What we may end up with is

[Diuretic]

Something that is not unlike what is evolving in Australia.
The person in need of care will have to pay out of pocket and have to file for reimbursement from the government.
Many Doctors in Australia will no longer treat patients under government care programs due to low and slow payments.

How is that for a health care solution?

How it works - very roughly - is that I go to see my doctor and he gives me a bill. My doctor is in a private clinic and the business doesn't "bulk bill", that is, it charges the AMA rate and not the Medicare rate. I pay at the clinic and then I electronically claim on Medicare and the reimbursement goes into my bank account. If I have a Health Card and am on concessions then I don't pay anything. Some doctors will only charge the Medicare rate so people don't have to pay anything.

I don't know about doctors refusing to treat patients in the manner you assert.

We can get to the things you dont know later lets deal wtih, if you dont have the scratch to pay the bill?

I do know that the previous federal government - conservative Howard government - fucked with Medicare here. Just another reason I'm so glad they're not in power. But even that ideologically driven fool didn't try to dismantle it.

So, the evidence for non-treatment?

 

[California Girl]

go get your proof that this will be how it works

Is English not your first language? Because you don't seem to understand basic words like the difference between 'may' and 'will'.

If English is your first language, you really, really need to improve your comprehension skills. Or even just upgrade your comprehension skill to 'beginner'.

 

[California Girl]

Mr. Fitnah and Dude on the same side, blabbing but no evidence or facts. Dude is correct that the pool risk increases. What he is not willing to admit is that the risk has to be spread equally across the pool. Some rates will go up, not significantly, while others will drop radically. Fitnah offers nothing about Australia, and Dude yammers.

Well, they are not in charge, thank heavens, so all we have to do is listen to their whining. Life could be far worse than that.

Let's move on.

Yet another useful idiot.

When the fee/tax/fine is well below the costs for the insurance --and the Stalinist goombahs designing this scam damn well know it will be-- then all that will be in the real risk pool will be the highest risks.

The whole thing is designed to fail on purpose.

Gee Dude, you must feel honored that Jokeyboy has deemed you to be correct. Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy? I think I'd feel kinda dirty if Jokey ever agreed with me. Eeeeew.

 

[Old Rocks]

The end game is socialized gubmint medical services, plain and simple.

Nobody with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics can't see that forcing higher risks into the pool won't cause premiums to rise.

Subsequently, the Stalinist tyrants pushing the current "reform" will once again bash the insurance companies for "price gouging", and use the failure of their "reform" as evidence that Big Daddy Big Gubmint needs to take over the whole kit and kaboodle to make it all "fair".

Make book on it.

They're pushing low-risk in the pool, also. The theory is balance and overall better care, faster rather than waiting until one is very sick, moving the demand curve to the left.

Just sayin...

You're a willing useful idiot.

Just sayin'.

And you are just an idiot, period.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr. Fitnah and Dude on the same side, blabbing but no evidence or facts. Dude is correct that the pool risk increases. What he is not willing to admit is that the risk has to be spread equally across the pool. Some rates will go up, not significantly, while others will drop radically. Fitnah offers nothing about Australia, and Dude yammers.

Well, they are not in charge, thank heavens, so all we have to do is listen to their whining. Life could be far worse than that.

Let's move on.

Yet another useful idiot.

When the fee/tax/fine is well below the costs for the insurance --and the Stalinist goombahs designing this scam damn well know it will be-- then all that will be in the real risk pool will be the highest risks.

The whole thing is designed to fail on purpose.

Wah, wahhhhh............

It will work. And it will be amended until we have a true universal health care system, more than likely now, in my lifetime.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mr. Fitnah and Dude on the same side, blabbing but no evidence or facts. Dude is correct that the pool risk increases. What he is not willing to admit is that the risk has to be spread equally across the pool. Some rates will go up, not significantly, while others will drop radically. Fitnah offers nothing about Australia, and Dude yammers.

Well, they are not in charge, thank heavens, so all we have to do is listen to their whining. Life could be far worse than that.

Let's move on.

Yet another useful idiot.

When the fee/tax/fine is well below the costs for the insurance --and the Stalinist goombahs designing this scam damn well know it will be-- then all that will be in the real risk pool will be the highest risks.

The whole thing is designed to fail on purpose.

You are a homer for your side. Watch insurance company stocks go up today as the companies figure to attract the 32mm going to be covered.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Mr. Fitnah and Dude on the same side, blabbing but no evidence or facts. Dude is correct that the pool risk increases. What he is not willing to admit is that the risk has to be spread equally across the pool. Some rates will go up, not significantly, while others will drop radically. Fitnah offers nothing about Australia, and Dude yammers.

Well, they are not in charge, thank heavens, so all we have to do is listen to their whining. Life could be far worse than that.

Let's move on.

Yet another useful idiot.

When the fee/tax/fine is well below the costs for the insurance --and the Stalinist goombahs designing this scam damn well know it will be-- then all that will be in the real risk pool will be the highest risks.

The whole thing is designed to fail on purpose.

You are a homer for your side. Watch insurance company stocks go up today as the companies figure to attract the 32mm going to be covered.

Why wouldn't they

A Complicated Enemy: Obama Seeks to Vilify Health Insurers, Give Them $336 Billion Check - The Note

Neither mentioned that the Senate health reform bill, which is the basis for Democrats' last best chance at comprehensive reform, would give the insurance companies millions of new customers required by law to buy health insurance. It would also require insurers to cover everyone, regardless of age, gender or pre-existing condition.

To help pay for the new insurance requirements the government would give to people money to buy insurance - $336 billion over the next ten years. That money, ultimately, would have to go to... drum roll... insurance companies.

 

[Ravi]

The end game is socialized gubmint medical services, plain and simple.

Nobody with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics can't see that forcing higher risks into the pool won't cause premiums to rise.

Subsequently, the Stalinist tyrants pushing the current "reform" will once again bash the insurance companies for "price gouging", and use the failure of their "reform" as evidence that Big Daddy Big Gubmint needs to take over the whole kit and kaboodle to make it all "fair".

Make book on it.

They're pushing low-risk in the pool, also. The theory is balance and overall better care, faster rather than waiting until one is very sick, moving the demand curve to the left.

Just sayin...

You're a willing useful idiot.

Just sayin'.

And you're a useless idiot.

 

[Foxfyre]

Mr. Fitnah and Dude on the same side, blabbing but no evidence or facts. Dude is correct that the pool risk increases. What he is not willing to admit is that the risk has to be spread equally across the pool. Some rates will go up, not significantly, while others will drop radically. Fitnah offers nothing about Australia, and Dude yammers.

Well, they are not in charge, thank heavens, so all we have to do is listen to their whining. Life could be far worse than that.

Let's move on.

Yet another useful idiot.

When the fee/tax/fine is well below the costs for the insurance --and the Stalinist goombahs designing this scam damn well know it will be-- then all that will be in the real risk pool will be the highest risks.

The whole thing is designed to fail on purpose.

I hope with all my heart that you are wrong about that. But my instincts tell me you are probably right.

The 'everybody pays equally' concept so that some pay less and some pay more as being somehow fair should be applied to everything. You shoud pay as much for the insurance on your 10-year-old Ford Focus that you drive only to the park on Sunday afternoons as I pay for my brand new Hummer that I drive 50,000 miles a year and occasionally enter in a demolition derby.

For that matter you should have to pay much more for that Ford Focus so I could pay a whole lot less for my Hummer.

That would be fair wouldn't it?

But using the logic of some here, that's the way it ought to be.

 

[uscitizen]

We can get to the things you dont know later lets deal wtih, if you dont have the scratch to pay the bill?

About Australia? He lives there you ignorant fool.

fitnah lives in Australia?

All the Aussies I have met are nicer than he is. He must not be a native.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm avoiding discussing specifics of the bill here, one reason is ignorance, the other is an unwillingness to critique domestic issues in another country. However, Foxfyre's post got me thinking yet again that perhaps the focus on insurance and insurance-related processes is missing the point a bit. A Ford Focus or a Hummer are commodities that are unnecessary for human life (okay, I know I just upset a few folks ) and people can get by without either and indeed without private transportation at all. But we need health care - both individually and collectively. Since health care is a need and private transportation a want, then surely they should be seen as distinctly separate concepts?

Health care shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold like cars.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm avoiding discussing specifics of the bill here, one reason is ignorance, the other is an unwillingness to critique domestic issues in another country. However, Foxfyre's post got me thinking yet again that perhaps the focus on insurance and insurance-related processes is missing the point a bit. A Ford Focus or a Hummer are commodities that are unnecessary for human life (okay, I know I just upset a few folks ) and people can get by without either and indeed without private transportation at all. But we need health care - both individually and collectively. Since health care is a need and private transportation a want, then surely they should be seen as distinctly separate concepts?

Health care shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold like cars.

But why not? Transportation can be essential for a person's livelihood and without it he could be destritute within a short period.

Food, water, shelter, clothing are all necessities of human life and yet all are sold as commodities on the open market.

So why should health care be any different?

If I am healthy and choose a healthy lifestyle and exercise prudence in all things and am willing to take my chances and pay my own way for whatever healthcare I need, why should that not be my choice?

And if you chose an unhealthy lifestyle, are 100 pounds overweight with the resulting strain on heart, joints, and propensity for diabetes, etc., and/or engage in high risk activities, why should your choices be my responsibility to pay for? According to some, it is appropriate for the government to require me to pay a great deal more so that you don't have to pay so much for health insurance despite the great disparity in who will need that insurance more.

I'm sorry, but while I care deeply for those who are sick and suffering and can't afford higher premiums for health care, and I would have had no problem at all if the government had chosen to focus on practical solutions for them and left the rest of us alone. You can't tell me that the government couldn't have figured out some kind of fix for less than 10 to 15% of the population without taking control of all the rest of us.

 

[Some Guy]

When the fee/tax/fine is well below the costs for the insurance --and the Stalinist goombahs designing this scam damn well know it will be-- then all that will be in the real risk pool will be the highest risks.

The whole thing is designed to fail on purpose.

I hope with all my heart that you are wrong about that. But my instincts tell me you are probably right.

The 'everybody pays equally' concept so that some pay less and some pay more as being somehow fair should be applied to everything. You shoud pay as much for the insurance on your 10-year-old Ford Focus that you drive only to the park on Sunday afternoons as I pay for my brand new Hummer that I drive 50,000 miles a year and occasionally enter in a demolition derby.

For that matter you should have to pay much more for that Ford Focus so I could pay a whole lot less for my Hummer.

That would be fair wouldn't it?

But using the logic of some here, that's the way it ought to be.

I'm right there with you. It's always tough to think that elected officials would want to purposely damage the current system to get another one put in place, but i can't really see the other way around. If you had the mandate but not the preexisting conditions or vice-versa but not both, then i would disagree. But to me, this seems designed to try to overload the system to drive people away from private insurance to the point where the only other option becomes a single-payer system.

I'll end this post like i do most every other post these days. Addressing who becomes the 3rd party payer of health care claims does extremely little to address the true cost of health care or health insurance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then, Some Guy, you do not believe in free market competition for customers that will inevitably drive down costs.

 

[uscitizen]

I'm avoiding discussing specifics of the bill here, one reason is ignorance, the other is an unwillingness to critique domestic issues in another country. However, Foxfyre's post got me thinking yet again that perhaps the focus on insurance and insurance-related processes is missing the point a bit. A Ford Focus or a Hummer are commodities that are unnecessary for human life (okay, I know I just upset a few folks ) and people can get by without either and indeed without private transportation at all. But we need health care - both individually and collectively. Since health care is a need and private transportation a want, then surely they should be seen as distinctly separate concepts?

Health care shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold like cars.

Dead on target there.

Education is another similiar commodity.

 

[saveliberty]

How do you think medicine evolved? People were paid for rendering a service. It was an honorable and powerful position. Some of the brightest and biggest risk takers expanded the frontiers of knowledge.

Now Obama wants to minimize the rewards of a career in medicine. He wants to dictate what services get rendered, under what circumstances and at what cost. Drive the innovators out of medicine and you will set back the world by decades of progress delayed.

 

[JenyEliza]

The end game is socialized gubmint medical services, plain and simple.

Nobody with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics can't see that forcing higher risks into the pool won't cause premiums to rise.

Subsequently, the Stalinist tyrants pushing the current "reform" will once again bash the insurance companies for "price gouging", and use the failure of their "reform" as evidence that Big Daddy Big Gubmint needs to take over the whole kit and kaboodle to make it all "fair".

Make book on it.

Dude nails it!

 

[Diuretic]

I'm avoiding discussing specifics of the bill here, one reason is ignorance, the other is an unwillingness to critique domestic issues in another country. However, Foxfyre's post got me thinking yet again that perhaps the focus on insurance and insurance-related processes is missing the point a bit. A Ford Focus or a Hummer are commodities that are unnecessary for human life (okay, I know I just upset a few folks ) and people can get by without either and indeed without private transportation at all. But we need health care - both individually and collectively. Since health care is a need and private transportation a want, then surely they should be seen as distinctly separate concepts?

Health care shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold like cars.

But why not? Transportation can be essential for a person's livelihood and without it he could be destritute within a short period.

Food, water, shelter, clothing are all necessities of human life and yet all are sold as commodities on the open market.

So why should health care be any different?

If I am healthy and choose a healthy lifestyle and exercise prudence in all things and am willing to take my chances and pay my own way for whatever healthcare I need, why should that not be my choice?

And if you chose an unhealthy lifestyle, are 100 pounds overweight with the resulting strain on heart, joints, and propensity for diabetes, etc., and/or engage in high risk activities, why should your choices be my responsibility to pay for? According to some, it is appropriate for the government to require me to pay a great deal more so that you don't have to pay so much for health insurance despite the great disparity in who will need that insurance more.

I'm sorry, but while I care deeply for those who are sick and suffering and can't afford higher premiums for health care, and I would have had no problem at all if the government had chosen to focus on practical solutions for them and left the rest of us alone. You can't tell me that the government couldn't have figured out some kind of fix for less than 10 to 15% of the population without taking control of all the rest of us.

Being destitute for lack of work is a terrible thing but it's another topic.

Food, water, shelter, clothing, yes all necessities of human life and I think that in a modern society if someone doesn't have them then they should have them provided. I mean basics. I know you wouldn't argue that people should starve to death or die of thirst or exposure to the elements so I won't suggest that. The difference is that I'm not arguing for caviar, champagne, an apartment on Park Avenue and a wardrobe from Paris for every individual. So while the far from basics, perhaps I can call them luxuries, are definitely and rightly commodities in a free market/capitalist economy the basic needs for human existence are also definitely and rightly not commodities and will be made available to those who don't have the means to acquire them.

The “why should I pay” argument is fallacious. People pay taxes, they may disagree with how those taxes are sometimes expended, eg the pacifist who is opposed to government funding the military, but since taxes are paid for non-specific reasons individual preferences can be ignored. Even if – as in my country – there is a separate levy to pay for health care that argument is still defeated because genetics doesn't require an act of will.

The point you make about higher premiums is still as a result of looking through the keyhole of private health care. Insurance is simply a means of managing risk. The average person in the US or any other country for that matter, probably couldn't afford to pay directly for some, in fact many, medical services. Insurance bought by individuals is a way of affording those services. Universal health care is just a different way of ensuring everyone gets access to health care as needed. Insurance is simply an option, health care can and is provided without the necessity for risk management through insurance.

 

[Diuretic]

How do you think medicine evolved? People were paid for rendering a service. It was an honorable and powerful position. Some of the brightest and biggest risk takers expanded the frontiers of knowledge.

Now Obama wants to minimize the rewards of a career in medicine. He wants to dictate what services get rendered, under what circumstances and at what cost. Drive the innovators out of medicine and you will set back the world by decades of progress delayed.

No-one is arguing that people should work for no payment. And as for innovators, you really need to read a bit of history and see how medical innovations took place. And also in terms of public health gains it's trite but, I think it's true, that public works had a lot to do with promoting better public health. One important discovery was the debunking of miasma theory for germ theory and the public works which reduced the chances of diseases such as cholera. A medical scientist and an engineer in 19th Century London did more to reduce cholera than had been done in hundreds of years before, simply because of better knowledge. It wasn't driven by a pharmaceutical company's research scientists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The end game is socialized gubmint medical services, plain and simple.

Nobody with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics can't see that forcing higher risks into the pool won't cause premiums to rise.

Subsequently, the Stalinist tyrants pushing the current "reform" will once again bash the insurance companies for "price gouging", and use the failure of their "reform" as evidence that Big Daddy Big Gubmint needs to take over the whole kit and kaboodle to make it all "fair".

Make book on it.

Dude nails it!

Horse nonsense for Dude and you. First, where are the numbers and evidence that has happened in all of the industrialized countries that have any form of national health care? Second, where there are one-payer schemes, where are the numbers and evidence those citizens pay more for less health care and die earlier?

Where are the facts?