- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #21
The rationing, if it occurs, will be obviously far less than the rationing caused now by the insurance industry. Come on, Charles, context.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is supposed to cover them until then, and it is not going to make it.
Believe it or not, I can read, and I read the article I linked to. The problem is these people are not going to make it until 2014 because the money set aside to deal with them until then is not going to be enough. Your idol screwed up, and you want to cover up for him.
I have no doubt you can read, I just assume you haven't read much that's relevant here. For example, the provision of the law that creates this program:
(g) Funding; Termination of Authority-In other words, this is in the law.(1) IN GENERAL- There is appropriated to the Secretary, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $5,000,000,000 to pay claims against (and the administrative costs of) the high risk pool under this section that are in excess of the amount of premiums collected from eligible individuals enrolled in the high risk pool. Such funds shall be available without fiscal year limitation.
(2) INSUFFICIENT FUNDS- If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for the payment of the expenses of the high risk pool will be less than the actual amount of such expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit.
[...]
(4) LIMITATIONS- The Secretary has the authority to stop taking applications for participation in the program under this section to comply with the funding limitation provided for in paragraph (1).
Now I don't Pretend to speak legalize, and I know these laws are written to keep the masses ignorant. But does this not say Stop taking [patients because of limited funding? So it's true some people will not be treated.
Then explain why he keeps dismissing it, and claiming it could not lead to rationing, when it clearly says it could?
Rationing of what? Subsidies?
Then explain why he keeps dismissing it, and claiming it could not lead to rationing, when it clearly says it could?
Rationing of what? Subsidies?
Medical care for people with pre-existing conditions.
That rationing.
Just to make a point, medical inflation outstrips regular inflation because the government regulations and tort laws force doctors to survive in a market that has no relief valve when it gets to expensive.
Medical care for people with pre-existing conditions.
Rationing of what? Subsidies?
Medical care for people with pre-existing conditions.
Then explain how it will not be more rationing than what we have now at more cost and. You can't.
Look at the regional variations in Medicare reimbursements per enrollee, a decent proxy for local health care costs. Now, keeping in mind where the high-cost areas are, look at the following map.
It's a state-by-state look at the medical liability environment, provided by the 2009 National Report Card on the State of Emergency Medicine:
You can then supplement that with a look at Kaiser's state health facts to check state-by-state regulations. Do those two factors have full (or even much) explanatory power? Not so much. Oversimplifying a complicated issue isn't going to get you very far.
This is a bit of an odd complaint. Insurance markets already exclude these people--what you're saying is that their care is rationed right now. Additional resources are provided here to allow some of them to obtain coverage but the problem won't completely go away until the law goes into full effect in 2014. It makes no sense to accuse the law of "rationing" care to these people when this particular provision (the high-risk pools) is reducing the amount of rationing that's currently happening.
Rationing is inevitable. Adding millions more people to an already-strained system will mean decisions will be made about who to treat and who to deny treatment to.
Inevitable.
Rationing is inevitable. Adding millions more people to an already-strained system will mean decisions will be made about who to treat and who to deny treatment to.
Inevitable.
Exactly. More patients cannot be covered unless we get more doctors and hospitals first, which will take decades.
CHICAGO Emergency rooms, the only choice for patients who can't find care elsewhere, may grow even more crowded with longer wait times under the nation's new health law.
That might come as a surprise to those who thought getting 32 million more people covered by health insurance would ease ER crowding. It would seem these patients would be able to get routine health care by visiting a doctor's office, as most of the insured do.
But it's not that simple. Consider:
_There's already a shortage of front-line family physicians in some places and experts think that will get worse.
_People without insurance aren't the ones filling up the nation's emergency rooms. Far from it. The uninsured are no more likely to use ERs than people with private insurance, perhaps because they're wary of huge bills.
_The biggest users of emergency rooms by far are Medicaid recipients. And the new health insurance law will increase their ranks by about 16 million. Medicaid is the state and federal program for low-income families and the disabled. And many family doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients they take because of low government reimbursements.
_ERs are already crowded and hospitals are just now finding solutions.
Rand Corp. researcher Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann predicts this from the new law: "More people will have coverage and will be less afraid to go to the emergency department if they're sick or hurt and have nowhere else to go.... We just don't have other places in the system for these folks to go."
Kellermann and other experts point to Massachusetts, the model for federal health overhaul where a 2006 law requires insurance for almost everyone. Reports from the state find ER visits continuing to rise since the law passed contrary to hopes of its backers who reasoned that expanding coverage would give many people access to doctors offices
Who simplified it? I was just pointing out that medical inflation is not caused by the free market, it is caused by the system of government interference and tort laws.
Throw in the employer based health insurance that is also a direct result of government regulation and you have a disaster waiting to happen.
This law does nothing to address the real faults of the system, and even carves out exceptions to perpetrate some of the worst of them. If you want to read a good essay about the basic problem we have in this country I would recommend this one:
How American Health Care Killed My Father - Magazine - The Atlantic
Why is an odd complaint to point out that a law that is supposed to fix something is not working?
One thing I can gargantuan, when 2014 rolls around this law will still not work, and people with pre-existing conditions will still be unable to get coverage.
If the powers that be thought this had any chance of actually working they would not have delayed the implementation of this part until 2014 because this is the single thing that almost everyone in country thinks is a good idea.
Now I'm confused. When someone suggested not too long ago that reform would lead to the demise of much of the employer-based system, you seemed very upset. But it turns out you think that would be a desirable outcome? (If so, I agree, by the way)
I have read that. Do you support mandatory catastrophic coverage?
Because the high-risk pools are explicitly not supposed to solve the problem, they're supposed to make a dent in it using a limited budget. I posted the relevant bit of the law so you could see that for yourself. It explicitly says we only have $5 billion to spend on this, we may not be able to cover everyone who wants it. You're ascribing goals to the program that aren't actually part of it and using those goals to bludgeon it. As I've said numerous times now it's intended only to be a stopgap solution to take a chunk out of the problem. The real solution, however, is the exchanges.
Why's that?[
As it stands, states have quite a bit of groundwork to lay down over the next two years to get the exchanges going. Most don't know exactly how to do it yet, which is why expert groups are going to be needed to provide guidance and technical assistance between now and late 2013. If the law had called for them to be operational by November of this year, I imagine you'd have a field day when every state missed the deadline.
You are certainly confused, I never said that that I liked the system we have, I was sneering at the lie that everyone would be able to keep the plan they currently have.
Nothing can solve the problem unless insurers can charge people to supply the care that is needed to for those pre-existing conditions.
I do not think the exchanges will work, because it will turn out that most people who need the coverage will still be unable to afford it, which will drive up the costs for the rest of us, which is not how this is supposed to work. I will freely admit that I could be wrong about this if you will admit that the only way you can prove you are right is if you can point to results that contradict me. Just remember one thing, it did not work that way in Massachusetts.
It never has in the past, why will it suddenly work now? Because Obama is smarter than anyone else who has tried it?
Yet some states are jumping in, and Congress did not bother with any advice either.
Now I don't Pretend to speak legalize, and I know these laws are written to keep the masses ignorant. But does this not say Stop taking [patients because of limited funding? So it's true some people will not be treated.
Unless you're paying cash for treatment, yes. You are going to, at some point, be rationed by someone. That's an economic reality. As you well know the issue is not that there will be rationing but on what grounds and methods will there be rationing. Nobody but the insane trust the government to handle this kind of program, for their track record in this nation is by far horrific. I can think of only ONE government program that did what it set out to do and left the industry it was involved in better off when it left. ONE: The USRA. Why did it end on a good note? Simple... it disbanded after the 2nd world war and was no longer needed to assist in helping railroads gain their motive power needs.My Family Doctor, who is also a friend, tells me we already have medical rationing.
Rationing is inevitable. Adding millions more people to an already-strained system will mean decisions will be made about who to treat and who to deny treatment to.
Inevitable.
Exactly. More patients cannot be covered unless we get more doctors and hospitals first, which will take decades.
Yup.
Health overhaul may mean longer ER waits, crowding
CHICAGO Emergency rooms, the only choice for patients who can't find care elsewhere, may grow even more crowded with longer wait times under the nation's new health law.
That might come as a surprise to those who thought getting 32 million more people covered by health insurance would ease ER crowding. It would seem these patients would be able to get routine health care by visiting a doctor's office, as most of the insured do.
But it's not that simple. Consider:
_There's already a shortage of front-line family physicians in some places and experts think that will get worse.
_People without insurance aren't the ones filling up the nation's emergency rooms. Far from it. The uninsured are no more likely to use ERs than people with private insurance, perhaps because they're wary of huge bills.
_The biggest users of emergency rooms by far are Medicaid recipients. And the new health insurance law will increase their ranks by about 16 million. Medicaid is the state and federal program for low-income families and the disabled. And many family doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients they take because of low government reimbursements.
_ERs are already crowded and hospitals are just now finding solutions.
Rand Corp. researcher Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann predicts this from the new law: "More people will have coverage and will be less afraid to go to the emergency department if they're sick or hurt and have nowhere else to go.... We just don't have other places in the system for these folks to go."
Kellermann and other experts point to Massachusetts, the model for federal health overhaul where a 2006 law requires insurance for almost everyone. Reports from the state find ER visits continuing to rise since the law passed contrary to hopes of its backers who reasoned that expanding coverage would give many people access to doctors offices
So, more people will be insured, being treated by even fewer resources than are available now.Exactly. More patients cannot be covered unless we get more doctors and hospitals first, which will take decades.
Yup.
Health overhaul may mean longer ER waits, crowding
CHICAGO Emergency rooms, the only choice for patients who can't find care elsewhere, may grow even more crowded with longer wait times under the nation's new health law.
That might come as a surprise to those who thought getting 32 million more people covered by health insurance would ease ER crowding. It would seem these patients would be able to get routine health care by visiting a doctor's office, as most of the insured do.
But it's not that simple. Consider:
_There's already a shortage of front-line family physicians in some places and experts think that will get worse.
_People without insurance aren't the ones filling up the nation's emergency rooms. Far from it. The uninsured are no more likely to use ERs than people with private insurance, perhaps because they're wary of huge bills.
_The biggest users of emergency rooms by far are Medicaid recipients. And the new health insurance law will increase their ranks by about 16 million. Medicaid is the state and federal program for low-income families and the disabled. And many family doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients they take because of low government reimbursements.
_ERs are already crowded and hospitals are just now finding solutions.
Rand Corp. researcher Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann predicts this from the new law: "More people will have coverage and will be less afraid to go to the emergency department if they're sick or hurt and have nowhere else to go.... We just don't have other places in the system for these folks to go."
Kellermann and other experts point to Massachusetts, the model for federal health overhaul where a 2006 law requires insurance for almost everyone. Reports from the state find ER visits continuing to rise since the law passed contrary to hopes of its backers who reasoned that expanding coverage would give many people access to doctors offices
45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul <Investors Business Daily, September 15, 2009
So, more people will be insured, being treated by even fewer resources than are available now.
45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul <Investors Business Daily, September 15, 2009
Obamacare is going to kill an awful lot of people.
And they get pissed when you call them Marxists.So, more people will be insured, being treated by even fewer resources than are available now.45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul <Investors Business Daily, September 15, 2009
Obamacare is going to kill an awful lot of people.
That's my take on it...yes. Government has no business in this at all. All I can say is that I hope that after November we get more Governors onboard with the 19 presently suing the Federal Government over this UnConstitutional Law. It doesn't take effect until 2014...but the ramifications are already taking hold now.
In a piecemeal fashion? They're going to force this...and it's a contrived, ill-concieved Law that will destroy another part of the private sector. By Design.
And they get pissed when you call them Marxists.So, more people will be insured, being treated by even fewer resources than are available now.
Obamacare is going to kill an awful lot of people.
That's my take on it...yes. Government has no business in this at all. All I can say is that I hope that after November we get more Governors onboard with the 19 presently suing the Federal Government over this UnConstitutional Law. It doesn't take effect until 2014...but the ramifications are already taking hold now.
In a piecemeal fashion? They're going to force this...and it's a contrived, ill-concieved Law that will destroy another part of the private sector. By Design.