08-19-2009, 04:26 AM | #1 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
What's so objectionable to liberals about the co-ops?
Besides the obvious answer that because they are not govt.-run, but are instead run by its members, it is that much father away from single payor, which is the ultimate goal.
Is the govt.-run plan somehow going to contain costs in a way that co-ops cannot? If so, how? |
08-19-2009, 03:49 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
08-19-2009, 08:32 PM | #3 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
So a public plan with no administrative cost containment, that will accept anyone, and pays 30 percent less to docs and hospitals--is what is going to save the day?
And oh yeah, it will be run by govt bureacrats who will make all the administrative decisions of what is covered and who gets paid what. And it won't cost the poor or middle class a dime! (No wonder dems are in free fall) |
08-19-2009, 09:23 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
08-19-2009, 09:57 PM | #5 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
Quote:
2. A plan that will accept anyone will cost a lot of money. It will contain the very sickest people. I don't believe any of their cost estimates. 3. To hold down these costs, they will do what medicare and medicaid currently do--slash payments. So you will have a doc shortage in the first place (see MA), then you will underpay. Then docs will opt out. And what happens next? It becomes illegal to not accept the public insurance. And suddenly we are on the precipice of single payor which is just what the liberals want. They know it won't work, and then they will try to foist more govt control. |
|
08-19-2009, 10:34 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Rasmussen numbers:
- 54% of likely voters say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option (including 66% of Independents) - Voters oppose the current proposed plan, 53-42% - 51% think passage of the proposed plan will make health care worse; 26% better, 17% no change - 51% think passage of the proposed plan will make health care costs increase; 19% costs go down, 21% no change - Voters oppose a single-payer system 57-32% No question Obama is losing the debate.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
08-19-2009, 11:43 PM | #7 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/200...3/gvsd0804.htm Quote:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi.../full/22/2/230 "Nonetheless, in the long run, Medicare has enjoyed an advantage in slowing per enrollee health care spending growth, relative to private insurance." Medicare accepts all comers too, regardless of health. Furthermore, who do you think is paying right now for many people with severe health issues who would sign up for a public plan? We are. Many such people can't obtain health insurance (pre-existing conditions) or can't afford the insurance available to them. Those people still get treated- on our dime. Quote:
|
|||
08-20-2009, 12:30 AM | #8 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
The only private insurance fraud cited in your example is where the insurer ripped off the doctors.
Quote:
Medicare can slow growth because they can arbitrarily cut their reimbursements and providers have no recourse (at least not the recourse they do with private insurance). Medicare certainly does not accept all comers. Me, for example, I can't buy medicare. Like I said before, private insurance subsidizes Medicare. A doctor that only has medicaid and medicare clients will go under very quickly. You aren't concerned about the administrative costs. You are concerned about lack of govt. control. But you aren't honest enough to say it. And that's why Obama is going to lose this one (he loses even if it passes). Because the public knows he is lying. |
|
08-20-2009, 12:34 AM | #9 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
You could spend the rest of your life reading articles about medicaid and medicare fraud.
I won't bother to link them. You know what I like about medicare (I deal with it all the time). I *never* get a phone call from Medicare questioning whether the level of care is appropriate. Of course, I try to act ethically, and I certainly don't commit fraud. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when the cat is away, the mice come out to play. Medicare does do audits. They obviously don't audit everything, or even close to everything. And that's where you read about the all the fraud busts. |
08-20-2009, 12:44 AM | #10 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
I'll point out that Cali's only stated objection to co-ops is that he believes they will have more administrative costs. Therefore he wishes to prevent membership control (of a co-op) and instead have government control by bureaucrats.
He does like to change the topic when it doesn't suit him. Obama himself can't even mount a credible argument of why co-ops are inferior to a public plan. |
Bookmarks |
|
|