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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Yes? Rationing happens already. But why must we have a single payer system that's exactly like Medicare? We do not know exactly how ObamaCare will end up, if it does lead to single payer, it's probably what Obama intended. ...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. 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? 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. If you have the money, you're covered. Doesn't sound like rationing at all? 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)?
Lanny over on Oregon Live's Blazer forum goes there all the time for his medical care and speaks very highly of it.
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: 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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
And the good news keeps on comin'... http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/08/r...ost-estimates-hide-up-to-50-billion-per-year/
Joe Wilson was right. Obama did lie. http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/10/you-lie-joe-wilson-was-right/
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)
