

6. I disagree.

By mandating coverage and massively expanding public health options, private insurance will have to compete and lower their prices or die. And the beauty of that is they take such a slice of profit they cannot compete with public health.

So back to price controls and tying premiums to income level. This is to help prevent families from going into debt over healthcare costs. Yes ultimately the government & we as taxpayers pay but with all the subsidizing going on in both plans, that is not exactly earth shattering.

I see this plan as a potential bridge to single payer though certainly there are no guarantees.

[wileedog]

11. And I disagree with you here

"private insurance will have to compete and lower their prices or die."

Not even remotely. When is the last time your 'mandatory' auto insurance went down?

And to the original question - will insurance companies take advantage of the "price control" in Hillary's plan and gouge the Government, which has shown little or no ability to control costs when dealing with large lobby groups - er, I mean corporations?

You better believe they will. Say hello to $500 prescriptions (even if the consumer only pay $50).

[rinsd]

15. There are public auto insurance plans offered by the government?

You seem to be forgetting the massive expansion in public health options in both candidates' plans.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. But that 'massive expansion' is based on the government

making up the difference.

Put it this way: (with purely fictional representational numbers)

You are self employed, and can afford insurance. You pay $1000/mo for that insurance.

You are company empolyed, and share insurance costs with your company. You pay $500/mo, the company pays $500/mo.

You cannot afford insurance. You pay $50/mo, the government pays $950 to make up the difference.

Where does that save money? The insurance company STILL collects $1000/mo for the insurance. And the insurance industry decides how much is needed to cover what. As it is today, when the government decides that it won't pay any more than X, then the medical industry refuses to take medicare patients because of inadequate compensation - that's because privite insurers are setting the rates, not the government.

If you don't take the profit motive out, you will always have inadequate healthcare. With the profit motive in there, it's the profit, not the patient, that matters.

[Orsino]

7. Well, there are two prices.

I applaud a cap that will shift some cost to the government. It is a little like single-payer with a co-pay.

[yurbud]

9. yep. It masks insurance company gouging.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

14. It's not a control on the premium though

As the poster you responded to said, without caps on premiums someone will be picking up the rest of the tab. My biggest concern with mandated health insurance (which both Hillary and Barack are proposing in one form or another) is that if a GOP administration comes in and cuts subsidies, as is their wont, how will people pay these mandatory premiums?

[rinsd]

16. I prefer the government picking up the tab than financially vulnerable families.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

19. And what happens when the GOP-led government stops the subsidies?

You didn't answer my question. Look at the history of what has happened to social services in this country. They've been stripped down to the bare bones by the Republicans. Subsidies for health care would be the first thing on the chopping block. These people didn't even want health insurance for CHILDREN fergoddsake!

[rinsd]

20. Then why bother doing anything if you are afraid the GOP will fuck it up later?

Am I worried about GOP cuts to social services? Always.

You do realize that GOP congress looking to eliminate subsidies would just as likely remove any premium caps. In fact they are far more likely to do that than eliminate subsidies.

The lesson? Keep the GOP out of power ;-)

[yurbud]

10. if private insurance stays in the mix we need to take the sheep shears to their testicles...

and make them non-profit.

Otherwise, they will get aggressive again in the future.

[NorthCarolina]

12. I think we should push these candidates Forget about an Insurance Plan

and get behind HR 676. Who wants a for-profit insurance man between you and your doctor deciding for YOU what's covered and what's not. Doesn't seem to make any sense to me, and I sure as heck don't see any actual benefit to it.

[SoCalDem]

13. No matter.. Nothing much will happen until most of the Boomers are dead & gone

and maybe not even after that.. Here's why:

1. People lucky enough to have good coverage through work, mostly don't give a rat's ass what other people have or don;t have.. They WOULD care if they lost it, but by then they would be too busy scrambling for another job, and too broke to protest a whole lot.

2. A LOT of people here will resist the obvious NEED for a more-or-less foolproof ID that entitles them to the health care they seek.

3. To have any health care system similar to the ones Frontline showed us, we would need a NATIONAL REFERENDUM and would have to keep congress out of it. We would need to take back control and TELL them what we want, and that we are willing to pay for it..and prohibit them from mucking it up at the edges by consorting with lobbyists.

4. Hospitals, doctors & pharma would have to adhere to strict regulations regarding costs & expenses & pay scales.. with many of them being turned into non-profits.

5. Medicaid & VA would have to GO...completely.. For it to work, EVERYTHING would have to be under ONE plan..Medicare.. The plan for Medicare, all those years ago was for it to go further and to encompass everyone.. That's why it was not called Seniorcare.. they started with seniors, but never got beyond that..

6. Employers would have to be FORBIDDEN to offer their own plans as a way to woo employees (not much of a problem these days:(..).. There cannot be another competing plan..

7. Insurance must be non-profit..

See why we probably won't ever see real health care like most civilized countries have?

[yurbud]

17. why would the ID have to be anymore foolproof than a driver's license?

If it has a number and pic they can look up, isn't that good enough?

[SoCalDem]

18. It would have to be UNIVERSAL..drivers' licenses are a state by state

thing.. and unversal ID means a national database with all kinds of information.. there are many paranoid people who fear any national database..(but they probably are on many by now, whether they know it or not:)..)