Thread: Distortions rife in health care debate

quote(Do you have a link to a reliable source for data for your claim that private medical care will not be available after 5 years ?)quote

Do you have a link telling me this bill will provide equal care to all.

Come on man I'm sure your more intelligent, once the government has the grip on rationed health care no company will compete,simply common sense, how you can be against illegal immigration and not understand this health plan joke then I can only say go in peace and I wish you the best.

Check what Barney Frank said last week. A government option is the first step towards a single payer government managed system. That is the intent of the Democratic Party leadership.

One does not rule out the other. You can have both systems for people to choose between.

[quote="oldguy"]quote(Do you have a link to a reliable source for data for your claim that private medical care will not be available after 5 years ?)quotequote]

Since you didn't give an answer I assume that would be a NO.

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey said in a July 17 article: "One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years ... about alternatives for end-of-life care."

THE FACTS: The bill would require Medicare to pay for advance directive consultations with health care professionals. But it would not require anyone to use the benefit.

That is not true. The bill does not specify whether the consultation is mandatory or voluntary. It leaves it open to interpretation

CLAIM: Americans won't have to change doctors or insurance companies.

"If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing," Obama said on June 23. "You keep your plan; you keep your doctor."

THE FACTS: The proposed legislation would not require people to drop their doctor or insurer. But some tax provisions, depending on how they are written, might make it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage. Their workers presumably would move to a public insurance plan that might not include their current doctors.

This fact is true as far as it goes. What it does not say is that if you keep a grandfathered policy you can not change the policy, or more specifically, your provider can not change the policy. In fact if you read this entire section of the bill carefully it is full of restrictions and gotchas that it will surely force most companies and most private insurance providers to look elsewhere for business. How many companies offer anyone over 65 private insurance? Damn few if any because of Medicare. I am on Medicare. Do I like it? No. Do I have any realistic options? NO. Is Medicare solvent? No. Any private option scam the gov't sticks into this bill will not stay solvent either.

CLAIM: The Democrats' plans will lead to rationing, or the government determining which medical procedures a patient can have.

"Expanding government health programs will hasten the day that government rations medical care to seniors," conservative writer Michael Cannon said in the Washington Times.

THE FACTS: Millions of Americans already face rationing, as insurance companies rule on procedures they will cover.

This is disingenuous. With a private plan your coverage is specified, so you know what is rationed up front. In a government plan you are not guaranteed diddly squat. Congress or the Czar of the Week can change terms and coverage at will. The draft bill and the 500 billion dollars in Medicare cuts to help fund it exemplify this. With a private policy you have an option to change providers. With this bill you really won't because ALL providers must abide by certain pre-determined criteria to be classified as qualified plans, including coverage criteria and reimbursement rates. If you do not have qualified plan, you will be taxed.

Do you have a link telling me this bill will provide equal care to all.

NO. And you will notice that I never claimed that it would. Did I?

One does not rule out the other. You can have both systems for people to choose between.
_________________

You will have some choices, until the government forces everyone into the single payer system. You read Frank's statement. Did you understand it? Why do you think Obama and Pelosi and Reid are so hot to trot on health care now? It is about political power. If they were serious about reducing costs they have numerous options other than this atrocious bill: allow and encourage providers to offer catastrophic coverage (what most people need); forbid free care to illegal aliens--better yet, find the scum bags who employ them and charge them for any care rendered; forbid legal aliens here under a visa program from getting free care--charge their employer, or require their employer to provide insurance, or charge the jobber that brought them in in the first place. Allow workers to take their company insurance with them until they are re-employed (provide portability options).Change the Medicare system...move it more towards the system used by federal workers (Medicare by the way is one of the main reasons for high medical costs because of bureaucratic expenses, underpaying providers who then pass it on to other providers, and providing uncompensated services or requiring private providers to provide uncompensated services}

There is no crisis. Over 90 per cent of Americans have coverage. Of the claimed 40 M plus that Obama says do not, roughly 20 per cent are illegal aliens; another 10 per cent or so have the resources to buy insurance but choose not to; about 5 per cent are between jobs (even more right now) but usually do not have more than 2-4 months before they get coverage. Less than 25 M US citizens are truly uninsured, and as noted above there are better ways to address that than with Obama administration approach.

Originally Posted by oldguy

. . . a government rationed health care plan much like Medicare but severally limited to certain groups.

Please let us know what "group will get the best care, and what "group" will get the least care.

Because if I'm in the group that gets the best care I want to support this plan.

Likewise, if I'm in the group that will get "limited" care I want to be sure to oppose it.

RELATED

What's so great about private health insurance?

The "public option," as followers of the debate know, is a government-sponsored health plan that would be available as an alternative to, and in competition with, the for-profit health insurance industry, otherwise known as the private option.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-h ... 122.column

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-933042.html#933042

If you oppose government health care be sure to NOT sign up for Medicare when you turn 65.
The Medicare that you have been paying for with a deduction from every paycheck.
That way all of the money you paid in can be used to make Medicare better for those of who sign up.

Are all of the people on Medicare and Medicaid going to be put in the new plan?

Will they have a choice?

Will ALL government employees, including Congress, be in the new plan?