The Ugly Truth of Obamacare

[Zoom-boing]

There's is reason to be concerned about end-of-life counseling, but the truth is more complicated. Here's the story.

The House bill does deal with the issue. (The Senate Finance Committee bill did until the provision was removed the other day.) Section 1233 amends the Medicare law to add "advance care planning consultation"
(counseling about living wills and the like) to the list of reimbursable services. The provision defines "consultation," but nowhere does it require Medicare beneficiaries to participate or authorize death panels. (Grassley voted for a similar provision in 2003 when his Republican-controlled Congress added drug coverage to Medicare.)

But even if some conservative Republican critics are wrong about Section 1233, there is good reason to worry about Obama's nationalization scheme.

The reason can be found in Econ 101. Medical care doesn't grow on trees. It must be produced by human and physical capital, and those resources are limited. Therefore, if demand for health care services increases -- which is Obama's point in extending health insurance -- prices must go up. But somehow Obama also promises, "I won't sign a bill that doesn't reduce health care inflation".

This is magical thinking. Obama, talented as he is, can't repeal the laws of supply and demand. Costs are real. If they are incurred, someone has to pay them. But as economist Thomas Sowell points out, politicians can control costs -- by refusing to pay for the services.

It's called rationing.

Advocates of nationalization hate that word because it forces them to face an ugly truth. If government pays for more people's health care and wants to control costs, it must limit what we buy.

So much for Obama's promise not to interfere with our freedom of choice.

This brings us back to end-of-life consultation. As the government's health care budget becomes strained, as it must -- and, as Obama admits, already is under Medicare -- the government will have to cut back on what it lets people have.

So it is not a leap to foresee government limiting health care, especially to people nearing the end of life. Medical "ethicists" have long lamented that too much money is spent futilely in the last several months of life. Are we supposed to believe that the social engineers haven't read their writings?

And given the premise that it's government's job to pay for our heath care, concluding that 80-year-olds should get no hip replacements makes sense. The problem is the premise: that taxpayers should pay. Once you accept that, bad things follow.

In the end, perhaps the biggest objection to nationalized health care is the "principal-agent problem." For whom does the doctor work? Ordinarily, the doctor is the agent of the patient. But when government signs the checks and orders doctors to reduce spending, it is not crazy to think that this won't influence their "advance care planning consultation".

Freedom is about self-determination. Obama's health care scheme would undermine both.

RealClearPolitics - The Ugly Truth of Obamacare

 

[Truthmatters]

Why is it other countries can provide this service and we are incapable of doing it?

Are they better at everything than us?

 

[veritas]

But the government already pays for and controls all healthcare for old people, it's called medicare.


wanker, you are so owned.

 

[Truthmatters]

77% of medicare recipients like the program.

Some of the antihealthcare nutbags came to the town halls telling their reps to keep the gov out of healthcare and leave their medicare alone.

The police, FBI, Military are just a few gov programs that do indeed work also.

 

[Zoom-boing]

But the government already pays for and controls all healthcare for old people, it's called medicare.


wanker, you are so owned.

Which will be bellyup in 10 years.

"As the government's health care budget becomes strained, as it must -- and, as Obama admits, already is under Medicare -- the government will have to cut back on what it lets people have."

77% of medicare recipients like the program.

Some of the antihealthcare nutbags came to the town halls telling their reps to keep the gov out of healthcare and leave their medicare alone.

The police, FBI, Military are just a few gov programs that do indeed work also.

Medicare will be belly up in 10 years.

"As the government's health care budget becomes strained, as it must -- and, as Obama admits, already is under Medicare -- the government will have to cut back on what it lets people have."

 

[veritas]

Medicare will be belly up in 10 years.

then all those old people shall die, die, die?!!!!!!


still a wanker.

 

[Immanuel]

Why is it other countries can provide this service and we are incapable of doing it?

Are they better at everything than us?

Our political leaders on both sides of the aisle are so politically corrupt that the reality of the issue is that should this plan succeed in being approved by Congress and signed by the President, there is only one possible outcome and that is the bankruptcy of the program just like Social Security and Medicare and every other public run subsidy, but even worse than that is the fact that it WILL contribute to the bankruptcy of this country. We simply can not continue to spend like drunken George Bush's and survive. This plan is doomed to failure and dooming the U.S. of A.

Other countries may have been successful and socializing medicine which is the ultimate goal here, but it is not possible in our current state.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Medicare will be belly up in 10 years.

I don't think so. The social programs we already have will remain with us until the day that our government collapses. If... when Medicare and Social Security go belly up, Congress will simply raise taxes again and again until they have taxed us to death and finally the country's economy collapses.

Which is why we can't afford to add more!

Immie

 

[Political Junky]

Medicare will be belly up in 10 years.

I don't think so. The social programs we already have will remain with us until the day that our government collapses. If... when Medicare and Social Security go belly up, Congress will simply raise taxes again and again until they have taxed us to death and finally the country's economy collapses.

Which is why we can't afford to add more!

Immie

Under Eisenhower, the tax rate for those making over $400,000. was 91%. Our current top rate is 35%.

 

[OneWorld]

This is one of the dumbest things I've read in quite some time.

Most of the cost in health care is in the bureaucracy of the health insurance companies. I believe they said over 40% (someone correct if I'm wrong). Cut this out, and you're drastically driving down the cost. Not to mention we already have medicare. Also, almost all doctor associations are in favor of this reform, so they must not be too worried about "giovernment takeover".... they just want to practice medicine without the current "private take over" they are dealing with in insurance companies. Go talk to some doctors at least... jesus people.

Man, just stop regurgitating what people are saying and think for yourself for a minute.

 

[Bullypulpit]

There's is reason to be concerned about end-of-life counseling, but the truth is more complicated. Here's the story.

The House bill does deal with the issue. (The Senate Finance Committee bill did until the provision was removed the other day.) Section 1233 amends the Medicare law to add "advance care planning consultation"
(counseling about living wills and the like) to the list of reimbursable services. The provision defines "consultation," but nowhere does it require Medicare beneficiaries to participate or authorize death panels. (Grassley voted for a similar provision in 2003 when his Republican-controlled Congress added drug coverage to Medicare.)

But even if some conservative Republican critics are wrong about Section 1233, there is good reason to worry about Obama's nationalization scheme.

The reason can be found in Econ 101. Medical care doesn't grow on trees. It must be produced by human and physical capital, and those resources are limited. Therefore, if demand for health care services increases -- which is Obama's point in extending health insurance -- prices must go up. But somehow Obama also promises, "I won't sign a bill that doesn't reduce health care inflation".

This is magical thinking. Obama, talented as he is, can't repeal the laws of supply and demand. Costs are real. If they are incurred, someone has to pay them. But as economist Thomas Sowell points out, politicians can control costs -- by refusing to pay for the services.

It's called rationing.

Advocates of nationalization hate that word because it forces them to face an ugly truth. If government pays for more people's health care and wants to control costs, it must limit what we buy.

So much for Obama's promise not to interfere with our freedom of choice.

This brings us back to end-of-life consultation. As the government's health care budget becomes strained, as it must -- and, as Obama admits, already is under Medicare -- the government will have to cut back on what it lets people have.

So it is not a leap to foresee government limiting health care, especially to people nearing the end of life. Medical "ethicists" have long lamented that too much money is spent futilely in the last several months of life. Are we supposed to believe that the social engineers haven't read their writings?

And given the premise that it's government's job to pay for our heath care, concluding that 80-year-olds should get no hip replacements makes sense. The problem is the premise: that taxpayers should pay. Once you accept that, bad things follow.

In the end, perhaps the biggest objection to nationalized health care is the "principal-agent problem." For whom does the doctor work? Ordinarily, the doctor is the agent of the patient. But when government signs the checks and orders doctors to reduce spending, it is not crazy to think that this won't influence their "advance care planning consultation".

Freedom is about self-determination. Obama's health care scheme would undermine both.

RealClearPolitics - The Ugly Truth of Obamacare

The Republican's who are screaming bloody murder about end of life counseling...the falsely labeled "death panels"...are the very same ones who voted for such counseling in the Medicare reform act during the late, unlamented Bush administration. It is a real tribute to the strength of the 1st Amendment that such utter bullshit continues to be freely propagated in the name of political discourse.

I dare you to refute ANY of the points, with documented, independently verifiable, reputable sources, in the following piece...

Myths and falsehoods about health care reform

 

[Immanuel]

Medicare will be belly up in 10 years.

I don't think so. The social programs we already have will remain with us until the day that our government collapses. If... when Medicare and Social Security go belly up, Congress will simply raise taxes again and again until they have taxed us to death and finally the country's economy collapses.

Which is why we can't afford to add more!

Immie

Under Eisenhower, the tax rate for those making over $400,000. was 91%. Our current top rate is 35%.

So you are seeking to compete with Eisenhower's tax rates?

This is one of the dumbest things I've read in quite some time.

Most of the cost in health care is in the bureaucracy of the health insurance companies. I believe they said over 40% (someone correct if I'm wrong). Cut this out, and you're drastically driving down the cost. Not to mention we already have medicare. Also, almost all doctor associations are in favor of this reform, so they must not be too worried about "giovernment takeover".... they just want to practice medicine without the current "private take over" they are dealing with in insurance companies. Go talk to some doctors at least... jesus people.

Man, just stop regurgitating what people are saying and think for yourself for a minute.

OneWorld it is evident that you think changing the cost of the bureaucracy from that of the private insurance companies to that of the U.S. Government is acceptable. I on the other hand prefer to have insurance companies competing against each other thus holding to cost down to some extent. When you give the government a monoply on our healthcare there will be no incentive for them to keep the costs down or our taxes down. Costs will go through the roof.

Medical professionals are in favor of this... hmm, could it be that they see bilking Obamacare as likely as bilking Medicare in their future?

I repeat... there will be no incentive for either the government or healthcare professionals to keep the costs down. Our government doesn't usually care about controlling costs. They only need to bump up taxes to cover the costs or add it on to the National Debt and let our Great Grandchildren pay for it. That is criminal in my opinion.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

Medicare doesn't ration. In fact, they are more guilty of paying doctors for procedures that aren't needed.

The insurance companies ration. My parents have much better health care than I, and after them paying into medicare for years I can't say they don't deserve it.

 

[editec]

What a load of insane blather.

 

[Care4all]

There's is reason to be concerned about end-of-life counseling, but the truth is more complicated.

Yes, the truth IS more complicated!

But even if some conservative Republican critics are wrong about Section 1233, there is good reason to worry about Obama's nationalization scheme.

The reason can be found in Econ 101. Medical care doesn't grow on trees. It must be produced by human and physical capital, and those resources are limited. Therefore, if demand for health care services increases -- which is Obama's point in extending health insurance -- prices must go up. But somehow Obama also promises, "I won't sign a bill that doesn't reduce health care inflation".

As with any other widget in capitalism, you increase your supply to meet the projected increased demand...more hospitals will open, more people will become doctors, nurses, medical techs and physician assistants...near any job in the medical field is a guaranteed job for the next few decades...time to direct more colleges students in that direction, time for colleges to readjust their courses so to expand that area.

Never, in the twenty some years i worked for corporations, would we not move forward with a plan to increase our business because there presently was not enough inventory or supply available....we would go to our manufacturers and ask them to increase their supply to meet our projected demand...some could, some couldn't right yet but later were able to.

The article author is a DEFEATIST, and missed econ 201, and econ 301!!! He wouldn't last in the real world of economics for a nanosecond imho, at least not in mine!

This is magical thinking. Obama, talented as he is, can't repeal the laws of supply and demand. Costs are real. If they are incurred, someone has to pay them. But as economist Thomas Sowell points out, politicians can control costs -- by refusing to pay for the services.

AS i mentioned above, we need to increase our supply to meet our demand. More people will invest in healthcare knowing it is a guaranteed increased business, and it is...with just boomers, let alone adding another 20-30 million people...

increased supply will lower prices...but so will several other parts of the plan....if policies are priced and subsidized to where more small businesses and individuals can purchase the insurance policies for themselves or for employees, and a portion of these people are our youth or the healthy...or who rarely get cancer or other life threatening diseases, then everyones prices come down with more people added to the insurance system...

the MORE MRI machines and CAT scans etc that are done, the less one needs to be charged for it due to prorating the cost of the machines among more people.

It's called rationing.

Advocates of nationalization hate that word because it forces them to face an ugly truth. If government pays for more people's health care and wants to control costs, it must limit what we buy.

So much for Obama's promise not to interfere with our freedom of choice.

ALL who are poor, are already on medicaid, paid for by us. This is to HELP the middle class who can not afford it, get it...or businesses who want to offer the benefit for employees but it was a tad too pricey, be able to afford it ..

This brings us back to end-of-life consultation. As the government's health care budget becomes strained, as it must -- and, as Obama admits, already is under Medicare -- the government will have to cut back on what it lets people have.

It does NOT have to be that way, if the norm of supply and demand is working, then supply WILL INCREASE to meet the demand, through more competition with new businesses and supply being added....

So it is not a leap to foresee government limiting health care, especially to people nearing the end of life. Medical "ethicists" have long lamented that too much money is spent futilely in the last several months of life. Are we supposed to believe that the social engineers haven't read their writings?

Our government IS ALREADY responsible for paying the bills of the elderly and medicare has run short, have death squads been shutting down their care NOW? Does our government tell them to take a hort walk off a plank now and offer no recourse for such decisions?

There is PROOF that our Insurance companies DO THIS NOW.

And given the premise that it's government's job to pay for our heath care, concluding that 80-year-olds should get no hip replacements makes sense. The problem is the premise: that taxpayers should pay. Once you accept that, bad things follow.

Exactly HOW is this a premise zoom? Why is it the government's job to pay for our healthcare with this bill? Will I not be buying my own insurance policy anymore? Will my husband's job not be paying half of the cost of my plan anymore?

this insurance reform IS NOT a government run single payer insurance plan, they do not pay the doctors?

But Medicare IS a government run insurance plan and they don't stop hip replacements on 80 year olds, but you can bet your bottom dollar that a private insurance company would.

Shoot, when my mother in law got Breast Cancer at 80 years old and she had a mastectomy on one of her breasts, they offered to pay for breast augmentation for her....of course, she said, "What? Why the heck do I need another titty to replace the one your taking, at 80 years old?" she went without...took the padded bra on one side instead...but the point is that Medicare would have paid for the fake boob.

In the end, perhaps the biggest objection to nationalized health care is the "principal-agent problem." For whom does the doctor work? Ordinarily, the doctor is the agent of the patient. But when government signs the checks and orders doctors to reduce spending, it is not crazy to think that this won't influence their "advance care planning consultation".

Are our seniors NOT making their own medical decisions with their doctors NOW? My parents on Medicare certainly are making their own medical decisions along with their doctor's, and the government has absolutely has NOTHING to do with their decisions...this IS THE SINGLE PAYER plan that you are scared of....?

Because this insurance reform bill, IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to what medicare is, a single payer insurance plan.

The insurance companies, based on profit, will decide if you get treatment paid by them or not...not you, nor your doctor will make that decision.

Freedom is about self-determination. Obama's health care scheme would undermine both.

I disagree.

Taking away MY CHOICE to go with a public option insurance or a coop insurance is BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM ME, by the people like you zoom...you are taking away MY CHOICE to go with a plan that does not involve what i consider, the scum of the earth...the Insurance companies, who have DICKED me and matt from here to kingdom come.

You and the position you are taking, is not choice or FREEDOM, it is THE LACK THERE OF...imho, you are PROTECTING the Insurance companies and the billions in pure profit that they don't DESERVE to get , again...imo.

So why do you want to take MY CHOICE in who insures me, AWAY from me?

I just don't understand how you can disguise and clothe your position as freedom?



Care

 

[Big Black Dog]

When the government takes over health care and enacts this Public Option Plan, Medicare will go away and be melted into the Public Option Plan. Then the government will seize the funds in the Medicare accounts and send that money to someplace like Africa to build new water systems or schools or some other feel good project. They might even use those funds to extend the Cash for Clunkers Program or something as idiotic. Old people in this country will be simply screwed. When you get old, prepare to mold,,,

 

[Care4all]

Medicare is a separate entity with separate taxes allocated to it that each and every person on it has paid for a minimum amount of their working years...yes it is running short and will run EXTREMELY SHORT if reforms ARE NOT MADE....if nothing is done, Medicare will bankrupt us, all on its own....as it stands.

Allowing a Public Option, of which those younger than seniors would not interfere with medicare. It would be a separate insurance plan similar to medicare insurance in the handling, that people like me CAN BUY, with my OWN MONEY, if I choose to do such...THAT'S ALL. There will be NO FORCED taxation on YOU for me, I am simply TRYING to buy MY OWN PLAN of CHOICE....you stopping such is LIMITING MY FREEDOM to do such and I want to know WHY, you get to LIMIT my choices of what I am willing to pay for....? I am willing to give away my taxes for your employer and you to get a tax deduction on your private insurance costs...why don't you allow me to choose what I want to pay for and receive the same...?

Care

 

[Zoom-boing]

If a public option goes through, it will be step one on the road to single-payer. Obama is gung-ho for it and hey, you have to start somewhere. Anyone who doesn't think that is a fool. When all we have is single-payer, government-run health care . . . where are our choices then? This current mess is caused by the bureaucracy of the insurance companies? lol, what the hell do you think is going to happen when uncle gets involved? How's medicare doing again? Interesting that those on the left are the ones repeating the 'death panel' stuff. You're so focused on that you miss the bigger picture of rationing. So many other solutions and suggestions are out there. Tell me, why is it that the public option is being pushed for so much? Think. Why not fix the problems they can first and see how that goes before letting uncle get it's hands on yet one more piece of your life?

 

[Care4all]

I don't think so. The social programs we already have will remain with us until the day that our government collapses. If... when Medicare and Social Security go belly up, Congress will simply raise taxes again and again until they have taxed us to death and finally the country's economy collapses.

Which is why we can't afford to add more!

Immie

Under Eisenhower, the tax rate for those making over $400,000. was 91%. Our current top rate is 35%.

So you are seeking to compete with Eisenhower's tax rates?

This is one of the dumbest things I've read in quite some time.

Most of the cost in health care is in the bureaucracy of the health insurance companies. I believe they said over 40% (someone correct if I'm wrong). Cut this out, and you're drastically driving down the cost. Not to mention we already have medicare. Also, almost all doctor associations are in favor of this reform, so they must not be too worried about "giovernment takeover".... they just want to practice medicine without the current "private take over" they are dealing with in insurance companies. Go talk to some doctors at least... jesus people.

Man, just stop regurgitating what people are saying and think for yourself for a minute.

OneWorld it is evident that you think changing the cost of the bureaucracy from that of the private insurance companies to that of the U.S. Government is acceptable. I on the other hand prefer to have insurance companies competing against each other thus holding to cost down to some extent. When you give the government a monoply on our healthcare there will be no incentive for them to keep the costs down or our taxes down. Costs will go through the roof.

Medical professionals are in favor of this... hmm, could it be that they see bilking Obamacare as likely as bilking Medicare in their future?

I repeat... there will be no incentive for either the government or healthcare professionals to keep the costs down. Our government doesn't usually care about controlling costs. They only need to bump up taxes to cover the costs or add it on to the National Debt and let our Great Grandchildren pay for it. That is criminal in my opinion.

Immie

so there will be:

No rationing of medical care?
No involvement of the gvt with you and your doctor's choices on medical treatment?
No Death panels?

etc etc etc

hmmmmm.......

care

 

[Care4all]

If a public option goes through, it will be step one on the road to single-payer. Obama is gung-ho for it and hey, you have to start somewhere. Anyone who doesn't think that is a fool. When all we have is single-payer, government-run health care . . . where are our choices then? This current mess is caused by the bureaucracy of the insurance companies? lol, what the hell do you think is going to happen when uncle gets involved? How's medicare doing again? Interesting that those on the left are the ones repeating the 'death panel' stuff. You're so focused on that you miss the bigger picture of rationing. So many other solutions and suggestions are out there. Tell me, why is it that the public option is being pushed for so much? Think. Why not fix the problems they can first and see how that goes before letting uncle get it's hands on yet one more piece of your life?

Our government PAYS FOR 50% of all healthcare costs in our country today, with all government employees, all of congress and their family's, all of the military, all of the retired military and their spouse's, all veterans disabled, all of the post office employees, a deduction from taxes for all Private Employers that pay it, all of Medicaid and Medicare recipients, all of chips for children's healthcare, with medical and Pharma research and development grants etc etc etc.

Allowing one or two insurance companies in a state IS NOT competition enough to reduce our medical costs....they can easily price fix.

Having the public option available to compete with them IS IN THE BEST INTEREST of EVERYONE that wants to keep their private insurance at an affordable price....

to take or limit competition by not having a coop or public option like you all want IS WHAT WILL bankrupt us...imo and when wearing my finance hat.

Care