Reply With Quote
"should have" = "has"? in what planet?
...Death Panels?
Panel Says U.S. Should Weigh Cost in Deciding ‘Essential Health Benefits’
I'm sorry, your treatment is too expensive. No chemo for you!WASHINGTON — The National Academy of Sciences said Thursday that the federal government should explicitly consider cost as a factor in deciding what health benefits must be provided by insurance plans under President Obama’s health care overhaul, and it said the cost of any new benefits should be “offset by savings” elsewhere in the health care system.
"should have" = "has"? in what planet?
When the government starts rationing health care because they can't afford to treat everyone for everything, don't say you weren't warned.
The ACA didn't control the costs of care so it stands to reason it must fall back on rationing, if it seeks to cover everyone.
Besides, we already have health care rationing based on affordability, along with hefty end of life costs that get passed along to consumers b/c of it.
Did you actually read the article? What you will see is that they are going to MANDATE minimum benefits for private insurance plans...example: I currently pay 100% of employee and family health care insurance but don't offer mental health insurance. This crap will mean that they will FORCE ME to buy additional mental health insurance IF I continue to offer insurance. that!
You're hysterical. A panel has made recommendations. Nothing more.
Yoni approves the free market for-profit insurers that deny health care and deny health insurance. But let the govt even appear in Yoni's fantasies to be doing the same, and Yoni gets a hard-on.
Every freaking special interest out there will be lined up making sure their pet service is included in the "minimum" package.
"Death panels" have been around since the beginning of time and people turned away because they can't pay. Nothing new.
You mean I'm going to have to pay for yoni's mental health insurance? Socialism!
I'll bet you will stop offering your employees insurance, or make them pay a large share of it. Am I right?
I suppose you think such recommendations get put in the circular file?
More to the point, it was promised no such thing could happen.
Afraid so, and mine. I think these Marxist policies will make me lose it.
And it isn't happening. What's discussed is what the minimum coverage should be. Not what the restrictions on coverage are.
I probably won't have a choice if I want to stay in business.
I'll gladly pay 5% more in taxes if it means everybody gets coverage. Including you and yoni. But the deals with BigPharma and all that have to end. I don't mind the free market in almost every industry, but on healthcare, I want a closely regulated market with price controls and all that jazz.
Just my 2c.
The problem is, 5% more in your taxes won't even pay for YOUR healthcare.
We are seeing it already. 50% of doctors in Texas no longer accept medicare because they can't afford to lose money on every medicare patient they see.
at price controls. Ask Jimmy Carter how that works out.
It would (IMO, didn't do the math) if you include price controls... With these prices there's no solution. Other countries figured that out a long time ago.
Until we address the price problem, this issue isn't going away.
Ask Germany, France, Canada (every country not named the US pretty much) how that works out
And lol @ Jimmy Carter setting price controls on healthcare.... yoni with the straw
yoni forgets Carter inherited price controls from Nixon.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
