Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Health-Care Showdown In Massachusetts
Newsweek ^ | July 18, 2010 | by: Kevin Robillard

Posted on 07/18/2010 6:59:12 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

Under President Obama’s new health-care law, regulators gained a radical power: the ability to define “unreasonable” premiums and reject them on state-level insurance exchanges.

Massachusetts, which has already been the model for the national health-care overhaul, recently gave its regulators the authority to strike down excessive rate hikes—and the result was a nearly 90 percent rejection rate.

If the same blunt approach is applied nationally, insurers may pull out to focus on more profitable market segments—and the promise of universal access could crumble.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: failure; obamacare; socialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 07/18/2010 6:59:15 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

exactly what Hussein and dems want....they will then blame the insurance companies for under serving the markets and call for single payer. Nice two step.

So sad to see what is happening to this once great nation. Can we turn this around? If so, will we?


2 posted on 07/18/2010 7:04:58 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

They snuck in the 1099 scam. All transactions of over 600 must be reported by 1099. Including gold, silver and firearms.


3 posted on 07/18/2010 7:05:49 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tulane

I am a retired insurance broker and still licensed. Companies are already pulling out and concentrating more on life and other acillary insurance benefits. Our health care is soon going to resemble Cuba. What a disaster.


4 posted on 07/18/2010 7:07:54 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tulane

It’s been a long time since I’ve moaned about the fate of the nation. The voters have been streaming into the booths eyes wide open and making intentional choices for decades now. American politics are dominated by a feminine skew (shown in every poll and election wrap-up study) that shirks self-reliance and demands government dominance of daily life.

The country has gone - not going - off the rails.
It is the result of a deterioration of character and morals. I don’t expect to see any quick turnaround.


5 posted on 07/18/2010 7:13:02 AM PDT by qwertypie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tulane
IF conservatives get off their couches, put down the remotes, and get busy yes we can. Don't just talk the talk, walk the walk. It is our country ONLY IF WE CAN KEEP IT!


6 posted on 07/18/2010 7:13:14 AM PDT by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, retired Military, disabled & Seniors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

“Our health care is soon going to resemble Cuba. What a disaster.”

No.

Health insurance is not healthcare.

The difference from today will be that if you want health care, you’ll have to pay for it.

Health insurance is needlessly expensive and regulated with everyone getting “their cut” from every premium dollar, indeed, you know that better than most.

Health care is what people will get if they are willing to pay for it. Too many people are not willing to pay for their health care, which is why we have what we have.

In the end, short of the government making it illegal for someone sick to pay a doctor for treatment (not out of the realm of possibility), we’ll have a better system when people pay for what they want - which will better correlate with what they “need” than the present insurance debacle.

in the end, this is what makes insurance so expensive - regulation, coverage mandates, middlemen, and folks not knowing the financial difference between “need” and “want”.


7 posted on 07/18/2010 7:30:31 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: qwertypie

I totally agree.


8 posted on 07/18/2010 7:31:21 AM PDT by mrsmel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I am in the Health Care industry. My job will be cut in half in terms of workforce as the Obama Admin and their collaborators in Health Care have already announced that many preventative tests are not needed. The bulk of my work is in early cancer detection. Couple that with crashing the Health Insurance industry and the unemployment numbers will skyrocket. But Obama doesn't really care about unemployment. It hasn't hurt him yet. I sincerely HOPE it hurts him in November. We really need to CHANGE the direction of our country!
9 posted on 07/18/2010 7:34:58 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

Thats a great way to start a thriving black market...government is sure stupid......


10 posted on 07/18/2010 7:35:40 AM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
What the country NEEDS is Health Insurance Reform. Not a National Health Service. I have worked in a large hospital in Britain. Americans have NO IDEA how much health care they are not going to get. And when the Government runs it, they have no incentive to do a good job. A blatant medical mistake? Too bad. No one takes responsibility. And why would any doctor sign on with the Government if the Government isn't going to shield doctors from frivolous malpractice suits, which this Gov has said that doctors will be on their own if sued?
11 posted on 07/18/2010 7:40:02 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Health insurance use to be called hospitalization...you paid for your doctor and medications yourself. Now I have to pay for some womans BC pills and some guys viagra...Thats the problem. The insurance companies have to buy you everything. Some genetic medications are cheaper than OTC stuff..

Its government regulations that make the insurance company's pay for everything.

12 posted on 07/18/2010 7:41:25 AM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

let’s show these bastards what “massive resistance” really means in 2011....


13 posted on 07/18/2010 7:44:23 AM PDT by qrstuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
What do you think of HMO’s? That's what we will ALL be getting when the Government runs our health care. Denial of care is the ONLY WAY to keep the costs down. That's what HMO’s do. Now we will have it on a National scale.
14 posted on 07/18/2010 7:46:23 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

“What the country NEEDS is Health Insurance Reform.”

Maybe so - but we are too spoiled here by not having the direct connection between “need” and “want” with regards to healthcare.

I actually think we do need some sort of public hospital system that will treat those who do not pay for their own health care - and yes, it will be abysmal care, I realize - but if you don’t pay, you take what you can get for free.

What we really need is a health care system in which people who actually are willing to pay can receive the care that they pay for, without having to add the cost for everyone else that does not pay.

In this way, and in this way only


15 posted on 07/18/2010 7:47:12 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goat granny

“Its government regulations that make the insurance company’s pay for everything.”

I agree. You should only have to pay for yourself and the treatment you receive.

Until we get that, “healthcare” will be broken.

Still health insurance does not equal health care. This perception is a big part of the problem.


16 posted on 07/18/2010 7:50:32 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
‘What we really need is a health care system in which people who actually are willing to pay can receive the care that they pay for, without having to add the cost for everyone else that does not pay’

Ahh. But that is elitist. That's what Obama does not want. He wants those who can pay to get less care and completely cover those who cannot/do not pay. It is all about redistribution of wealth. Not health care. And, yes, Americans are spoiled. We have enjoyed the best health care system in the world. And that is not ‘fair’ to the rest of the world. We must level the playing field with the rest of the world. We are not ‘special’ and we will soon begin to realize that. The concept of American exceptionalism will die if we don't reverse course soon.

17 posted on 07/18/2010 7:58:19 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Unfortunatly. This plan will not allow you to pay for what you want. You will not be able to buy high deduct ins. because it is outlawed. It is socialized medicine. by 2014 there will be no private health insurance companies and care will be rationed according to the death panels. Old folks will be taken out first. The pure evil is amazing. A few of the major carriers will become administrative service providers for the government rationers. Also there are many non health care tricks in the bill example..mandatory 1099 forms to the IRS for all transactions over 600. Including Gold, Silver and firearms. Tell me what that has to do with health care.


18 posted on 07/18/2010 7:59:50 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“and the promise of universal access could crumble.”

Universal access is a pipe dream also because millions of people will be forced into Medicaid, which more and more good doctors will refuse to accept. What good is an insurance card in your pocket, but no doctor to see? The ERs better get ready.

The only way to avert disaster is to scrap the whole bill, and start over.


19 posted on 07/18/2010 8:00:12 AM PDT by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Health care is what people will get if they are willing to pay for it. Too many people are not willing to pay for their health care, which is why we have what we have.

No, people want the government to pay for it. Before Obamacare, there were 60 million on Medicaid and 50 million on Medicaid. Willing to pay for it will not resolve the current situation with the government trying to destroy private insurance and force people to go on to a government run system. Obamacare will add 16 million to Medicaid.

Obamacare now sets the rules for what is an acceptable insurance plan taking that decision away from the individual and employers. Plans must now remove the lifetime cap, allow those with preexisting conditions to join, and enable "children" under 26 to remain on their parents plan. The net effect is increased premiums to cover the additional risk. And the government wants to cap premiums, which will bankrupt the insurance companies.

we’ll have a better system when people pay for what they want - which will better correlate with what they “need” than the present insurance debacle.

Not if the government has its way. And what do you do with the 60 million on Medicaid and the 50 million on Medicare? Many do not have the funds to pay for what they want or need?

The preferred solution is to put the power back into the patient's hands using vouchers and allowances. Right now, people don't care what something costs because they are not paying the bills. There is no incentive to save money or do comparison shopping.

20 posted on 07/18/2010 8:01:28 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: qrstuv

Hope so. The greates Democommunist fear is a conservative house with cepina power. They will do anything to prevent it..anything.


21 posted on 07/18/2010 8:02:21 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

“The concept of American exceptionalism will die if we don’t reverse course soon.”

No, it will not - not for the folks who are exceptional.

The only way to make “healthcare for everyone” cheaper is to provide less of it.

The folks who want something better will pay for it - either here, or abroad.

Exceptionalism dies when people think that they don’t have to pay for things that they get. That’s our present system.

Obama and his soul-less minions are going to make the exceptional among us more independent of government, not more dependent.


22 posted on 07/18/2010 8:02:28 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

The concept of American Exceptionalism has to do with the country in general. Not just a few individuals.

We need to regain our freedom, so that exceptionalism is widespread.


23 posted on 07/18/2010 8:07:54 AM PDT by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

“You will not be able to buy high deduct ins. because it is outlawed.”

Again, health insurance is not health care.

For those who are willing to pay for their health care it will be available. For those who can’t or won’t, it will be rationed.

Yes, I agree, it will hurt old folks, and those with chronic illess who do not have the ability to pay for their health care. Too late for them, unfortunately - and that is horrible that they must be left to their fate by a big government system.


24 posted on 07/18/2010 8:10:29 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mtrott

“The concept of American Exceptionalism has to do with the country in general. Not just a few individuals.”

The exceptionalism of America is not that every American is exceptional, rather that the exceptional among us are allowed to make the most of it to the benefit of everyone.

Exceptionalism IS the realm of a subset of individuals, nobody can say otherwise (and be right).


25 posted on 07/18/2010 8:12:32 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
As has often been noted,the first goal of HusseinCare is to bankrupt private health insurance companies.Once that's accomplished to rest is easy as pie.
26 posted on 07/18/2010 8:22:00 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (''I don't regret setting bombs,I feel we didn't do enough.'' ->Bill Ayers,Hussein's mentor,9/11/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Once that’s accomplished to rest = Once that’s accomplished the rest


27 posted on 07/18/2010 8:24:58 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (''I don't regret setting bombs,I feel we didn't do enough.'' ->Bill Ayers,Hussein's mentor,9/11/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“No, people want the government to pay for it.”

You are correct - but by not getting what they want under a government system, some will change their minds.

“Willing to pay for it will not resolve the current situation with the government trying to destroy private insurance and force people to go on to a government run system”

Yes it will. The private insurance industry is doomed. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but all that will be left is for people to pay for the health care they want.

I am belaboring the point - but health insurance is not health care.

“Not if the government has its way. And what do you do with the 60 million on Medicaid and the 50 million on Medicare? Many do not have the funds to pay for what they want or need?”

If they do not have the funds to pay for what they want or need they will not get what they want or need. They may get part of what they want or need from a government system - but they will not get all of it, unless they are willing to pay for it.

The government option will fail - and we cannot (and should not want to) go back to the system we had before.

In the meantime - folks that want it and want to be in control will have to pay for their health care - either here in the US - via the black market, if need be (and there WILL be a black market) or they will have to go outside the US.

“The preferred solution is to put the power back into the patient’s hands using vouchers and allowances. Right now, people don’t care what something costs because they are not paying the bills. There is no incentive to save money or do comparison shopping.”

No, the preferred solution is for people to pay for the health care they want.

One hopes that the charitable among us will help those who truly cannot get what they need. It cannot be a government requirement or it will fail.


28 posted on 07/18/2010 8:25:11 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“No, people want the government to pay for it.”
That’s the money quote. People that don’t earn and don’t pay taxes have no concept that these things are paid for by someone. To them the government is off in D.C or their state capital and they have money. Much like that idiot on youtube talking about Obamas stash they have no idea that the government gets that money from someone.
The insurance companies won’t go bankrupt,they will simply offer other products. Their earnings will probably be hurt until they can figure a new way to make back the lost income.


29 posted on 07/18/2010 8:29:38 AM PDT by wiggen (Government owned slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tulane

“Under President Obama’s new health-care law, regulators gained a radical power: the ability to define “unreasonable” premiums and reject them on state-level insurance exchanges.”

The law provided the authority for price controls. The term unreasonable is just window dressing. Price controls are a great election tool. They have some intended impact in the short run. In the long, they are disaster. The left never tires of spinning new terms for old failed solutions. Many economists aligned with the left spin yarns about the virtues of government control in the health care sector as though the health care sector can disregard basic economic laws. Price controls will reduce the supply of medical care. Global budgets will lead to rationing. Strangling and complex regulations will lead to less innovation in health care services. These are immutable economic laws.


30 posted on 07/18/2010 8:36:54 AM PDT by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Retainer fee medicine can cost as little as $250 per month and offer personal attention to care on a 24/7 basis with extended coverage available for specialist care.

Under retainer fee medical practices doctors make a good living and provide decent wages for their clinic employees by having a panel of only 2000 patients. Patients benefit greatly as doctors no longer operate an assembly line of medical care and have much more time for patients.

In effect the doctors take back a role of contracting on retainer, and paying side contracts to specialist clinics. Cuts out all the middlemen including insurance companies.

http://www.medicineandtechnology.com/2008/04/boutique-practices-retainer-fees.html

That said it is a natural tendency for doctors as a group to hire a local administrator to service the retainer contracts but the difference is that doctors are put back in charge of their practices and affirm the patient-doctor relationship.

As it is now, local health administrators have doctors work for them because they are supported by large insurance administrations and government via medicare and medicaid.

Historically, doctors had a retainer fee arrangement with their patients but it has gone off track as a result of WWII effects and later medicare effects.

With wage freezes in WWII, employers were left to offer only pension, insurance and health benefits as incentives to their top employees. This caused an unholy alliance between employers and medical administrators. Doctors at first were often employed by the company and setup a clinic office on company premises.

Medicare injected government into the mix and suddenly doctors found themselves working for government rather than patients.

In both cases government policy skewed the medical delivery markets to disruptive and dysfunctional regulation and frayed if not severed the patient-doctor relationship.

Medicare/Medicaid is bankrupt as are gold-plated union healthcare plans. The present healthcare act of Congress is nothing but a power grab and tax program to prop up failed government programs and union overreach. This is the historical progression.

There is a solution.

Repeal the 16th Amendment, enact the FairTax and reform the Federal Reserve by federalizing it. This sounds like a tall order but there is no economically sound way to get $250 per month into the hands of every qualified American for the purpose of their choosing a doctor and putting medical care on retainer.


31 posted on 07/18/2010 8:37:24 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

“Retainer fee medicine can cost as little as $250 per month and offer personal attention to care on a 24/7 basis with extended coverage available for specialist care.”

Exactly - people willing to pay for their health care tend to get it.

The health care debate really has two camps - those that can and will pay for their health care, and who get it, and those who will stand in line taking what they are given by the government.

There are many complicated and heart wrenching stories in between - but in the end it’s those who are willing to do what they need to do to pay for their health care that will get it.


32 posted on 07/18/2010 8:42:46 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Private payment will not be allowed in the US. Maybe Mexico or the Bahamas.


33 posted on 07/18/2010 8:51:05 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

“Private payment will not be allowed in the US. Maybe Mexico or the Bahamas.”

It will be available in the US, regardless of what is allowed - but it may be easier for some folks to go abroad.

And that is exactly what will happen.


34 posted on 07/18/2010 8:53:56 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Not in Hospitals.


35 posted on 07/18/2010 8:55:11 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

“Not in Hospitals.”

You mean “Hospitals that are allowed to remain open” don’t you? How many will close? 50% 60%? I guessing that will be a good ballpark figure.

I think we’ll all be surprised how and where health care will be available for those willing to pay for it.


36 posted on 07/18/2010 9:01:04 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Under the FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org) I and any qualified American will not pay taxes on life’s essentials (essentials include medical).

HOW A GRANDMOTHER SURVIVES ON MINIMUM SOCIAL SECURITY, PAYS FOR A RETAINER FEE MEDICAL CONTRACT (no medicare) AND HAS A LIFE!:

Current 2009 Poverty Level is $10830 or about $900 per month.

Grandmother receives $1150 monthly in Social Security (if she had paid annuity premiums during her work life or her husband left her with life insurance, she would be very well off).

Under the FairTax granny will pay 23% of any amount spent on a monthly basis that exceeds $900 (the poverty level or what I like to call “the living essentials”).

For example, after granny gets her SS check of $1150, she saves $50 every month and spends $1100. She is taxed 23% of $1100 - $900 = $200 or 23% x $200 = $46.

Her monthly budget on a $1150 SS Check:

Savings 50
Food 300
Housing 400
Medical 275 (incl. extended specialist care)
Monthly bus pass 65
Church Donation 10

This granny is at the bottom of the economic strata but all her basic needs are met. Everyone else who has more income will of course do much better.


37 posted on 07/18/2010 9:38:47 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

“The exceptionalism of America is not that every American is exceptional, rather that the exceptional among us are allowed to make the most of it to the benefit of everyone.

Exceptionalism IS the realm of a subset of individuals, nobody can say otherwise (and be right).”

No, I believe American exceptionalism, to most people, refers to the exceptional aspects of our founding, constitution, individual freedom and responsibility, limited federal government, and economic opportunity. These aspects apply to all citizens. What any individual does with those things is, as you correctly point out, what makes that individual exceptional.


38 posted on 07/18/2010 10:07:15 AM PDT by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mtrott

You’ve defined it best. We agree.


39 posted on 07/18/2010 11:34:23 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

“This granny is at the bottom of the economic strata but all her basic needs are met. Everyone else who has more income will of course do much better.”

who pays for her cable TV and internet?

(kidding)

Many people pay much more than $275 for cable, cell, and internet service.


40 posted on 07/18/2010 11:38:20 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Yes it will. The private insurance industry is doomed. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but all that will be left is for people to pay for the health care they want.

Nonsense. Do you have any concept what the costs are for health care, e.g., a heart bypass, kidney transplant, etc.? We need insurance and shared risk because of the costs involved in providing that health care from the hospitals to the doctors, nurses, etc. to the medical equipment.

If they do not have the funds to pay for what they want or need they will not get what they want or need. They may get part of what they want or need from a government system - but they will not get all of it, unless they are willing to pay for it.

LOL. Please cut the sophistry. What if someone has a heart attack? Do we check their ability to pay or ask if they wish the care or not? Do we turn away people who need dialysis?

No, the preferred solution is for people to pay for the health care they want.

That is just plain stupid. You seem to have no understanding what it costs to provide health care in this country. Most people could never afford to purchase any significant health care if they had to depend on their personal finances. There is a reason people must have insurance whether it comes from the private sector or the government. My daughter spent one night in the emergency room and the costs were approximately $10 K.

41 posted on 07/18/2010 12:01:20 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“You seem to have no understanding what it costs to provide health care in this country”

You seem to have no understanding how it came to cost so much to provide health care in this country.

“We need insurance and shared risk “

We can do this without socialism and politics. The present route has more to do with those than it’s original focus of shared risk. That starts with people paying for their health care. Shared risk for catastrophic events only is the only way insurance will work.

“LOL. Please cut the sophistry. What if someone has a heart attack? Do we check their ability to pay or ask if they wish the care or not? Do we turn away people who need dialysis? “

What if someone has a heart attack and their hospital is closed like will happen under socialized medicine? Who goes to the head of the line for dialysis in a government-centralized system, you or a registered democrat?

Why do you think the delivery of health care costs so much in the US, yet costs so much less in other countries?

“My daughter spent one night in the emergency room and the costs were approximately $10 K.”

Why do you think this emergency visit costs $10k?


42 posted on 07/18/2010 12:32:56 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“You seem to have no understanding what it costs to provide health care in this country”

You seem to have no understanding how it came to cost so much to provide health care in this country.

“We need insurance and shared risk “

We can do this without socialism and politics. The present route has more to do with those than it’s original focus of shared risk. That starts with people paying for their health care. Shared risk for catastrophic events only is the only way insurance will work.

“LOL. Please cut the sophistry. What if someone has a heart attack? Do we check their ability to pay or ask if they wish the care or not? Do we turn away people who need dialysis? “

What if someone has a heart attack and their hospital is closed like will happen under socialized medicine? Who goes to the head of the line for dialysis in a government-centralized system, you or a registered democrat?

Why do you think the delivery of health care costs so much in the US, yet costs so much less in other countries?

“My daughter spent one night in the emergency room and the costs were approximately $10 K.”

Why do you think this emergency visit costs $10k?


43 posted on 07/18/2010 12:33:03 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
You seem to have no understanding how it came to cost so much to provide health care in this country.

I do. Before Obamacare, the government still controlled about 50% of the health care dollars in this country. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid plus an aging population and more and more benefits have driven costs up. Also, medical advances in technology and drugs have added to the costs. I am 67 years old. I have witnessed tremendous advancements in health care.

And third party insurance for health care tied to the employer that emerged after WWII, have removed patients from the cost equation. We need to move the control over health care expenditures back to the patient and that can be done in a variety of ways using the private sector and limiting government's involvement. It can be done through insurance, vouchers and allowances.

Paul Ryan's roadmap provides some excellent ideas on how we can gradually get the government out of health care by restructuring the tax code, allowing all Americans to secure affordable health plans that best suit their needs, and shifting the ownership of health coverage away from the government and employers to individuals.

"Preserves the existing Medicare program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today) - So Americans can receive the benefits they planned for throughout their working lives. For those currently under 55 – as they become Medicare-eligible – it creates a Medicare payment, initially averaging $11,000, to be used to purchase a Medicare certified plan. The payment is adjusted to reflect medical inflation, and pegged to income, with low-income individuals receiving greater support. The plan also provides risk adjustment, so those with greater medical needs receive a higher payment."

What if someone has a heart attack and their hospital is closed like will happen under socialized medicine? Who goes to the head of the line for dialysis in a government-centralized system, you or a registered democrat?

Answering a question with a question doesn't work. You failed to answer my question. And what you propose, patients paying from their own resources for care, will close more hospitals than socialized medicine.

Why do you think this emergency visit costs $10k?

Lots of factors, some general and some pertaining to the illness of the patient. First, there are the administrative costs of maintaining an ER facility that includes 24 hour a day staffing including lab techs, facility costs such as utilities, state of the art equipment like CAT scans, X-Rays, sonograms, etc. plus whatever tests are needed for the patient. Then there are just the overhead costs from hospital administration to the treatment of illegals and the uninsured.

44 posted on 07/18/2010 1:54:09 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

The point is to formulate policies where even those at the lowest rung can have all the basics (food, shelter, medical care) and have a life (savings, transportation, church), and to have this with a minimum of government involvement (no medicare).

And if we can take care of little ol’ granny living on one SS check, then the rest of us can be no worse; things can only be better.

And what I speak of is not new, it is the way America society was decades ago, until the growth of government wrecked the economy by making life so complex and expensive.


45 posted on 07/18/2010 2:57:11 PM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Yeah the $275 that should be budgeted could be used for non-medical items such as cell phones and internet.

But I don’t favor ‘an everybody must pay’ universal health law to get around that.

Instead I favor pre-existing condition portability as long as monthly retainer payments are not in arrears by more than say 60 days and are brought current within a year unless the retained MD agrees to continue care otherwise.

This puts the onus of payment and responsibility directly on the individual.

The FairTax would rebate monthly federal retail sales taxes by $207 to individuals and more to familes with children. That rebate alone can be used to retain an MD.

If the retainer is not purchased, a person can purchase a less expensive catastrophic policy. Those that choose to ignore their health will find it difficult to get treatment if they have no coverage.

If people with a preexisting condition fail to pay for more than 2 months and their MD dismisses them, they are out of luck unless they find a charitable organization willing to cover the cost or a bank willing to loan them what is needed, just as it is now.

For those with preexisting conditions that fall out of portable continuing coverage, I don’t know what can be done. I would think and hope that the society around them will pressure them to get portable continuing coverage and keep it, especially in light of them receiving a monthly $207 retail tax rebate.

But I would never never allow government to mandate they use the monthly retail tax rebate for health coverage because I believe ultimately that government is the problem.


46 posted on 07/18/2010 3:26:59 PM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: goat granny
Its government regulations that make the insurance company's pay for everything.

That's the truth. I've known two couples, now, that have gone through more than a year (each!) of trying to get pregnant. Try after try at tens of thousands of dollars month after month of hormones, in vitro, donors, and on and on... Every penny of it paid by insurance in both cases; age-related reasons in both cases .

I'm sorry but being too old to conceive is NOT a condition insurance should be paying for IMO. But we ALL pay for it anyway. It ain't catastrophic, and you KNOW your damned clock is ticking -- pay for it yourself. (Not addressed to YOU, gg...)
47 posted on 07/18/2010 5:42:12 PM PDT by Peet (<- A.K.A. the Foundling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Peet
If you had to pay for it yourself, lots of things wouldn't be done because they are not a need but a want....its easier when someone else pays for it...I do have medicare, but refused to take prescription drugs, I'll pay for my own thank you, my grand kids shouldn't have to pay for them...That's where WalMart and generic drugs did more for people than anything the government could think up. Now most places do generic for a much lower cost...Even the Kroger Pharmacy...

LOL my clock is sure ticking I feel something else not working right every month...I figure since I've never been this old before, that probably the way its suppose to be..I just keep wearing out my parts...I am fine with that..

48 posted on 07/18/2010 6:36:29 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

“Instead I favor pre-existing condition portability as long as monthly retainer payments are not in arrears by more than say 60 days and are brought current within a year unless the retained MD agrees to continue care otherwise.”

Here is where you lose me.

The MD should be free to charge whatever they want, and they should be able to have as many (or few) patients as they want.

One would hope that networks of MD’s would form that could handle various pre-existing conditions as you mentioned, but it should be at their choosing.

As for folks with chronic and serious illness - society will have to handle this in some way - but it should be limited to the specific condition at hand.

The key is that MD’s can work as hard as they want, make as much money as they wish, and patients can do as they please as well.

The beauty of this is that everyone has the freedom to do as they wish and the government need not be involved in any way.


49 posted on 07/18/2010 7:51:23 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“Programs like Medicare and Medicaid plus an aging population and more and more benefits have driven costs up.”

Since you are so experienced, you know that Medicare and Medicaid do not fully reimburse all medical care and reimbursements in general are subject to political whims.

“We need to move the control over health care expenditures back to the patient and that can be done in a variety of ways using the private sector and limiting government’s involvement. It can be done through insurance, vouchers and allowances.”

No - it can be done when people freely choose whatever care they need and want - and choose insurance or choose not to have insurance. No vouchers, no government, no regulation.

Short of that it will be too expensive and/or less available.

“it creates a Medicare payment, initially averaging $11,000, to be used to purchase a Medicare certified plan. “

No, no, no. Medicare is broke already. let people choose their care by paying for what they want. Let the rest stand in line for the government-run care if they can stand it.

“And what you propose, patients paying from their own resources for care, will close more hospitals than socialized medicine. “

What I propose - having patients pay only for the care they actually use will make hospitals more profitable. Let folks who can’t or won’t pay go to the government facility or not receive care at all. It will make medical care more available and cheaper for everyone - everyone that is willing to pay.


50 posted on 07/18/2010 8:19:44 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson