Stossel: Why Obama's Health Plan Gets It Wrong

[steven johnson]

Sometimes Jojn Stossel is spot on and someteven times he's just on the wrong track.

Here I think he's off base.

There is plenty of research to support the idea that when patients pay less out of pocket, they overuse health care. In fact, the RAND Corporation conducted a 15-year study that showed "that modest cost sharing reduces use of services with negligible effects on health for the average person." But all we hear from Washington is that insurance should cover more.
With insurance companies so tied to American expectations of how to pay for health care, it's no surprise that costs keep going up. America spent $2.2 trillion on healthcare in 2007, more than triple the $714 billion spent in 1990, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.


Stossel: Why Obama's Health Plan Gets It Wrong

[rox63]

1. When has Stossel ever been right about anything?

:shrug:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. I second that question. The only thing he's ever right about are the gimmes like "murder is bad"

[redqueen]

8. Same thing I was wondering.

Maybe he said 'killers are bad' or something completely obvious like that.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

13. I haven't watched him in ages, so I wiki'd him.

Apparently he is a libertarian. Then I could believe he was right occasionally.

[Arugula Latte]

15. Many, many moons ago, he was a liberal investigative reporter. Then industry bought him out.

Ever since then, he's been a lying rightwing dickhead who fellates big business interests.

[HughMoran]

17. He's never been right as far as I can remember

Perhaps 10 years ago he might have been right on something, but he's turned into a typical selfish ignorant right-wing hypocrite of late and nothing he says is worth even listening too.

[Champion Jack]

18. Never. Stossel is just another ignorant "news actor bimbo"

Who cares what he says?

[scheming daemons]

2. Stossel is rarely, if ever, "spot on"

He's a conservative hack.

[villager]

3. "Stossel" and "spot on" in the same sentence?

:shrug:

[Swede]

4. I love this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9Ca7LSyQ

[angstlessk]

10. thanks for that...I am still guffawing

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. I can't think of anyone who deserves that more

:7

And I'm not a non-violent person in general.

My mother and stepfather were big fans of 20/20, so I'd see John Stossel whenever I visited them from Portland. Every time he "reported," I could easily see either factual distortions or faulty logic or usually both, like saying that America's poor were really well off because they could afford VCRs. (John-boy, maybe VCRs cost $800 when you bought them as an early adopter, but by the time the report was broadcast, they were selling for $30.)

[grantcart]

24. he got $ 425,000 for those two slaps

[WeDidIt]

5. Stossel has never been right about anything

In fact, most of what he spews are lies and he damned well knows it.

[joeybee12]

11. +1,000,000,000

Biggest D of them all!

[rucky]

7. Nowhere in the bill does it say that douchebags would be covered.

and that's Stossel's problem with it.

[Junkdrawer]

9. A lot of Stossel fans here today. Check out the 4th cited link on this thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6402537

[Oregone]

12. He is partially correct

People will, depending on their coverage, no longer "self-ration". If the insurance is privatized and will not control costs (like a single-payer system would), then overall health care costs per capita may increase if it is not mitigated by savings from preventative care.


There are a lot of variables here. This "uniquely American" model of 400+ privatized providers paired with this half ass attempt at "universal coverage" will yield some interesting results that aren't entirely predictable though

[InternalDialogue]

20. I understand what you're saying here

but I think a key part of getting the reform right is putting more flexibility on doctors again to choose the right prescriptions and treatments for their patients, and that includes weakening the financial incentives for doctors to use a particular medication or procedure based on funding or kickbacks from medical technology and pharma companies.

People may feel freer to access health care for more reasons, but if the doctors can practice their expertise and counsel patients to only the appropriate treatments (and ignore the temptation to prescribe a drug because their practice gets favors for pushing a particular company's drug), then I think the equation balances back out and gets us to a better health care environment in the long run.

[Oregone]

21. Its still basically all conjecture

(though it *sounds* sensible, how will it really pan out?)

And you still have 30 cents out of every dollar spent simply going to the insurance companies overhead (not curing cancer, buying medicine, paying for x-rays).

Maybe all the increase in health care and the insurance profits will be mitigated by more efficient health care in a decade. Maybe not.

But, we can be 90% sure that switching to single-payer would save $400 billion immediately, a year, WITHOUT even addressing savings on the delivery side (just elimination private insurance overhead). Seems like the easier and more pragmatic, incremental first step approach. To each their own.

[InternalDialogue]

23. I agree single-payer makes more sense in every way.

A public option has so many more variables and requirements that are subject to weakening good health care or leading away from the initial purpose of reform. It could still work and be far better than what we've got now, but it lacks the logic and simplicity of single-payer.

[Igel]

27. I'll pass along an anecdote.

Campus health was cheaper than private insurance. It didn't start out that way. It was as expensive, and optional. The school wanted it to be mandatory, and this required reduced a maximum price per term and a student vote. They got their vote. Now, if it was mandatory, it would be included in grants, loans, and RA/TA salaries. So the university paid for the election, by mail, and enclosed an additional card. You get a grant, health insurance will be free; you're an RA/TA, health insurance will be free--if the ballot measure passed. Hugh grad student turnout, but when you took out the ballots that just voted for health insurance you were left with the usual turnout, mostly voting against. The next fall, everybody had $400 more in fees, but those attending on grants and TAs/RAs had it for free.

The student health service at the school I went to had mandatory student health.

They had a two-tiered triage system: the counter clerks and the nurse that saw you at step 2 decided if you waited in line or went to the head of the line. They cut costs by having only nurse practitioners see you, and then refer you to a doctor or not.

It was decided that the health service would be free. A copay would disadvantage the disadvantaged, really poor students, the copay was judged to be an onerous burden.

So invariably the first month of the year it was overpacked--show up by 9 am and *maybe* they'd see you by 4 pm. You did *not* want to get sick near the start of school, or during flu season. Every little medical problem had students, mostly frosh and first-year grad/professional students, at student health. This didn't last too long: Rationing was accomplished by having every student weigh patience vs necessity. This established an equilibrium, and every time I went there were people who left because they misjudged where the equilibrium point was and couldn't pay the price in time.

This was an onerous burden, as well, but not primarily financial and therefore politically acceptable. "Affordable" was measured in $, not hours. Lots of time, minor problem, you go; little time, more serious problem, you tend not to go until the problem was truly serious and merited missing class or work.

This was after the usual measures: generics required, if available; nurse practitioners instead of MDs; various kinds of triage; etc., etc., etc. I considered my time valuable; I would have eagerly gone for having a co-pay. It was politically incorrect, since it would have hurt not those working and attending grad classes, but the poor.

It wasn't a question of whether to ration and discourage people from using the resource frivolously. It was a question of how they rationed and who, precisely, was discouraged so much that they didn't seek care.

[Arugula Latte]

14. Oh, shut up and go back to your 70s porn star job, John. *Bow chicka bow bow*

[Brigid]

16. John Stossel is an idiot.

He's obviously never had to wrangle with an insurance company bureaucrat about coverage. :grr:

What really happens is that people don't get preventive care -- then they end up in the ER. Then the costs start mounting up.

[laughingliberal]

25. Exactly!

High out of pocket costs caused me to not seek help when I did need it-just put the little things off hoping they would go away. When they don't go away they become much more costly. Just part of the ongoing attempt to wring every last penny out of the working class to transfer it to the wealthy corporate culture.

[Orsino]

19. Stossel imagines armies of *poor* people going for recreational check-ups.

What a tool.

[Javaman]

26. Stossel: Why I'm a colossal ass hat. nt