PSA: Rationed health care is the future

[RoloMather]

It is an inevitability.

 

[sandorski]

...it is the Present and was the Past as well.

 

[JKing106]

It's rationed now. Never heard of an insurance company denying a claim?

 

[werepossum]

Everything that has value and costs time or treasure to produce (or replace) is inherently rationed. The reason that most private health care plans don't cover elective surgery is the same reason that Oregon's "public option" plan doesn't cover highly expensive last chance cancer drugs but does cover physician-assisted suicide. It's also the same reason we don't all live in mansions and drive Ferraris. The question should be do I want to control the rationing (through my or my employer's own negotiations of coverage versus cost) or do I want the government to do it for me? The government is less efficient, but it carries a bigger stick. In either case health care will be rationed.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

So why aren't people keeling over in the UK and Canada from untreated illnesses? Why aren't the British and Canadians marching in the streets to demand the American health care system? Oh that's right, they think our system is completely retarded.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It's rationed now. Never heard of an insurance company denying a claim?

Are you trying to suggest that insurance companies have Death Panels that deny care to people who purchased policies?

 

[werepossum]

So why aren't people keeling over in the UK and Canada from untreated illnesses? Why aren't the British and Canadians marching in the streets to demand the American health care system? Oh that's right, they think our system is completely retarded.

Or it could be because they're all queued up in line waiting for health care. LOL

Also, the insurance "company" that denies the most claims in Medicare/Medicaid, almost three times the industry average, per the AMA's studies.

 

[shadow9d9]

Or it could be because they're all queued up in line waiting for health care. LOL

Also, the insurance "company" that denies the most claims in Medicare/Medicaid, almost three times the industry average, per the AMA's studies.

Are you forgetting that Medicare deals with the oldest and sickest of our population by FAR?

 

[Jaskalas]

So why aren't people keeling over in the UK and Canada from untreated illnesses? Why aren't the British and Canadians marching in the streets to demand the American health care system? Oh that's right, they think our system is completely retarded.

The grass is always greener.

 

[werepossum]

Are you forgetting that Medicare deals with the oldest and sickest of our population by FAR?

Right, I totally forgot that the old and the sick aren't really people, so it's okay to deny claims for them, just not for you and me. Thanks for setting me straight.

Why is it that people who want to kill off old people on the grounds that they consume the majority of their health care in the last couple decades of life never make the same argument about public education? Some big savings to be had there! Stupid children, hogging all that education when they've never worked a day in their lives!

 

[WHAMPOM]

It is an inevitability.

So you figure no change at all?

 

[DaveJ]

Everything that has value and costs time or treasure to produce (or replace) is inherently rationed. The reason that most private health care plans don't cover elective surgery is the same reason that Oregon's "public option" plan doesn't cover highly expensive last chance cancer drugs but does cover physician-assisted suicide. It's also the same reason we don't all live in mansions and drive Ferraris. The question should be do I want my insurance company to control the rationing or do I want the government to do it for me? The government is more efficient. In either case health care will be rationed.

Fixed for the truth. I've experienced the first one before, and given the choice between the two, I'll take the government option every time, because at least their only reason for existence isn't to profit from my misfortune.

 

[werepossum]

Fixed for the truth. I've experienced the first one before, and given the choice between the two, I'll take the government option every time, because at least their only reason for existence isn't to profit from my misfortune.

An insurance company's only reason for existence is to make a profit by offering you a service you want, need, and can afford. An insurance company has to offer a product people want to buy; it can't force you, under threat of fine or imprisonment, to purchase a policy from it or indeed from any of its competitors.

Oh, wait. Under the Democrats, it can.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Are you forgetting that Medicare deals with the oldest and sickest of our population by FAR?

In the other thread you keep telling us that UHC is this wonder plan and here you say that Medicare deals with the oldest and sickest. Considering the plan must expand in any UHC scenario that means costs must go up based on what I quoted, but you challenged my assertion that costs must increase.

It must go up or not. Make up your mind.

Oh, there is a third alternative. You can set a dollar amount and say people have coverage, but just not provide a means for them to afford it once they are past that figure.

Coverage without care your solution?

Nice work.

 

[DaveJ]

An insurance company's only reason for existence is to make a profit by offering you a service you want, need, and can afford. An insurance company has to offer a product people want to buy; it can't force you, under threat of fine or imprisonment, to purchase a policy from it or indeed from any of its competitors.

Oh, wait. Under the Democrats, it can.

We wouldn't have to deal with the whole bullshit "mandated insurance" issue if the government (Dems and Reps included) grew some balls and gave us a proper public system instead, funded by a few percent tax on everyone, with low-income exceptions. Oh, that's right, even though that system works for every single other nation that's tried it, we can't have that because that would cut the profits to the corporate lobby and their friends in Congress.

Anyone who thinks UHC is a partisan issue is wrong - you all should be railing against the corporations who own our government instead.

 

[nobodyknows]

In the other thread you keep telling us that UHC is this wonder plan and here you say that Medicare deals with the oldest and sickest. Considering the plan must expand in any UHC scenario that means costs must go up based on what I quoted, but you challenged my assertion that costs must increase.

It must go up or not. Make up your mind.

Oh, there is a third alternative. You can set a dollar amount and say people have coverage, but just not provide a means for them to afford it once they are past that figure.

Coverage without care your solution?

Nice work.

Just get rid of insurance all together. Make it strictly cash. I wonder what would happen to the healthcare industry then?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Just get rid of insurance all together. Make it strictly cash. I wonder what would happen to the healthcare industry then?

It will even out eventually. The people who need the most care will die, and the wealthiest will prosper. Once we eliminate all the sick people then the cost of health care will come down.

It's an elegant Darwinian solution you propose.

 

[Modelworks]

No way they cannot ration. There are just not enough doctors to fill the need when you add that many people to the system. I already hear people talking about the upcoming 'free' health care and how they are going to use it all they can since they are paying for it. If they think there are a lot of people going to the ER for a paper cut now, just wait till they don't have to be accountable for what they are charged. People are looking at this like its a , I pay this fee each month so I plan to use it all I can, its an all you can eat buffet.

 

[sandorski]

No way they cannot ration. There are just not enough doctors to fill the need when you add that many people to the system. I already hear people talking about the upcoming 'free' health care and how they are going to use it all they can since they are paying for it. If they think there are a lot of people going to the ER for a paper cut now, just wait till they don't have to be accountable for what they are charged. People are looking at this like its a , I pay this fee each month so I plan to use it all I can, its an all you can eat buffet.

Tired argument that bears little to no resemblance to Reality is tired.

 

[Modelworks]

Tired argument that bears little to no resemblance to Reality is tired.

If you live in a reality where everyone is responsible and nobody abuses the system then you are right. Unfortunately the rest of us live in the real world .

 

[sandorski]

If you live in a reality where everyone is responsible and nobody abuses the system then you are right. Unfortunately the rest of us live in the real world .

Somehow I don't believe you. What you describe has been said before, but if you look at other Systems this is not an issue at all...except Taiwan or Japan(don't recall which it was).

It's a tired argument.

 

[nobodyknows]

It will even out eventually. The people who need the most care will die, and the wealthiest will prosper. Once we eliminate all the sick people then the cost of health care will come down.

It's an elegant Darwinian solution you propose.

What you are conveniently ignoring is that without health insurance very few people could afford to get sick. Once your hospitasl ois beimg stormed by an angry, armed mob of sick people then you will understand.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What you are conveniently ignoring is that without health insurance very few people could afford to get sick. Once your hospitasl ois beimg stormed by an angry, armed mob of sick people then you will understand.

Then we go home.

 

[Modelworks]

Somehow I don't believe you. What you describe has been said before, but if you look at other Systems this is not an issue at all...except Taiwan or Japan(don't recall which it was).

It's a tired argument.

In what other system do people go to jail for not paying for insurance ? If people are paying for something you can bet they will use it all they can 'to get their moneys worth'. Especially if the only penalty for using it is longer lines. And the insurance companies will not be able to drop them if they do over use it.

 

[sandorski]

In what other system do people go to jail for not paying for insurance ? If people are paying for something you can bet they will use it all they can 'to get their moneys worth'. Especially if the only penalty for using it is longer lines. And the insurance companies will not be able to drop them if they do over use it.

Is this a serious question?

Perhaps you should checkout the various European Systems before discussing this issue further.