patrick.net

"In the "reformed" delivery system, health care is practiced from on high by committees of "experts" pulling the strings of marionette physicians (rankings, payment rates, other incentives and disincentives) who are judged on how well they achieve population-based outcomes. Patients are like sheep in the flock, categorized by race, income level, quality-adjusted remaining years (QARYs), compliance, functional ability, diversity score, or whatever metrics the rulers adopt."

That doesn't sound like the kind of health care functional, self sufficient adults ( ie politicians) would choose for themselves. Oh, wait a minute, they won't be getting the same care as us "serfs."

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

JUST SAY NO to liberal, socialistic, communistic health care...for the common good.

AdHominem says

“In the “reformed” delivery system, health care is practiced from on high by committees of “experts” pulling the strings of marionette physicians (rankings, payment rates, other incentives and disincentives) who are judged on how well they achieve population-based outcomes. Patients are like sheep in the flock, categorized by race, income level, quality-adjusted remaining years (QARYs), compliance, functional ability, diversity score, or whatever metrics the rulers adopt.”

How is that in any way different from the system we already have in place?

Kevin says

How is that in any way different from the system we already have in place?

I am not taxed or made a criminal for not buying insurance. And I don't have to send my money to Washington to pay for the bureaucracy proposed in OBAMACARE. Right now me and my doctor decide what the course of action is and it is nobody's business but our own.

But you are right, our current system has problems, Medicare, Medicaid are driving up costs, as is the insurance industry and its effective monopoly. Government created onerous regulations on non-profits and unfair tax breaks offered only to employers but not individuals. The average patient is almost if not entirely insulated from the actual prices charged so the supply demand curve is horribly skewed. These are where we should target reforms.

We need to reduce government intervention and bring accountability back to the system. Prices are out of control because the patients no longer pay most of the bills directly, instead the insurance bureaucracy decides. There is too much fraud, waste and abuse. Thank Washington for that. We need to target ALL third party payers, they are ALL driving up costs, and government (medicare and medicaid) more so than any.

AdHominem says

Right now me and my doctor decide what the course of action is and it is nobody’s business but our own.

Wrong. Big Insurance Execs decide your course of action.

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

Right now me and my doctor decide what the course of action is and it is nobody’s business but our own.

Wrong. Big Insurance Execs decide your course of action.

I'm glad you know what me and my doctor discuss. Amazing! You have quite a gift for making things up out of thin air.

@Ad

I think you understand my point. There wouldn't be any government employees in the Drs. office under any plan being proposed. That is hyperbole, pure and simple. All it would be is substitution of government for Big Insurance and Big Pharma. Now, we can argue about whether that is a good change or not, but let's not resort to baseless fear-mongering.

tatupu70 says

Now, we can argue about whether that is a good change or not, but let’s not resort to baseless fear-mongering.

When a government agency decides how much money Americans get for health care each year, we have reason to fear.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/28/when-thailand-is-in-network-u-s-employers-embrace-medical-to/#continued

Tenouncetrout says

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/28/when-thailand-is-in-network-u-s-employers-embrace-medical-to/#continued

good point TOT. It is a global economy. We might as well use lower cost of health care in developing countries to our advantage. As a bonus it returns competition to the marketplace.

AdHominem says

When a government agency decides how much money Americans get for health care each year, we have reason to fear.

Again--not sure where you are getting that idea. Please show me where it says that "the government will decide how much money Americans get for health care each year" in either bill being proposed. Are you taking lessons from Palin? Next you'll be talking about "death panels"...

"Now, we can argue about whether that is a good change or not, but let’s not resort to baseless fear-mongering. "

Funny thing as for accounting to which news source, I have heard 100% of the Republican fear mongering talking points. Has come from Liberal news outlets creating a far larger awareness of those talking points. Than a wind up Karl Rove, chatter mouth.

If CNN and the likes would just let Fox be Fox, then Fox would just be a marginalized group of Jaded political annalists, harping their case to less than 10% of the market share, of political reporting media.

So thank you CNN for keeping me informed, about Death Panels, Tea Parties and higher taxes.

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

When a government agency decides how much money Americans get for health care each year, we have reason to fear.

Again–not sure where you are getting that idea. Please show me where it says that “the government will decide how much money Americans get for health care each year” in either bill being proposed. Are you taking lessons from Palin? Next you’ll be talking about “death panels”…

As envisioned by the Senate Finance Committee, the commission—all 15 members appointed by the President—would have to meet certain budget targets each year. Starting in 2015, Medicare could not grow more rapidly on a per capita basis than by a measure of inflation. After 2019, it could only grow at the same rate as GDP, plus one percentage point.

AdHominem says

As envisioned by the Senate Finance Committee, the commission—all 15 members appointed by the President—would have to meet certain budget targets each year. Starting in 2015, Medicare could not grow more rapidly on a per capita basis than by a measure of inflation. After 2019, it could only grow at the same rate as GDP, plus one percentage point

Yes, I agree. Not sure how that correlates to what you can get for health care. You will be free to buy supplemental insurance as you see fit.

Also-not to beat a dead horse, but Insurance companies already limit what you get for health care each year(or lifetime). Many (if not most) plans have lifetime maximums.

IMO, we have reason to fear when a private company collects my premiums for decades but then decides to drop me when I get sick. Which happens more often than you'd think under the current system.

tatu, you are now saying buying insurance to compete/supplement government insurance is a solution? Much like private schools are a solution to the crappy run government schools we all pay for?

Insurance companies are unfair, we know this. We need to end their monopoly and return the right to health care freedom to the people. Let them buy or not buy health insurance. Let them choose what to spend on care and don't tax them for it.

I would like to see third party payers become a thing of the past.

@Ad

I understand what you are suggesting, but I just think there are several problems with it.

#1--I'm afraid that it would give more power to the insurance companies. They would be negotiating with individuals rather than large corporations, and would therefore have more buying power.
#2--I'm not sure how the pricing would work. Right now, generally younger, healthier people subsidize older workers that are more likely to get sick. It's likely that rates would skyrocket for older people and be reduced for younger people.
#3-- It wouldn't solve the pre-existing condition loophole which would really limit mobility and therefore competition
#4--Information flow is lacking, another competition hindrance. There would be little incentive for them to stop their dirty tricks...

There are several more problems with allowing them to continue to call the shots. That is what the current "reforms" will do.

tatupu70 says

@Ad
I understand what you are suggesting, but I just think there are several problems with it.
#1–I’m afraid that it would give more power to the insurance companies. They would be negotiating with individuals rather than large corporations, and would therefore have more buying power.

#2–I’m not sure how the pricing would work. Right now, generally younger, healthier people subsidize older workers that are more likely to get sick. It’s likely that rates would skyrocket for older people and be reduced for younger people.

#3– It wouldn’t solve the pre-existing condition loophole which would really limit mobility and therefore competition

#4–Information flow is lacking, another competition hindrance. There would be little incentive for them to stop their dirty tricks…

1. Doubt it. Most people would choose health care freedom. Meaning no insurance.

2. Sounds fair to me! Think about car insurance.

3. If companies deny care for pre-existing perhaps it is kinda like denying fire insurance to an arsonist. (the only difference being that arsonists are sick by choice and smokers are sick by accident)

4. Information flow? that is weak.