Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
In this article reasons for keeping Obamacare (universal healthcare) are argued. Lets see if any of then hold water.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...economy_has_universal_health_care_114447.html
"No country can be modern spending twice what its rich competitors do on health care while leaving millions without any coverage."
We spend more because we get better care and no one, not a one, is without healthcare. Our system is far superior to any other modern country both in terms of results in what matters (being cured from disease) and in terms of costs when one considers that we cover far more procedures in much more luxurious accommodations. But if we really wanted to start denying as many procedures and drugs as other countries and housing multiple people in one room with outdated equipment then I don't want that kind of "modern"
[if we don't get Obamacare] then it's back to the past, back to the economy-dragging health care mess we've been calling a "system."
A universal system would be a much larger drag on the economy though I admit that the system we had until recently did indeed need improvement. Most of the problems it had were a result of government and adding more governmental red tape and authority will only make things worse not better.
"Republicans say that Americans don't want top-down government control of their health care. But what we have now is top-down corporate control of health care. Insurers, drugmakers, sellers of expensive equipment, hospital executives, labs, home-health-care services and others unnamed prosper by exploiting the chaos in our health care system."
True that Americans do not want Obamacare - by about 70%. The so-called corporate control does give the consumer more control than obamacare would and the only reason corporations have too much control is that the government has been sleeping with them. Almost all of the "chaos" is caused by government in the first place. The solution is to reduce the government caused chaos not to give government even more control over our lives.
"They get other payers (be they private or government) to purchase $50 drugs when $10 drugs are just as effective. They make more money if patients have to be readmitted into the hospital. They profit from pushing surgery, when careful watching or less invasive therapy might do the trick at far lower cost and risk. They casually order CT scans without much thought to the expense or the patients' exposure to radiation."
This sort of waste is of course the opposite of rationing. Right now patients are completely in control of saying "yes" or "no" to each and every drug and procedure. If we are getting too much then it is because that is what we want. Remember the first argument in which it was said that we pay too much. That is a direct result of us getting more than people in other countries. The solution is to re-establish the connection between the person that pays the bills and the person that gets paid. As long as people think they are getting something for free they will make the choices (remember that choice is good according to liberals) to spend too much of what they think of as other people's money. We should not be tricked into rationing but should also not be tricked into thinking that procedures are paid for by other people.
"Here's the point of an individual mandate requiring the uninsured to obtain coverage. [] The plans can't remain solvent if young and healthy people can choose not to join them, leaving an insurance pool heavy with expensive sick people."
So choice is good when babies are being killed abut not when people decide that they would rather not belong to the forced-to-pay-for-insurance club. Is it my body or not? If it is my body then shouldn't it be me who decides how to pay for caring for it?
"The 2006 Massachusetts health reforms, put into place by then-Gov. Mitt Romney, served as the model for the Affordable Care Act. Republican politics being what they are, Romney is now vowing to kill the national version of his reforms should he be elected president."
Who knows why Romney supported one and not this one. Politics? State's rights? I am glad though that he does oppose this oh so very wrong law and wants it repealed.
"For example, providers may bill for every little test and treatment. Proposed legislation would encourage paying "flat fees" to doctors, hospitals and others to deal with the problem. That would remove the incentive to overprescribe care and reward those who do it right the first time."
Do you really want your doctor to make treatment plans and order tests based on a flat fee? Do you want him deciding to treat you all the while being incentivized to offer treatment by constantly trying to cut corners? I want my doctor to offer as much as he can and then for me to make an informed decision.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...economy_has_universal_health_care_114447.html
"No country can be modern spending twice what its rich competitors do on health care while leaving millions without any coverage."
We spend more because we get better care and no one, not a one, is without healthcare. Our system is far superior to any other modern country both in terms of results in what matters (being cured from disease) and in terms of costs when one considers that we cover far more procedures in much more luxurious accommodations. But if we really wanted to start denying as many procedures and drugs as other countries and housing multiple people in one room with outdated equipment then I don't want that kind of "modern"
[if we don't get Obamacare] then it's back to the past, back to the economy-dragging health care mess we've been calling a "system."
A universal system would be a much larger drag on the economy though I admit that the system we had until recently did indeed need improvement. Most of the problems it had were a result of government and adding more governmental red tape and authority will only make things worse not better.
"Republicans say that Americans don't want top-down government control of their health care. But what we have now is top-down corporate control of health care. Insurers, drugmakers, sellers of expensive equipment, hospital executives, labs, home-health-care services and others unnamed prosper by exploiting the chaos in our health care system."
True that Americans do not want Obamacare - by about 70%. The so-called corporate control does give the consumer more control than obamacare would and the only reason corporations have too much control is that the government has been sleeping with them. Almost all of the "chaos" is caused by government in the first place. The solution is to reduce the government caused chaos not to give government even more control over our lives.
"They get other payers (be they private or government) to purchase $50 drugs when $10 drugs are just as effective. They make more money if patients have to be readmitted into the hospital. They profit from pushing surgery, when careful watching or less invasive therapy might do the trick at far lower cost and risk. They casually order CT scans without much thought to the expense or the patients' exposure to radiation."
This sort of waste is of course the opposite of rationing. Right now patients are completely in control of saying "yes" or "no" to each and every drug and procedure. If we are getting too much then it is because that is what we want. Remember the first argument in which it was said that we pay too much. That is a direct result of us getting more than people in other countries. The solution is to re-establish the connection between the person that pays the bills and the person that gets paid. As long as people think they are getting something for free they will make the choices (remember that choice is good according to liberals) to spend too much of what they think of as other people's money. We should not be tricked into rationing but should also not be tricked into thinking that procedures are paid for by other people.
"Here's the point of an individual mandate requiring the uninsured to obtain coverage. [] The plans can't remain solvent if young and healthy people can choose not to join them, leaving an insurance pool heavy with expensive sick people."
So choice is good when babies are being killed abut not when people decide that they would rather not belong to the forced-to-pay-for-insurance club. Is it my body or not? If it is my body then shouldn't it be me who decides how to pay for caring for it?
"The 2006 Massachusetts health reforms, put into place by then-Gov. Mitt Romney, served as the model for the Affordable Care Act. Republican politics being what they are, Romney is now vowing to kill the national version of his reforms should he be elected president."
Who knows why Romney supported one and not this one. Politics? State's rights? I am glad though that he does oppose this oh so very wrong law and wants it repealed.
"For example, providers may bill for every little test and treatment. Proposed legislation would encourage paying "flat fees" to doctors, hospitals and others to deal with the problem. That would remove the incentive to overprescribe care and reward those who do it right the first time."
Do you really want your doctor to make treatment plans and order tests based on a flat fee? Do you want him deciding to treat you all the while being incentivized to offer treatment by constantly trying to cut corners? I want my doctor to offer as much as he can and then for me to make an informed decision.
