Fuck this healthcare Reform...

[3RA1N1AC]

fuck this, im going to go over to the "healthcare reform kicks ass!" thread

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The title of this thread is "Fuck this healthcare reform".

One of the biggest arguments against Obamacare is the cost.

One of the biggest arguments in favor of Obamacare is that people shouldn't be left to die when something catastrophic happens in their life and they can't afford it.

So comparing catastrophic insurance costs, which would eliminate one of the biggest arguments in favor of Obamacare, while also being about 1/3 as expensive is absolutely a valid comparison.

The point is that Obamacare sucks because we can't afford it, and there are other possible alternatives that may work for both sides, but instead they are forcing terrible legislation on the public.

Again, it is absolutely a valid comparison.

Dude, mellow. I'm not a fan of Obama care either but you are comparing two different insurance products. It's similar to saying liability insurance is the same as full coverage insurance because they both are car insurance. Spin it anyway you want but it doesn't make your point any more valid.

 

[Ed O]

Dude, mellow. I'm not a fan of Obama care either but you are comparing two different insurance products. It's similar to saying liability insurance is the same as full coverage insurance because they both are car insurance. Spin it anyway you want but it doesn't make your point any more valid.

It seems totally valid to me.

One person says, "I want apples!"

Another says, "We can't afford apples! Oranges are sufficient and they're much cheaper."

Then you said, "Compare apples to apples."

An apples-to-oranges comparison is fair in some cases, and this is one.

Ed O.

 

[maxiep]

Dude, mellow. I'm not a fan of Obama care either but you are comparing two different insurance products. It's similar to saying liability insurance is the same as full coverage insurance because they both are car insurance. Spin it anyway you want but it doesn't make your point any more valid.

The ultimate structure of ObamaCare will be a negative image of catastrophic health insurance. Under catastrophic insurance, you have to pay for your checkups and minor incidents, but if you get something massively expensive they'll cover a good chunk of it. With ObamaCare, you won't have to worry about paying those minor expenses, but if you get something major, you get to have a panel of experts decide whether or not they're willing to "allow" you to undergo the procedure, much less if they're willing to pay for it. The government does a cost/benefit on your own life and makes a decision on it without your input.

There's simply no way that you can increase the demand for healthcare while putting price caps on services (limiting supply) without rationing.

Think I'm wrong? Check denials of coverage for Medicare. It's twice as high as any other major insurance company.

 

[blazerboy30]

Dude, mellow. I'm not a fan of Obama care either but you are comparing two different insurance products. It's similar to saying liability insurance is the same as full coverage insurance because they both are car insurance. Spin it anyway you want but it doesn't make your point any more valid.

I'm mellow. This comparison is a legit comparison to look at. I never made the claim that the coverage was the same between catastrophic insurance and Obamacare. I never said they were the same product. I simply said that catastrophic insurance mitigates of the the biggest arguments in favor of Obamacare, while costing 1/3 as much as Obamacare.

It is silly to throw out comparing other solutions and their costs to Obamacare's costs just because they aren't "apples-to-apples". If the apple sucks, maybe a different fruit is a better choice.

 

[bluefrog]

The emerging liberal doctor majority

Doctors were once overwhelmingly male and usually owned their own practices. They generally favored lower taxes and regularly fought lawyers to restrict patient lawsuits. Ronald Reagan came to national political prominence in part by railing against "socialized medicine" on doctors' behalf.

But doctors are changing. They are abandoning their own practices and taking salaried jobs in hospitals, particularly in the North, but increasingly in the South as well. Half of all younger doctors are women, and that share is likely to grow

 

[Ed O]

The emerging liberal doctor majority

That is interesting. As they shift from owners to shift-workers, they become closer to commodities and lose the ability to make policy. It'll be interesting to see if that's how it plays out.

Ed O.

 

[Klinky]

The ultimate structure of ObamaCare will be a negative image of catastrophic health insurance. Under catastrophic insurance, you have to pay for your checkups and minor incidents, but if you get something massively expensive they'll cover a good chunk of it.

HDHPs can have a max deductible of up $11,900 per family. Prescriptions are not covered but are part of the deductible. You might get some aid from tax sheltered HSA accounts, but that doesn't go extremely far. Even after you have paid your deductible you are still liable for a decent percentage of medical care. Also until ObamaCare kicks in with pre-existing condition protection, good luck getting any insurance plan at a decent rate, if they'll even give you a policy at all. So it's deductible + monthly premiums + % not covered by plan = true cost of HDHP which =s not cheap.

There's simply no way that you can increase the demand for healthcare while putting price caps on services (limiting supply) without rationing.

It is always rationed no matter how you decide, be it who can afford it or what the government wants to cover. By saying "those who can't afford it shouldn't get medical care", you are rationing care. It doesn't matter if it's the market, the insurance company or the government - rationing happens. Stop using it as a negative towards a government run plan, because rationing happens in any healthcare scenario. It's happening right now, as we speak, private or public insurance someone is getting denied something they might very well need.

How do we stop that from happening? Once again, both private & public sectors have problems...

 

[blazerboy30]

HDHPs can have a max deductible of up $11,900 per family. Prescriptions are not covered but are part of the deductible. You might get some aid from tax sheltered HSA accounts, but that doesn't go extremely far. Even after you have paid your deductible you are still liable for a decent percentage of medical care. Also until ObamaCare kicks in with pre-existing condition protection, good luck getting any insurance plan at a decent rate, if they'll even give you a policy at all. So it's deductible + monthly premiums + % not covered by plan = true cost of HDHP which =s not cheap.



It is always rationed no matter how you decide, be it who can afford it or what the government wants to cover. By saying "those who can't afford it shouldn't get medical care", you are rationing care. It doesn't matter if it's the market, the insurance company or the government - rationing happens. Stop using it as a negative towards a government run plan, because rationing happens in any healthcare scenario. It's happening right now, as we speak, private or public insurance someone is getting denied something they might very well need.

How do we stop that from happening? Once again, both private & public sectors have problems...

Because somebody can't afford something doesn't mean it is being "rationed". I can't sit here and claim Ferrari's are being rationed because I don't put that at the top of my priority list of things to buy. Now if the government said everybody got to have a Ferrari, and then started denying Ferrari's to people who could have afforded, THAT would be rationing.

 

[maxiep]

HDHPs can have a max deductible of up $11,900 per family. Prescriptions are not covered but are part of the deductible. You might get some aid from tax sheltered HSA accounts, but that doesn't go extremely far. Even after you have paid your deductible you are still liable for a decent percentage of medical care. Also until ObamaCare kicks in with pre-existing condition protection, good luck getting any insurance plan at a decent rate, if they'll even give you a policy at all. So it's deductible + monthly premiums + % not covered by plan = true cost of HDHP which =s not cheap.



It is always rationed no matter how you decide, be it who can afford it or what the government wants to cover. By saying "those who can't afford it shouldn't get medical care", you are rationing care. It doesn't matter if it's the market, the insurance company or the government - rationing happens. Stop using it as a negative towards a government run plan, because rationing happens in any healthcare scenario. It's happening right now, as we speak, private or public insurance someone is getting denied something they might very well need.

How do we stop that from happening? Once again, both private & public sectors have problems...

You're talking about informal rationing. And again, how can you deny the fact that Medicare rejects payments at twice the rate of any major insurance company? The data are the data.

You need to focus on the architecture of ObamaCare. It was designed to ensure that private insurance will no longer exist on a mass level within a decade. The penalty for not carrying insurance is too low which means moral hazard will force premiums to skyrocket. The end result will be single payer.

When you have single payer, physicians will be forced to accept government insurance as part of their licensing (they can decline Medicare and Medicaid patients). It means that they'll have to adhere to guidelines created by the government, which means treating patients according to what the panels wish you to do. Furthermore, to keep costs down, what doctors make will decrease. That means fewer physicians with more patients, and then you have rationing.

Under the current system, your largest obstacle is having to pay for a procedure out of pocket. Under ObamaCare, physicians won't be able to perform a non-approved procedure at all, no matter your ability to pay. It's the reason we have a 94% survival rate for breast cancer in the US, but under the UK's NHS it's only 77%. If you're too old or in the later stages, the government's cost/benefit numbers don't work, so you don't get treated. Need a new hip but you're 75? Sorry, but other more useful citizens have greater needs.

I'll stick with the current system.

 

[Klinky]

Because somebody can't afford something doesn't mean it is being "rationed". I can't sit here and claim Ferrari's are being rationed because I don't put that at the top of my priority list of things to buy. Now if the government said everybody got to have a Ferrari, and then started denying Ferrari's to people who could have afforded, THAT would be rationing.

Government mandate is not required for rationing. Your example doesn't make much sense. If someone called the dealership to buy a bunch of Ferraris that were on sale & the dealership said "due to high demand, only 1 ferrari per customer" that would be rationing. A government mandate saying you must get insurance doesn't cause rationing of care. High demand, which already exists, is what would cause a rationing of care.

You're talking about informal rationing. And again, how can you deny the fact that Medicare rejects payments at twice the rate of any major insurance company? The data are the data.

Yes? Rationing happens already. But why must we have a single payer system that's exactly like Medicare?

You need to focus on the architecture of ObamaCare. It was designed to ensure that private insurance will no longer exist on a mass level within a decade. The penalty for not carrying insurance is too low which means moral hazard will force premiums to skyrocket. The end result will be single payer.

We do not know exactly how ObamaCare will end up, if it does lead to single payer, it's probably what Obama intended.

When you have single payer, physicians will be forced to accept government insurance as part of their licensing (they can decline Medicare and Medicaid patients).

...and? Some are "forced" to take all kind of insurance in order to get patients in the door. I don't think any doctor enjoys dealing with the insurance companies as they are, that's why there are huge administrative costs for dealing with these companies. At least if you get rid of the other insurance companies it will give a single point of contact & hopefully reduce admin costs.

It means that they'll have to adhere to guidelines created by the government, which means treating patients according to what the panels wish you to do.

Insurance companies don't have "panels" that decide what they're going to cover & what they aren't? Nor do they have departments that are devoted to trying to deny your claim? They have never given bonuses out to employees who've denied the most claims before?

Furthermore, to keep costs down, what doctors make will decrease. That means fewer physicians with more patients, and then you have rationing.

Whenever I went to the doctor it was 30 - 40 minutes waiting for them to show-up, then I spent about 10 minutes with them & they were off to see the next patient. Maybe you haven't been to a doctor, but this already occurs & has been occurring for the last 10 - 20 years.

Under the current system, your largest obstacle is having to pay for a procedure out of pocket.

If you have the money, you're covered. Doesn't sound like rationing at all?

Under ObamaCare, physicians won't be able to perform a non-approved procedure at all, no matter your ability to pay.

So all private hospital will be shutdown thanks ObamaCare or a single payer system? Welp, better tell Canada or the UK because they must have missed that memo.

Also our current system doesn't prioritize people who are supposedly more worthy(i.e. rich people)?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Klinky, have you or any loved ones been to a VA hospital for care?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Klinky, have you or any loved ones been to a VA hospital for care?

Lanny over on Oregon Live's Blazer forum goes there all the time for his medical care and speaks very highly of it.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Some like to call it "socialized medicine" and "Proof that ObamaCare can work". But the VA is doing something about the cost and care, not making people get insurance:

The government is both payer and provider of care to the veterans, employing 19,000 salaried doctors in 153 medical centers and more than 900 outpatient clinics. Last year, 5.1 million veterans were treated, and millions more are enrolled.

Doctors who work in the system are paid less than their private counterparts, with salaries ranging from $96,539 for low-end specialists to $385,000 for a group that includes heart surgeons, according to an August 2009 Federal Register notice. Those same surgeons might earn $1 million in private practice, according to Irving, Texas-based Merritt Hawkins & Associates, which tracks physician staffing and salaries.
Yet veterans doctors say they have different benefits. They don’t face the same threat of malpractice lawsuits, don’t have to worry about billing, and say electronic records allow them to practice better medicine while allowing them to see their kids more and log on from home to finish work.

Where's that kind of change we can believe in? Why keep costs astronomical and make the taxpayer subsidize it? If you want to change healthcare to provide better care to poor kids, do it in a sustainable and effective way and not one in which you're going to "unexpectedly" realize in a couple years that it doesn't work, but we've pumped $trillions into it.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Lanny over on Oregon Live's Blazer forum goes there all the time for his medical care and speaks very highly of it.

I'm glad to hear that. My aunt and two cousins work there.

 

[blazerboy30]

Government mandate is not required for rationing. Your example doesn't make much sense. If someone called the dealership to buy a bunch of Ferraris that were on sale & the dealership said "due to high demand, only 1 ferrari per customer" that would be rationing. A government mandate saying you must get insurance doesn't cause rationing of care. High demand, which already exists, is what would cause a rationing of care.

Have you ever not gotten treatment, even if you were willing to pay through the nose for it? No, that doesn't happen here. High demand isn't causing rationing. Lack of being able to pay for something causes a lack of being able to purchase something.

At least if you get rid of the other insurance companies it will give a single point of contact & hopefully reduce admin costs.

You've got to be kidding. When it comes to government programs, there is absolutely not such thing as a single point of contact or accountability to the customer.

If you have the money, you're covered. Doesn't sound like rationing at all?

You clearly have an interesting idea of what "rationing" means. To you it means "if somebody can't afford something, it is being rationed". We'll agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Denny Crane]

Obamanomics == trickle up poverty.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...r-general-if-you-dont-mandate-earn-less-money

Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money

President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

 

[maxiep]

And the good news keeps on comin'...

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/08/r...ost-estimates-hide-up-to-50-billion-per-year/

 

[maxiep]

Joe Wilson was right. Obama did lie.

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/10/you-lie-joe-wilson-was-right/

 

[Denny Crane]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html


Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the 2010 healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

The case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or face the prospect of a penalty.

"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said.

(The court got it right)

 

[BrianFromWA]

it's hard for me to understand the ramifications of this. I mean, the 9th circuit rules on stuff all the time that I think is wrong, and it eventually just goes to the Supreme Court. Am I missing something thinking that I don't care what some circuit court somewhere rules on (even if I agree with the ruling) b/c it's not enforced anyway, and it'll be appealed again?

 

[Denny Crane]

It's going to the supreme court soon enough. The Supreme Court may find the lower court's ruling to be wrong somehow, but this quote from the lower court is what I expect the supreme court to rule as well:

"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said.

 

[Denny Crane]

MORE:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61218.html

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that the health care reform law’s requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance is unconstitutional, a striking blow to the legislation that increases the odds that the Supreme Court will have to review the law.

The suit was brought by 26 states — nearly all led by Republican governors and attorneys general. The Department of Justice is expected to appeal.

The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate.

Judge Stanley Marcus, in a dissenting opinion, said the mandate is constitutional. He was also appointed by Clinton.

 

[oldguy]

So, where are the Obama apologists regarding the lie about providing health care to illegal aliens (like we all knew it would)? From my perspective, the Democrats forced this through against the will of the vast majority of the voters, based on concealing the costs and lying about it covering illegal aliens. Maybe someone could spin it differently, so I'll feel like there was some Vaseline involved in this rape.

It will be interesting to see if any of the big media outlets even report this.

Go Blazers

 

[huevonkiller]

MORE:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61218.html

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that the health care reform law’s requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance is unconstitutional, a striking blow to the legislation that increases the odds that the Supreme Court will have to review the law.

The suit was brought by 26 states — nearly all led by Republican governors and attorneys general. The Department of Justice is expected to appeal.

The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate.

Judge Stanley Marcus, in a dissenting opinion, said the mandate is constitutional. He was also appointed by Clinton.

Supreme Court for the win!

 

[Denny Crane]

Great stuff from the court's decision:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...y-11th-circuit-struck-down-obamacares-mandate

The essential question is: if courts uphold the individual mandate, what is the constitutional principle that would limit the U.S. Congress’s exercise of its Commerce Clause power?

This issue has often been framed by asking whether the power being claimed could allow future Congresses to force Americans to eat broccoli or join a gym. Obama’s lawyers, while acknowledging that there’s no Supreme Court case that directly grappled with the issue, have countered by making the “health care is unique” argument. That is, since virtually everybody will need health care at some point, it’s a special case. Yet as I wrote in June, “simply saying the health care market is unique doesn't actually create a very clear or understandable limit to Congressional power.”

“Ultimately, the government’s struggle to articulate cognizable, judicially administrable limiting principles only reiterates the conclusion we reach today: there are none,” the court wrote.

“Presumably, a future Congress similarly would be able to articulate a unique problem requiring a legislative fix that entailed compelling Americans to purchase a certain product from a private company,” the opinion reads. “The government apparently seeks to set the terms of the limiting principles courts should apply, and then asks that we defer to Congress’s judgment about whether those conditions have been met.”

The judges write that, “The government’s five factual elements of ‘uniqueness,’ proposed as constitutional limiting principles, are nowhere to be found in Supreme Court precedent. Rather, they are ad hoc, devoid of constitutional substance, incapable of judicial administration—and, consequently, illusory. The government’s fact- based criteria would lead to expansive involvement by the courts in congressional legislation, requiring us to sit in judgment over when the situation is serious enough to justify an economic mandate.”

Later on, the court reiterates that: “We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers. ‘Uniqueness’ is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision.”

And the judges add that “the difficulties posed by the insurance market and health care cannot justify extra-constitutional legislation.”

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Good post, Denny. And the argument is true that this a truly extra-constitutional law that not only gives new and limitless powers of the executive & legislative branches of government over citizens, but it would also allow the government to deal punitively and punish those who do not or can not comply with a near limitless array of compulsory legislation. I might go so far as to suggest if the US Supreme Court allows this precedent to be established the ramifications with respect to future legislation aimed at all or part of the citizenry could at least make it legal to create the police state that people like Maris think we already have. Or at the very least it takes a dent out of freedoms we currently enjoy.

 

[barfo]

The interesting thing is that single-payer clearly isn't unconstitutional, so maybe if this gets overturned by the Supremes, then we'll have single-payer sooner rather than later.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The interesting thing is that single-payer clearly isn't unconstitutional, so maybe if this gets overturned by the Supremes, then we'll have single-payer sooner rather than later.

barfo

I thought about that. But the reason I doubt it is that it would take major revisions to the current Obamacare legislation and that will never pass the House. At least not this term.

 

[barfo]

I thought about that. But the reason I doubt it is that it would take major revisions to the current Obamacare legislation and that will never pass the House. At least not this term.

Certainly not this term. But this decade? Possibly. Depends on how the wind blows.

barfo