CBO says health care bill costs $829B over decade

Which proposal? You tell me which proposal we're talking about. I'm talking about the bill the leaders of each house is discussing. Sen. Baucus' bill is DOA. Everyone has admitted it. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both stated (today and yesterday) that the final bill would have a public option. The Chicago Sun Times ran a story how President Obama is and always has been a public option supporter, and how his goal is to still pass a bill with a public option.

And if you don't see a slippery slope, then you're willfully ignorant. That public option--as admitted by Barney Frank--is the first step to a single-payer system.

However, since you're unwilling to see the strategy, I'll spell it out for you.

1. Establish a public option, one that's allowed to run at a loss.

2. Put in a set of rules that if your company doesn't choose the public option, you have to pay an 8% surcharge above what your private insurance runs. Furthermore, if you make any change to your policy, you're automatically put into the public option. And once you're in the public option, you can no longer choose a private option.

3. Put in a law stating that physicians, to be licensed as such, cannot turn down patients on the public option. In other words, if you wish to practice medicine, you must do so under the government's rules.

4. Private companies will be crowded out of the offering health care. Physicians will be unable to practice medicine in a manner inconsistent with what the government states.

5. De facto, you have a single payer system and socialized medicine. And one that will happen in short order.

It's the healthcare equivalent of "dumping": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)

Once again, it's obvious that you've never lived in a country with socialized medicine. Go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong. I noticed you never bothered to reply when I called you out on Chicago, so we know how much personal insight you brought to the table on that one.

Did you know Medicare turns down 6.85% of its claims? That was the highest among major insurers: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...-who-has-highest-medical-claim-rejection-rate

When you are denied a claim by your insurance company, you have several choices. You can work with the hospital to finance the procedure and sue the insurance company. You can appeal to the insurance company. You can find another physician to offer his/her opinion as evidence against the insurance company.

When you have a single-payer system, there is a board that makes those decisions. Those decisions are final. And there's nowhere else to go once the government controls how health care is administered.

Now, let's apply a little cost accounting to the process, shall we? There is a concept known as "the theory of constraints", which means your process only works as fast as your slowest function. If you cover more people and offer more medical service at the same cost, what's the constraint? Time. Welcome to the wait list. How can I be so sure? Go to any country with socialized medicine and check their treatment times.

And that's how they choose the medical treatment you receive.

 

oh, you mean like those who don't currently have healthcare?

 

I'd say that answers that question.

 

Actually, I was asking which proposal for clarification, not to avoid a question. In the absence of that information, I chose the most likely one.

Nope. I used the law most likely to pass and then followed the obvious and well-worn path. It's no fantasy. All it takes is a basic following along of the health care debate. I'd be interested in an example where a government program was established that didn't expand. If you have a realistic alternate scenario--and not your snarky example below--I'd love to read it.

I think this paragraph highlights how your mind works vs. mine. Speaking of GM, you may find this article interesting. The breakup of GM is now resulting in the transfer of technology to the Russian auto industry: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14506376

 

There hasn't been a mainstream party interested in limiting government in my lifetime. And while the Bush Administration and the accompanying Republican majority may have called themselves conservatives, they weren't fans of limiting government. It's not surprising they didn't do anything.