do I really have to say it???
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 ...
This IS rationing!
You better get out and vote for Romney to keep Obama from getting a second term.
Think -- the life you save may be your own!
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
They just passed this in Massachusetts
you have to alert the MA government if you change any price or service.
PRICE CONTROL AND RATIONING
We need to start by getting both the House and Senate into Republican hands and electing Romney.
Anything less will allow Obamacare to blossom into full blown government takeover of healthcare with the rationing and lack of care that will come with it. It reminds me of an old StarTrak episode, where everyone, who reached the age 60 had to walk into a “disintegrator” to be killed, so they won’t become “burdens on the society”.
No argument here.
However I think a CA might be the ticket to specifically remove certain “takings” off the table. Since certain Supreme Court justices are incapable of understanding it in more abstract form.
“I’m sorry, your treatment is too expensive and you’ll have to do without it”
...
How long before they cut out dialysis?
About 300,000 on hemodialysis, paid for mostly by taxpayers at about $72,000+ a pop annually - not including the meds and stuff....
That is a lot of money!! More than $21 billion from my quick calculation, not including the meds and stuff. That has got to be tempting for the tyrants since many of them can’t really work spending 12 hours a week hooked to a machine and sick the rest of the time.
It's going to take much more than that. Unless the Republican majority in the House becomes greater than 350 seats and the Senate seats number more than 67, assuming these members agree, then no Amendments to the Constitution can be voted out of Congress to be ratified by the Several States, of which it takes at least 38 to ratify.
We are off to a decent start but we have a long way to go.
Insurance schemes pulled into the claws of government are going to suffer like this.
?
You don’t need a Constitutional amendment to repeal Obamacare.
All you need is a willing President and a majority in both houses of Congress — a tall order, but doable.
The Dems uses reconciliation, which requires a simple majority, to pass the bill by designating it as budgetary legislation. It can be undone the same way.
Could we cut expenses by having fewer tests? Of course, but let’s put a muzzle on malpractice lawyers first.
Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of the mayor of Chicago, and once a practicing physician has long advocated that those finite health care dollars be spent only on “productive citizens”. This means Dem voters.
The Feds want the states to be the rationing proxies. The states will make hospitals their rationing proxies. Providers will work for hospitals
as rationing proxies.
The goal will be to provide as little care as possible. Doctor and provider shortages will ensure limited access which will help reduce costs. Of course, some doctors will retire and others will transition to all cash practices further reducing supply and access.
do I really have to say it???
The Constitution already prohibits such things.
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.