Skip to comments.GOP On Health Care: Repeal Quickly, Replace Slowly
Posted on 06/17/2012 5:51:20 AM PDT by tobyhill
Congressional Republicans intend to seek quick repeal of any parts of the health care law that survive a widely anticipated Supreme Court ruling, but don't plan to push replacement measures until after the fall elections or perhaps 2013.
Instead, GOP lawmakers cite recent announcements that some insurance companies will retain a few of the law's higher-profile provisions as evidence that quick legislative action is not essential. Those are steps that officials say Republicans quietly urged in private conversations with the industry.
Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling, "the goal is to repeal anything that is left standing," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a member of the party's leadership.
Beyond that, "we ought to go step by step to lower the cost" of health care, he added, a formula repeated by numerous other Republicans interviewed in recent days.
Across the political aisle, neither President Barack Obama nor congressional Democrats have said how they will react to a high court ruling that could wipe out the legislation they worked so hard to enact.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
I had a recent overnight stay in the hospital for a minor procedure. The hospital bill was over $11K plus the doctors’ bills. What we need is a return to the major med plans to pay some of these astronomical hospital bills. And the law that requires hospitals to treat anyone that shows up in the emergency room needs to be rewritten.
Replace slowly? Replace?
That would highlight the difference - the only difference - between today’s GOP and the democrat party: The republicans will take us to the same fiscal cliff as the democrats, just 15 or 20 years later.
Siberian dilemma. (A russian falls into the frigid water under the ice. If he stays there, he dies in 15 seconds. If he gets out, he dies in the cold air in 20 seconds. What to do?)
While I value my health insurance, a lot of people here are beating you up for dropping it.
One thing they have to remember is that a huge portion of all healthcare is spent on the elderly dying in their last few months or year. Think Ted Kennedy’s expensive operations just so he could live another 2 months.
The fact is, if you save the large amounts you are spending on paying for health insurance, it is very likely you could afford most of the hospital/doctor/drug needs for most things. What you would lose is that last 3 months on life support or in that hospice dying.
Your idea is not all that bad. I wouldn’t do it but it could work out fine for you. It really is a sick amount of money we spend so the elderly can die slowly lingering rather than promptly.
No, I’m not advocating assisted suicide or saying that the insured shouldn’t get health care if they want it. All I am saying is that we spend an ass load of money on people at the end of their lives, and the upshot is not that we are curing them, but just treating them to delay death a few months.
Frankly, it is absurd. This ties directly to your post.
Given the choice of leaving a million dollar inheritance to help their children, or depleting a million dollars in savings paying it into the factory healthcare system, I am convinced most loving people would opt to die more quickly in a hospice and help their children with that million dollars, than see strangers in the medical industry get rich off it.
The reason we squander so much money keeping the elderly alive another month or two is because it is pooled insurance money. People don’t care because the money is already gone from their pocket in the form of 50 years of health insurance premiums. So they don’t care.
I’m convinced that is most elderly had to pay huge cash on the barrel head to stay alive another 3 months, most would reject the waste of money and would rather just pass into that good night they are going shortly anyway, and use that money to enrich the lives of their children, not strangers in the medical community.
So what you are doing makes a certain measure of sense if your insurance premium is high, and whose isn’t?
You might want to reconsider. Last year, my husband developed severe torso pain and decompensated in the doctor’s office (shock symptoms.) He was hospitalized immediately, and imaging indicated kidney stones. He received IV fluid and antibiotics overnight, as well as pain medication. The next morning, he was well enough to be discharged.
The bill was $12,000.
What people don’t realize is that Medicare and insurance drive the cost of medical care upwards, since providers receive a smaller amount than their billing indicates. I guess they have experienced that, if they charge less, the insurance companies will pay less, and the patients will have to pay the remainder, so it’s better that they get paid more.
I’ll bet you’re right.
Of course, it should be their choice what they do with their money. As opposed to paying oodles of money in premiums, to a government system which will still throw the non-politically-connected under the bus.
One of the unfortunate aspects of our current medical system is that people who pay cash are often charged substantially more than those who have insurance. So for instance if you need an operation, expect to pay double or more what an insurance company would be billed for the same procedure.
I completely agree.
My point is simply that consumers are apt to spend their money more wisely than government does.