Sunday, July 3, 2011
Sacred Cattle-Prods
My main problem with the Ryan bill isn't so much the Medicare component (I think that that could possibly be salvaged with a catastrophic care stipulation) or the tax component (though, yes, I, too, would like to hear more about these proposed loopholes that he plans on closing). It's the fact that he apparently cuts bubkis from our massive military budget. I mean, I don't know about you, folks, but I can think of tens (possibly hundreds) of billions of dollars in deficit-reducing savings here; closing some of these foreign military bases (why, pray tell, are we stimulating the economies of other countries?), modernizing our weapons systems to match our current needs/threats, transforming our mission in Afghanistan from that of a counter-insurgency one to a counter-terrorist one, etc...............................................................................................The time has clearly come here, folks. Not only is a stupid idea that we be the policeman of the planet. It's also quite frankly an unaffordable one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
The Ryan budget is class warfare. Voucherizing Medicare will lead to the death of (future) seniors. I give a huge thumbs down to your suggestion that it could be "salvaged".
If the vouchers were of a high enough level to ensure at least the same level of care, the idea would be an excellent one. It would empower seniors to make their own decisions, instead of ruling elites.
A voucher program with adequate safeguards and oversight would be infinitely better than a massive government monopoly/check-writing enterprise. We need competition and ingenuity, not inertia.
Vouchers = de facto death panels.
Bullshit. Absolute Palinesque bullshit. If you have vouchers in which ALL insurance companies can compete, a health board that sets up minimum standards of care, settles disputes, and makes it illegal to discriminate, the health care system for elders will improve exponentially.
Vouchers = Corporate socialism.
Yes, Will. It was complete bullsh*t.
There's no way to connect the voucher policy (which gives everyone the ability to choose and pay for the necessary health care from among tens of thousands of providers) with death panels.
In fact, if one doctor says "Die!" you just find another doctor.
If you stalinize the health-care system with single payer (the unaccountable monopoly), there is no escaping such doctors.
Will, you described it perfectly.
dmarks, I said vouchers are a "de facto" death panel, not a literal one. What happens if the amount of the voucher does not cover a person's expenses? They don't get more money... that is the primary reasons the Ryan budget advocates vouchers... to keep down costs by shifting expenses to the Medicare voucher recipient.
A voucher system WOULD bring about a de facto death panel. And it's corporate socialism, something someone who believes in the free market should oppose.
"Tens of thousands of providers"? Now that is genuine bullshit. Currently there are only 35, and even with the corporate socialism you are proposing I very much doubt the number would explode to "tens of thouands".
You're not listening, wd. I am NOT endorsing the Ryan Plan. I am endorsing a voucher plan that has health boards which GUARANTEE minimum standards of care and which insurance companies CANNOT discriminate. If, IF, Mr. Ryan's plan had something like this, or a provision in it where the government kicks in for catastrophic care, then, yeah, maybe I'd be willing to look at it at that point.
Another interesting fact - according to the AMA's own National Health Insurers Report Card, Medicare actually denies a higher percentage of claims than private health plans. From their 2008 report, this; Health Net 3.88%, Humana 2.90%, United Health Care 2.68%, Cigna 3.44%, Anthem 4.62%, Medicare 6.85%. Not that I expect the Daily Kos to report on this, mind you.
Those numbers are meaningless. Medicare insures older and sicker people who need more expensive care. Also, a voucher is a voucher.
A voucher is a voucher is a very effective way to provide superior care and the resources necessary for health care, while ensuring that decisions are made by patients and doctors (instead of ruling elites).
I have a few questions. I think if you cut through the partisan fog of WD's rhetoric, what he's really questioning is if a Voucher system is rationing. If the answer is yes then the follow up is what happens if you consume your voucher amount when you are seriously ill? Will, if the government steps in at that point then we are not rationing anymore so the benefits of rationing (if any) are not realized. IMO if you are going to ration in this manner, you need to be more specific about what happens after the voucher is expired. I guess the individual should be responsible for his/her own expenses up to a certain point. What that thresh hold is I am not sure, 10-20% of annual income for example? I don't know what standard should apply. Another question is what if you dont use all or any of your voucher for the year? Does the amount roll over or is it a use or lose it scenario? Guess I gotta do some of my own homework here. Does the Ryan Plan provide for means testing? People in certain economic strata should not need to depend on Medicare. Another angle may be partial privitization whereby young workers have a small deduction of pay taken to provide health care funds when they are older. I do perceive that if we want to save Medicare, our citizens should in fact pay a little something toward the care they receive...its a tradeoff, unfortunately that may have to be made.
Marcus: I think if you cut through the partisan fog of WD's rhetoric...
Actually, I was attempting to punch through the Conservative fog that clouds Will's and dmarks' judgment. Unfortunately the fog was to thick and my efforts failed.
BTW, I'm sick of hearing this conspiratorial nonsense about the "ruling elites" who want to control every aspect of our lives.
dmarks: if one doctor says "Die!" you just find another doctor.
I never said that would happen. That scenario is, in fact, complete nonsense. The doctor wouldn't say "die". He would say, I'm sorry but your insurance does not cover this treatment/procedure.
Marcus: if we want to save Medicare, our citizens should in fact pay a little something toward the care they receive.
Do you seriously not know that they already do?
WD...I apologize. I keep forgeting how smart you are, how you know EVERYTHING and how dumb/idiotic I am. I just wanted to hear from reasonable people who understand how lame I am and will answer in a non judgmental way. Obviously you need not apply...
WD said: "BTW, I'm sick of hearing this conspiratorial nonsense about the "ruling elites" who want to control every aspect of our lives."
It's no conspiracy. It is a fact of government. ANY government. They always work over time to amass more wealth and power and control.
The Founding Fathers recognized this, which is why they put the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to try to limit what the rulers could due to the people.
It's also why socialism, which is stupidly ignorant about the corrupting influence of power, MOST of the time produces Pol Pots, Castro's, Chavez, Mugabe's, etc. It's just a bad idea to give the most powerful people in society more and more power while blindly believing it when they tell you they are doing it "for the people".
And no, they don't want to control every aspect of our lives. But they do want more and more power over our personal lives over time. It's incremental. And it is why we should avoid very bad ideas such as "single payer" which is an obvious naked power grab by ruling elites. The more of the economy that is controlled by the people and the less that is controlled by the government, the better.
dmarks, it appears as though you have an irrational fear of democracy. So much so that you call our representative "ruling elites". This explains, I guess, why you want to turn over control of our country to the wealthy elites.
dmarks is so afraid of democracy that he throws his full support behind the naked power grab which was the SCOTUS Citizens United decision. Millions of dollars spent by the wealthy elites to trick people into voting against their own best interests sounds like a good idea to him.
Democratic Socialism works. It is why so many European nations where it is practiced rank in the 10 ten whenever a World's Happiest Countries list is compiled.
According to a 1/19/2011 Forbes article the high ranking countries "are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth. Yet they don't let that socialism cross the line into autocracy. Civil liberties are abundant..."
Here in the United States polls show a majority of American favor single payer.
No defense of your ridiculous statement about doctors telling patients to die? Is that because you KNOW that what they'd say instead is that the patient's insurance refused to pay?
This is why we should avoid VERY bad ideas like providing any health care by way of vouchers. People would die.
wd, so, because Medicare insures mostly older people, then that EXCUSES the fact that they DENY COVERAGE more? That's pretty effed up.............And, no, a voucher ISN'T a voucher. That's like saying that an Alfa Romeo and an old Dodge Dart are both cars (you're being doctrinaire and narrow-minded, in other words). Dr. Emanuel's vouchers are paid for (with a special tax) and are backed by health boards that ensure minimum standards of care and eliminate discrimination. Congressman Ryan's plan isn't paid for and doesn't even have a catastrophic care provision. There are HUGE differences between the two plans, dude.
Marcus, I can only speak for Dr. Emanuel's plan. The savings/bending of the cost curve would accrue in several way. 1)Through competition. There are literally thousands of insurance companies out there but they currently cannot compete because of rules restricting commerce. And 2) through the health-boards which would set up minimum standards of care based upon comparative effectiveness. Remember the example that President Obama gave. You have 2 pills that are equal in effectiveness but one of them costs $5 a piece and the other one costs 10. The insurance would cover the former but not the latter. Yes, a person could get the latter but they would have to pay for it out of pocket. Yes, it's definitely rationing but at least it's honest rationing.
Will: There are literally thousands of insurance companies...
WTF are you talking about Will? I ALREADY pointed out that there are 35 (Thirty-Five) health insurance companies! I am really starting to think you just don't give a damn what the truth is.
Will: And, no, a voucher ISN'T a voucher.
Vouchers = de facto death panels.
Another thing that we have to realize here is that ALL insurance (except for Medicaid) can conceivably run out. Medicare, for instance, doesn't cover convalescent homes after a certain point. People have to basically spend down their savings to zero and then they go on to Medicaid. In fact, 95% of the patients that I've known throughout my career have been on Title 19. So, yeah, a voucher might eventually run out. But, then again, so, too, will the Medicare/your life savings.
According to the Insurance Information Institute, there are 3,843 insurance companies in America. No, not every single one of them does health insurance but a lot of them do.............Using Palinesque language (death panels) to inflame/win an argument. How absolutely pathetic and doctrinaire of you. You want a real death panel, dude? Go to Scotland and develop a heart condition.
Will, The Insurance Information Institute is an industry organization. I don't belive them.
The information I found says...
On close inspection, it may seem that there are more than 35 health insurance companies in the United States, but many of the different ones out there are simply divisions of one of [these 35], including state-specific divisions.
They still compete against each other, wd. Just like Buick competes with Chevy.
According to manta.com, there are 1,601 health insurance providers in America.
Post a Comment