The net effect of this is going to be that insurance premiums increase for everyone.
and is either extremely poorly advised or thinks too much of his grasp of things:
There is either something seriously missing from the story or there is something seriously wrong with Obama. None of it made sense.
And this was the person who attacked McCain as not being generous enough to vets.
If this guy has one consistent bone in his body, I can't see it. Abandon "No Lobbyist," abandon "I will X out all ear marks."
Gosh, is Gitmo closed yet. Has he re-negotiated NAFTA. (No. He went to Canada and told them he was just joking about that.)
Every politician lies a little. To have so many disclosed in 6 weeks is amazing.
they also have private insurance through their spouse. Medicare has long required the private insurance be classified as primary payer. For each claim, whatever the primary doesn’t cover, Medicare reviews what’s left and pays according to their coverage. Medicare usually ends up paying much of the deductibles and co-pays from the primary. So the government has been doing this for a long time outside of the VA.
There are two other things here.
1) I’m sure that BHO’s big game plan is universal health insurance for phase one and then control of the delivery systems for phase two, So this is just one step along that path. I know the stated purpose is exactly the opposite, but this plan is intended to get employers more willing to sign on to and become active participants in shedding their employees to a government system.
2) We need to keep the VA hospital system as a viable and vigorous delivery system for Vets. Their physical and mental care requirements are so specialized that most private hospitals can not compare to the VA systems.
The net effect of this is going to be that insurance premiums increase for everyone.
military personnel and our veterans. We owe them a debt. We don't owe AIG and all the 1%ers that lost money doing shoddy business our taxpayer dollars. Let em die on the vine. Clear out all of the dead and dying. Take the hit now and build a stronger and more socially responsibly regulated economy on the ruins....
As a dual citizen, I went to Germany after my military career to have a number of issues from injuries repaired, and have some cosmetic restoration done, at no cost to me. The military did not care if I could use my right leg or face the public without causing revulsion or fright. The US standard of care for wounded and veterans lags far behind that of the EU as well.
Obama's version of universal health care would not be commonly referred to as socialized health care. What Obama wants to do is privatize all health care then dictate to health care providers what kind of care the government will subsidize. Insurers will cover only what is subsidized and require the insured to pay an out of pocket maximum prior to paying for unsubsidized treatment claims. Self insured companies will pay into the system based on employee head count.
I know it will never happen here, but what we need is a public health care system from the ground up. Public higher education, all hospitals and health care providers being public employees, no profit motive.
Trying to "socialize" for profit medical services results in harsh rationing.
A from the ground up public healthcare system is efficient and affordable, without rationing....
Then why all the news about long waiting lists in Canada? and the two tier system in Great Britian, one public and one private (not that we don't already have a two tier system here, but wouldn't a good enough public system have solved that, not created it)? The Canadian government even maintains web sites publishing the waiting times at each hospital. And Canadian citizens still travel to the U.S. for some treatments. All of this can't be anecdotal and insignificant "stories".
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/The-Fraser-Institute-907286.html
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15139
http://www.wcwl.org/
The U.S. system is a discumbooberation of several broken systems but I dread even more every liberal proposal I’ve seen thus far.
which creates a sqeeze between the profit motive and the amount the government will pay and results in rationing.
In the EU, medicine is not "socialized" it is public from the ground up. From education of medical personnel to the fact that they are public employees working for wages and not for profit (same with the hospital system) plus the fact that the EU uses its massive buying power to negotiate prices for drugs and medical equipment that average less than 25% of what we pay in the US. The US depending on the survey ranks between 18th and 39th in quality of medical care. Every original EU nation ranks higher, with Germany and Switzerland usually 1/2.
Cheers
G
The fact that things may be ranked better in Europe does not mean anything until you know how the "ranking" is done.
I don't know what study you are looking at, but I have seen some breakdowns of many of these studies.
They give points for things like equal distribution of health care. Thus, if it is more equally distributed, it gets bonus ranking points, even if what is evenly distributed is not the same quality as other countries.
As a result, if knee replacement is only available after a 6 month wait, but it is available to everyone then, the system ranks it higher than the US where it is available to some immediately, while others have to wait.
Likewise, in every system someone makes the decision as to what is available. It is impossible to have a system where everything is available to everyone. Thus, in Europe if something is not available, that doesn't hurt the ranking as much because it isn't available to everyone, so it's equal, which is good.
I have been going to Europe almost every year since 1975, and I constantly read the European press when I am there. I hear more grousing ever year. For some reason, there is a lot of trouble in paradise.
Funny story: Years ago I was in Tuscany and started talking to the couple sitting next to me in a cafe. He was an architect from the US, living in France and building hospitals. I asked him why the French hired a US firm. He said they have build so few hospitals in the past 15 years, that they needed a US firm to design them so they would be up to date. And who has experience building hospitals?
I was in the hospital in Montreal as a patient once. Compared to Ceders or St. John's, it was pretty basic.
Finally, there is one of the great mysteries of life. If things are so good in Oslo or Stockholm why is the emigration rate (rate not numbers) from Norway and/or Sweden to the US so much higher than the almost non-existent rate the other way. (Don't say climate. They move to Chicago and New York as well as L.A.) Could it be that life is better here?
Health care in Europe is summed up by the saying "Capitalism is the unequal sharing of the wealth. Socialism is the equal sharing of the misery." (I think C.K. Chesterton, but not sure.)
I don't see how BHO and the Dems come up with ANYTHING that will make our health care better.
My guess is their first step will be to purchase insurance for the "47 million" (even though many choose to be there). At some point corporations will find ways to start shedding employee coverage to the "new" system (Dems are actually counting on that). Then a tipping point is reached and phase two is imposed.
We can thank the federal government messing with wage a price controls during WWI for the mess we're in today. This is when employers really started offering fringe benefits in order to compete in the tight labor market.
and you are right, I choose to be there. It is a conscious decision and one I don't take lightly.
Since I am responsible for my own doctor bills I don't abuse the system. I swear my twenty year old secretary has been to the doctor more times in the last six months than I have in the last thirty years.
We are supposed to be a nation of individuals, proud of our independence. WTF turned us into a nation of pussies looking to others to take care of us?
rugged individualism.
I am involved (hands on) with a couple of missions that provide shelter for homeless people.
The great majority work
and the worst cases I've seen are people that had it all - the million dollar mcmansion and nice cars etc but lost it all due to medical expenses. Thinking of themselves as so much better than the other folks we serve, they have the hardest time managing.
I started with nothing, have gone bust several times and am no better than anybody else. If I go bust again, I'll pick myself up, dust myself off and go do it again.
I do get your point however, but people who live in Mcmansions and drive nice cars already can afford health insurance. I know I can, I just choose not to. It is a risk I am shouldering of my own free will, if I am diagnosed with cancer or some other catastrophic disease tomorrow it would probably wipe me out as well.
The difference between me and these "rich" people who are now homeless is that I freely admit I chose to take this risk. Anyone living the high life who chooses not to take out insurance is gambling, anyone who doesn't admit it is a hypocrite.
BTW I have no intentions of "self insuring" forever. I am an individualist, not an idiot. My point is I am willing to be a responible person who makes fiscally responsible decisions in re to my own future, why should I pay for those who are irresponsible and who make bad decisions?
How many of her visits are to get an abortion, from when her boss knocks her up, lol.
I would fire her, but she is 20, hott, and we have sex at least five or six times a week. How do you fire a girl like that?
if you need to, can you give her airfare to Vegas as severance?
MUCH worse in results due to the tremendously large size.
for profit / privately owned structure
the only way to do it right would be from the ground up, by building a new public system over a generation or two (or three) alongside the existing system before eventually replacing "for profit" medical care altogether.
I agree. The profit motive is a barbaric motivation when it is applied to health care. Many posters here seem to think that people who can't afford health care should have none.
The poor don't have none. They just don't have the same.
No one goes "without" health care, but there is no reason for me to work my ass off so I can afford the "best" just so the government can steal my money so we can all be equal.
People strive to be the "best they can be" for selfish reasons, but society as a whole is the beneficiary of these "better mousetraps" that are the result of the work of ambitious people.
Making money is not evil. Pure unadulterated greed without oversight is foolish, but many good things come out of a motivation to make money.
because the one who sought wealth needed resources and manpower from the US to accomplish this.
These days are for the most part long gone.
Society no longer benefits from creating and concentrating wealth in few hands. In fact, doing so empowers a tiny minority to effectively limit the excercise of individual liberties, which mean little when a few persons seeking to further their own interests may at a whim dispossess you of your career / home / etc.
As far as fairness goes, the US has always struggled to have a government "by the poeple and for the poeple". We are losing this struggle, witness the fact that taxpayer money (or money printed against a static gold reserve) is being used to prop up the ultra rich....
Those 60s aphorisms about the pursuit of wealth improving society are passe. We no longer pursue wealth by creating businesses in pursuit of stability over business cycles and greater market share. Now we create businesses as a vehicle for the enrichment of a very few.
Should the government intervene? No. This is the right of the few and powerful. However, neither should the government give any bailout, tax break, or public business to those who operate against the public / national interest.
what does that have to do with the government taking my hard earned money to pay for the health care of others? There is already a safety net for the destitute, it's the rest of us who are going to end up getting screwed.
What's next, a government stipend for all people to have some type of minimum lifestyle? Who is going to set that bar, and why should I be forced to pay for the lazy and the stupid?
None of this is going to really effect those in need, all this was ever intended to do is shift the balance of economic power from private enterprise to government. What better way to recruit the masses to give up their self determination than to use class warfare. Blame the "rich" claim to champion the poor and the poor dumb slobs will sign over their very lives in the hope that someone will look after them.
we have come to rely on government to do because the sheer scope of them requires a nationalized approach. Should we be rugged individualists and all be responsible for the condition of the roads adjacent to our properties? All strap on our tools and go maintain the schools our kids go to? etc etc
Since the standard of living is uniformly higher in the EU, and per capita productivity as well, your argument, though based in tradidtional 50s/60s American thought, does not survive contact with the evidence. People do not lose interest in providing for themselves and their families just because government takes on responsibility for certain public works or public interest sectors of the economy.
and drawing two completely different conclusions. You admire the European way of things, I find them stifling. You believe that people enjoy a higher standard of living in Europe, I disagree vehemently.
I have no desire to emulate Europe,but I do believe that as individuality becomes nothing but a memory in this country we are doomed to follow down their road, I just don't look forward to the prospect.
No, actually, this plan would make employers more reluctant to hire vets, because their insurance plans could wind up being required to foot the bill for costly and long term care related to service injuries.
Currently, the VA does bill veteran's insurance companies for any care provided through the VA that is not service related. The difference here is that the policy of billing insurance companies would be extended to also recoup the cost of caring for injuries related to service.
I am a perfect example of what this change would look like. I am a veteran, and while in service, I injured my back, herniating three of the disks in my lower back. When I left the service, I had to fight for about 2 years, but was finally rewarded a 0% disability rating. In essence, it was acknowledged that the injury to my back was service related, but does not impair my ability to work, hence no money involved. Just an assurance that I will always be able to recieve care for my back.
Today, I still recieve care through the VA for all of my health needs. I also have a private pay health insurance policy. When I am seen at the VA for routine care - check ups, medications, etc, the VA bills my health insurance for reimbursement. However, when I get physical therapy on my back, which I still do periodically, and when I see a chiropractor for my back, which I also do, that care is NOT reimbursed by my insurance company. The cost of taking care of my back is covered 100% by the VA. Here is the thing though, that alot of people aren't aware of - even if I dind't have insurance, I could still recieve care through the VA for all my health care needs, except dental and optical. Every year I submit a form declaring my income, and based on that, the VA determines my cost for paying for my care. I pay co-pays on doctor's visits and medications based on my income, but I will always qualify for care through the VA as long as I live, even if I didn't have a disability rating.
What Obama is proposing would mean that my insurance comapny would be billed for all of my care, including treatment of service related disabilities. The problem with doing that is that it would shift the cost to the insurance companies. This may seem a small thing now, but in a decade or so it would shift a huge cost to insurance companies due to the number of injuries related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Employers interviewing an Iraq vet with disabilities related to their service would be reluctant to hire the veteran because of the potential insurance costs. My concern with this policy is that for some veterans, this policy could render them uninsurable, and shift the cost of all of their health care, not just care related to their disability, to the VA system. In essence, this policy would very likely create more cost for the VA than it would alleviate.
My point was about the larger, longer term plan for universal, national healthcare and how it is intended to increase costs to employers (as this VA thing does for companies that already employ Vets). The more difficult and expensive these interim plans can make things for employers, the more likely those employers are to succumb to the death by a thousand paper cuts and simply surrender their control.
I was aware of that situation. I had a retired (but not yet on Medicare) and poor friend. He received all of his care through the local VA.
p.s. I’m sitting in a K.C. hotel tonight wondering why you aren’t with me.