第二港湾, 华人休闲之家

 找回密码
 注册帐号
搜索
热搜: 活动 交友
查看: 1999|回复: 19

Dr. Ben S. Carson: Obamacare: The implosion has just begun

[复制链接]
发表于 2014-5-1 12:22:03 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
Obamacare: The implosion has just begun
American CurrentSee
By Dr. Ben S. Carson


                                             We recently witnessed a victory lap by the Obama administration as they announced that over 8 million people had signed up for Obamacare.

“The repeal debate is and should be over," declared President Obama in the opening statement of his April 17 press conference. "The Affordable Care Act is working."

But with the release of a new study by Express Scripts, the largest pharmacy benefits manager in the country, we now have our first real look behind the curtain at how the law is working thus far — and it clearly validates one of the major concerns of Obamacare critics.

With all due respect, Mr. President, it's hard to see how the debate about Obamacare is now over, when the implosion of Obamacare has only just begun.

The new study, which looked at 650,000 actual pharmacy claims made across 25 Obamacare insurers in January and February, shows that early enrollees in Obamacare exchange plans are indeed sicker and more costly than individuals with insurance coverage in non-exchange plans. This is important because it means the Obamacare health insurance pools are well on their way to collapse.

The specific discoveries are as follows:
  • The rate of prescriptions for HIV medicines was four times higher in exchange plans than in non-exchange plans;
  • Pain medications were 35% higher in exchange plans;
  • Anti-seizure drugs were 27% higher;
  • Anti-depressants were 14% higher;
It is common sense that sicker people with higher costs are more likely to obtain health insurance when coverage is “guaranteed issue,” as it is in the Obamacare exchanges. Guaranteed issue means that anyone can buy health insurance at any time regardless of health status at the time of purchase. That may sound appealing, and it is certainly great for a few, but it results in obvious perverse incentives that can only lead to collapse.

If car insurance were guaranteed issue, it would mean you could buy a policy after your car was stolen and get reimbursed for your car. If homeowners insurance were guaranteed issue, you could buy a policy after your house burned down and be sent a check for the value of your home.

So who would buy an insurance policy in advance if they could always get a guaranteed issue policy later? The obvious answer is no one.

The problem is that if everyone is making expensive claims that exceed the incoming premiums then soon there is no money left and the insurance pool implodes. This is called a “death spiral” in industry speak. An early symptom is rapidly escalating premiums in a frantic attempt to cover higher than expected costs. We will see this when 2015 premiums are announced later this year. We will also see more desperation when the employer mandate kicks in after the election and tens of millions of people lose what they thought were safe insurance policies.

Several states have tried guaranteed issue health insurance, and the results were a disaster. Kentucky passed guaranteed issue in 1994. Premiums in the individual market shot up 100 percent in some cases, the number of insurers selling policies declined over 90 percent, and there were more, not fewer, uninsured Kentuckians.

Iowa, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Washington also passed guaranteed issue in the mid-1990s. All of those states immediately experienced skyrocketing premiums and fewer choices for their citizens. Consequently, all four states either repealed guaranteed issue outright or modified it significantly. New York and New Jersey maintained their guaranteed issue and ended up with the highest premiums in the country, in some cases costing many thousands of dollars per month.

Obamacare supporters have three responses. The first is that the individual mandate will force people to buy coverage thereby ensuring sufficient money in the pools. The problem with this claim is that the tax for non-compliance ($95 or 1 percent of income in 2014, going up to 2.5 percent of income in 2016) is far less expensive than a year’s worth of premiums. A 27-year-old male in good health making $26,000 a year is unlikely to pay even $100 a month for health insurance, especially a policy with a deductible exceeding $2,000.

The second response is a concession that the truly sick and expensive were more motivated to buy guaranteed issue coverage early. But never fear, the young and healthy are now rushing to buy coverage, and it will balance out. That is only true if you believe that younger Americans, many struggling financially, will pay hundreds of dollars a month for health insurance they are unlikely to need. Michelle Obama may call them “knuckleheads,” but most of them are capable of simple arithmetic.

The third response is to describe how the law as written provides taxpayer bailouts to insurance companies when they are saddled with increasingly bad and expensive risks. The health insurance companies lobbied strongly for this provision in the law because they knew that guaranteed issue would be a financial mess. So yes, the authors of Obamacare were so aware of its eventual failure that they built in taxpayer bailouts in advance.

                                             This position assumes that American taxpayers will tolerate their hard-earned money going to bail out health insurers who were complicit in authoring a failed law. We won’t.
The Express Scripts study is hard evidence of what common sense told us all along. Future studies of claims data will confirm the same trend. Obamacare cannot be fixed. It can only be replaced.

It can only be replaced with a logical system that puts the responsibility for health care back in the hands of patients and their healthcare providers. The details of such a plan have been previously discussed elsewhere and will be discussed here in greater detail soon.

发表于 2014-5-1 15:10:44 | 显示全部楼层
唯一解决方法就是全民医保, 穷人排队上医院 , 有点钱再买“差别”保险看好医生。现在不交钱医疗计划比交钱的还好,就是变态。
发表于 2014-5-1 15:58:46 | 显示全部楼层
现在不交钱医疗计划比交钱的还好,就是变态。

这句话具体什么意思
 楼主| 发表于 2014-5-2 13:04:25 | 显示全部楼层
ssgo2008 发表于 2014-5-1 15:10
唯一解决方法就是全民医保, 穷人排队上医院 , 有点钱再买“差别”保险看好医生。现在不交钱医疗计划比交 ...

全民医保是挺好,不过谁出钱?如果又是纳税人出,问题就又来了。凭什么我生病你得出钱给我治?
发表于 2014-5-2 13:14:21 | 显示全部楼层
archers 发表于 2014-5-1 15:58
现在不交钱医疗计划比交钱的还好,就是变态。

这句话具体什么意思

美国穷人看病基本不交钱,
发表于 2014-5-2 13:26:39 | 显示全部楼层
万得福 发表于 2014-5-2 13:04
全民医保是挺好,不过谁出钱?如果又是纳税人出,问题就又来了。凭什么我生病你得出钱给我治? ...

这是没办法的办法:
1. 医疗保险越来越贵, 而且保险公司不愿意卖保险给老弱病残。医生、医药公司、病人把保险当免费信用卡拼命刷。
2. 现有制度允许穷人免费上急救室,等于大头还是纳税人出了, 如果不免费上急救室,有人得急病,受伤没有ID保险卡在身上就白死
3. 其他国家在医疗上花钱少,人们更健康。
另一个选择是立法禁止医疗保险, 大家各自掏钱, 问题是很多人有病就挺,小病变大病
所以医疗保险制度玩不转了,禁止医疗保险也不好,只能是全民医保对大家都有利。
发表于 2014-5-2 14:53:19 | 显示全部楼层
ssgo2008 发表于 2014-5-2 13:14
美国穷人看病基本不交钱,

噢,这个意思
发表于 2014-5-2 14:54:34 | 显示全部楼层
万得福 发表于 2014-5-2 13:04
全民医保是挺好,不过谁出钱?如果又是纳税人出,问题就又来了。凭什么我生病你得出钱给我治? ...

你给个方案,怎么办?

穷人得病是不是就等死?如果不是,除了其他人均摊,还有啥办法?
 楼主| 发表于 2014-5-5 12:58:05 | 显示全部楼层
archers 发表于 2014-5-2 14:54
你给个方案,怎么办?

穷人得病是不是就等死?如果不是,除了其他人均摊,还有啥办法? ...

您老审阅一下打虎兄的方案如何?

富人得病难道就不是就等死?
如果大家都是等死,为什么要其他人均摊?
 楼主| 发表于 2014-5-5 13:48:09 | 显示全部楼层
ssgo2008 发表于 2014-5-2 13:26
这是没办法的办法:
1. 医疗保险越来越贵, 而且保险公司不愿意卖保险给老弱病残。医生、医药公司、病人 ...

保险公司是一个利益集团,医生是一个利益集团,制药行业是另一个利益集团,和他们相对的是一盘散沙的患者。 站在中间的是唯恐天下不乱的政客和政府。 患者得病看医生,保险公司是个什么咚咚?为什么要有保险公司在中间?象我们天朝背景的应该不难理解这个问题,因为毕竟大部分人没有医保。医保本来就是为有钱人服务的。不过这个利益集团通过收买政客通过立法不断地扩大自己的地盘,以至于今天好像没有医保就没法活似的。

医保是一个正当的行业,禁止医保没有法理基础的。 全民医保也是没有法理基础的。

关键是这一盘散沙的患者,没有什么政客会真正为他们着想的。 所以只能是越来越烂。
  
发表于 2014-5-5 15:56:30 | 显示全部楼层
万得福 发表于 2014-5-5 12:58
您老审阅一下打虎兄的方案如何?

富人得病难道就不是就等死?

富人可以支付医疗费,怎么说是等死?

我老觉得全民医保就不错,顺带把保险公司砍了,只保留医疗系统。
发表于 2014-5-6 09:44:21 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 ssgo2008 于 2014-5-6 09:46 编辑
万得福 发表于 2014-5-5 13:48
保险公司是一个利益集团,医生是一个利益集团,制药行业是另一个利益集团,和他们相对的是一盘散沙的患者 ...

医保对于医生, 制药公司就是免费午餐, 不吃白不吃, 以导致美国的 药费, 治疗费是全世界最高的。医保为了利润就要只保健康的人,是个糟糕的体制。 不如没有。
 楼主| 发表于 2014-5-8 12:38:28 | 显示全部楼层
archers 发表于 2014-5-5 15:56
富人可以支付医疗费,怎么说是等死?

我老觉得全民医保就不错,顺带把保险公司砍了,只保留医疗系统。 ...

不是等死的话,请举例说明哪个富人长生不死了。

都到‘支付医疗费’ 这一步了,你还说穷人在等死?原来你在这胡搅蛮缠啊。
 楼主| 发表于 2014-5-8 12:50:42 | 显示全部楼层
ssgo2008 发表于 2014-5-6 09:44
医保对于医生, 制药公司就是免费午餐, 不吃白不吃, 以导致美国的 药费, 治疗费是全世界最高的。医保为 ...

医疗保险是商业行为,好像不是体制吧?无耻政客的宣传策略就是要你以为医疗保险是你不可或缺的,是体制。

奥巴马的全民医疗计划在高院最后判的时候,法官说了这是税,政府有权收税。奥巴马拉保险公司进来只是个障眼法。 最后的结局就象上面Dr.Carson说的,还是要你出血付账单。
发表于 2014-5-8 13:59:16 | 显示全部楼层
万得福 发表于 2014-5-8 12:50
医疗保险是商业行为,好像不是体制吧?无耻政客的宣传策略就是要你以为医疗保险是你不可或缺的,是体制。
...

问题关键是如何解决医疗昂贵问题? 否则保险一年涨个10% ,很快保险制度就要雪崩。
发表于 2014-5-8 14:42:05 | 显示全部楼层
万得福 发表于 2014-5-8 12:38
不是等死的话,请举例说明哪个富人长生不死了。

都到‘支付医疗费’ 这一步了,你还说穷人在等死?原来 ...

我老发现我老的语文水平不行,实在不明白。

穷人没钱看病,如天朝一般,就基本只能生了大病就等死。这说的够明白不?

似乎都是说等死,然而此等死非彼等死。

那谁的名言,一切争议都是定义之争。非常有道理。
 楼主| 发表于 2014-5-8 16:30:10 | 显示全部楼层
ssgo2008 发表于 2014-5-8 13:59
问题关键是如何解决医疗昂贵问题? 否则保险一年涨个10% ,很快保险制度就要雪崩。 ...

奥巴马的解决医疗昂贵问题的方案就是全民医疗计划,结果就是保险制度雪崩啊。

您老的解决医疗昂贵问题不一定现实,不过至少也算是关键的一环。至少第一步得把奥巴马全民医疗计划给废了,再废了其他一切让这些利益集团得益,让穷人看不起病的恶法。咱不说废除保险公司, 至少恢复到他们该呆的第三产业的地位吧。
 楼主| 发表于 2014-5-8 16:35:40 | 显示全部楼层
archers 发表于 2014-5-8 14:42
我老发现我老的语文水平不行,实在不明白。

穷人没钱看病,如天朝一般,就基本只能生了大病就等死。这说 ...

呵呵,其实一个更加接近争议根源的问题是:看病是权利(human right)还是特权(privilege)。 您老人家觉得看病是权利(human right)还是特权(privilege)?
发表于 2014-5-9 16:42:25 | 显示全部楼层
万得福 发表于 2014-5-8 16:35
呵呵,其实一个更加接近争议根源的问题是:看病是权利(human right)还是特权(privilege)。 您老人家觉得 ...

我老人家认为,都不是。当处于二者之间
 楼主| 发表于 2014-5-15 09:18:44 | 显示全部楼层
archers 发表于 2014-5-9 16:42
我老人家认为,都不是。当处于二者之间

聪明。呵呵。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册帐号

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|第二港湾

GMT-5, 2024-11-21 04:00 , Processed in 0.023143 second(s), 15 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2020, Tencent Cloud.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表