Posted on 09/02/2012 4:43:49 PM PDT by Innovative
Some of President Barack Obama's former advisers are proposing major changes aimed at controlling health care costs as political uncertainty hovers over his health law.
Call it Health Care Overhaul, Version 2.0. Their biggest idea is a first-ever budget for the nation's $2.8-trillion health care system, through negotiated limits on public and private spending in each state.
It could become the Democratic counterpoint to private market strategies favored by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and running mate Paul Ryan.
Under the proposal, the major public and private players in each state would negotiate payment rates with service providers such as hospitals. The idea is to get away from paying for each individual test and procedure. Negotiated rates could be based on an entire course of treatment.
"Politically, it is really tone deaf," said economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a free-market think tank. "There is no way Americans are going to trust any government entity to say how much the nation should spend on (health care). It is at odds with our values and our history and has zero chance of happening."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
healthcare budgeting ... meaning you wont get everything you need/want and your care is decided on by others
in other words....
death panels.
who could’ve seen this coming??
Thanks Innovative.
Sarah Palin was right, ‘death panels’ are a coming!
Romney got coerced into signing mandated health care in Massachusetts by a Democrat legislator. He could have vetoed it and got overridden, but instead he chose to negotiate and put his name to the bill. You need more than Romney and Republican control of the House. You need boots on the streets demanding to get government out of health-care. You need a growing Tea Party to scare the Rinos into compliance. Just voting and hoping won't cut it.
about 1/2 the 72k a yr or like 3-4k a month for the 13 to 14 treatments per month
Bump
Budget? He can’t even get the fiscal budget passed.
Lest us not forget, our current system has either the government or the insurance companies making decisions about our healthcare and tacking on huge costs.
I don’t want either insurance or government. I favor migrating to a system that removes the need for a middleman. Middlemen only increase costs and distort need while generating billions in unnecessary treatments. Our medical system is costing too much and not getting the results.
The end result should be if someone needs treatment and doesn’t have the money then borrow it, or have your kids pay or take out a mortgage. Soon we’d find the $50K hospital costs reduced to $10K or less. Let the market decide and we’d soon see huge reduced costs in healthcare and it would not come from rationing. In the 60s a patient could actually borrow and pay the costs of hospitalization with a modest loan.
No longer would drug companies waste billions on advertising for drugs people can’t afford. But that would upset those who profit in the media. You would not have millionaire lobbyists like Billy Tauzin trying to scam taxpayers for his industry.
The system has become so distorted by excess money and the fraud of insurance that those without it can’t afford to pay. This ends up distorting the free market for providers and customers and encourages employers to move their jobs offshore. We’ve lost good jobs because of the costs and market distortion.
Change of price and *service*? Please tell me more? The system in Mass has always interested me. Was this something Patrick came up with?
It's easy--"The people of Massachusetts wanted this program, and the states are the rightful place for experiments of this sort, useful as a laboratory for the rest of the country to watch and learn. But, to reiterate--the people wanted it, voted for it. I didn't force it upon them in the dark Christmas midnight over the screaming howls of protest like Obamacare, but in the light of day. It was part of the democratic process, for good or ill."
“the people wanted it, voted for it. I didn’t force it upon them in the dark Christmas midnight over the screaming howls of protest like Obamacare, but in the light of day”
In truth, he pushed for it, but what he pushed for and what he got were 2 very different things. http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/12/how-deval-patrick-gutted-romneycares-market-oriented-reforms
3. FedGov rations care for the peasants. The politicians, their owners the Banksters, and the enforcers for the politicians & Banksters will get as much care as they want.
Same goes for $10 a gallon gasoline. :-)
The best doctors and hospital systems will set up offshore facilities (Caribbean - short flight from US) for those Americans who want quality care, quickly, and can pay out of pocket.
It will become a big economic boost for the countries that incentivize this.
AMEN! I bought catastrophic health care insurance for our 28 year old son, about a year ago. Monthly premiums $66. $4500 deductible. He hasn’t used it a single time. He doesn’t need Full Coverage. Even as it is, catastrophic only, he has to pay to cover OB/GYN visits on his insurance policy and he is a single MAN! But it had to cover for that stuff. CRAZY!
A top-down budget for health care? What could go wrong?
Why not go ahead and develop a Health Care 5 Year Plan?
Ohio passed an amendment to the Ohio Constitution - the Health care freedom amendment (66% of Ohio voters approved this amendment). This was a major effort over 2 years to collect signatures and get it on the ballot.
Health Care Freedom Amendment
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=129_SJR_1
From the article below:
Maurice Thompson, director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, wrote the state constitutional amendment that generally prohibits government from forcing Ohioans to participate in a health-care system or imposing related penalties on them if they don’t. It was added to Ohio’s Bill of Rights.
but since the SCOTUS ruling, it is considered to be SYMBOLIC
DeWine: Decision trumps Ohio law (Freedom Amendment)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2901006/posts
then we need a federal constitutional amendment then even Roberts can understand!
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.