Posted on 04/12/2008 8:49:42 PM PDT by neverdem
I really do have to laugh....
The ENTIRE crux of the matter, and the only point worth debating, is whether someone has a RIGHT to healtcare simply because they are alive and it is available. NOTHING else is worth arguing about.
Because if you believe that someone has a RIGHT to healthcare, or any service for that matter, that needs to be provided by someone or something else, then you as a society need to shut up and pay for it, whatever it costs.
If after society soothes it's conscience by guaranteeing everyone healthcare, or any other service, they take active measures to control the costs of the service provision (outside of usual market forces, and using artificial government imposed price barriers etc.) they are by definition infringing on the rights of those who are providing the service.
Why is this such a hard thing for people to understand?
And another of those hidden costs that people getting their lawns cut for $25 don’t see.
I agree that this is an incredibly poorly written sentence.
I mentioned it in #20.
“And for various reasons, it won’t be like Prohibition in the result. It will not fail.”
Tobacco seed is cheap. Plus, there is no federal tax on raw cured leaf. I doubt a total ban or prohibition will be successful. There is currently not a big bootleg system set up, but give it a few years.
BUT AT LEAST WE ARE TRYING.
Does this not sum up the whole liberal mindset?
Nevermind the fallout, the disaster, the crappy quality, the cost, the fraud, the waste, the lack of accountability, the rationing, the anything.........
At least we are trying.
Yes, seed is always cheap. It only starts getting expensive when you try to turn it into a crop. Planting, watering, sun, shade, nourishment, a lot of luck and the grace of God. It's a lot more complicated than whipping up a batch of moonshine, that's for sure.
Prohibition of tobacco products would work just fine. We are many decades beyond the liberty-loving folks of the 1920's. The govt has its tentacles in everybody's digestive tract, we are nearly all clients dependent on govt subsidy of one sort or another. The govt has more power than it used to, power to monitor, track, and ruin us.
The dominant view now is that cigs are bad for one's health, they stink, stain and stigmatize. People freely call smokers foolish. A pack is legal and already $5 or more.
Oh yes, Prohibition would work now. For heaven's sake, eminent domain for private gain is working now. The American century is so over.
29% Favor National Health Insurance Overseen by Federal Government
Rasmussen Reports | April 9, 2008 | Rasmussen
Posted on 04/12/2008 4:21:27 PM PDT by JavaJumpy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2000691/posts
There's no way they could impose a fine of $1,824 per month. That would bankrupt most people. Even the Massachusetts state legislature is not that stupid.
The law requries proof of citizenship or legal perminant residency to get subsidized coverage.
LOL!
And they’ll fine you if you don’t participate.
Is jail time next?
The MA healthcare plan does not ration care, and my friends in MA tell me the quality has not changed. This is not a government run healthcare system. Hospitals, doctors, and even the insurance companies remain in private hands.
It increased government subsidies, but only to those people making between 100% and 300% of the poverty line (those below 100% qualify for medicade, and that's true in all states). Everyone else buys private, unsubsidized coverage, and premiums for these people have actually gonne down by as much as 50% by allowing insurance companies to offer policies with fewer frills and creating a health insurance exchange, which in turn created more competition.
The only problem with the plan is that there were more people between 100% and 300% of the poverty line than anticipated, and so the subsidies to such people are higher than expected.
I agree that increasing cigarette taxes to pay for this is idiotic. If the legislature hadn't made the subsidies as generous as they did, and instead had gone with the lower subsidies governor Romney proposed, there wouldn't be a problem right now. Most likely they will be forced to cut the subsidies once the cigarette tax fails to raise the revenue they want.
This story is all much ado about very little.
That is correct, as anyone can easily verify for himself with a google search.
The reporter needs to go back to school and take English 101. It's sad that a journalist would have such poor writing skills.
“The law requries proof of citizenship or legal perminant residency to get subsidized coverage. “
Aren’t those the same conditions for working, getting a job?
“This is not a government run healthcare system.”
The system for employed people who can afford insurance is not government run other than the mandate and the fines, and the concept that an insurer must accept any client.
The subsidies are government run in that the individual is mandated, and the insurance companies must issue policies based on what the state tells them is an acceptable policy and premium. The subsidized portion is run through the Massachusetts Healthcare Connector.
...............................
Commonwealth Care Health Insurance
The bill creates a subsidized insurance program called the Commonwealth Care
Health Insurance Program. Individuals who earn less than 300% FPL and are
ineligible for MassHealth will qualify for coverage.
Premiums for the program
will be set on a sliding scale based on household income, and no plans offered
through this program will have deductibles. The program will be operated
through the Connector, and retain any employer contribution to an employee’s
health insurance premium. The subsidized products must be certified by the
Connector as being of high value and good quality.
........................
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/103807.php
This article is an example of state control, the Connector is changing the premium, and the insurance companies have to go along.
.....................
As for nonsubsidized costs, Blue Cross, Tufts, and Fallon premiums went up 8 to 12 percent. Where did you hear that premiums went down 50%?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/09/10/medical_insurance_hikes_loom_in_mass/
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/09/13/health_coverage_rates_will_rise_again/
...................
This article has the seeds for health care rationing. Sensible, common sense rationing, but seen as needed to contain “unnecessary costs and procedures” through overuse of care. The person who decides what’s overuse and what isn’t is going to be a powerful person. Any plan must ration to some degree.
“Report addresses costly overuse of care
The MHQP report includes data on the appropriate use of antibiotics for the treatment of childhood colds and other upper respiratory infections and imaging studies such as X-rays, CT scans and MRIs for assessing acute low back pain in adults. Health experts agree that overuse or misuse of tests, procedures and medications can contribute to rising health care costs without improving quality of care, and, in some cases, at the expense of quality.
Correct.
The subsidies are government run in that the individual is mandated, and the insurance companies must issue policies based on what the state tells them is an acceptable policy and premium.
Not exactly right. The connector authority designs the subsidized plan, yes. However, insurance companies are not forced to participate in it. The connector authority holds an auction and takes premium bids from private insurance providers willing to cover individuals under the plan, granting the coverage rights to the company making the lowest bid. The connector then pays the premium of the winning bidder, requiring the insured person to contribute something. The contribution depends on the insureds income level.
This article is an example of state control, the Connector is changing the premium, and the insurance companies have to go along.
No, that's not what the article is about. If you read it carefully, you will see it's about the state changing the formula at which subsidies for insurance premiums kick in. In fact, the connector is reducing subsidies. It's declaring that individuals at certain income levels will be deemed by the state to be able to afford higher premiums without a subsidy.
As for non-subsidized costs, Blue Cross, Tufts, and Fallon premiums went up 8 to 12 percent. Where did you hear that premiums went down 50%?
I apologize for not being clear. I was talking about individual, unsubsidized policies purchased through the Connector. Those are about 40% less expensive than the individual policies that were available before the health insurance reform. There's a reference to this here:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119147.html
The articles to which you link are about employer-sponsored group policies. These were not affected by the reform, so it's not surprising their premiums keep going up at about the same rate as before the reform took place.
This article has the seeds for health care rationing.
No it doesn't. It simply talks about the problem of doctors prescribing antibiotics when they shouldn't be, and ordering unnecessary tests. These are unethical practices in which doctors take advantage of a patient's ignorance to line their own pockets. This is happening nation wide, not just Massachusetts, and the problem is being talked about everywhere. It has nothing to do with Romney's healthcare plan.
The article doesn't even propose any reforms to stop these unethical practices. But even if it did, that's not rationing any more than, say, the state medical board revoking a doctor's medical license for prescribing drugs that are known not to work.
Thanks for the information, curiosity.
I disagree about the rationing, though. Whenever a plan, government regulated or private, talks of reigning in costs, some sort of rationing is going on.
They must limit what is offered to some degree, or the doctors and patients will spend more than is taken in.
The article does not call for rationing, true, but I can see the beginning of rational, commonsense cutbacks in certain services couched in the phraseology of that article.
The rest of the piece gives very high grades for health care in Massachusetts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.