Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funny how some people on one hand believe the dems HC plan is so great and then turn around and use the same thing the dems are doing ( rationing) against the other party when they have said or done nothing of a kind.
Nothing but fear mongering and scare tactics from the left.
Note no mention of that half trillion they diverted to Obamacare from Medicare on the eve of the baby-boomer's retirement. Yep, no problem with pulling the rug out from under current recipient who have paid into the system for the past forty years, but a future voucher system that will effect no current recipients and only begin to be implemented a decade from now is heartless.
Every single ponzi scheme has come to an end, with many getting the devastating shaft, from the crooks that started and perpetuated it.
Some want to thank them, some want to hurt them.
Depends if you benefited on the take or were the one shafted for being a fool.
No problems with rationing public health care for logical reasons, but why not just nationalize the Texas Futile Medicine Law and open it for all HCPs to be able to open the discussion. I've worked on 98 year old multi-organ failure patients who we've strung along and kept "alive" because the family said, and I quote, "He needs to live to 100 because he has good genes." We don't need that. Its a medical waste, its a financial waste, and its pathetic to even argue a point to it. Family wants to keep a patient alive, they can foot the bill. Lots of waste, lots of DNR/DNI patients who get their wishes recinded by family at the last second instead of carrying out their wishes, millions of hours spent on patients who's survival rates are astronomically low.
Republican Paul Ryan, now chairman of the House budget committee, supports rationing health care for US seniors. His plan to voucherize Medicare is the classic example of rationing care. Under his plan the government would only give seniors a voucher for a certain amount of money and any extra cost would be paid by senior citizens themselves. His plan is to slowly shrink Medicare voucher checks over time leaving senior citizens left to pay more and more for health care.
Why does Paul Ryan and the Republicans want to pull the plug on grandma?
Ok, here is how business works. If there were millions of seniors running around out there with vouchers, various providers will compete for that money, prices for their services would be driven down. Including the cost of insurance.
Right now the federal program is unsustainable. It is a mystery to me why the Dems want to abandon the elderly.
No problems with rationing public health care for logical reasons.
People called end of life counseling "pulling the plug on grandma" when democrats took a republican piece of legislation from 2003. I would fully expect it to be called... "slaughtering grandma".
But then, anything "public" and people get their thingies twisted in a bunch. While "private" enterprises can do anything they so desire. We live in a society that only fascists could love.
Ok, here is how business works. If there were millions of seniors running around out there with vouchers, various providers will compete for that money, prices for their services would be driven down. Including the cost of insurance.
Anytime such argument is placed, I'm reminded of a quote by Adam Smith:
"But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject."
While that quotation speaks of the need for a balance between the owner and the workers (union), but the idea applies very much in this context where it is assumed that businesses would be willing to give in to lower costs, while agreeing to accept lower profits. Seniors are not a profit-generating opportunity to begin with.
But there is a bigger problem. Had democrats proposed such measures, people like you would be complaining about government control over life of senior citizens that it would decide how much their lives cost. And that bureaucrats would decide how much to include in the voucher. After all, didn't you all see a $500 billion in cost savings as a government's way to health care rationing?
How about this idea for republicans, considering that they firmly adhere to the idea that government should not dictate anything... propose getting rid of medicare, and VA, and every federal insurance program, and let private companies handle them all. It would work well for all, with millions running around for health care right?
You would think that since insurance companies want more businesses and must compete, they wouldn't deny basic coverage to a lot of Americans in the high risk pool (that would include all elderly).
Anytime such argument is placed, I'm reminded of a quote by Adam Smith:
"But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject."
While that quotation speaks of the need for a balance between the owner and the workers (union), but the idea applies very much in this context where it is assumed that businesses would be willing to give in to lower costs, while agreeing to accept lower profits. Seniors are not a profit-generating opportunity to begin with.
But there is a bigger problem. Had democrats proposed such measures, people like you would be complaining about government control over life of senior citizens that it would decide how much their lives cost. And that bureaucrats would decide how much to include in the voucher. After all, didn't you all see a $500 billion in cost savings as a government's way to health care rationing?
How about this idea for republicans, considering that they firmly adhere to the idea that government should not dictate anything... propose getting rid of medicare, and VA, and every federal insurance program, and let private companies handle them all. It would work well for all, with millions running around for health care right?
You would think that since insurance companies want more businesses and must compete, they wouldn't deny basic coverage to a lot of Americans in the high risk pool (that would include all elderly).
You really hit the nail on the head here.
It is political suicide to go after Medicare and the Republicans know it. With an aging population, those votes count for more and more. They also know that Insurance companies want nothing to do with seniors because they will never make money from them. So, taxpayer funded health care is never going to go away at least for seniors. When it comes to political reality, private enterprise, the capitalist system and free markets have their limits.
Anytime such argument is placed, I'm reminded of a quote by Adam Smith:
"But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject."
While that quotation speaks of the need for a balance between the owner and the workers (union), but the idea applies very much in this context where it is assumed that businesses would be willing to give in to lower costs, while agreeing to accept lower profits. Seniors are not a profit-generating opportunity to begin with.
But there is a bigger problem. Had democrats proposed such measures, people like you would be complaining about government control over life of senior citizens that it would decide how much their lives cost. And that bureaucrats would decide how much to include in the voucher. After all, didn't you all see a $500 billion in cost savings as a government's way to health care rationing?
How about this idea for republicans, considering that they firmly adhere to the idea that government should not dictate anything... propose getting rid of medicare, and VA, and every federal insurance program, and let private companies handle them all. It would work well for all, with millions running around for health care right?
You would think that since insurance companies want more businesses and must compete, they wouldn't deny basic coverage to a lot of Americans in the high risk pool (that would include all elderly).
As the owner of a small healthcare business, that is precisely what happens. Of course seniors are a profit generating opportunity, they are the greatest consumers of health care resources. Business owners do not lower their prices out of the goodness of their hearts, it happens as the result of competition.
Your have no idea what my reaction would be to vouchers, because it has never been tried.
LOL, the $500 billion in cost savings was achieved through wiping out the one program that encouraged competition, Medicare Advantage.
Yes I do believe that allowing people to negotiate directly with providers would dramatically reduce costs. There is a disconnect now between the heath care consumer and the cost of the services provided because a third party is paying. If people paid for their care from their own pockets they would be more careful about what they consumed and how much they paid.
As for Insurance companies denying benefits for the high risk customer, to use the left's favorite anology, it isn't a problem in the auto insurance business, I don't see why comeptition for the health care customer would be any different.
Because we have an aging population and something needs to be done. I'm not sure this it but this kill grandma rhetoric is why we'll never get anything done to fix social security or medicare. The fear mongering must stop.
Grandma is going to need to make some sacrifices, which is sad but we all are. None of these entitlement programs are sustainable.
Actually, they are. Pretty simple, instead of the super expensive restaurant dinner, make something at home. Instead of overpricing houses and apartments because of arbitrary "market value" set limits. Instead of spending money on frivilous items (expensive cars with too many bells and whistles, giant TVs, etc.) we spend the money on more essential items or we SAVE it for the future with these "unsustainable" programs.
Usually, unsustainable just means that people are too lazy to find a way to pay for it.
If you want something really, truly unsustainable, look to low tax rates on the rich while their salaries skyrocket and wages for everyone else remain stagnant. Look to the ridiculously low tax rate on dividends. There's some things that are unsustainable.
As the owner of a small healthcare business, that is precisely what happens. Of course seniors are a profit generating opportunity, they are the greatest consumers of health care resources. Business owners do not lower their prices out of the goodness of their hesarts, it happens as the result of competition.
Your have no idea what my reaction would be to vouchers, because it has never been tried.
LOL, the $500 billion in cost savings was achieved through wiping out the one program that encouraged competition, Medicare Advantage.
Yes I do believe that allowing people to negotiate directly with providers would dramatically reduce costs. There is a disconnect now between the heath care consumer and the cost of the services provided because a third party is paying. If people paid for their care from their own pockets they would be more careful about what they consumed and how much they paid.
Anybody in the high risk pool would be greatest consumer of health care sources. Private businesses don’t want greatest consumers, they want greatest profits. I think maintaining that distinction is important. Having said that, do you think republicans should push for killing all government run health care programs and let the free market take over?
As for myths perpetuated by the right wingers about HCR’s effect on medicare, I am not going to waste my time (again), and let the myth debunkers at AARP (you know those who deal with the elderly) handle it:
Quote:
Myth: Health care reform means rationed care.
Fact: None of the health reform proposals being considered would stand between individuals and their doctors or prevent any American from choosing the best possible care.
Fact: Health care reform will NOT give the government the power to make life or death decisions for anyone regardless of their age. Those decisions will be made by an individual, their doctor and their family.
Fact: Health care reform will help ensure doctors are paid fairly so they will continue to treat Medicare patients.
Bottom Line: Health reform isn't about rationing; it's about giving people the peace of mind of knowing that they will be able to keep their doctors and that they will always have a choice of affordable health plans.
Myth: Health care reform will hurt Medicare.
Fact: None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.
Fact: Health care reform will lower prescription drug costs for people in the Medicare Part D coverage gap or "doughnut hole" so they can get better afford the drugs they need.
Fact: Health care reform will protect seniors' access to their doctors and reduce the cost of preventive services so patients stay healthier.
Fact: Health care reform will reduce costly, preventable hospital readmissions, saving patients and Medicare money.
Fact: Rather than weaken Medicare, health care reform will strengthen the financial status of the Medicare program.
Bottom Line: For people in Medicare, health care reform is about lowering prescription drug costs for people in the "doughnut hole", keeping the doctor of your choice, improving the quality of care, and eliminating billions in waste that is causing poor care and medical errors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
