If the mandate is struck down, can the rest of Obamacare still stand?

[Dr.Who]

Wrong. We have rationing right now. Health care is rationed to those with money, and those who are on welfare. The working poor are completely left out in the cold. One of the standard objections to a larger number of people having health care is that we would have "long lines". In other words, there's a need, right now, for health care, and some folks simply aren't getting it. Their rations are given out elsewhere.

Still not correct. The working poor can pay for health care and then go on medicaid when they can no longer pay.

There are no people who are not getting it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Rationing is the controlled distribution of scarce resources, goods, or services. Rationing controls the size of the ration, one's allotted portion of the resources being distributed on a particular day or at a particular time.​

Healthcare is not rationed. The fact that I can't afford to consume steak smothered in caviar with a lobster tail on the side, and wash it all down with a bottle of Dom Perignon, every night for dinner does not mean those things are being rationed.

Some people are getting hung up on the analogy. While it was a fine analogy it need not even be employed to make the statement. Here goes:


Healthcare is not rationed. The fact that I can't afford to pay for a hospital room with a color tv and a new EKG, in a hospital with a new MRI, every time I get sick does not mean those things are being rationed. Especially since when I cannot pay for them someone else will pay for them anyway and I will not be turned away.

Is it a problem that someone else pays for them? Yes but it is less of a problem than having the governemnt force someone else to pay for them.

 

[GenSeneca]

The answer to question one is NO.

The answer to question two is NO.

Perhaps I misunderstood... Please specify the exact industries that you believe should be non-profit in realtion to healthcare.

Healthcare in the United States should not be based on the ability, or inability, of our citizens to pay for the healthcare they need to stay alive.

This is an example of where you seem to be conflating two separate issues. Is your problem with the health insurance industry or with the healthcare industry?

If your problem is with allowing profit in the healthcare industry, then you should want every institution and industry that supplies the HC industry with doctors, nurses, medical supplies, equipment, etc., to also be run as non-profits. Aren't the profits of those supporting industries making it more expensive for the HC industry to get what it needs?

Government control is not the answer. Private control is not the answer. The answer lies somewhere in-between...

You just described the system you're complaining about.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Perhaps I misunderstood... Please specify the exact industries that you believe should be non-profit in realtion to healthcare.

This is an example of where you seem to be conflating two separate issues. Is your problem with the health insurance industry or with the healthcare industry?

If your problem is with allowing profit in the healthcare industry, then you should want every institution and industry that supplies the HC industry with doctors, nurses, medical supplies, equipment, etc., to also be run as non-profits. Aren't the profits of those supporting industries making it more expensive for the HC industry to get what it needs?

You just described the system you're complaining about.

I already made myself very clear.

My "problem" is with health care in-general, how it is administered, the massive fraud that occurs, and how the quality of health care a person receives is too often based on how much, or how little, money they have.

Health care should not be treated as a "supply and demand", for-profit industry. All levels of health care providers should be subject to a nationwide salary structure, based on expertise, competence, experience, and performance.

Health care providers should not be paid like assembly line workers who are paid based on their "output". We are dealing with human beings here, not car parts or computer components.

Massive reduction and control of medical fraud is also a very key component that has to be addressed.

I could go on and on. Hopefully you have a better idea of where I am coming from.

 

[Pepper]

Rick, your statement is an admission that the free market cannot fix the problem alone. Those with preexisting conditions are left out of the market.

I have already provided the HF position paper from the 90s, which shows their support for the individual mandate. This is not disputable.

The public option does not mean letting people die. It's a plan for people without other access to insurance.

You are pulling the 99.9% number out of thin air. Insurance companies work hard to disallow claims. It's routine.

Again, Rick, you are mistaken about Canadian health care.

 

[Pepper]

Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.

Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?

Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.

A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more).

Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.

Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designed to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.

If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.

That's fine with me, but the alternative is the public option, and the right wing screamed like stuck pigs when it was proposed.

Before obamacare we already had a situation in which every single citizen of this country had access to health care regardless of the ability to pay.

You are factually mistaken. While ERs have to treat, people do not have access to health care. You cannot call the ER health care. The ER cannot do open heart surgery or provide chemotherapy. The ER isn't set up to do cancer screenings or vaccinations.

Actually we have NO people in this country who do not have access to health care. If they are poor they get medicaid and if they have money they can pay. If they are in between then they can either become rich and pay or become poor and get medicaid.

You are not familiar with the facts. There are people in between those categories.

 

[Pepper]

Some people are getting hung up on the analogy. While it was a fine analogy it need not even be employed to make the statement. Here goes:


Healthcare is not rationed. The fact that I can't afford to pay for a hospital room with a color tv and a new EKG, in a hospital with a new MRI, every time I get sick does not mean those things are being rationed. Especially since when I cannot pay for them someone else will pay for them anyway and I will not be turned away.

Is it a problem that someone else pays for them? Yes but it is less of a problem than having the governemnt force someone else to pay for them.

Right. It doesn't mean those things, because you've taken it upon yourself to redefine rationed. However, in the real world, we agree upon the meaning of words. Health care is rationed based on income and access.

No one is talking about a color TV or a the age of the equipment. You are using buzzwords to distract.

This is a society. We do not all agree on how every tax dollar is spent. We are all routinely "forced" to pay for things that we don't agree with. For example, I had no interest in invading Iraq, but my elected officials decided to go to war, and I still have to pay the bill for it. It's called being a citizen in a free society. Not everything goes my way, but I have more input into how things go than the average person has had in the history of the world.

 

[GenSeneca]

Some people are getting hung up on the analogy. While it was a fine analogy it need not even be employed to make the statement. Here goes:

Fine work Dr...

Don't you dare make a profit though.

Healthcare is not rationed. The fact that I can't afford to pay for a hospital room with a color tv and a new EKG, in a hospital with a new MRI, every time I get sick does not mean those things are being rationed. Especially since when I cannot pay for them someone else will pay for them anyway and I will not be turned away.

The same people who had a problem with my analogy will make some excuse as to why your incredibly realistic and accurate statements are not applicable.

 

[GenSeneca]

All levels of health care providers should be subject to a nationwide salary structure, based on expertise, competence, experience, and performance.

I still don't understand why you think this should only apply to the health care industry and not to the supporting industries that supply everything used by the health care industry.

 

[Pepper]

Fine work Dr...

Don't you dare make a profit though.


The same people who had a problem with my analogy will make some excuse as to why your incredibly realistic and accurate statements are not applicable.

You need a snicker emoticon.

 

[GenSeneca]

you've taken it upon yourself to redefine rationed.

Rationing is the controlled distribution of scarce resources, goods, or services.​

1. Who controls the distribution of health care?
2. Is there a shortage of health care available?

However, in the real world, we agree upon the meaning of words.

Unless of course those words are "rich", "poor", "fair", "rationing", etc... Then those of us who use the dictionary definitions are said to be redefining the words.

Health care is rationed based on income and access.

Everyone has equal access but you do have to pay for the service. I know it sucks... You actually have to pay people who provide you a service rather than forcing your nieghbor to pay for the services you get but that's life.

It's called being a citizen in a free society.

I'll go ahead and add "free" to the list of relative terms.

 

[Pepper]

Rationing is the controlled distribution of scarce resources, goods, or services.​

1. Who controls the distribution of health care?
2. Is there a shortage of health care available?


Unless of course those words are "rich", "poor", "fair", "rationing", etc... Then those of us who use the dictionary definitions are said to be redefining the words.


Everyone has equal access but you do have to pay for the service. I know it sucks... You actually have to pay people who provide you a service rather than forcing your nieghbor to pay for the services you get but that's life.


I'll go ahead and add "free" to the list of relative terms.

I provided you with a link to explain how health care is rationed-it is rationed by income. It is a human necessity, and it is rationed by income. Your only defense to is redefine the term rationing.

During the health care debate, it was frequently mentioned by the opponents of reform that making more people eligible would result in long lines. Therefore, YES, there is a shortage.

Health care is available to those with either health insurance, great wealth, or a combination of both. It is rationed. Everyone does not have equal access.

 

[Dr.Who]

I provided you with a link to explain how health care is rationed-it is rationed by income. It is a human necessity, and it is rationed by income. Your only defense to is redefine the term rationing.

GenSenica's post was consistent with a dictionary definition of rationing while you are creating a new definition of rationing. Rationing DOES refer to a situation when someone is allowed or allotted access to a resource usually by some authority. Rationing does NOT refer to a situation where a resource is unavailable due to lack of money.

During the health care debate, it was frequently mentioned by the opponents of reform that making more people eligible would result in long lines. Therefore, YES, there is a shortage.

When and if Obama care creates long lines then there will be rationing because access will be determined by who gives you your allotted place in line. But right now it is not rationed. In fact right now there is not even a shortage because no one is denied health care right now.

Health care is available to those with either health insurance, great wealth, or a combination of both. It is rationed. Everyone does not have equal access.

Health care is available to those with health insurance, great wealth, any wealth, or the ability to ask any hospital social worker to fill out the medicaid forms for them - that is everyone. No one is presently denied health care.

But you are right that it is not equal because the people who rely on the government program have significantly poorer results from the health care they get. The government program is the worst of them all and we should not move in that direction.

 

[Pepper]

GenSenica's post was consistent with a dictionary definition of rationing while you are creating a new definition of rationing. Rationing DOES refer to a situation when someone is allowed or allotted access to a resource usually by some authority. Rationing does NOT refer to a situation where a resource is unavailable due to lack of money.

Well, no. I didn't create the definition. Try to understand the term at a more complex level than a single sentence in a dictionary. I provided a Wikipedia article, and that article explains why health care can correctly be called "rationed" in the United States.

Some groups have coverage through Medicaid, others through private coverage, and most of us get insurance through work. The richest people [think Rush Limbaugh, Mitt Romney, the late Ted Kennedy] can get all the health care they want by forking over cash. So people from the very poor to the very rich can get care-money isn't the issue.

The working poor, the temporarily unemployed, and those with a preexisting condition are denied coverage. We aren't talking about a lack of money. A person with the same income as I can lack access to health care because they have a preexisting condition.

When and if Obama care creates long lines then there will be rationing because access will be determined by who gives you your allotted place in line. But right now it is not rationed. In fact right now there is not even a shortage because no one is denied health care right now.

Please think about the illogic of what you're saying. In one sentence, you claim that if the currently uninsured get health care, we will have long lines, and in the next, you claim that no one is denied health care.

Health care is available to those with health insurance, great wealth, any wealth, or the ability to ask any hospital social worker to fill out the medicaid forms for them - that is everyone. No one is presently denied health care.

The only way to respond to this is to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. You are arguing a point you know nothing about.

But you are right that it is not equal because the people who rely on the government program have significantly poorer results from the health care they get. The government program is the worst of them all and we should not move in that direction.

That unsourced claim aside, the ACA addresses the needs of those who currently have no coverage, allowing them to enter into exchanges and supplementing their purchase of private policies. No problem, even if your claim were accurate.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, no. I didn't create the definition. Try to understand the term at a more complex level than a single sentence in a dictionary. I provided a Wikipedia article, and that article explains why health care can correctly be called "rationed" in the United States.

usually I like wiki but we must always remember it is written by anonymous people on the net.

Here is what you the wiki article said:

"Healthcare rationing in the United States exists in various forms. Access to private health care insurance is rationed based on price and ability to pay. Those not able to afford a health insurance policy are unable to acquire one, and sometimes insurance companies pre-screen applicants for pre-existing medical conditions and either decline to cover the applicant or apply additional price and medical coverage conditions.[1][2][3] Access to state Medicaid programs is restricted by income and asset limits via a means-test, and to other federal and state eligibility regulations. Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that commonly cover the bulk of the population, restrict access to treatment via financial and clinical access limits.[4]"

In the very first sentence it made the mistake of confusing health care with insurance. Access to private insurance is indeed limited to those who can pay but everybody can get health care. Shoddy shoddy shoddy.

The article even shows that all people will either get their health care through private insurance or through Medicaid. Medicare and private insurance and personal wealth together provides a complete health care system that is not limited despite each one having limits.

The wiki article also does not provide a definition of rationing and violates the definition that Gen provided.

The article states that if health care is a limited resource that it must be rationed. But in a country in which not a single solitary citizen does not have access to health care how can it be called a limited resource?

I started a thread here asking for one example of a single person who does not have access to health care and to date no one has provided a sample. Anyone care to provide a link for Pepper?