What is the Obama administration doing to reduce the costs of medical care?? #hcr #tcot #parents
Posted Dec 04 2010 9:40pm
Like many concerned citizens, I have been meaning to share my thoughts on this criticism against Arizona for making cuts to Medicaid and limiting the kinds of transplants that are covered under AHCCS [pronounced Access],which provides health care to disabled and low income families in Arizona. While it is very unfortunate the state is in debt and needs to make cuts, the reality is that this is the result of government health care.
You can't count on the government to care for you and your family for anything! This is one of the reasons many oppose the new health care reform passed by Congress, because it will lead to single payer, putting health insurance companies out of business, and making everyone dependent on the government for their health care needs. This is how government gets between you and your doctor and your medical needs.
While those who support Obama's new health care plan will say health insurance companies are known to ration/drop health insurance for those who are sick or have pre-existing conditions already, it will continue to happen with government care as well. The problem is the cost of medical care in addition to the cost of insurance rates. Unless the insurance companies can compete across state lines insurance is not likely to come down and unless doctors are able to pay less for malpractice insurance, insurance rates and medical costs are less likely to come down in price. This is another good reason to save your money for a rainy day and another reason why it is better to have the government extend the Bush tax cuts, to put more money in your pocket rather than the governments, who is good at spending and taxing!
Obama's health care policy does nothing to reduce insurance rates nor reduce medical costs. Employers will either drop their plans and pay the fine/mandate,which many unions and others have had waived recently, for not providing health care for all employees or stop paying their portion of the health plans, making health insurance too expensive for most American's to afford on their own, leaving them with no choice but to go on 'Obamacare'. In result, 'Obamacare' will eventually put everyone on government care, which will become single payer, leaving all Americans with no option. The health care system will then get over crowded with more people on the government program, including illegals and those who currently have no medical coverage, and the quality of care will decrease.
In addition, doctors are already dropping Medicaid/Medicare patients because the government fails to reimburse them and because of extensive bureaucracy required by the government. Also, most seniors on Medicare have to pay for a supplemental plan because Medicare doesn't cover all equipment or medical procedures needed. Therefore, if everyone is eventually forced onto 'government care', and the government which is already 1.3 Trillion in debt to China is left to provide the care, it is inevitable they will have to cut costs by rationing care and coverage, like they are already doing with Medicare. The government passed 'Obamacare' by cutting $500 Billion from Medicare for seniors to use it to help pay for health care reform. However, in the end Senior citizens will lose much of the care they receive and eventually more seniors will lose care options as the government and doctors are left with no choice but to ration care through more cost-effective treatment&less aggressive medical treatments to fight disease and save lives.
Therefore, I ask ,what is the Obama administration doing to reduce the costs of medical care? The same thing they are doing to fix the economy, nothing?
Firstthings.com shares more on this topic by explaining the single payer problem
I’ve been meaning to post about this case, but NYT Leftist columnist, Gail Collins, wrote about it first in her column today–so let’s bounce off her perspective. Collins is angry that a Medicaid patient needing an organ transplant was rationed out of the surgery because of budgetary restrictions. She’s right that the rationing was wrong. But in her liberalism and anger with Arizona over extraneous issues such as illegal immigration, she can’t see the real culprit standing right in front of her. From her column, “Arizona Strikes Again:”
But Francisco, who has hepatitis C, had lost his health insurance when he had to stop working and had gotten coverage under the state Medicaid program. And Gov. Jan Brewer had signed a law eliminating Medicaid coverage of certain kinds of transplants as a cost-cutting measure. Flor said the next words she got from the doctor were: “You need to bring $200,000 as a deposit for the hospital.” Francisco was summarily discharged. The Arizona state government, which is totally controlled by Republicans, got between him and his doctor. “The state only has so much money and we can only provide so many optional kinds of care. Those were one of the options that we had taken liberty to discard,” said Governor Brewer, who we all remember for her path-breaking efforts to convince the world that the Arizona desert is strewn with the headless bodies of illegal immigrants.
Conservative Arizona isn’t the problem–Liberal Oregon’s Medicaid is specifically rationed and has said no to recipients needing double transplants and other life-extending procedures. No, the real problem is that Medicaid is single payer! When you have single payer, you have hard budgets. And when the costs crash against the budgetary wall, people get rationed, usually those with the least political clout. That’s the primary reason I turned against single payer.
But Collins is all for it. From an earlier Opinionator blog exchange with David Brooks
Since something like a third of the cost of health care is in administration, and the problem with reorganizing health care has to do with all the multitudinous plans and policies, a single-payer system would be far and away the most cost effective answer. We don’t talk much about it because it isn’t politically possible. But it isn’t politically possible because we don’t talk about it. The opponents of a public plan are afraid that people would all gradually migrate toward it, causing the insurance industry as we know it to wither away. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?
Hello! If you don’t want rationing, you had better turn away from SP. The two go together like Sees and Candy.