Obama vs the Supreme Court

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Do you actually believe this horseshit? Everyone has access? Even the people living below the poverty level. At least I now know enough to stop wasting my time reading your posts. It must be difficult to type with your head there.

Ah, the open-mindedness of the left....

And, uh, those below the poverty - level have access today. Its not "paid for" directly, however. Isn't that what everyone's bitching about: the cost of treating the "uninsured"? Obama's plan under PPACA was to expand Medicaid to address that issue. Of course, it largely leaves the funding part of that up to the states. You think that's a better solution??

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Sure. To echo a point you made earlier, and to expand on it:

- no more employer group health insurance. Why should I get a better deal on health care costs versus someone who is self-employed just because I work for an employer who offers group coverage with a qualified (pre-tax) plan?

- health care is no longer 100% financed by insurance. It was a fine idea 60 years ago, but health care products, and health care utilization, have evolved and this is no longer a sustainable model.

- health insurance is only available as catastrophic coverage. Think of it as an insurance policy with a very high deductible: $50000 or maybe even $100000.

- Heath care costs over (pick a number, but you get the idea) $10000 are 100% tax deductible. They are fully deductible up to the level of the individual's catastrophic coverage policy. If you libs want get involved in means - testing health care cost/coverage, here's your chance: you can means-test the level of the tax deduction. Maybe the 1%'ers only get a 50% tax deduction for medical costs.

- Wellness / preventative services are also 100% tax deductible. Elective or cosmetic medical services or products are not tax deductible.

- Update or repeal outdated health care delivery regulations. For example, do I really need to see a physician to diagnose and treat a cold, sinus infection or ear infection? Why can't these services be provided by a nurse practitioner (a nurse with an advanced medical degree) or a physician's assistant? Get states out of the business of regulating health insurance since it is now only available as a catastrophic product.

- Some level of tort reform to get liability costs under control, as well as getting rid of the incentives for CYA medical services which drive costs and provide little value to the patient.

- Physicians can compete for delivery of services, offer competitive financing arrangements, which will help drive down costs. No need to negotiate with insurance carriers for reimbursement rates. No need to upcharge some patients to pay for reduced reimbursements from Medicare to defray the cost of treating other patients. And this is key - no giant government bureaucracies for health care financing, regulation, and mandating unproductive delivery models. No need for thousands of additional IRS agents to police the health care system.

There. Fixed. Under this model, everyone has access to the same health care system with the same level playing field. Individuals have an incentive to stay well by accessing wellness services, and also to stay well to avoid having to pay something out of pocket to cover their health issues (yes, even in health care spending you need to have skin in the game to drive healthy behaviors). And its cost effective - dirt cheap when compared to PPACA, and direct cheap compared to what other countries are going broke right now trying to finance. It allows for market forces to increase inefficiencies and encourage innovation, while getting rid of the incentives for delivery of CYA medical services.

A few good points here but also some that only lead to higher costs for the individual and the assumption that making wellness plans more available will mean everyone will use them, coupled with faith in the notion that having "skin in the game" means people will actually take better care of themselves----And you know what that means. It means that it won't work.
At least not at the level your typically arrogant, know it all, republican response; "There. Fixed." would seem to suggest.

A pack of cigarettes used to be cheap. I see they're almost six bucks now. I also see a lot of people still smoke. Alcoholics still go bankrupt feeding their habit. As do drug addicts. People can't afford to pay anything will still receive treatment and walk away...............

It's the heel, dear Achilles.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Ah, the open-mindedness of the left....

And, uh, those below the poverty - level have access today. Its not "paid for" directly, however. Isn't that what everyone's bitching about: the cost of treating the "uninsured"? Obama's plan under PPACA was to expand Medicaid to address that issue. Of course, it largely leaves the funding part of that up to the states. You think that's a better solution??

Yep. Because it covers everyone. The faults in your plan will leave people slipping through the cracks I pointed out, right of the bat.

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Yep. Because it covers everyone. The faults in your plan will leave people slipping through the cracks I pointed out, right of the bat.

Dave

PPACA leaves folks uninsured.

Folks, at some point, we do get to the fundamental differences between the left and the right in this argument about health care:

The left believes that the coercive power of the government can and should be used to effect changes in the lives of individuals. Of course, this ignores the law of unintended consequences and a history of questionable results. Whether or not the federal government has the power to actually do this, particularly this intervention in health care, is open to question. Specific to this debate, it also assumes that it is a good ideal to move the delivery of medical care into the political process. Politics typically is the art of compromise, and I'd prefer not to have my health care "compromised".

The right believes that the government should be restrained in its impact on the individual. Now, I must pay for my food, my water, my clothing, my house, my transportation. I must pay for the preparation, implements and supplies that support my ability to earn a wage. Why should I have an expectation that someone else must pay for my health care? Of course, if society deems that this is appropriate, then the most efficient means of paying for my health maintenance is to reduce my financial obligations to support society and government (reduce my taxes).

To then say that the costs should be "insured" or free is contrary to the laws of economics. Reduce the cost of a good or service and you increase the demand for that service. The access to (insured) low cost care is the fundamental driver of the current scenario of over-utilization of services and products in the health care market.

So, you say "It won't work." I say: BS. What we have today works in a limited way, but it also has the effect of driving costs up significantly for everyone. Reduce costs by cutting out over-utilization, administration, over-regulation and put some skin in the game for the health care consumer, and watch prices for health care products and services fall as demand is decreased.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by RamblinE

...

Simply helping people to afford insurance would cut back on government spending in the long run, ...

Certainly not the bill in question.

Originally Posted by merrylander

Do you actually believe this horseshit? Everyone has access? Even the people living below the poverty level. At least I now know enough to stop wasting my time reading your posts. It must be difficult to type with your head there.

Welfare heath benifits are far, far better than mine, and include teeth and eyes.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

I think you already realize that PPACA was really just a stepping stone to single payer. Or at least that was the original intent. And, I for one, would just like to wipe out the health insurance industry altogether. Maybe leave it optional, for those who like being ripped off by grinning Romneyites.

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Certainly not the bill in question.



Welfare heath benifits are far, far better than mine, and include teeth and eyes.

Pete

Thanks to Saint Ronnie you and I are paying for those benefits and for all the freeloaders as well to the tune of about an extra $1075 per year on our insurance premiums. Almost time to get another tube of anal lube.

Funny, those mahvelous welfare benefits did not help the kid in DC whoe died because they could not afford a dentist to fix his rotting teeth.

[piece-itpete]

Maybe it'll be covered under free health care

Pete

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Welfare heath benifits are far, far better than mine, and include teeth and eyes.

Pete

It is not as rosy as you think it is here Pete.




This is some of how Arnold paid for some of his corporate welfare tax breaks.

Reduction Medi-Cal Benefits

Effective July 1, 2009, and until the state law is amended, Medi-Cal will no longer pay for some benefits.

Important: All the questions and answers provided here apply to the benefits that Medi-Cal will no longer pay.

These benefits are:

a. Acupuncture (use of small needles to treat pain and other problems)

b. Adult dental services

c. Audiology services (hearing exam)

d. Chiropractic services (manipulation of spine)

e. Incontinence cream and washes

f. Dispensing Optician services, including services provided by a fabricating optical laboratory

g. Podiatry services (care of the feet)

h. Psychology services

i. Speech therapy services


http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/medi...lBenefits.aspx

As far as I know they will still pull a tooth "for free". Whoopee.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by CarlV

It is not as rosy as you think it is here Pete.




This is some of how Arnold paid for some of his corporate welfare tax breaks.




As far as I know they will still pull a tooth "for free". Whoopee.

Yet another fine example of redistribution---UP the chain.

Dave