Mandatory Health Insurance part 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
And where does it speak to the "right" to free contraception? Free being a misnomer since others would be forced to pay for it, possibly against the teachings of their faith.



where do you have the right to refuse to cover certain medications and not others? you're not buying it outright, nor are you using it yourself. what gives you the right to determine what is and what is not appropriate for someone else's health?
 
where do you have the right to refuse to cover certain medications and not others? you're not buying it outright, nor are you using it yourself. what gives you the right to determine what is and what is not appropriate for someone else's health?

Have you forgotten that private healthcare companies, Medicaid, Medicare and the VA all have drug formularies?

What is the moral argument that because something is medically appropriate it follows that someone else is obligated to pay for it?
 
INDY500 said:
Have you forgotten that private healthcare companies, Medicaid, Medicare and the VA all have drug formularies?

What is the moral argument that because something is medically appropriate it follows that someone else is obligated to pay for it?


Obligated to pay for it? That's a convenient formulation.
 
Further, where does it end? What other treatments can I refuse to cover because I find immoral?

Just a reminder, I'm the guy who thought "healthcare reform" should include severing health insurance from the workplace making discussions such as this moot. Your guy went the other way however. Less choice, less competition, more rules, more taxes and more Barack Obama in our lives.
 
Just a reminder, I'm the guy who thought "healthcare reform" should include severing health insurance from the workplace making discussions such as this moot. Your guy went the other way however. Less choice, less competition, more rules, more taxes and more Barack Obama in our lives.

Except that's been proven not to work. Your way would create the same amount of rules, same choice, same lobbying collectivism among companies, and less actual healthcare for human beings.
 
PrintTemplate

New England Journal of Medicine Blasts Obamacare
Friday, 19 Oct 2012 01:36 PM By Nick Tate

Obamacare will do little to address two of the three major problems facing the U.S. healthcare system — holding down costs and boosting the quality of care for patients, according to a scathing article published in this week’s prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

The “perspective” piece notes that while the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is likely to address the third major challenge facing healthcare — expanding coverage to uninsured Americans — the goals of addressing costs and quality “remain aspirations and promises” without much else in the way of detailed provisions or proposals.

“Although the ACA expands coverage, it ignores the structural problems in the organization and reimbursement of care — a limitation that is disappointing but not surprising,” said the editorial’s author Gail Wilensky, an economist and a senior fellow at Project HOPE, an international health education foundation. “Adding more people to the insurance rolls is politically and technically easier than finding a way to ensure that care is effective, high-quality, and affordable for both the recipients and taxpayers.”

Wilensky said Obamacare’s primary accomplishment is likely to be that some 30 million previously uninsured people may end up with coverage — about half through new state insurance exchanges and the other half through Medicaid expansions.” But she argues the law's controversial individual mandate — requiring all Americans to have insurance coverage or to pay a penalty tax of several hundred dollars — may instead encourage people to postpone buying insurance until they need it. That’s because insurers will not be able to refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, or charge them higher rates.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has projected about 11-12 million Americans will be subject to the individual mandate’s penalties — and half will simply opt to pay the tax.

Among the other key points of the editorial:

MEDICARE CUTS: Obamacare provides Medicare “productivity adjustments,” but unless these institutions find ways to reduce costs, lower Medicare reimbursements will force providers to bargain for higher payments from private insurers. “Eventually, seniors' access to services will be threatened,” she said. “The Medicare actuary expects that 15 percent of institutional providers will lose money on their Medicare business by 2019, and the proportion will increase to 25 percent by 2030.”

NO MARKET-BASED REFORMS: Like Medicare, Obamacare relies on regulatory methods, instead of harnessing market forces, to promote spending reductions and improve quality of care. If that approach fails, the law authorizes an Independent Payment Advisory Board to reduce payments to clinicians and institutions. Although Congress can override the IPAB's recommendations, it can do so only by a three-fifth’s “super majority,” and only if it acts within a limited time and comes up with comparable savings.

“What is needed are reforms that create clear financial incentives that promote value over volume, with active engagement by both consumers and the healthcare sector,” Wilensky added. “Market-friendly reforms require empowering individuals, armed with good information and non-distorting subsidies, to choose the type of Medicare delivery system they want.”

Is anyone surprised that in the center-piece of his presidency Barack “I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever known” Obama went with more bureaucratic control and government regulation rather than market-based reforms and individual empowerment?
 
The reason why most of the developed world has cheaper health care than the US does is because single payer health care systems have monopsony buying power... also known as "government bureaucracy".
 
Actually, that's not what monopsony is, and that's a wild misrepresentation of health care in the rest of the developed world. Moreover, even if government-funded health care did have "rationing"... so? It's just what the government pays for. People could still supplement by paying for their own care, just like what happens in the US now for our entire system.
 
BCBS sure does seem to ration the care I get, and they're also my death panel.

But, hey, better than Barry O, amirite?
 
"Obamacare will do little to address two of the three major problems facing the U.S. healthcare system — holding down costs and boosting the quality of care for patients, according to a scathing article published in this week’s prestigious New England Journal of Medicine."

I was just making the same observation to my wife, as we deal with the huge medical costs involved with having our second child (due in just a few weeks!) even after insurance!

I think most members of this forum will agree with the above, INDY. Many on the left felt Obamacare was weak in it's final form.

We just happen to feel that going back to the previous status quo is no better. It's one step out of three in the right direction.
 
BCBS sure does seem to ration the care I get, and they're also my death panel.

But, hey, better than Barry O, amirite?

I would love to hear INDY explain why insurance company bureaucrats rationing care and private death panels is better than the government version. How is the insurance company's profit motive better for the patient than the government "rationed-care"?
 
The whole Obama care non approval thing is kind of bullshit.

If 40+ per cent support it. It does not mean the other 60 per cent are with the tea party patriots. Perhaps 30 % want no government involvement ay all.

And about 20-25 per cent want single payer type, they want for profit insurance companies out of the health care business, That is why they oppose Obama care. I am not crazy about this system, where profiteers have too much control. Where the same procedure can be billed and paid anywhere from $500 to $5000.
 
mcconnellobamacarestack101.jpg


Nothing spells freedom like 20,000+ pages -- and counting -- of Obamacare regulations. Written, not by elected legislators mind you, but by the bureaucratic Leviathan.
 
US health care isn't complicated at all. You should be able to write a bill to try and fix it in 20 pages or less.
 
Baucus warns of 'huge train wreck' enacting ObamaCare provisions - The Hill's Healthwatch
04/17/13
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Wednesday he fears a "train wreck" as the Obama administration implements its signature healthcare law.

Harry Reid concerned about Obamacare implementation
05/02/13
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) expressed fresh concerns Wednesday about the implementation of the federal health care reform law, while a second congressional Democrat also chimed in with some worry.
Reid said he agrees with Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), one of the law’s chief architects, who has expressed concerns about potential problems with implementing some of the law’s key components. “Max said unless we implement this properly it’s going to be a train wreck, and I agree with him,” Reid said.
“So, we’re not spending enough money and we’re not implementing it properly, in your opinion?” Humphries asked Reid.
“Yes,” replied the Senate majority leader, adding: “We have the menu but we don’t have any way to get to the menu.”
Schumer: ObamaCare could raise premiums - The Hill's Healthwatch
The Senate's third-ranking Democrat said ObamaCare will contribute to rising health premiums unless regulators keep a close eye on insurers.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the Affordable Care Act and rising healthcare costs could cause rates to go "through the roof." He added that the law will help curb cost growth in healthcare, and that insurance commissioners will play a serious role in protecting consumers from rate hikes.

And this is the Democratic leadership.
 

Unless a home is built properly it WILL be a trainwreck.

Unless a surgery is implemented properly it WILL be worse than a trainwreck.

Unless discussions about the Affordable Care Act get implemented properly, they will be a trainwreck.

So once again you, Hannity, and Rush have proved nothing using these quotes except your contempt for this bill and this administration.
 
IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office - ABC News

IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

Have I mentioned how wrong I've been about Obamacare, how I now see the Affordable Care Act as the historic, landmark piece of legislation that it is? How it will balance the budget and cure all illness and suffering in the country.
“Today we are affirming that essential truth, a truth every generation is called to rediscover for itself, that we are not a nation that scales back its aspirations.”

Yes, yes, yes !!! And by nation of course we mean government because "government is the only thing we all belong to."

Can the mods please delete all previous posts by INDY500 in this thread.
 
So, back to my summer away from the internet returning for the implosion of our healthcare system (featuring the best actual health care in the world albeit with the worst payment system) in T-minus 3 months and counting.
 
Oh what an interesting summer.

Big business got their exemption from Obamacare when the business mandate was delayed by one year. Not that there was any provision in the law to take such action but when did that stop this president?

Congress and staffers got their exemption when Obama decided to subsidize their Health Exchange premium. Not that there was any provision in the law to take such an action mind you.

Big Labor, a huge supporter of the law, is now bellyaching about the unintended consequences of Obamacare. Boo Hoo, they'll get their exemption before the first of the year however. Funny how political allies of the White house always get their waivers and exemptions in the end. It too will be illegal.

Large companies are dropping coverage, cutting hours and hiring part-time only.

Rates are skyrocketing.

Anyway, God bless Ted Cruz.
 
I'm not a fan of Obamacare. Another plan to make a different group of people rich. But I'm certainly not a fan of the way things were. I'm for 100% free health care - and within 15 years, we will have it.

What part of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do the Republican and Democratic parties not understand? Basic health is a RIGHT in a modern nation with the technical ability to do so. Anything else is just a lie to make people rich (watch how many commercials you see for prescription drugs during prime time TV - if you pay attention, it's scary).

Of course we hear, "well, who's going to pay for it" all the time. My answer - just add another zero in the excel spreadsheet at the Fed. Nobody seems to care anyway...If not that - then take the trillions of dollars back from bankers that spent the last 50 years raping the "commoners" for every ounce of their coin.
 
Ted Cruz only cares about Ted Cruz. I wish you the best of luck surviving this GOP civil war. If you'd like to change the law and kick children with preexisting conditions off insurance, try winning an election. Something tells me that slavishly following Ted Cruz isn't the best way to go about that.

(PS - rates aren't skyrocketing in states with the exchanges)
 
Of course we hear, "well, who's going to pay for it" all the time. My answer - just add another zero in the excel spreadsheet at the Fed. Nobody seems to care anyway...If not that - then take the trillions of dollars back from bankers that spent the last 50 years raping the "commoners" for every ounce of their coin.

Depending on what economic theory I am buying into at the moment, I think that this is either a marvelous idea or an awful idea. It's certainly an interesting idea, and, for better or for worse, one prohibited by the Federal Reserve Act.
 
C'mon, Irvine - do you think ANY politician is different?

JMO. I'm one of the biggest bashers of politicians (in general) around here, both sides of the aisle and I would say there are varying degrees to how cynical there are.

Cruz is either not too bright (possible) or extremely, extremely cynical.

Being cynical would require knowledge that what he's doing is entirely political.

Cruz could be either. To me, he reminds me of a sleazy evangelist. Reciting stock phrases and such. I can't recall seeing him appear to reach deep and come up with something thoughtful. It's all bumper stickerisms. And creepy.

I'm going with extremely cynical.

Others believe more of what they're saying. And yet they ALL have ambition to stay in office. The kind of ego it takes to run for such office, through such a treacherous personal journey, makes that ambition implicit.

As Jessie Pinkman would say. Term limits, bitch.
 
Back
Top Bottom