First they'll take all the profit out of health care. Then, when the doctors start leaving the field, they'll take the care out of health care. We'll be left with the same type of system they have in Canada and the UK, where the question is how many months a sick person has to wait to see a government-paid (read: "low paid") physician. The wait for an ambulance won't be quite as long but once you get to the hospital, you're likely to be "parked" for an extended period until the ER doc can finally get around to seeing you. What Barry really meant was: " I think when you spread the [misery] around, it's good for everybody."

The free market has a built-in regulation: if an ambulance service provider is making an "unreasonable profit," then a competitor will step in and provide the same service at a discounted rate. It's not infallible, but it's better than government regulation, which, as has been proven time and again, does not work very well.

Isn't this curious--we've been force fed the claim that insurers are cheating patients by denying or limiting coverage, etc., but here we have a story of an insurer which somehow rolled over and paid an "unreasonable" ambulance bill. If the bill was "unreasonable," the insurer would have fought it in court and probably won. Insurers usually are not hesitant in challenging unreasonable billing. I have to guess that the insurer realized that the bill was not "unreasonable," which is why they didn't go to court over it, but instead just paid it.

That means that what was "unreasonable" was the much lower Medicare reimbursement rate. So, forcing ambulances to take unreasonably lower Medicare rates will drive them out of business. And, then, there won't be any more ambulance service (or poorly run government ambulance service).

Actually, this may cut down on overall medical expenses, because people would be dying in their homes instead of getting prompt, competent medical care.

As a faithful party organ don't expect the globe to explain that businesses cannot remain in business with the reimbursement the government gives them.

I do find it striking that when a business charges different rates based on who can afford to pay what it is evil capitalism preying on the unsuspecting public, but when the government redistributes wealth in the same manner it's "social justice" and "fair play".

Central Planning was such a big hit under Josef Stalin we should try it here.

John Edwards was right about one thing: there ARE "two Americas". One that wants freedom to live their lives as they see fit...and the other that wants the Government to dictate every aspect of that life. I pray the "two Americas" can have a peaceful seperation...soon.

Mr Obama said "I will pay for medical care....just not the most expensive medical care." True to his word, these are the steps toward mediocrity.

As a Physician that had to leave a practice due to non-payment, I see this trend coming to a "health care provider" near you, too.

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first have the government "improve."

I wonder how Indonesia has ever survived without Barry?

Somewhat related:

I buy my Thanksgiving and Christmas turkeys from a local, family-owned turkey farm. I asked if they sold other poultry, and they told me they used to, but government regs now forbid it.

This is the essense of encroachment. By all means, warn me of risks, but let the decision to buy (or not) be mine.

Jay, let me end your speculation. Medicare pays about 50 cents on the dollar.

The government views the cost of healthcare to be what they pay through medicare. This has nothing to do with the actual cost of delivering health care to patients. Imagine if you went to your doctor and asked him if he wanted to reduce the cost of delivering health care and when he said "yes" you offered to reduce what you paid him by 10%. That is what obama thinks cutting costs is.

I dare the lefties to go to their doctor and try the same. Or perhaps they would like to try it with the grocer or the gas station. Better yet they could go to their neighbor and demand money from them saying that they should do their share to spread their success to others.

Parasites all.

It seems the only solution to what is in store is to "go Galt" as far as practical. That will differ among the parties involved, but it's merely a matter of degree.

I yet hold hope for the upcoming Congress to commence dismantling Obamacare, and the plethora of stifling regulations that have hamstrung us, but until things turn round, Galt is more and more appealing.

Either the upcoming year will see the rebirth of the America once celebrated, or the continuing slide into decline.

At least the choice is clear.

I pray the "two Americas" can have a peaceful separation...soon.

I doubt it will be soon, and when it does, I doubt it will be peaceful.

It seems the only solution to what is in store is to "go Galt" as far as practical.

Absolutely. I will W2 $30K less this year most comfortably. I have greater job satisfaction and security. Of course part of that is going from a sales position with a substantial bonusto a non sales position, but since I have moved to a job with a more substantial base salary my cash flow is consistant and that was more than worth the difference.

So not only will I pay taxes on less income but what I do pay I will pay at a lower rate.

There was a time when every school child above eighth grade would recognize the signs of collectivization, and that it was against the grain of American history and freedom.

But nearly half a century of federal domination of the public school system has led us to the point where our children have learned nothing - but feel really good about themselves.

Goodness, Mr. Tea! What an incomprehensible hash you've created here.

You're railing against Obamacare and the feds but link to a Globe editorial in support of a state level proposal in Massachusetts.

You haven't cited a single thing to back up your central assertion.

Quacker in grandma's basement-

"You haven't cited a single thing to back up your central assertion."

Sorry to inform you that Barney has been canceled for this evening.

Quaker, if you're not familiar with Massachusetts' health care system as a model for ObamaCare, or the thematic union of "controlling health care costs" as a unifying theme behind the advocates of both, then I don't particularly feel like enlightening you.

J.

Don't sweat it, Quaker. As usual Jay Tea has no idea what he's talking about Because he didn't understand what he read. Not only does this have nothing to do with federal health care reform, this is a case of the government stepping at the request of a privte industry. In this case, the ambulance companies which originally supported a measure requiring insurancecompanies to py them directly. The insurance companies protested and demanded compromise legislation in which they would py the bulnce companies directly as long as they had guarantees that the price s would be controlled. This is entirely a dispute between two private industries whose linguists turned to the government for a solution. It has nothing to do with the government injecting itself into the "free market" uninvited. The industries themselves are seeking a giveremt remedy to a problem.

That's "lobbyists" not "linguists."