Those decisions will only be made by those who pay for it?
I have seen the recent government health care ads on television.
One of the items they jump on is the idea of an insurance company denying a claim. The implication is that if you have a government health Plan, the claim will not be denied. This may be true; the procedure will probably be denied in advance and the doctor told not to perform it. Instead of having an insurance clerk, you will have a GS-11 or GS-12 government employee deny the need for the procedure.
My personal experience with this comes from the Veterans Administration. As a veteran of the Korean War, I went to the VA for a physical exam. Big mistake. My income was examined, and since I earn over a set amount I was made to copay $50 per visit.
I also was told by my primary care nurse practitioner that there would be no test for prostate cancer. This was because the statistical guidelines indicate that at my age I might die with, but not from, this type of cancer. Aren't statistics wonderful?
I studied economics and know that there must be a mechanism for rationing scarce resources. Health care is a scarce resource with unlimited demand. Still, I don't see how a government plan can make better rationing decisions than any private insurance company. We need to return the rationing decisions to the patients and their doctors.
George Richardson, Martinez
Comments
Those decisions will only be made by those who pay for it?
Mr. Richardson, price rations scarce medical services in our contemporary economy. Any reputable introductory Economics text informs its readers in its earliest pages of price's basic function.
George, that is why cancer death rates are higher in every country with socialized medicine. Breat cancer and prostate cancer death rates are about 20% higher in England and Canada than the US.
car: All countries? Cancer mortality in the US per 100K-156,Canada-166, Great Britain-171, France-164, Norway-158, Sweden-149, Finland-139, Australia-149, Germany-158, Italy-159, Switzerland-137, Austria-153, Japan-140. Looks like we fall somewhere in the middle.The US proposal is not the same as the system in Canada an England.
Health care is already rationed. It is rationed by money.
I don't really want a govt ran plan. However, a non profit will probably approve more than a for profit. That just makes basic sense.
George, you need to lie better at the VA. I personally know of two guys, both Conservatives by the way, who declare they are indigent. Whats amazing is one of them owns a very successful business here in town. Bottom line, lie and they will not check it out, also there is no incentive to report them just like there is no incentive to report Section 8 or welfare deadbeats. BTW the co-pays he refers to were enacted the week the CONS took out Max Cleland from being director of the VA.
If they could figure out a way to charge you for air, it would be rationed as well.
techlover, i believe cap & trade covers your 8:01 post
southern; Even with inefficiencies, it still could be cheaper to run. The top salary for SENIOR-LEVEL (SL) AND SCIENTIFIC OR PROFESSIONAL (ST) POSITIONS and SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES) is $177,000. Ron Williams, CEO of Aetna, made total compensation of $24,300,112 in 2008. A federal system could have 137 executives (at top pay) for the cost of the compensation of just the CEO of one company. Add in the other executives and all the other companies executives and a federal system could be run much cheaper.
I'm not worried about health care at all. That's because I'm healthy. I don't need care. The only reason that I've ever needed a lawyer was to prepare a will & testament. Lay off the fast food, fried chicken or fried anything, donuts, candy & soda and maybe you'll be able to live long enough to enjoy your retirement. Get a little exercise too. Then you don't have to worry about living or dying. In fact, if you learn how to live then you will not worry about dying. Get a life you bleeding hearts.
What is being proposed is very similar to what 1.8 million Federal (civilian) employees are already offered now. It works well and it works at a reasonable cost.
omno: Not even close to the same thing. C & T improves the air, not charge you to breathe it. Studies have been done that show the higher the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the better some plants grow. Unfortunately, the plants with the most improved growth are weeds.
Anyone who is truly interested in the issue of "rationing" should read Peter Singer's article in last Sunday's NYT Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html. The notion that we don't have rationing in our current system is ludicrous. BTW, Mr. Richardson, if you had no symptoms or significant risk factors, seems to me it was entirely appropriate to use statistics to determine the appropriateness of a PSA for prostate screening.
Niko: I'm not worried about dying. The best I can figure, it's inevitable. don't particularly want it to be long and painful. If I was uninsured, I don't want my wife to be left with hundreds of thousands in medical bills. Actually even with insurance that can happen. The system needs fixing.
We all know, and it is a proven fact, that Medicare is the victim of BILLIONS of dollars of fraud every year. If Obama thinks we need the government in control of Universal Healthcare because they can do such a good job of controlling cost, then let him FIRST show us they can clean up fraud and abuse in the Medicare program. Before I trust the government to dictate my healthcare I want them to prove they can run the program they are already in charge of. I want them to prove they can stamp out fraud, reduce cost, and not reduce the level of care. SHOW ME FIRST and then I might consider government controlled healthcare. And we should all remember, once Obama craps us out of our very good healthcare system, the Democrats will then want to "fix" the Social Security system by saying that if you have any other income you will not get Social Security because the "poor" people need it all. "Oh, you've been paying into the system for 50 years. Tough. You get nothing." IT'S ALL ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS WANTING CONTROL OF ALL OF THE MONEY. HEALTHCARE IS JUST THE FIRST STEP. SOCIAL SECURITY IS NEXT. Notice that not one Democrat has mentioned Social Security while the healthcare thing is an issue.
The system does need fixing but show me ONE example of a government program that fixed anything. Come on the congress wants to exempt themselves from this mess so why would any reasonable person want to allow them to push it on us.
BCG, see my previous post (8:58). Between the employees' contributions and the employers' contributions, the program pays for itself just like a private industry program does. A family of four gets well defined coverage for $540 a month (your $180 and Uncle Sam's $360).
dashiel on Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:05 AM The Congerssional Budget officec disputes your theory. Health care is going to cost us more and the moeny is not there to pay for it. We either tax more reducing jobs or print more money producing inflation..
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
What additional costs are created by the uninsured population?
* The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis.14
* Hospitals provide about $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year.14
* Another $37 billion is paid by private and public payers for health services for the uninsured and $26 billion is paid out-of-pocket by those who lack coverage.14
* The uninsured are 30 to 50 percent more likely to be hospitalized for an avoidable condition, with the average cost of an avoidable hospital stayed estimated to be about $3,300.14
* The increasing reliance of the uninsured on the emergency department has serious economic implications, since the cost of treating patients is higher in the emergency department than in other outpatient clinics and medical practices.11
A study found that 29 percent of people who had health insurance were 'underinsured' with coverage so meager they often postponed medical care because of costs.15 Nearly 50 percent overall, and 43 percent of people with health coverage, said they were 'somewhat' to 'completely' unprepared to cope with a costly medical emergency over the coming year.15
Well Tech Lover I certainly agree with you that the system needs to be fixed, and my post that you responded to was really more for the "fearful of the cost" crowd. The Blue Dog Democrats that are worried about the cost and the Republicans that are politically worried did not seem too worried when they passed the $1.4 trillion deficit Bush tax cuts. And look at the GA teachers having to work (3) days without pay. When are people going to realize that cutting taxes reduces services? And don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of paying taxes; but to me it's the same as eating food. If you don't pay then you may not get much to eat. Same principle.
carcraft, there might be other, better coverage, but this one works well and at what I believe most people would consider a reasonable cost. I agree that the bourgeoisie will probably be ground between the millstones of taxation and inflation, but don't expect much sympathy from the poor and other victims of social injustice.
I see the issue as the largest union in america (AMA) fighting the largest consumer of money (Insurance) blaming each other for the problems in our care. Its really kinda funny but the government would be a player in the insurance game by providing competition for the paying of doctor bills. Further, Doctors would be required to charge reasonable charges for services rendered. That means they won't have to do all the testing they do today to ward off lawsuits. Isn't that what Doc's have been complaining about for years? In conclusion, I believe it is better to wait a little longer, than it is to never have the money to have care. And believe me we have a lot of people dying because they can't afford a specific operation.
When the "bourgeoisie" are "ground between the millstones of taxation and inflation" too much, then the poor are the ones that will suffer. As evidence I submit California where taxation has run businesses out of the state for years and way too generous WELFARE programs have broke the state's budget and now they are having to CUT the welfare benefits to which the "victims of social injustice" have become ADDICTED as an entitlement. Unfortunately when the government tries to HELP someone it eventually becomes "where's my check", "where's my free housing", "where's my food stamps", and "where's my free healthcare". Never do you hear "where's my job application".
Your last statement, Richardson, is flawed because the insurance company comes between your doctor and you. Medical billing companies know that insurance companies do all they can to delay or deny paying claims.
dashiel on Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:40 Inflation is the cruelist tax on the poor because increases in welfare income never match the rate of inflation and if you try to get ahead of the curve you create more inflation.. It is the poor and marginal citizens that get ground. I have never had to fight to get care or proceedures that I needed. I work in health care and I don't see that many patients that have that problem.Niko Mahs on Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:37 AM You complain about Bush's deficits yet you don't seem to mind Obama DOUBLING the TOTAL NATIONAL DEFICIT!
Carcraft Obama has not doubled the national deficit YET! He certainly plans to do that if the GOP (or what's left of them) does not obstruct his efforts. And I include these so called "Blue Dog democrats" in that same category. Obama should spend like W and Reagan on Steriods.
Not my insurance, grouse.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
