Comments on: Obama’s State of the Union Address: The Healthcare Economist’s Take http://healthcare-economist.com/2010/01/27/obamas-state-of-the-union-address-the-healthcare-economists-take/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:10:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Healthcare Economist · 2012 State of the Union: Healthcare Edition http://healthcare-economist.com/2010/01/27/obamas-state-of-the-union-address-the-healthcare-economists-take/comment-page-1/#comment-18925 Healthcare Economist · 2012 State of the Union: Healthcare Edition Wed, 25 Jan 2012 04:05:51 +0000 http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=3563#comment-18925 [...] response to these comments are likely, ‘that’s it?!?!’  If you look at the State of the Union address from 2010, you’ll notice that health care reform played a large role in the President’s State of [...] [...] response to these comments are likely, ‘that’s it?!?!’  If you look at the State of the Union address from 2010, you’ll notice that health care reform played a large role in the President’s State of [...]

]]> By: SLS http://healthcare-economist.com/2010/01/27/obamas-state-of-the-union-address-the-healthcare-economists-take/comment-page-1/#comment-6227 SLS Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:14:01 +0000 http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=3563#comment-6227 Great post. I always love reading these commentary-type posts. Few comments: - As far as the pre-existing conditions argument, it just seems logical to remove them from the general pool for the sake of keeping the market from failing. We already removed other high-risk and high-cost individuals to protect the market, such as the elderly (Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid). Easiest way might be to just add pre-existing conditions to qualify for Medicaid. - As far as reducing the deficit...the CBO claims we will save $1 trillion over the next 2 decades, but that is off of their projections of the next 2 decades -- projections that are questionable at best. There is reason to believe that the rate of healthcare inflation was halted in the early 1990s, and excessive growth will not ever reach the crazy numbers they are talking about, such as 50% of GDP etc... - Not in your article, but I got a good laugh when he was talking about politics as usual etc etc, but forgot to mention his backroom deals with Nebraska and the labor unions. Want real reform? Don't try to please everyone, because as you say Mr. President, change is not easy. Change is tough. The unions will not be happy, but you have to do what you have to do. Great post. I always love reading these commentary-type posts. Few comments:

- As far as the pre-existing conditions argument, it just seems logical to remove them from the general pool for the sake of keeping the market from failing. We already removed other high-risk and high-cost individuals to protect the market, such as the elderly (Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid). Easiest way might be to just add pre-existing conditions to qualify for Medicaid.

- As far as reducing the deficit…the CBO claims we will save $1 trillion over the next 2 decades, but that is off of their projections of the next 2 decades — projections that are questionable at best. There is reason to believe that the rate of healthcare inflation was halted in the early 1990s, and excessive growth will not ever reach the crazy numbers they are talking about, such as 50% of GDP etc…

- Not in your article, but I got a good laugh when he was talking about politics as usual etc etc, but forgot to mention his backroom deals with Nebraska and the labor unions. Want real reform? Don’t try to please everyone, because as you say Mr. President, change is not easy. Change is tough. The unions will not be happy, but you have to do what you have to do.

]]>