Apparently, Warren Buffet is one of the naive obstructionists who thinks that President Obama needs to start over on healthcare reform. Coincidentally, he thinks that the first emphasis should be on “cost, cost, cost” and only then on insuring more people.
I wonder why Becky did not ask his opinion about the details of the Senate plan aimed at cutting costs? I would also think he should have offered his ideas on how to cut costs.
Steve
Steve,
The cost cutting was for the first 10 years, after that the costs go up. And you have to be supremely naive to think that those costs savings in the first 10 years, which are razor thin–i.e. change the situation but a little bit and they may vanish even in the bestest of best cases, will actually be pursued.
A quick way to cut costs is to force all healthcare providers to post prices for all procedures and drugs on the web and to charge all comers those prices, including Medicaid, Medicare, insured and non-insured.
Just like Walmart, Sears, Home Depot, Amazon and Lowes do.
Then we can tackle elimination of provider certification, as Milton Friedman recommended.
Naive? Maybe better informed since I know how I and many docs would respond. A lot of us will use cost effectiveness research if it is available. A lot of us wont do the same tests over and over if we have an effective, accessible records system. A lot of errors could be avoided if we actually knew the patients history (I do lots of trauma). A lot of us think that taking Medicare decisions a step away from Congress, via the Advisory board, is worth a shot. The Senate bill does/did require hospitals to post their charges publicly.
This is not the bill I would have written, however it has a number of features which could reduce costs. I remember that conservatives 9and libertarians) were predicting the economy would go to hell when Reagan and Clinton raised taxes (quotes available if you want). Conservatives and libertarians predicted jobs and a booming economy with the Bush tax cuts. All this to show I do not blindly accept predictions made by the right.
Finally, if I felt that there was even the slightest chance that Republicans were really interested in achieving some kind of reform, then I would also oppose this bill in hopes of something better. I have not seen a single Republican in any kind of leadership position expend one iota of political capital on HCR. If it cannot be fixed with tax cuts, Republicans have no interest and no ideas. Once back in office they will revert since they only make proposals to counter what Dems offer. You are supporting the status quo.
Steve
steve,
A number of the cost savings are simply due to reducing Medicare payouts. That has nothing to do with things like better records keeping/access or access to cost effectiveness research. Remove that part of the legislation and you’ll likely start in the red in year one, and continue for every year afterwards.
Well, is that their job? To offer up an alternative bill that really has no chance? Or to spend their time opposing what the Democrats do to try and bring about consensus? You seem to be asking them to act like they aren’t the party in the minority, but who are instead in the majority. Not going to happen. Not with our system of government.
Sigh, where were you the last 30 years? At any rate, in a reasonable and functioning government, the opposition would be attempting to modify legislation IMHO, not just opposing everything. Now, almost every bill requires 60 votes. This, for obvious reasons, almost guarantees poorer bills.
Steve