« The Backlash Begins | Main | A Perpetually Pending Crisis »

Your Choice

Let's play a little hypothetical game. You're the government official in charge of granting or denying funding requests for new medical treatments. You have twenty million dollars to allot, and two requests on your desk for precisely that amount.

Application #1 would save the lives of 1,000 newborns.

Application #2 would extend the lives of 3,000 seniors.

You can only grant one of them. You can't split the money -- it has to go to one or the other. You have to decide which is a better investment.

Which do you choose to fund?

Sucker.

The instant you started debating the merits of the two, you engaged in "rationing." You were putting yourself in the position of deciding -- purely on financial grounds -- who would live and who would die. You started putting dollar signs on human lives, and assessing how much the lives of the elderly were worth when compared to the newborn.

Yes, I set you up. But there was no reason to play along. You were under absolutely no compulsion to abide by my rules, to play my little game. You could have said "that's a false choice" and rejected the scenario, as I'm sure some of you did. (And even more will claim to have done.)

But that's a simple fact. Any time you have finite resources, especially where the demand for them outstrips that supply, you're going to have some form of rationing. The only question is who decides how they they are allocated.

No, not "how they are allocated." "Who."

Under our current system, it's the owners of those resources that decide. The providers, the pharmaceutical companies, the medical supplies and devices people, the insurance companies. And they use their own criteria. Hospitals, by and large, use a modified "communist" approach -- it's mostly an "as-needed" basis. The businesses that support them use a pretty much capitalistic angle -- whatever the market will bear (without drawing down too much public backlash). And the insurance companies try to strike a happy medium -- doing what they need to do to keep the public happy, while still pleasing their owners. (They don't do that too well, but that's their ideal.)

Under the Democrats' plan, though, that will all get tossed out the window. Instead, one central authority -- the federal government -- will be deciding how to allocate those resources. Instead of those people whose very livelihoods depend on their understanding of the business end of health care deciding how to best balance the public good and their own good, federal bureaucrats.

You know. The same kinds of bureaucrats who ran Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The same kinds of bureaucrats who ran the Postal Service into a multi-billion-dollar deficit. The same kinds of bureaucrats who are now running GM and Chrysler.

The same kinds of bureaucrats who will make damned sure that they never have to use the system they will create and maintain. They'll get the "Cadillac" plans for themselves -- because, after all, if anything happened to them, who would run the system for us plebes and proles?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/37403.

Comments (70)

Will the feds be making tho... (Below threshold)
James H:

Will the feds be making those kinds of decisions under the new program? As I understand it, most of program currently under consideration (public option aside) involves people buying their own insurance through a government-sponsored marketplace.

Still, I'm not thrilled with how healthcare reform is turning out. Moreover, I don't think it's a good idea to pull off a large-scale reform right now.

JT, sorry to rain on your p... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

JT, sorry to rain on your parade, but some Washington bureaucrat will read the first 8 lines and have a wet dream.

Under the Democ... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Under the Democrats' plan, though, that will all get tossed out the window. Instead, one central authority -- the federal government -- will be deciding how to allocate those resources. Instead of those people whose very livelihoods depend on their understanding of the business end of health care deciding how to best balance the public good and their own good, federal bureaucrats.

Feel free to explain how the government is going to be able to determine what health care my insurance company can or can't provide to me.

Hint - You can't do it. Why - because the government will not be able to tell my insurance company squat about what treatment I can or can't have.

You are 100% wrong.

Are you being paid to be wrong? Do you receive money for this?

The politican making the ch... (Below threshold)
mag:

The politican making the choice would think: who in the long run would give me the most money and votes...sorry but that is how cynical I am of our gov't. Wish I could instead be proud of them.
But you are right on...rationing!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you being paid to be a ... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

Are you being paid to be a trolling dooshbag?

Challenging an assertion ma... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Challenging an assertion made in this post is "trolling"?

Guess you already know the inconvenient answer.

The answer is that Mr. Tea is wrong. The government will not be able to tell my insurance company what treatment I can and can't have.

The only problem being that... (Below threshold)

The only problem being that the current administration would abort the babies before they can get born, kill the seniors off and pocket the $$ in a slush fund for the next election cycle, all the while blaming Bush.

Mag,You are correct.... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Mag,
You are correct. 1,000 newborns after that $20million dollars and upteen millions more spent during their raising, have the potential to vote for politicians and generate taxable income, they might or might not become part of the productive class and vote wisely. The 3,000 seniors can be quantified right now, as generating x-amount of votes and x-amount of tax dollars immediately. Most politicians and their minions won't look much farther than one or two election cycles down the road.

So, our current politicians would choose to save some of the newborns, some of the elderly (those of the right race, political party, family, connections etc) and figure out how to divert part of that 20 Million to their own pockets.

"Hint - You can't do it. Wh... (Below threshold)
914:

"Hint - You can't do it. Why - because the government will not be able to tell my insurance company squat about what treatment I can or can't have."

Like hell!

They already tell You where and when or if You can smoke, tell You to wear a seatbelt, tell You how fast to drive, tell You this tell You that.. Bull shit they wont mandate Your healthcare.. Not that I want You to need it but Your naive if You think uncle Sam has benevolence in mind for Your health.

Its about dollars and cents period.

Application #1... (Below threshold)

Application #1

Too easy!You tell ... (Below threshold)

Too easy!

You tell your speechwriter to a write a particularly heart-rending speech about seniors and infants and how it is important to know WHICH choice is best since there isn't enough money to go around. You announce that this decision needs more time, and to be hasty would be the worst thing you could do. (you carefully avoid the word: "dithering")

Next you hire your brother-in-law to "study" the issue...and give him and his brand new "thinktank" just 3 years to make "do the research"...at $5 million per year!

Now there's only $5 million left when they come back with the "perfect answer...so no action is possible. You promise to put the remaining money in a "Lock-Box" until $15 million more is available!

[I learned all this from studying Jack Murtha!]

914, you beat me to it, but... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

914, you beat me to it, but it doesn't matter. Stevie Green is a delusional Obamabot.

JT, as soon as I read your case study I thought the government doesn't care. It will treat both cases because of votes. There will be no consern of money or cost. That is the problem with a governmen run entity. They do not do business under a zero balance budget. Look at the post office, medicaid, defense, all money losers with no responsible oversight or restrictions. ww

The government wil... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
The government will not be able to tell my insurance company what treatment I can and can't have.

They'll sure try. I haven't read the current monstrosities, but HR3200 would have set up a panel to approve/disapprove all private health plans (except the limited "grandfathered" plans), who they had to cover, what they could charge, and what they had to provide.

But, as we know, the real Democrat "plan" is to do away with private insurance. They'll do that by forcing private carriers to provide coverage at rates they can't afford, driving them out of business. Then, the only game in town will be the government option, and the government option will damn sure be rationing based on finances. You can count on it.

Sorry, trolls - "because I ... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Sorry, trolls - "because I said so" is not an answer.

Still waiting for Mr. Tea to explain how the health reform bill currently before the Senate will give the government authority to tell my insurance company what treatment I can or can't have.

FACT: There is nothing in this legislation that gives the government that authority.

...the federal gov... (Below threshold)
...the federal government -- will be deciding how to allocate those resources.
On top of that the politician's will siphon off the "Extra" monies, (created by their gained efficiencies) for their own pet projects.
..the federal gove... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:
..the federal government -- will be deciding how to allocate those resources.

A lie... repeated often enough... that seems to be the gist of this.

Just keep repeating the same lie over and over and maybe it will stick.

Steve, you're right. They ... (Below threshold)

Steve, you're right. They won't explicitly BAN any procedures (at least initially). They'll just specify which ones they'll PAY for...and how much!

Your Doctor can still treat you in a manner that government won't compensate fully for...he/she just has to do it for free (or for less that it actually costs).

Just curious - anyone can a... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Just curious - anyone can answer - is the lie beign told here about the government deciding what treatments my insurance company can let me have an intentional lie?

Or is it just something spontaneous that's being spin because the Senate voted to move the issue closer to debate?

Hint - You can't d... (Below threshold)
Clancy:
Hint - You can't do it. Why - because the government will not be able to tell my insurance company squat about what treatment I can or can't have.

You are 100% wrong.

No Steve, as usual YOU are wrong. Within 5 years of the passage of the current bills, YOU won't have an insurance company. It will no longer exist as it will have been absorbed into the governments SINGLE. PAYER. SYSTEM. Try to pay attention.

Steve, you're righ... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:
Steve, you're right. They won't explicitly BAN any procedures (at least initially). They'll just specify which ones they'll PAY for...and how much!

Your Doctor can still treat you in a manner that government won't compensate fully for...he/she just has to do it for free (or for less that it actually costs).

Actually, that's factually incorrect.

The government will not be able to tell my insurance company what treatment I can have.

The government will not be paying for my treatment - period.

I have health care insurance.

The government will not exercise any authority whatsoever over what treatments my health insurance company can allow me to have. The government doesn't reimburse my doctor - that's bull.

It's a lie.

Are you all brain washed, or just uninformed? Seriously.

Naw - I think you all know ... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Naw - I think you all know the truth - you all know for a fact that the health insurance you have right now (if you're lucky enough to have it) does not require government approval or reimbursement for treatment.

And even with this legislation that doesn't change one bit. Not one bit.

What an amazing display of lack of knowledge.

Fox news? is that it? IS that why you are so uniformed?

Or right wing blogs such as this?

What is the source of this gross misinformation?

Steve Green seems to be a l... (Below threshold)

Steve Green seems to be a little unclear on cause and effect when it comes to government involvement

Steve, where are you gettin... (Below threshold)
Morrissimo:

Steve, where are you getting your understanding of the current legislation? You seem to be convinced that your understanding is not only correct but solidly in accordance with the facts of the current legislation -- I'd like to share that assured understanding.

Links, please.

And even... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:


And even with this legislation that doesn't change one bit. Not one bit.

Whoops! Wrong again!

Steve Green needs to read Section 222 of the current H. R. 3962 which states that all health plans must be approved by something called the Health Benefits Advisory Committee.

"No Steve, as usual YOU ... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"No Steve, as usual YOU are wrong. Within 5 years of the passage of the current bills, YOU won't have an insurance company."

That's the same lie republicans told back in the 1960s when Medicare was instroduced and pushed by the Democrats.

Back then they said Medicare would leave to a nationalization of the health care industry.

It was a lie. 50 years have passed. They lied, Plain and simple. Numerous Democratic administrations since the 1960s and it never happened.

They are lying now by predicting the same.

No, worse -- they are telling you that it's a fact - there is nothing being said here that is a prediction - these people are flat out stating that if health care reform passes the government will have authority over what treatment you receive.

That's a lie.

So it was my lying eyes tha... (Below threshold)
Clancy:

So it was my lying eyes that saw Dear Leader speaking to the AFL-CIO explaining how he was in favor of a single payer system, but that the would have to work toward that gradually. Yeah - that must have been a conservative conspiracy to load his teleprompter with inane ramblings about his socialist worldview in 2003 (here, don't watch it though, it may hurt your brain)

Name ONE, just ONE single government program that has ever (any one of these): saved money; reduced costs, or created efficiencies. JUST ONE.

The current health care ref... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

The current health care reform working its way through Congress IS NOT A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM.

The statements made telling you that the government will have to approve or disapprove of a treatment plan put forth by your doctor IS FALSE - AN OUTRIGHT LIE.

The same lies were told in the 1960s by Republicans when they tried to stop Democrats from passing the legislation which founded Medicare.

They lied then, they are lying now.

It's amusing to me to see p... (Below threshold)
mantis:

It's amusing to me to see people who believe the government has no business providing health care insurance to citizens (most of whom either think Medicare and Medicaid should be abolished, or don't even realize those are government programs), yet somehow believe that the government should fund such programs to such an extent that every possible medical procedure, necessary or not, effective or not, should be fully funded by the government.

Or don't you realize that you're talking about government programs, and believe that budgeting (or rationing, if you want to call it that) government programs will somehow dictate what coverage private insurance companies can offer, or what private citizens can pay out of pocket to acquire? Congress is not proposing a system where you will be unable to purchase as much insurance, or pay for any medical procedures you want.

If someone who holds this position--and there are many of you--could please explain it, I would appreciate it. Why do you think programs you oppose should be funded in such a way that enormous amounts of money are spent on unnecessary procedures and to maybe keep terminal, suffering patients alive for a few days or weeks longer? How do you reconcile the two? Why would you advocate enormous amounts of wasteful spending in programs you don't even believe should exist?

While you're at it, explain why funding government health insurance for someone who cannot afford it, but not to the extent that the person can expect hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars be spent to try to keep them alive for a tiny bit longer should they become terminally ill, is somehow worse than having no insurance at all.

Under the Democrat... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:
Under the Democrats' plan, though, that will all get tossed out the window. Instead, one central authority -- the federal government -- will be deciding how to allocate those resources. Instead of those people whose very livelihoods depend on their understanding of the business end of health care deciding how to best balance the public good and their own good, federal bureaucrats.

NOTHING in this legislation give the government the authority to dictate who receives what medical treatment. That will remain between you and your doctor and your health insurance plan JUST LIKE IT IS RIGHT NOW.

s green "Hint - You ca... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green "Hint - You can't do it. Why - because the government will not be able to tell my insurance company squat about what treatment I can or can't have."

Yeah never happen, right. Except when an overstepping gov like the current one fires CEOS, bypasses hundreds of years of bankruptcy law in replace board of dirs with union cronies etc.

Nah, never happen s green. Never.

s green "The government will not exercise any authority whatsoever over what treatments my health insurance company can allow me to have. The government doesn't reimburse my doctor - that's bull."

Well, there's your problem right there. Unlike the rest of the obamabots who have spent the last 9 months demonizing health insurance companies you seem to believe they are the best thing since latex rubbers.

Guess you forgot ALL the current health plans include provisions so they cover preexisting conditions and prevent them from dropping you for some health reason they refuse to pay for.

What you're really saying is your insurer, out of the thousands in the U.S., is the only one who won't take advantage of the chance to rewrite your policy, to fit new gov mandates, and also to cut some of the coverage you now have.

Glad you trust them so much. No so glad you're such a fool.


Steve, where are y... (Below threshold)
Morrissimo:
Steve, where are you getting your understanding of the current legislation? You seem to be convinced that your understanding is not only correct but solidly in accordance with the facts of the current legislation -- I'd like to share that assured understanding.

Links, please.

Still waiting...
mantis "While you're a... (Below threshold)
Marc:

mantis "While you're at it, explain why funding government health insurance for someone who cannot afford it,"

Better question, why after all the talk about 40 mil or was it 47 mil, HAD to be covered doesn't either the House of Senate bill cover everyone?

Did they lie?

Jay Tea, Your desktop psych... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Jay Tea, Your desktop psychogram can hardly disguise your trained thesis which in the end applies a certain interpretation of laissez-faire economic theory to social policy which disallows the sanctity of the contract when all is said and done, psychogram notwithstanding.

The present loaded dice regime has been sanctioned by government. Now the worm is turning via re-validation of the democratic process against UNSOUND policies and the current health care insurance regimen is being peacefully reformed along a bill-of-rights line. Hardly the Nuremberg Laws revisited.

I recommend a glass of warm Ovaltine and a good night's sleep and fresh eyes tomorrow WITHOUT reading what to think until the PM. In fact, read the Left who even now are preparing to be pissed at what comes of this.

I would do what any good bu... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

I would do what any good bureaucrat would do.
I would rake 80% right off the top. Gubment overhead, you know.
Then I would hire a plethora of minimally educated GS-2 and GS-3's to distribute the the remaining funds for medical purposes. US citizenship, being proficient in the English, and having a personality that did not match a turnip would not matter.
On-the-job-training would provide all the knowledge that they would need. I heard the book, "Death for Dummies" would provide them all the info on the elderly care that they would ever need. Then I would get a couple of moms in with kids to get them up on other medical terminology. Boo-boo, hurtie, baby powder, diaper, etc. They would be to speed to handle life or death situations in days.
As for me, I would take the 80%...and ..you know...what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
I would just be running a typical gubment bureaucracy.

One of the many differences... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

One of the many differences between the enactment of Medicare and today's horrors is that, while there was no indication in the 1960s that government officials really wanted nationalized healthcare, today, we have Schokowsky, Weiner, Conyers, and Bawney Fwank all on record as wanting single payer. Plus, we have Obama on record saying he supports single payer as well.

It's technically not yet single payer, but its real goal is destruction of private insurance, which will inevitably lead to single payer. Have no doubt.

Steve Green:<blockqu... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Steve Green:

A lie... repeated often enough...

Ah...that explains why you've posted 10 times in this thread.

Name ONE, just ON... (Below threshold)
Clancy:
Name ONE, just ONE single government program that has ever (any one of these): saved money; reduced costs; or created efficiencies. JUST ONE.

Still waiting...

Better question, why aft... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Better question, why after all the talk about 40 mil or was it 47 mil, HAD to be covered doesn't either the House of Senate bill cover everyone?

Well, that's not a better question, it's a stupid question, but whatever. The House and Senate bills provide options for everyone to get coverage, except illegal immigrants, who taxpayers will still be paying to cover, as emergency rooms will not refuse to treat them. However, there's a bit of grey area where mostly middle-class folks who need to buy their own insurance will still be unable to afford it. The reason for this, to answer your question, was because of compromises in the legislation which lowered the income levels to which assistance will be provided, largely to get blue dog Democrats on board and to hew to a relatively arbitrary budget ceiling which Obama effectively, if not explicitly, set in his health care speech a couple months ago. The bills will provide coverage, according to the CBO, to more than 30 million uninsured Americans (and eliminate some awful discriminatory insurance practices for all of us). That's certainly an improvement, even if it doesn't cover absolutely everyone.

So no, they didn't lie, though it's hard to even respond to that, since I don't know what statement(s) you are asking about, as you do not specify. They compromised. That's what legislatures do.

Supporting or favoring or l... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Supporting or favoring or liking Single Payer is one thing.

The Healthcare Reform legislation we're talking about IS NOT SINGLE PAYER.

There is NO LEGISLATION PENDING that would institute single payer.

SINGLE PAYER WOULD NEVER PASS THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

but bottom line - THIS IS NOT SINGLE PAYER.

Any effort to initiate single payer would have require new legislation AND THERE IS NO EFFORT TO DO THAT.

There is a monumental bit of lying going on about the health care reform package and things like government control of the health care you receive or will receive if the legislation passes.

It's nothing more than BS - lies put out by the right wing spin machine.

One of the many differen... (Below threshold)
mantis:

One of the many differences between the enactment of Medicare and today's horrors is that, while there was no indication in the 1960s that government officials really wanted nationalized healthcare

Actually, many did, and Medicare is nationalized, single-payer health care. It just doesn't cover anyone under 65 years old.

mantis "Well, that's n... (Below threshold)
Marc:

mantis "Well, that's not a better question, it's a stupid question, but whatever."

Just can't get anything close to a respectable answer to a legitimate question from you.

It's only "stupid" because of your ideology and apparent support for the current bills.

No matter the childish invective, it is a valid question.

"Ah...that explains why ... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"Ah...that explains why you've posted 10 times in this thread."

Feel free to explain my lie, Mike.

I've explictly shown in quotes where the lies have been told.

Now show me where I've lied.

Hint - you didn't because you can't.

mantis "Actually, many... (Below threshold)
Marc:

mantis "Actually, many did, and Medicare is nationalized, single-payer health care. It just doesn't cover anyone under 65 years old.

And that's a good thing given this years fraud amounts to 55 bil and averages 60 bil the last decade or so. That's fraud they know, or apparently care about.

The Healthcare Ref... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
The Healthcare Reform legislation we're talking about IS NOT SINGLE PAYER.

No one on this board thinks that it is. Many believe that WILL LEAD to single payer.

SINGLE PAYER WOULD NEVER PASS THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

Oh yes it would, once private health insurance is destroyed.

See, Steve, destruction of the private health insurance industry is the first step. Once private health insurance is gone, everyone will HAVE TO go into the government option. They will have NO OTHER CHOICE. Once EVERYONE is in the government option, then we WILL HAVE single payer.

Hey!! USING CAPS is fun!! EVERYONE can do it!!! NO WONDER Steve Green uses them SO OFTEN!!!


s green As long as you're ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green As long as you're on the subject of lies, did obama lie?

Leave it to Stevie to have ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Leave it to Stevie to have his head so far up his ass that up is down, and right is left.

Hey shithead! You'd better start reviewing all those YouTube tapes of your "leaders" talking about what they really want from "health care reform". TOTAL CONTROL OF IT!

They fully intend to run every private insurance company OUT OF BUSINESS. That is their stated goal. They will then TELL YOU want your going to get and what you're not.

Keep drinking the fucking Koolaid asshole.

"Keep drinking the fucki... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"Keep drinking the fucking Koolaid asshole. "

Sore loser.

Just can't get anything ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Just can't get anything close to a respectable answer to a legitimate question from you.

Actually, I answered your question. You ignored the answer. I wonder why.

Stevie Green:<blockq... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Stevie Green:

Now show me where I've lied.

Stevie Green:

The government will not be able to tell my insurance company what treatment I can and can't have.

Either you're a liar or a fool, but I'm not ruling out both.

s green Did obama lie?</p... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green Did obama lie?

The government... (Below threshold)
mantis:
The government will not be able to tell my insurance company what treatment I can and can't have.

Either you're a liar or a fool, but I'm not ruling out both.

_Mike_, please explain how the current health care reform legislation enables the government to dictate what coverage private citizens can purchase from private insurers.

"Sore loser."No, y... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Sore loser."

No, you stupid fuck. YOU will be the sore loser. You just don't know it yet.
Even your fellow dickhead, Evan Thomas has figured it out.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/11/23/newsweek-editor-admits-health-care-bill-fiscal-fraud-i-d-still-vote-it

Forgot to add: the Obamabo... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Forgot to add: the Obamabots are going to kick the real cost 'down the road'.

Perhaps they should talk to the legislators in Sacramento. They've been 'kicking the cost down the road' for years. NOW IT'S BITING THEM IN THE ASS. And their only (still) talking BILLIONS. Barry is talking TRILLIONS. Trillions we DON'T HAVE. Just ask the Chinese.

I've explictly sho... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
I've explictly shown in quotes where the lies have been told.

This, of course, is a lie. Steve Green has done nothing more than spew his own unsupported and incorrect opinion. Steve Green has shown nothing. I've at least cited to the current House Bill by section. But, Steve Green won't acknowledge my cite because he's said before that he won't respond to me. Hee, hee, hee.

Stevie or any other lefty l... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Stevie or any other lefty loon, who gets all their info from MSNBC and Media Matters, keeps trying to perpetrate the process of "believing" Obama and other nationalistic democrats that all they want to do is control a little of the medical industry although there are decades of examples that show how a program grows and grows but Stevie and his ilk are hiding their heads in Obama's butt saying " he speaks well, he speaks well" while the country is sold out from under us. SNL got one right last weekend. The world recognizes Obama is a benign fool. ww

"Barry is talking TRILLIONS... (Below threshold)
Staylor:

"Barry is talking TRILLIONS. Trillions we DON'T HAVE. Just ask the Chinese."

"I prefer to be kissed when someone is trying to MAKE SEX TO ME!"

snarc

BTW, Steve Green is like that loud irritating guy you sometimes see walking down the street. He keeps yelling and repeting his own garbage and loudly insists that if you don't believe him you are the liar. He is also is a good argument for removing Caps lock from every key board in the world.

mantis, Steve Green, one of... (Below threshold)

mantis, Steve Green, one of the aspects of the health care bill is to set minimal standards for health care insurance plans. You will be legally required to carry at least a "base" plan that will be required to cover certain things.

This all came up with the abortion issue -- whether or not abortion would be part of the base coverage. That is a tacit admission that such minimal standards exist.

J.

s green all things aside t... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green all things aside take a peek at the WH.gov website in the section that details the OMB's budget deficits.

You will note they say the deficit stands at 12 trillion dollars now and estimate it will reach 24 TRILLION dollars in the year 2019.

The estimate is WITHOUT crap and tax or the health car bills added in.

So the question to you is what's better fix sections of health care that can be fixed or overhauling the entire system at a cost of over 2 trillion dollars?

And BTW, if you hadn't noticed wall street was up again today in large part because the value of the dollar took another dive.

mantis "Actually, I an... (Below threshold)
Marc:

mantis "Actually, I answered your question. You ignored the answer. I wonder why."

What's to wonder? When you answer a legit question in the first sentence by calling it "stupid" that makes it a FULL STOP kinda thing.

And BTW you're an asshole for doing so.

Medicare is nation... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
Medicare is nationalized, single-payer health care. It just doesn't cover anyone under 65 years old.
You really misunderstand the concept of single-payer.

Single payer means that one, and only one, entity gets to pay for healthcare--the government.

Under Medicare, although seniors get coverage, there are many other payers of healthcare, including Medicare supplements, private healthcare for all other patients, and the patients themselves.

One of the voluminous problems with single payer is that, once government controls payment, it controls everything. It can, therefore, control (among so many other things) price.

What would (will) happen to the medical profession if the government controls price? The answer: quality will go to shit.

Just about the time you need a bypass, you'll find out that the only heart surgeons available are ex-motorcycle mechanics who went through the special six-week internet heart surgery medical school course put into place because all the qualified doctors said "fuck it" and went into plumbing. Or, the ones left will be taking out splinters in the Emergency Room. Good luck!!

When I'm going under, I want the best, brightest, toughest dudes and dudettes hanging out in the OR. They will be there because they are the best, and they are therefore paid the best.

Unless, of course, you get to have your medical system.

Actually, many did... (Below threshold)
Actually, many did, and Medicare is nationalized, single-payer health care. It just doesn't cover anyone under 65 years old.
Which explains why Medicare is plagued with fraud and waste. Want links? just type "medicare fraud and waste" into Google and start reading.
And here's how this is diff... (Below threshold)
jim x:

And here's how this is different than what insurance companies are doing right now:

If it's going to cut into their profits, they're not disposed towards saving EITHER 1000 or 300 newborns.

In fact, someone will probably get a raise for figuring out how to get these risky newborns OFF of policies before they need help.

You can see this in action with the kids denied coverage ***AS NEWBORNS*** because they are too fat or too thin - and thus are treated as having "pre-existing conditions".

Well, I would save the 1,00... (Below threshold)
AStoner:

Well, I would save the 1,000 babies lives. They have no ability to defend themselves or to provide for themselves. The 3,000 elderly have the ability to use savings or even borrow in order to pay for their medical care. In fact, they should already be responsible for all their old age medical care, but for the socialistic medicare program.

This was posted in comments... (Below threshold)
jbinnout:

This was posted in comments over at realclearpolitics, makes it clear how it will work to eliminate plans just like Steve's.

Posted by: GMT
Nov 23, 11:38 AM
Report Abuse
Reply
WWYD....What Would You Do?

Background. Penalty to Employer Not Providing Health Care.

Section 1511-1513 (Pages 346 and 347)

Real life example. I employ 60 good folks in a high tech industry and MY health care cost per individual is over $21,000 per year per employee. Most are married with childern so I will use the family plan numbers for my real life example.

Multiply the number of employees times $21,000. My cost are higher, but I will use that lower figure because I am too lazy to do a 90/10 mixture of individual vs. family plans. ($21,000 times 60 employees equals $1,260,000). Since the Senate Bill calls my benefits package a "Cadillac Plan", my insurer will be charged a 40% excise tax which equals $504,000. For the fun of it lets assume my insurer likes me, so they only pass on 80% of their increased cost, which will be $403,200.

My choices are :

(1) pay the $403,200......problem is I cannot pass this onto my customers so I eat the cost.

(2) lower coverage that I have been giving to my employees for over 10 years.....problem is that they will not be happy with this.

(3) cut my staff back to 50, drop all coverage, pay the $750 fine per employee, and since none will fall under the premium subsidy charge of $3,000 per employee who participate in the health care exchange, the tax to me will be $37,500 ($750 per employee times 5o employees). Yes, my employees will not be very happy, but they will not be happy under choice number 2. Unhappy employes are just that...unhapy. This choice will save me 1,260,000 less $37,500.

Seems I just saved a bunch of money and too bad the Cadillac plan tax does not start until January 1, 2013. (Tounge in cheek comment).

So, for those that embrace the Senate Bill......WWYD?

Jay Tea, Your desktop ps... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Jay Tea, Your desktop psychogram can hardly disguise your trained thesis which in the end applies a certain interpretation of laissez-faire economic theory to social policy which disallows the sanctity of the contract when all is said and done, psychogram notwithstanding.

Step away from the Roget's slowly with your hands up.

_Mike_, please exp... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
_Mike_, please explain how the current health care reform legislation enables the government to dictate what coverage private citizens can purchase from private insurers.

I believe it's in the same legal code that gives the President the power to fire people at private companies, set pay for people at private companies, to place the UAW ahead of bondholders in GM's "bankruptcy", etc...

So what happened to Steve? ... (Below threshold)
Clancy:

So what happened to Steve? - STILL no replies with substance...

Then again, pretty much like you'd expect from a liberal with cognitive disabilities (but I repeat myself).

You really misunde... (Below threshold)
mantis:
You really misunderstand the concept of single-payer.

Single payer means that one, and only one, entity gets to pay for healthcare--the government.

No, that's not what it means, or else single-payer doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Even in the UK, where the NHS provides health care for all permanent residents, there are private insurance companies and providers. Hell, the single-payer doesn't even have to be the government. You misunderstand what single-payer means (unsurprisingly).

Here's an accurate definition:

Single-payer health care is a public service financing the delivery of near-universal or universal health care to a given population as defined by age, citizenship, residency, or any other demographic.

And that's exactly what Medicare is. It is a single-payer system providing universal coverage to US citizens 65 and over. You clearly don't understand what you're talking about, but I'll go ahead and respond to the rest.

One of the voluminous problems with single payer is that, once government controls payment, it controls everything. It can, therefore, control (among so many other things) price.

I certainly hope so. Or do you think the direction the price of health care has been going and will continue to go under our current system is a good thing?

What would (will) happen to the medical profession if the government controls price? The answer: quality will go to shit.

Tell it to the Japanese and the Swedes, for whom the government controls health care prices, and who have excellent quality health care. And again, we have two single-payer systems in this country: Medicare and the VA. Have the existence of those driven our health care quality to shit? No, they haven't.

Just about the time you need a bypass, you'll find out that the only heart surgeons available are ex-motorcycle mechanics who went through the special six-week internet heart surgery medical school course put into place because all the qualified doctors said "fuck it" and went into plumbing. Or, the ones left will be taking out splinters in the Emergency Room. Good luck!!

This really wasn't worth the bother. You're either deliberately full of shit or completely stupid.

When I'm going under, I want the best, brightest, toughest dudes and dudettes hanging out in the OR. They will be there because they are the best, and they are therefore paid the best.

How nice that you can afford "the best." The vast majority of us cannot. I personally don't subscribe to the belief that, "I can afford the best, and I couldn't care less if you get nothing. In fact, I prefer it."

Unless, of course, you get to have your medical system.

I'm a United States citizen. My system is the same as yours, and it kills thousands of people every month through lack of coverage. You don't give a shit about them, because you can afford "the best," but I do.

What's to wonder? When y... (Below threshold)
mantis:

What's to wonder? When you answer a legit question in the first sentence by calling it "stupid" that makes it a FULL STOP kinda thing.

If you're a whiny little bitch it is. "Ahhh, you used the word stupid! Run away!" Face it, chuckles, you have no response so you whine instead. You're one of the biggest assholes here, so don't give me your faux righteous indignation.

mantis, Steve Green, one... (Below threshold)
mantis:

mantis, Steve Green, one of the aspects of the health care bill is to set minimal standards for health care insurance plans. You will be legally required to carry at least a "base" plan that will be required to cover certain things.

Minimal coverage standards for insurance companies? That's your evidence for death panels for granny? What are you talking about?

This all came up with the abortion issue -- whether or not abortion would be part of the base coverage. That is a tacit admission that such minimal standards exist.

So wait, are you saying that the minimal coverage standards set by the government will be such that they don't include paying for every possible procedure, no matter how effective or costly, to be performed for everyone, always, and that means that no insurance company will offer plans that go beyond the minimal standards? Are you serious? You realize private insurance companies are the ones denying costly and experimental or mostly ineffective procedures, and Medicare is the payer that will spend millions to keep an unconscious terminal patient in the ICU for years, don't you? Do you even know what you're talking about?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy