I think it's reasonable that treatments that are very unlikely to help be paid for by the patients, even thought the doctor is getting paid for performing the service; there is an underlying assumption (or there should be) that the doctor has made it clear that the treatment in question is almost certainly not going to make a difference.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)
- Thread starter QuagmireMcGuire
- Start date
I think it's reasonable that treatments that are very unlikely to help be paid for by the patients, even thought the doctor is getting paid for performing the service; there is an underlying assumption (or there should be) that the doctor has made it clear that the treatment in question is almost certainly not going to make a difference.
It does not take a spectacular source to see that the goal of Obamacare is to put an end to the private health insurance industry. One only has to be able to read for content.
It's on page 16 of the 1,018 page document:
So when Obama says that "If you like you private health insurance, you can keep it." He is not exactly lying. You can keep it for as long as your insurance company stays in business, but that won't be very long because he is making it illegal for those insurance companies to sign up new clients. Obama has said in his own words that his goal is to get to a "single payer" AKA totally socialized/state run medical system. He went on to say that he knew the change had to be gradual.
This bill is the thinly veiled first stage in taking away your ability to choose your own health care provider and making you a ward of the state. He is doing exactly what he said he was going to do in this clip. We can't go to a totally socialized system at once, so he is going to take our rights away from us in increments.
If reading for content is not your thing, here is a web site that explains the content of the bill pretty well. The story is from Investor's Business Daily:
The Link
What can I say, I'm a resident of California...
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Most docs order unnecessary procedures as CYA measures due to malpractice as well.
When I interned at an ER, the vast majority of patients got chest X-rays "just in case."
That's highly abnormal.
Look, your original statement was "why would anyone want to consume healthcare without insurance?" There are many reasons: first, primary care is affordable for reasonably healthy people -- even the middle class. It's just that few people ever actually research this. They just see inflated insurance bills and watch Obama on CNN and think that they NEED insurance to afford primary care.
Secondly, even many catostrophic procedures would be affordable to a wealthy individual. Yes, $20k for a surgery would be extremely damaging to you or me, but to a guy who makes well over 6 figures it's affordable.
Thirdly, a person without insurance can pay for any doctor he can afford. He doesn't have to pick from a list, and he doesn't have to fight over which procedures to have done.
You can get into stuff like treating cancer and other debilitating, chronic illnesses, but many insurance companies won't cover those costs as it is.
Opting out of insurance doesn't make someone an "idiot." It just means that they can either afford the care out of pocket, or have weighed the risk: reward factor and chose to opt out.
Sir, the information regarding making private insurance illegal (except existing policies for existing clients) is directly from the bill, HR 3200, itself.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf
[Ctrl+F], limitation on new enrollment, [Enter]. Or scroll to page 16.
Also, scroll to section 401. That's pretty fun, too.
No, it doesn't. It means that new insurance PLANS cannot be issued after that date unless they meet certain criteria. Private companies will be allowed to offer plans that meet these guidelines.
Sir, that's what I said, but in a different way. New private insurance plans will become illegal, except for dependents of existing private policy holders. The only other private insurance plans allowed will be the grandfathered, pre-existing ones. Those grandfathered private plans will not be able to, A) change anything in them except as required by the bill itself, or B) change the rates charged individually, only universally.
Whereas "competition is good," this public option is a lion competing with a chained gazelle. Or better yet, it's the competition between the T-Rex and the goat in Jurassic Park.
Further, while the bill does make some efforts to address cost, I believe it utterly fails to understand the reason why cost has been increasing. It provides several dozen provisions to establish panels or legal entities to assess cost, provide incentive pay to health care providers that are able to reduce costs, and so forth. Meanwhile, all of these costs would be paid for by either those entities found in violation of the provisions of the bill (including every single citizen who would choose to not be covered) or through thin air.
No, we are not saying the same thing.
Today
1. Customers can purchase plans from private companies that are subject to existing laws
Day this Bill Becomes Law (assuming it does)
1. Customers can remain on existing plans that were issued yesterday
2. Customers can purchase new plans from private companies that conform to the provisions in this bill
3. Customers can purchase new plan from the government that conforms to the provisions in this bill
New private insurance WILL NOT (under this bill) become illegal.
And there are only 1015 other pages in the bill laying out the specific provisions that where the government will allow me to purchase health insurance.
Even if this was not just about splitting hairs (and split away if that is all you guys are doing), how absurd is it that the government is getting involved in what kind of provisions private companies can issue health insurance. Government provisions worked out sooooooo well with the mortgage and banking industry, didn't it. I am sure this is exactly what the insurance companies are looking forward to.
I am not commenting on the potential ineffectiveness of this bill, I am just correcting the misinformation that you and SkywardET are parroting. I believe you commented earlier on reading for content, I suggest you follow your own advice.
I am not too sure what you mean here, but who you make the check out to matters A LOT. The government does not play by the same rules as the businesses they would be 'competing' against. They can afford to run at a loss because they have taxpayer backing. Moreover, doctors already have to charge private insurance companies more for services because they get paid less from people with Medicare. Put more people on Medicare (essentially) and doctors will have to keep raising rates on private companies, which means they have to charge more to consumers. It's a pretty quick way to drive private business out. So then we have socialized medicine. I wouldn't want to compete with a government lemonade stand that sold their product below cost.
There are certainly valid arguments for universal coverage, but you fail to mention the inevitable rationing. It has been mentioned that it is a fact that there is a longer wait in Canada and Britain for medical procedures. Why do we think we would be able to avoid that fate? We don't have enough doctors as it is. Insure everyone, and pay less for each doctor visit, and we will really be in trouble. Some people are willing to make that sacrifice, and that's OK, but I am not.
I don't think it has been brought up on this thread (I misses a few posts, I may be wrong), but people also forget the impact on our drug industry. We often hear complaints about the high cost of prescription drugs, but thanks to our patent laws, some 90% of new drugs are developed in the US. Many other countries offer the same drugs cheaper because they ignore patent laws and produce their own generics. If the liberals make good on their promises to go after 'windfall' profits (as Mr. Waxman has declared 'equitable') of pharmaceuticals, cures for cancer, diabetes and male pattern baldness will be pushed back many years. It is a pretty solid law of economics: if you want less of something, tax it more - do we want fewer drug discoveries?
Please do correct me, as I welcome it. But I would request the of use sections of the bill and not analysis. I would love to be wrong, but right now, according to the bill, the only new private insurance that will ever be authorized will be for dependents of people that have grandfathered policies.
The bill's "other provisions" are given within the paragraph that says private insurance will not be allowed except as outlined in the same paragraph. There are only a few provisions in that paragraph, among them being grandfathered private insurance plans and new private insurance plans for dependents.
Everyone else will be forced into the public option.
Actually very few countries do that, the only country that I am aware that does that allows it to happen openly is India, Canada and none of the major European countries does that. It is because the national health care systems there negotiate better prices that they are lower.
They can only negotiate lower prices because at least the pharmaceutical companies can make some money in the US to offset all their losses (which most researched drugs are; a very small minority actually become profitable, which is why they need to make a very large profit on those that do succeed).
Take away the profit motive here, and there will be no companies developing the drugs here.
Maybe our government can develop all the new drugs too, and they can be free for everyone as well. And it can be paid for by printing up monopoly money.
Take away the profit motive here, and there will be no companies developing the drugs here.
Maybe our government can develop all the new drugs too, and they can be free for everyone as well. And it can be paid for by printing up monopoly money.
I hope you realize that pharmaceutical companies have the highest profit margins of any major industry in the US. I am not sure that the current US system is so great for that vaunted innovation either, since 3 of the 5 biggest pharmaceutical companies are not American. I am not one of those who believe that pharmaceutical companies are evil but they aren't going to be hurting for money anytime soon, and health care reform likely won't change that a whole lot.