The truth, which I've never seen any politician admit, is that rationing of some sort is not only inevitable, it's already in place. Everywhere. The only question is how do you implement it.
Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate
The truth, which I've never seen any politician admit, is that rationing of some sort is not only inevitable, it's already in place. Everywhere. The only question is how do you implement it.
Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate
If I can buy as much of something as I can afford, it's not rationing... or am I missing your meaning?Originally Posted by Lemur
Edit:
Unsurprisingly, the current Democrat proposal is basically a turd.That completely undercuts the administration's argument for hurriedly ramming this bill through Congress. According to the CBO, the cost of doing nothing would indeed be cheaper than rushing through the current proposals- not the other way around, as has been suggested.Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory -- or cost curve -- of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, "The curve is being raised." His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse.
If we're going to do this, can we at least take some time and try to put a little thought into it? How many times are artificial deadlines and threats of impending doom going to be used to rush bills through Congress (often before they can even be read)?
Last edited by Xiahou; 07-20-2009 at 01:06.
"Don't believe everything you read online."
-Abraham Lincoln
Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate
Unless you are independently wealthy and wish to blow your fortune on medical treatment, your healthcare choices are rationed by your insurance company.
Sounds good to me. Where are the experts, the visionaries, the eggheads who can really examine this problem? Shouldn't there be blue-ribbon commissions or something, or are we already past that? Rushed, sloppy reform sounds worse than no reform at all.
As broken and untenable as I think our current system is, I despair of the congresscritters improving on it.
Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate
[QUOTE=Lemur;2292688]Unless you are independently wealthy and wish to blow your fortune on medical treatment, your healthcare choices are rationed by your insurance company.
Sounds good to me. Where are the experts, the visionaries, the eggheads who can really examine this problem? Shouldn't there be blue-ribbon commissions or something, or are we already past that? Rushed, sloppy reform sounds worse than no reform at all.
As broken and untenable as I think our current system is, I despair of the congresscritters improving on it.[/QUOTE]
The best way to achieve that is to demand the congresscitters to be in it. same with their pension plan & cola's.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*
Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate
I've never had my treatment "rationed". I spend around $800 a month (Plan, Meds, co-pays, etc) and get whatever I need. I get numerous procedures every year. Empire blue Cross has been pretty good. I'm worried because I can't pay more than $800 per month and the rate of increase is faster than I am earning by a mile.
Health Care is broken partially because of adverse selection in the private system, partially because there is a veil over the prices that have an indirect but eventual impact on premium.
The system is broken because the care is becoming too expensive for anyone to afford. There is no magic bullet to solve this. Make a government plan and you've gotten rid of adverse selection, but they have no intention of increasing transparency, which will just mean that in a few years we have an even more broken government plan.
Last edited by ICantSpellDawg; 07-20-2009 at 11:57.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate
A coherent political analysis from Klein:
There are problems with the Democrats' approach to health care. It places too much of a burden on employers. The House bill is quite deficient when it comes to changing the incentives for doctors and hospitals (which is the only real hope for controlling costs). But the Republicans have absolutely no credibility on this issue. Indeed, they have spent 30 years allowing the current system to deteriorate or actively making it worse (caving to Pharma on the Medicare drug plan, for example).
This is the moment for the Democrats to demonstrate that they can lead and legislate. If they can't bring this off, they will--rightly--be back in electoral trouble before long.
Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate
So. Just watched POTUS's Kabuki press conference, where he said that Doc's over-prescribe drugs and treatment based on compensation schedules, and that Big Pharma overcharges by 50%, based on their recent cave-in to reduce drug costs. Oh, and suggested that a blue-ribbon panel of unelected, administration-appointed medical experts outta decide what treatment should be provided to what patient, and that he, being POTUS, would not reduce his personal medical plan to a level commensurate with that of an "average" American. And that the reason for the big hurry is that if you don't set deadlines "in this town (DC)", things never get done.
Since the bills are still being crafted in congressional commitees and aren't even on the floor for vote (and therefore details are still speculative and negotiable) I can only regard this media event as not directed at me at all, but rather to the congresscritters.
Q: Do we (citizens and taxpayers) pay for this network coverage? I watched it on C-Span, which I pay for on my cableTV bill.
Maybe a day will come when a POTUS will have a press conference where mid-question by Helen, POTUS will say "And by the way, have you made a will yet? Go to LegalDocuments.com for a cheap, state-recognized document. Meanwhile, Helen, as to Iran....".
Q: Did POTUS O sell health care reform to the citizens?
Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.
Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate
My dad heard about one provision where, after age 65 and every five years thereafter, you'd have to meet some government appointee and get counseling or something on your health. Needless to say, he is not pleased with that kind of crap.
More stupid government enforced decisions, here we come!Oh, and suggested that a blue-ribbon panel of unelected, administration-appointed medical experts outta decide what treatment should be provided to what patient
One problem is states deciding what has to be included in health insurance plans, taking choices away from the consumer, and forbidding (IIRC) people to buy health insurance from companies in other states. And rules limiting how much more companies can charge unhealthy lifestyle people. Because giving people choices about what they want to buy and letting there be incentives to be healthy is much too rational for the dems!
CR
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Re: The U.S. Health Care Debate
I didn't listen to the speech, but from what I've heard from news commentators who critiqued it afterwards....no details just rhetoric & politician-ese. Some of the alleged details that have been talked about sound quite disturbing, and if true, means either POTUS O hasn't read the thing or he's not being honest. Like:
People with private plan coverage get to keep it. "Alleged detail" - If the terms of the private plan are changed then you are required to drop it and must be enrolled in the public option, thereby eventually squeezing out private plans.
End of life medical decisions....dodgy evasive answers that say a whole lot of nothing. "Alleged detail" - Your 80 year old grandmother's need for surgery *let's say a knee-joint replacement* will be determined by bureaucrats who will decide if she's worthy of the cost.
Tort reform....not a peep. Doctors pay huge premiums to protect themselves against lawsuits. They also prescribe many expensive diagnostic tests & procedures whose sole purpose is to CYA to avoid culpability in unforeseen medical malpractice suits.
Medicare & medicaid. The guvment hasn't fixed these programs to make them financially viable into the future, but we need to rush this new legislation through with little to no time to actually read and comprehend what it entails. Why?
My biggest pet peeve - Our legislators private health coverage will not be affected by any of this health reform. Like their 100% pensions & yearly cost of living increases that are vested after one measly term in office, they are safely insulated from any effects of the health plan legislation they determine is best for the rest of us. You want them to get this right and fix health care then they have to be in it.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks