Well aside from the Fact Checks non story here about "rationing" I suppose it depends on how one looks at the issue. The difference is actually a very simple one, as pointed out above, in this nation even if your turned down for a procedure by your healthcare provider the only thing that stops you from getting it is you. So I suppose if you look at from a pure financial standpoint , in that in the eyes of those that cannot afford the procedure are rationed would seem to be a weak way of looking at it because the availaiblity it still there. All one need do is cure the financial side of it, and that goes straight to what I have been talking about on this healthcare debate and that is to address the real issues of healthcare costs and not, unconstitutional, infunctioning measures that will bankrupt this country in the hopes that it will somehow drive down the costs of healthcare. Want some facts well here are some real facts...
May 8, 1965 - US Estimates Medicare Cost Far Too Low, Insurers Figure. RY WILLIAM CLARK. [Financial EditorI. What will the government s medicare program cost? No- body knows for sure, but a substantial segment of the in- surance industry believes gov- ernment estimates may prove to be quite a bit ...
From US Estimates Medicare Cost Far Too Low, Insurers Figure - Related web pages
pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access ...
Sep 26, 1993 - It is difficult to overestimate the weight placed these days on Medicare costs. Each year, another 2 percent of the population qualifies for benefits; ... Clinton insists that his actuaries and accountants can squeeze $124 billion out of Medicare costs between 1994 and 2000, ...
From HEALTH PLAN BURDEN FALLS ON STATES MEDICARE - IMPERFECT … - Related web pages
pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access ...
Medicare costs history - Google Search
Those differing assumptions lead to a difference of $760 billion a year in Medicare spending by 2030, the panel said.
The 17-member commission, created by Congress and headed by Senator John B. Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana, has decided to assess the effects of all its proposals on Medicare spending under both sets of assumptions.
The panel is considering fundamental changes in the structure of Medicare, but has not yet made specific recommendations. The higher estimates of Medicare spending, considered more realistic by many commission members, accentuate the need for changes in the program to keep it solvent for 76 million baby boomers, born from 1946 to 1964.
One panel member, Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, said the estimates of Medicare spending could have a profound effect on the commission's recommendations, which must be submitted to the President and Congress by March 1, 1999.
Panel Finds Medicare Costs Are Underestimated by U.S. - The New York Times
The White House released budget figures yesterday indicating that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost more than $1.2 trillion in the coming decade, a much higher price tag than President Bush suggested when he narrowly won passage of the law in late 2003.
The projections represent the most complete picture to date of how much the program will cost after it begins next year. The expense of the new drug benefit has been a source of much controversy since the day Congress approved it, with Democrats and some Republicans complaining that the White House has consistently low-balled the expected cost to the government.
Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion (washingtonpost.com)
All that from a program meant for the elderly who's cost were not supposed to exceed 45 million in 10 years. So what then do you think this nation would be looking at for a program that the CBO estimates will cost this nation over a trillion dollars in 10 years? 10, 12, 15 trillion dollars? In case you have not noticed that about all our annual GDP. Further, in order to perpetuate this scheme , they wish to spend this money in a time when the Govt. is deep in debt to foreign powers and adding to it at a record pace. The bottom line here is this, while the Govt. has every right to address the issues that cause healthcare services to rise and they should, they are NOT empowered under the constitution to become a health insurance provider to the entire population. I have made this suggestion many times to all of you "healthcare rights progressives" you are going about this all wrong, if you really wanted to work within our form of Govt. to make healthcare a right then do so and advocate for a constitutional amendment that would make it so. I suspect though the reason why this is not being done is because, they know as well as I that 2/3rds required would never ratify it. In lite of that then the best approach is to go to your respective states and get that option onto your states constitutions. Until such time as the Govt. addresses the real issues of rising healthcare costs , rather than this one size fits all approach they will never solve healthcare issues in this country, in fact what this will do, if it does pass is further seperate the divide between those that can afford quality healthcare and those that cannot the only difference will be is those that cannot will be able to wave a card around saying I have Govt. healthcare only problem is they will have few if any places to use it.
