ADVERTISEMENT

Hall85

Merge

All World
Nov 5, 2001
19,575
5,237
113
I'm looking for your opinion. I saw a link to what appears to be a free course on healthcare in America and specifically on what Obamacare is.

Any opinion as if you believe this would be worthwhile?

It is by Ezekiel Emanuel, who I really don't know anything about and I am not sure if it will be too biased. Do you know of him?

https://www.coursera.org/course/healthpolicy
 
Merge, sorry for my delayed response, but have been traveling (and of all places, a healthcare conference in Dallas). Not familiar with Emanuel, but you can't beat the price for the course.

FWIW, the feeling in the industry is that the Supreme Court will uphold the mandate and depending on how things shake out with the election, a slightly to moderately scaled back version of Obamacare will move forward. Have learned some interesting things this week and if I can find a way to "pirate" some of the content, will be happy to post it here. Most interesting fact, is that 60% of our healthcare costs are related to obesity, alcohol and tobacco related illnesses. Also the primary reason our mortality rates are 16th out of 16 most industrialized nations. Obamacare doesn't address patient responsibility in this regard...as we discussed, a mere cost-shift (redistribution of wealth) to pay for our ignorance. When the dust settles our healthcare costs will still exceed $8,000/capita ($3,500 more than the next closest country) and will continue to rise faster than the GDP. What is also interesting is that more and more people that have insurance are putting off care (elective or necessary) because of high deductables or higher contributions to employer sponsored plan.
 
Thanks 85.

Those actually are surprising statistics. I knew obesity is a huge problem but I thought the conventional wisdom was that the last year or 2 of our lives used up the far majority of our healthcare costs.

I have also been in favor of higher copay plans. We need to find the balance between encouraging people to go to a doctor to stay healthy and discourage overuse of their plans.

I am signed up for the course. Should at least be interesting.
 
I think the stat you are referring is that 80% of healthcare costs are consumed in the last five years of life. Much of those costs are also related to illnesses and treatments resulting from obesity, smoking and alcohol....so the statistics are not mutually exclusive.
 
Recently a Doc told me 60% of all was last 30-60 days of life.

I'll try to check that
 
My understanding of what that Doc had said seems to be inaccurate. It is not surprising that people remember statistics out of context and get it wrong---both the Doc and/or me, in this case.

Found this on attached site.





How Much Do We Spend on End-of-Life Care?

It's not surprising that individuals in their last year of life consume a disproportionate share of medical resources.



A. 1% of the population (3 MM) accounts for 30% of the nation's health care expenditures ($780 MM or $252,000 per capita vs. $5,941 per capita for other 99%).


. . . .1. Nearly half of those people (1.5 MM) are elderly. (ed: does not say what portion of that $780 MM is associated with the 1.5 MM who are 'elderly')



B. Medicare...spends nearly 30% of its budget ($156 B of $525 B) on beneficiaries in their final year of life. (ed: this would equate to 6% of total US medical spend. We DK how much the 'private' and 'state' spend on that 'last year of life' might be.)



C. Slightly more than half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months. (ed: perhaps this means that $79 B of that $156 B is spent in the last TWO months; meaning the other $77 B are spent in the first months (10 Max) of that 'year of death', i.e. spending accelerates near death).



D. Although Medicare costs for services have continued to rise over the years, the proportion of payments for persons near death in relation to Medicare's total budget has changed little....Their findings belie perceptions that a larger percentage of medical expenses are accounted for...by expensive technology.



E. Nearly one third of terminally ill patients with insurance used up most or all of their savings to cover uninsured medical expenses such as home care.



F. 27 to 30% of Medicare payments cover the cost of care for people in the last year of life. (ed: this seems to be a restatement of 'B')



G. 40% of Medicare dollars (ed: presumable the portion of those dollars paid to people in the ''last year of their life') cover care for said people in their ''last month''. (ed: since in 'C' we saw that the last two months were 50%+ or about $63 B, then the next-to-the-last month must be about 10-12% of the year or about $16 B, and the other ''months'' in that last year must have averaged 5%+)



H. 12% of Medicare spending covers people who are in the last two months. (ed: presumably this refers to all Medicare spending on all recipients, so the 12% for two months extrapolates to $63 B, $56 B or the 30% for the last ''year'').



I. 10% of Medicare beneficiaries account for 70% of program spending.



J From a different Source: http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads//highlights.pdf



. . . . 1. Total Med Spend is $2,600 B in 2010
. . . . 2. Federal Gov’t spend ($754 B) is 29% of total; Medicare ($525 B) is 70% of that, Medicaid is rest
. . . . 3. Pvt Business spend $546 B or 21%
. . . . 4. Out-of-pocket is $728 B or 28%
. . . . 5. Other must be $156 B or 6%
This post was edited on 5/19 3:42 PM by Old_alum

Ch 13
 
OA, the stats you've found are pretty much in line with what I would expect (and you're right in that people-especially politicians love to mis-state statistics!!).

In as much comparison that we see to our healthcare costs being out of line against the other industrialized nation, there isn't a lot of data that is available to layer over and do comparisons at this level. Point "I" is very interesting and one where I would think is a differentiator between the U.S. and other countries. Where as we typically provide all or partial reimbursement on all possible means of healthcare at any cost, many European countries will send, for instance, a cancer patient home if the firs line of therapy does not work in treatment, rather that pay for second, third, fourth, etc., line's of treatment.

Another stat I will do some digging is the amount of cosmetic surgery that is done in the U.S., vs. other countries...my sense is that it's incredibly higher which also adds to the differential.
 
I just signed up for the course, but this guy's bio paints him as nothing more than a leftist cheerleader.

" From January 2009 to January 2011, he served as special advisor for health policy to the director of the Office of Management and Budget in the White House...He is currently a columnist for the New York Times. He appears regularly on television including Morning Joe, Real Time with Bill Maher, and Hardball with Chris Matthews."
 
Originally posted by The SHUttle:
I just signed up for the course, but this guy's bio paints him as nothing more than a leftist cheerleader.

" From January 2009 to January 2011, he served as special advisor for health policy to the director of the Office of Management and Budget in the White House...He is currently a columnist for the New York Times. He appears regularly on television including Morning Joe, Real Time with Bill Maher, and Hardball with Chris Matthews."
Good research...I wasn't familiar with him and in general am leary of these guys that are regular's on shows like this...more about the sizzle than steak.
 
fwiw, I looked into him a little bit recently and his educational background is very impressive and if you read some of the articles he has written, he is absolutely no shill for the plan that passed.

One of the articles I read from him was against employer based coverage and moving to a voucher system which is similar to many republican proposals. Clearly he was working with the white house on the current law, so I am sure there are parts of it that he will be very much in favor of.

The part I am most interested in are the cost control measures which he says will be addressed in the class but haven't really gotten that much attention elsewhere.
 
I hope he also addresses this quote from the course description: "50 million people are uninsured." The why's, etc., not just leave that blanket, misleading statement out there.
 
Originally posted by SPK145:
I hope he also addresses this quote from the course description: "50 million people are uninsured." The why's, etc., not just leave that blanket, misleading statement out there.

"The American health care system has many problems. 50 million people are uninsured."

In my view, that is a problem and I don't see anything misleading about that at all.

Just as I would see it as a problem if we said 15% of motorists in NJ do not have auto insurance.
 
We all know that of that 50 million that do not have insurance, 10-12 million are illegal aliens, another 10 million make over $75,000 but choose not to have insurance, and another 10 million are young people who choose not to have insurance because they think they are invincible.

It's misleading standing out there like that because by placing it as the lead-in to the course description, it makes it seem like this is the predominant problem. With out any further references, makes it seem like 50 million can't afford insurance and BY GOD WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!!!

Just want to see how this is covered in the course.
This post was edited on 6/4 2:38 PM by SPK145
 
Great article in the Sunday Times (Sunday Review section) yesterday (Sunday) titled "Let's (Not) Get Physicals" and an initiative called "Choosing Wisely" that will review how often routine testing and what testing should really be done. As a country, we over-test which leads to uneccessary costs and over-diagnosis (and more cost).
 
Originally posted by SPK145:
We all know that of that 50 million that do not have insurance, 10-12 million are illegal aliens, another 10 million make over $75,000 but choose not to have insurance, and another 10 million are young people who choose not to have insurance because they think they are invincible.

It's misleading standing out there like that because by placing it as the lead-in to the course description, it makes it seem like this is the predominant problem. With out any further references, makes it seem like 50 million can't afford insurance and BY GOD WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!!!

Just want to see how this is covered in the course.

This post was edited on 6/4 2:38 PM by SPK145
Not to mention that there are about 8 million in that 50 million that qualify for Medicaid today, but REFUSE to enroll!!!
 
Originally posted by The SHUttle:
I just signed up for the course, but this guy's bio paints him as nothing more than a leftist cheerleader.

" From January 2009 to January 2011, he served as special advisor for health policy to the director of the Office of Management and Budget in the White House...He is currently a columnist for the New York Times. He appears regularly on television including Morning Joe, Real Time with Bill Maher, and Hardball with Chris Matthews."
Leftist cheerleader is putting it mildly. More like Communist Wacko! lol
 
rolleyes.gif
 
Originally posted by SPK145:
I hope he also addresses this quote from the course description: "50 million people are uninsured." The why's, etc., not just leave that blanket, misleading statement out there.
Looks like your wish gets addressed week 1.

"Before the ACA, approximately 50 million Americans did not have health insurance. This week we explore who the uninsured are (hint: they are generally neither elderly nor indigent), regional and temporal patterns of uninsurance, and the link between insurance and access to health care."


Here is his reading list for week 1


1. Kaiser Foundation (2010). "The Uninsured: A Primer."


http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-06.pdf

2. Kaiser Foundation (2010). "Medicare: A Primer."

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7615-03.pdf

3. Kaiser Foundation (2010). "Medicaid: A Primer.

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7334-04.pdf

This post was edited on 6/19 4:46 PM by Merge
 
BTW, ever read Ezekiel's plan for healthcare? See link. Not sure it's perfect and I prefer a national sales tax at retail rather than a VAT (Far too bureaucratic and cumbersome) but seems better than Obomneycare.

Vouchsafe
 
Yeah, I did see that which is one of the reasons I have been optimistic about his class. He was basically touting a hybrid of what McCain wanted during the 2008 campaign.

It kind of looks like Obamneycare (I'm gonna use that) is the compromise between what Ezekiel wrote and socialized care.

In any case, his perspective should be interesting.
 
They might. Seems that it will come down to whether Justice Kennedy will agree that the group of 42 million uninsured Americans who have access to, and in many cases use healthcare qualifies as commerce.

In my view, the aggregate effect on commerce is quite substantial. Our tax dollars pay for their care as well as a portion of our healthcare premiums.There is no precedent as their is no similar industry. If you fall down and heave a heart attack and someone calls an ambulance... you will be treated and by law and you cannot be turned away at a hospital.

We have two options. Start turning people away in emergency situations or mandate coverage.

I am in the mandate coverage group.
 
I support the law but I don't see how the mandate can hold up constitutionally. There is nothing constitutional about the government forcing people to do something, even though I personally feel it is a good policy.
 
09 - Perfectly said. Given that, with the infallable Supreme Court justices, it wouldn't shock me if it passes their muster.
 
Originally posted by shu09:

I support the law but I don't see how the mandate can hold up constitutionally. There is nothing constitutional about the government forcing people to do something, even though I personally feel it is a good policy.
Well we will have at least a few justices who disagree. Again, I don't really see a possible precedent set so we have to look at the intent of the founding fathers.

What intent did the founding fathers have when requiring "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen..." to purchase a firearm?

The constitution says congress has the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. No where there does it say congress has the power to organize the militia and force them to buy things... yet 10 of the 14 framers of the constitution who were in congress at the time endorsed the measure and George Washington signed it. Where did they see that they had the power to force commerce?

If they can stretch their power for something to the general welfare of the US, would they not have supported a measure that requires US citizens to get health insurance when the cost of not doing so is greater than 50 billion per year from taxpayers? (and many other reasons which are beneficial to the general welfare of the US)
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT