Who said Obamacare didn't have...

[Yonivore]

...Death Panels?

Panel Says U.S. Should Weigh Cost in Deciding ‘Essential Health Benefits’ (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/us/politics/panel-says-us-should-weigh-cost-in-health-coverage.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Health%20care%20panel&st=cse)


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.
I'm sorry, your treatment is too expensive. No chemo for you!

[cheguevara]

"should have" = "has"? in what planet?

[Yonivore]

"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.

[Winehole23]

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.

[Winehole23]

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.

[CosmicCowboy]

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. Fuck that!

[Winehole23]

You're hysterical. A panel has made recommendations. Nothing more.

[boutons_deux]

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.

[CosmicCowboy]

You're hysterical. A panel has made recommendations. Nothing more.

:lol

Every freaking special interest out there will be lined up making sure their pet service is included in the "minimum" package.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

"Death panels" have been around since the beginning of time and people turned away because they can't pay. Nothing new.

[ElNono]

You mean I'm going to have to pay for yoni's mental health insurance? Socialism!

[Wild Cobra]

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. Fuck that!
I'll bet you will stop offering your employees insurance, or make them pay a large share of it. Am I right?

[Wild Cobra]

You're hysterical. A panel has made recommendations. Nothing more.
I suppose you think such recommendations get put in the circular file?

[Wild Cobra]

"Death panels" have been around since the beginning of time and people turned away because they can't pay. Nothing new.
More to the point, it was promised no such thing could happen.

[Wild Cobra]

You mean I'm going to have to pay for yoni's mental health insurance? Socialism!
Afraid so, and mine. I think these Marxist policies will make me lose it.

[ElNono]

More to the point, it was promised no such thing could happen.

And it isn't happening. What's discussed is what the minimum coverage should be. Not what the restrictions on coverage are.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'll bet you will stop offering your employees insurance, or make them pay a large share of it. Am I right?

I probably won't have a choice if I want to stay in business.

[ElNono]

Afraid so, and mine. I think these Marxist policies will make me lose it.

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.

[CosmicCowboy]

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.

[CosmicCowboy]

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.

[Yonivore]

:lmao at price controls. Ask Jimmy Carter how that works out.

[ElNono]

The problem is, 5% more in your taxes won't even pay for YOUR healthcare.

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.

[ElNono]

:lmao at price controls. Ask Jimmy Carter how that works out.

Ask Germany, France, Canada (every country not named the US pretty much) how that works out :lmao

[ElNono]

And lol @ Jimmy Carter setting price controls on healthcare.... yoni with the straw :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

yoni forgets Carter inherited price controls from Nixon.

[Winehole23]

I suppose you think such recommendations get put in the circular file?Some will be taken up, others will be considered politically imprudent. What the final regs will look like isn't an easy call.

[ploto]

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.

Actually, medicare pays BETTER than some of the private insurance companies. I know of some whose rates are set at 90% of the medicare rate.

[Yonivore]

Actually, medicare pays BETTER than some of the private insurance companies. I know of some whose rates are set at 90% of the medicare rate.
Doesn't seem to be stopping doctors from abandoning Medicare patients.

[ElNono]

Doesn't seem to be stopping doctors from abandoning Medicare patients.

You mean Texas doctors? And they threatened (http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/10/06/3426224/half-of-texas-doctors-may-quit.html#tvg) to drop out, they haven't. We'll see if they go through with it. I suspect they won't. Most repeat patients are old patients and thus Medicare patients.

[xrayzebra]

You mean Texas doctors? And they threatened (http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/10/06/3426224/half-of-texas-doctors-may-quit.html#tvg) to drop out, they haven't. We'll see if they go through with it. I suspect they won't. Most repeat patients are old patients and thus Medicare patients.


There are lots of doctor's who will no longer accept Medicare. I am
speaking of Primary Care doctors. Specialist, it seems, still accept you.
But maybe, I don't know, they get a higher fee from Medicare.

But I do know of a couple of people who have had a real problem in
finding a Primary Care doc to take them on.

Price controls. Nixon started them during his administration, including
pay. I don't believe Carter inherited them. I think Nixon had already
learned his lesson. Price Controls don't work, during peacetime.

[ElNono]

There are lots of doctor's who will no longer accept Medicare. I am
speaking of Primary Care doctors. Specialist, it seems, still accept you.
But maybe, I don't know, they get a higher fee from Medicare.

But I do know of a couple of people who have had a real problem in
finding a Primary Care doc to take them on.

Maybe in Texas, and honestly, I have family in Texas under Medicare, and all it took is a cursory search over the net to find a damn good doctor within 10 mins where they live.

I'm sure some doctors are opting out. Some might try being out and then come back in. 50% sounds like a lot of BS though. Punisher is also right Medicare sometimes pays more than quite a few private insurances.


Price controls. Nixon started them during his administration, including pay. I don't believe Carter inherited them. I think Nixon had already learned his lesson. Price Controls don't work, during peacetime.

There just isn't a lot of options when you want to forcefully bring costs down. Removing middle-men and things like tort-reform (as seen in Texas) only get you meager savings. Actual tangible savings have come from price controls.

It's funny too you say they don't work, because the VA has been operating under price controls for a long time now. When it comes to healthcare, it has been working worldwide too.

I actually lean more towards a single payor with price controls (like the VA) for basic care only, and catastrophic under private insurance, a hybrid system. Much like it exists in countries like France, Italy, Germany, Canada, etc where they get a lot more bang for the buck.

Aglioco might hate me for this proposal (:lol), but we can dance around the healthcare problem all day, and if you don't tackle cost/prices, you're not going anywhere. Obamacare didn't tackle it, and it's going nowhere (long term).

[boutons_deux]

Even without the govt holding down Medicare payment schedules, there is already huge lack of primary care doctors. The may start in general practice, but payback their education loans, take out more for specialty training, and drop GP work.

"There was a study" last year or so that showed the average overhead for a Canadian GP were was about $25K, vs about $80K for US GP. The US GP's principal overhead is in hiring people to fight with Medicare and all the other insurers. A US hard-core public option (Medicare for all, with premiums as universal income levy) would simplify overheads with Medicare as "single payer" (and as aggressive "single buyer").

Also, when Medicare came in, a lot of US GPs starting charging Medicare for treatments of impoverished patients that they had done pro bono.

When adults talk about reducing Medicare/Medicaid costs, it's about lowering reimbursements.

When sociopathic Repugs/conservatives talk about reducing Medicare/Medicaid costs, it's about denying care, aka, "death/sickness panels" and shoving Medicare customers into the greedy, care-denying, gouging clutches of for-profit insurers.