Republicans rolling out alternatives to OCare

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

– Norman Thomas, American socialist

Just sayin', Aquila.....

Again, any system that treats anyone who walks through the ER doors is a social system. Everyone already pays for those who are uninsured and seek treatments in ERs, clinics, and doctor's offices... with added administrative costs, liability insurance costs, etc. The only way to get EVERYONE paying SOMETHING is to go Single Payer. We pay taxes to ensure that we have police, fire, roads, EMS, etc. These services are there to serve everyone, even if we don't call upon them but once a year. Unless they go "Free Market" and turn those away who can't pay, the only way to fund a system that serves everyone is to get as many as possible paying something into it so that providers of care get paid and don't pass the costs down to everyone else. You can't have it any other way. The costs will rise and rise until no one can afford it unless we have nearly everyone paying into the system.

What's the difference between paying for the uninsured via ever rising and inflated costs on the private market (the loss being passed down to us) and a socialized system (like expanded Medicare/Medicaid) that stabilizes costs and cuts out the inflated costs of excessive administration? That caps the amount awarded in lawsuits to stabilize liability insurance costs? That finally allows those who provide care to finally be paid? A system that stops the bleeding? Why should doctors do insurance paperwork for hours and hours when they could be providing care??? Doctors are getting sick of it. They got into medicine to serve the sick and research disease to help humanity. Why relegate them to this???

We shirk away and whine about "socialism". The doctors will not be government employees. They will remain private. It's simply like being on Medicare/Medicaid. It's subsidized insurance to pay private practitioners so they can stop passing the loss down to us in higher costs for care and thereby raising insurance premiums.

[Aquila]

Everyone keeps asking, "Why should I pay for others?" You already are! That's why your premiums are so high! So... if we're going to pay for everyone... doesn't it make sense to pay for everyone in the least expensive way possible???

I have friends and family in Canada. They have a card. They go to the doctor. The doctor is paid via their plan. The costs are therefore more stable than here. Our rates are rising exponentially. And everyone time we slow pay or don't pay everyone else fits the bill. Not to mention... over 45,000 die each year from treatable conditions because they don't have insurance and can't afford the treatments. Most of the time these have tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid bills that relate to their examinations, hospital stays, and ER visits... and we pay for a good portion of that. Yet they say we don't ration care? Wrong. We ration care. However, we don't ration it based on priority... we ration it based on ability to pay.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, any system that treats anyone who walks through the ER doors is a social system. Everyone already pays for those who are uninsured and seek treatments in ERs, clinics, and doctor's offices... with added administrative costs, liability insurance costs, etc. The only way to get EVERYONE paying SOMETHING is to go Single Payer. We pay taxes to ensure that we have police, fire, roads, EMS, etc. These services are there to serve everyone, even if we don't call upon them but once a year. Unless they go "Free Market" and turn those away who can't pay, the only way to fund a system that serves everyone is to get as many as possible paying something into it so that providers of care get paid and don't pass the costs down to everyone else. You can't have it any other way. The costs will rise and rise until no one can afford it unless we have nearly everyone paying into the system.

What's the difference between paying for the uninsured via ever rising and inflated costs on the private market (the loss being passed down to us) and a socialized system (like expanded Medicare/Medicaid) that stabilizes costs and cuts out the inflated costs of excessive administration? That caps the amount awarded in lawsuits to stabilize liability insurance costs? That finally allows those who provide care to finally be paid? A system that stops the bleeding? Why should doctors do insurance paperwork for hours and hours when they could be providing care??? Doctors are getting sick of it. They got into medicine to serve the sick and research disease to help humanity. Why relegate them to this???

We shirk away and whine about "socialism". The doctors will not be government employees. They will remain private. It's simply like being on Medicare/Medicaid. It's subsidized insurance to pay private practitioners so they can stop passing the loss down to us in higher costs for care and thereby raising insurance premiums.

Altruism always sounds great, but you have to address the issue that doctors salaries will go down. You'd have to include some education reform and medical malpractice reform to address physicians issues with a single payer system. Policy experts are not qualified as much as physicians are to discuss this issue. A deduction of salary probably is not going to cover the overhead expenses. That in turn can affect quality of care. I am waiting to hear everything that rolls out as a free market option.

You can site Canada all day long, but we do have RonB who posted in the past about how long it took for his ankle issue (metal pins) to be addressed. It was a paperwork and waiting game nightmare from what I remember.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Altruism always sounds great, but you have to address the issue that doctors salaries will go down. You'd have to include some education reform and medical malpractice reform to address physicians issues with a single payer system. Policy experts are not qualified as much as physicians are to discuss this issue. A deduction of salary probably is not going to cover the overhead expenses. That in turn can affect quality of care.

Salaries will not go down as much as most think. They will become more competitive. And doctors will not have to pay as much in malpractice liability insurance seeing that lawsuits will be capped. So even if salaries go down a certain percentage, it will be made up for in other savings.

I am waiting to hear everything that rolls out as a free market option.

There is no such thing as a "free market" option. Unless we treat medicine like a free market commodity, there can't be. Again, imagine a car dealership working like healthcare. A person doesn't have financing or cash in hand. So the dealership gives them a car and bills them. They don't pay the bill. Guess what, the dealer will pass that loss down to the consumer. The effect... the price of the cars sold in that dealership will skyrocket until few can afford them. Car dealerships are "free market". That means unless one has financing or cash, they DON'T drive off with a new car! Medicine can only be handled like a free market service IF they choose NOT to treat those without insurance or cash to cover the service rendered. That's what most don't get. As long as it's an open system that treats anyone who wanders into the ER... it's a social system rather private... or government. And all loss is ultimately passed down to the consumer in higher healthcare costs... thereby raising premiums. So... you'll NEVER hear a free market option! LOL

The closest thing to a free market option is the ACA. It FORCES the uninsured to buy insurance from private insurance providers. It's essentially GOVERNMENT marching people into the hands of health insurance conglomerates at gun point. Again, the goal is to get as many as possible paying SOMETHING into the system. This would be far better achieved through Single Payer.

You can site Canada all day long, but we do have RonB who posted in the past about how long it took for his ankle issue (metal pins) to be addressed. It was a paperwork and waiting game nightmare from what I remember.

No system is perfect. What amazes me is that a person might wait a while to get a non-life threatening surgery in Canada because of a paperwork problem... but they eventually get the care they need. Every year an estimated 45,000 Americans DIE because they can't afford the car they need... but nobody cares??? I'm sure many of those families would have rather had a system where there were some clerical mishaps... but ultimately their loved one's received the care they needed. Keep in mind... many people know one of those uninsured people who couldn't afford the treatments they needed. If they would have had insurance... they could have had the checkups and treatments they needed. But they couldn't afford it. Healthcare was rationed, right here in the U.S., to those who could afford it. And they died as a result.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Salaries will not go down as much as most think. They will become more competitive. And doctors will not have to pay as much in malpractice liability insurance seeing that lawsuits will be capped. So even if salaries go down a certain percentage, it will be made up for in other savings.



There is no such thing as a "free market" option. Unless we treat medicine like a free market commodity, there can't be. Again, imagine a car dealership working like healthcare. A person doesn't have financing or cash in hand. So the dealership gives them a car and bills them. They don't pay the bill. Guess what, the dealer will pass that loss down to the consumer. The effect... the price of the cars sold in that dealership will skyrocket until few can afford them. Car dealerships are "free market". That means unless one has financing or cash, they DON'T drive off with a new car! Medicine can only be handled like a free market service IF they choose NOT to treat those without insurance or cash to cover the service rendered. That's what most don't get. As long as it's an open system that treats anyone who wanders into the ER... it's a social system rather private... or government. And all loss is ultimately passed down to the consumer in higher healthcare costs... thereby raising premiums. So... you'll NEVER hear a free market option! LOL

The closest thing to a free market option is the ACA. It FORCES the uninsured to buy insurance from private insurance providers. It's essentially GOVERNMENT marching people into the hands of health insurance conglomerates at gun point. Again, the goal is to get as many as possible paying SOMETHING into the system. This would be far better achieved through Single Payer.



No system is perfect. What amazes me is that a person might wait a while to get a non-life threatening surgery in Canada because of a paperwork problem... but they eventually get the care they need. Every year an estimated 45,000 Americans DIE because they can't afford the car they need... but nobody cares??? I'm sure many of those families would have rather had a system where there were some clerical mishaps... but ultimately their loved one's received the care they needed. Keep in mind... many people know one of those uninsured people who couldn't afford the treatments they needed. If they would have had insurance... they could have had the checkups and treatments they needed. But they couldn't afford it. Healthcare was rationed, right here in the U.S., to those who could afford it. And they died as a result.

I have more to say about your post, but don't have time today.

However, I will post this interview with Betsy McCaughey who is brilliant on the Constitution and has read every single line of the Obamacare bill. She already knew they wanted to push everyone toward Medicaid so as to implement a Single Payer system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99IiglbyA_4

The Truth Behind Obamacare Enrollment Numbers video interview with Neil Cavuto.
http://betsymccaughey.com/the-truth-...lment-numbers/

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I have more to say about your post, but don't have time today.

However, I will post this interview with Betsy McCaughey who is brilliant on the Constitution and has read every single line of the Obamacare bill. She already knew they wanted to push everyone toward Medicaid so as to implement a Single Payer system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99IiglbyA_4

The Truth Behind Obamacare Enrollment Numbers video interview with Neil Cavuto.
http://betsymccaughey.com/the-truth-...lment-numbers/

Exactly, when people experience how expensive insurance truly is... and then they see the savings Single Payer will provide... they will be far more likely to embrace it. Also, consider the corporate bureaucracy, people will want something far more simple.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Exactly, when people experience how expensive insurance truly is... and then they see the savings Single Payer will provide... they will be far more likely to embrace it. Also, consider the corporate bureaucracy, people will want something far more simple.

As Betsy states in the video, Section 1311 of the ACA puts the Secretary of Health and Human Services in charge to dictate how your doctor treats you, empowering that person to impose regulations on doctors and hospitals. She goes on to state that Section 3,000(a) awards bonus points to hospitals that spend the least per Senior – not patient, but Senior.

Americans, at first glance, might think that the idea of a single-payer system sounds good and is even appealing when we look at our current economic conditions and the rising costs of healthcare.

However, if history tells us anything, any single-payer initiative will end up costing much more than what any of the proponents claim. That will only, in turn, lead us to higher taxes and/or rationing, the government determining what and which medical treatments will and won’t be covered.

We only have to look at Medicare as a primary example. It was signed into law in 1965 and projected to only grow by $9 billion by the year 1990, except that it grew by $66 billion. That is 38 years worth of examination as to what a single-payer system will do to our country.

The government doesn’t negotiate with medical providers in order to lower the prices covered for services. What it does is dictate, as the ACA law is stating in Section 1311, below-market reimbursements with its monopoly power as the primary purchaser of health care. What that does, in turn, is reduce access to quality care.

There are more than 100,000 pages of rules that Medicare patients have to abide by. These rules are dictating what types of services can be covered.

I have a huge problem with a Medicare rule change made in 1999. Any Medicare patient, receiving care at home, is being forced to divulge all personal medical information, sexual information and emotional information.

All of these government contractors record anything a patient tells them. They record whether or not the person is depressed or if they use excessive profanity, etc., etc. This allows each contractor to act as their deputy or proxy , which means a total stranger is speaking for them. That is the situation involved in any single–payer plan. The main point is that all citizens forfeit a confidential doctor-patient relationship.

We are rapidly moving toward a loss of privacy, increased costs, and reduced choices.

Aquila, you might want a single-payer system, but I think if you really look at Medicare as a prime example of what goes wrong when the government is in control, you would change your mind. Well, you might not. LOL! But, my thinking is that if the writers of Obamacare pushed this through with no Republican on board and actually intended to move us into single-payer, it is just blatantly sneaky and dishonest at best.

I will go on to state that the medical industry, which includes Big Pharma, are largely to blame for where we are today. The increased costs have a lot to do with overbilling, dishonest research, etc. But the answer is not forfeiting a doctor-patient relationship. And the answer is not increasing taxes, increasing costs, and reduced choices that a single-payer system would certainly bring us. Competition is the only driving factor for any free-market society. We should have implemented purchasing across state lines to see how that worked for us. It was a simple solution to begin with.

[Pressing-On]

Michael D. Tanner discusses the single payer system on CBN’s NewsWatch (video imbed)
Top down rationing..."The problem with the single-payer system, ultimately, is that it means, someone else besides you is going to be making decisions about your healthcare."

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Michael D. Tanner discusses the single payer system on CBN’s NewsWatch (video imbed)
Top down rationing..."The problem with the single-payer system, ultimately, is that it means, someone else besides you is going to be making decisions about your healthcare."

And you really believe that? lol

I need a surgery on my knee. I have an HSA. However, I don't have the funds for it. Guess what, my surgery is being "rationed" because I don't have the money. I might have to wait until next year. In fact, historically speaking 45,000 Americans die every year from treatable conditions because healthcare was rationed to those who can afford it.

You'd have a case if everyone had care. What's better? A slight delay on elective procedures? Or no treatment at all that could cost a person their life?

I have friends and family in Canada that laugh at these kinds of statements all the time. Is their system perfect? Nope. But, it's better than ours. You have one complaint over the time it took for something non-life threatening in what... every 10,000 cases? Remember, they voted Tommy Douglas (founder of their system) as the most beloved Canadian.

So what would you choose?

A delay of a couple weeks for an ankle surgery? Note (they will have nice meds for you and you'll most likely have paid time off work). Or... no surgery at all because you can't pay for it???

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

And you really believe that? lol

I need a surgery on my knee. I have an HSA. However, I don't have the funds for it. Guess what, my surgery is being "rationed" because I don't have the money. I might have to wait until next year. In fact, historically speaking 45,000 Americans die every year from treatable conditions because healthcare was rationed to those who can afford it.

You'd have a case if everyone had care. What's better? A slight delay on elective procedures? Or no treatment at all that could cost a person their life?

I have friends and family in Canada that laugh at these kinds of statements all the time. Is their system perfect? Nope. But, it's better than ours. You have one complaint over the time it took for something non-life threatening in what... every 10,000 cases? Remember, they voted Tommy Douglas (founder of their system) as the most beloved Canadian.

So what would you choose?

A delay of a couple weeks for an ankle surgery? Note (they will have nice meds for you and you'll most likely have paid time off work). Or... no surgery at all because you can't pay for it???

Waiting and waiting is on the same level as not getting healthcare at all, IMO. Where are the Canadians going to drive to when America makes it illegal to have private practice?

Waiting for health care cost Canadians more than $1B last year: study
March 24, 2014


The report authors say that's just the costs endured in lost work-week productivity. When they looked at hours lost during the evenings and weekends, the estimated cost of waiting jumped from $1.1 billion to $3.4 billion, or an average of $3,681 per patient.

Without sensible health policy reform, waiting will remain a defining characteristic of the Canadian health care experience, and delays, while negatively impacting the health and wellbeing of patients, will also continue to rob patients of valuable time,” Esmail said.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-...#ixzz2yV9YEA7W

My neighbor suffered from ovarian cancer a couple of years ago. Doing a bit of digging and calling around, she found contributions to help pay her medical bills. There are ways without having to wait and without forgoing surgery because you don't have the money.

I agree that both systems are flawed, but I would prefer to be in control of my own healthcare and not my government. I want the leverage and right to seek out my own funding, not be on a waiting list.