|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 14, 2009 16:45:52 GMT -8
The short term goal is to get a foot in the door. The long term goal is single payer. How do we know this? Obama has said so. How will it become a single payer?
1. Create a government option (it is not a public option)
2. Impose rules on private insurance that will make them less competitive.
3. Give businesses incentives to replace their health insurance compensation with paying a payroll tax.
4. Repeat #2 and #3 until everyone is on #1.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 15, 2009 7:39:33 GMT -8
Single payer, modeled after Medicare, is the only way to go.
The insurance companies would still have a role although much reduced. Doesn't bother me a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 15, 2009 8:54:16 GMT -8
Single payer, modeled after Medicare, is the only way to go. The insurance companies would still have a role although much reduced. Doesn't bother me a bit. Single payer should bother you. That's what Canada has, and the evidence is clear that such a system virtually assures that health care will be rationed in ways that you are likely not to appreciate. Please take a look at this piece, which mentions some of the undesirable aspects of Canada's single payer plan: www.aztecmesa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=hcins&action=display&thread=194Here's the problem. There is no question that state of the art health care often is not cheap (though I wonder whether you would rule out very expensive treatment to save the life of a family member simply on the grounds of cost.). But do you want to deny treatments that have proven effective just because some bureaucrat has decided that the government can save money by not authorizing it? (example given in the above-linked piece.) More generally, how many vital aspects of life do you want to be controlled by the federal government? He who controls the purse controls everything. It is an unfortunate tendency of the Left to be very comfortable with authoritarian solutions. They know best (certainly better than the yahoos found in flyover country), so why shouldn't everyone else just recognize that fact and get with the program?! I do believe that much money is wasted in the health care field. But there are a number of steps that could be taken short of a complete federal takeover of the the health care system. And make no mistake about it, that is just what the Left wants. Obama has said that he prefers single payer. Barney Frank has said the same thing. One obvious tactic would be to allow all health insurance companies to sell plans anywhere in the U.S. That is currently against the law. Another would be to set up national boards to rule on malpractice cases. They could be made up of eminent retired physicians who would be empowered to grant reasonable judgments consistent with the facts of each case. Had such a system been in place, that low-life ambulance chaser John Edwards (and many like him) would not have become rich whereas good, blameless physicians would not now be playing $100,000, $150,000, or even $200,000 a year in malpractice insurance. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 15, 2009 9:43:59 GMT -8
Single payer, modeled after Medicare, is the only way to go. The insurance companies would still have a role although much reduced. Doesn't bother me a bit. Insurance companies have no role in single payer. My post is not for those who want single payer. They should have no problem with what is going on. My post is for those who blindly believe the hype about what is really happening. The current health care issues are very simple. If you want single payer, you should support the current efforts. If you don't want the government to control all aspects of health care, you should be against it. It is that simple. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 15, 2009 15:18:03 GMT -8
Single payer, modeled after Medicare, is the only way to go. The insurance companies would still have a role although much reduced. Doesn't bother me a bit. You should think that through again. Single payer would end up being more expensive to you personally and it would mean reduced care for your time of need due to reduced availability of services. The Insurance Companies would go by the wayside. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 16, 2009 12:46:18 GMT -8
Single payer, modeled after Medicare, is the only way to go. The insurance companies would still have a role although much reduced. Doesn't bother me a bit. You should think that through again. Single payer would end up being more expensive to you personally and it would mean reduced care for your time of need due to reduced availability of services. The Insurance Companies would go by the wayside. And forget any new drugs. Research on health care would stop. Why? Because drug companies would not be reimbursed for their efforts. Government would squeeze any potential profits from that system but the risks would remain just as high. When risks are that high, potential profits must be high to make it viable. That is the simple economics of risk and reward. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 16, 2009 13:14:24 GMT -8
Single payer, modeled after Medicare, is the only way to go. The insurance companies would still have a role although much reduced. Doesn't bother me a bit. You should think that through again. Single payer would end up being more expensive to you personally and it would mean reduced care for your time of need due to reduced availability of services. The Insurance Companies would go by the wayside. Not to mention that many doctors would look for other professional oportunities: www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199 |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 22, 2009 12:42:04 GMT -8
The short term goal is to get a foot in the door. The long term goal is single payer. How do we know this? Obama has said so. How will it become a single payer? 1. Create a government option (it is not a public option) 2. Impose rules on private insurance that will make them less competitive. 3. Give businesses incentives to replace their health insurance compensation with paying a payroll tax. 4. Repeat #2 and #3 until everyone is on #1. An update on #3: I heard that many of the "plans" congress is working through has an audit of businesses to "evaluate" their health plans. Think tax audit. If they don't measure up to the government's mandates or whims at the time, they can be fined. This will help drive business into opting for the ease of a payroll tax instead of the headache of providing a health care plan for their employees. So when they say, you can keep your xxxx, it is like your parents telling you, "sure you can still go to the same school after we move half way across the country". It is later that you are informed how long the walk is...wink...wink...nod...nod. |
|
