Does anyone on this board REALLY want the Government to run healthcare?

[Catherine]

My problem with this argument is that I really don't see much difference between the "government" telling you what doctor you can see, what procedures the doctor can perform for you, and how much the doctor will have to accept in payment and my insurance company telling them the same things. And if the insurance is employer-provided, then under ERISA I have almost no recourse if they choose to delay or deny treatment. Even if not employer provided it can be difficult to change an insurance company's decision. At least with this new law there are procedures for arbitration.

<snip>

There is a HUGE difference. You can choose to go to anyone (who will see you) and pay them out of pocket. And then argue (or not) with the insurance company later. Hold a fund-raiser. Thumb your nose at them. Feel smug, ticked off, and/or superior. Whatever.

With government controls, you CANNOT make that choice; you can only go to whomever they authorize, for whatever treatment is mandated/approved. And if that's not right for you -- tough. As for the "arbitration" -- every disagreement becomes the equivalent of an OIC application, and we all know how many of those are approved.

When my younger girl was born, we had a midwife. At home. Not covered by insurance. Our choice (and a good choice, for us). We paid ourselves and have NEVER begrudged the cost. My chiropractor does not take insurance (and his rates are only $5/visit more now than they were twenty years ago). Neither does a friend who is an acupuncturist (and her visit rates are about the same as the chiropractor's rates). Both tell me that IF they accepted insurance, their rates would more than DOUBLE because of the extra people they'd have to hire just to chase the insurance companies and forms.

Does health -insurance- need reform? I've said many times that YES, it does. But strangling the system wholesale is not going to help anyone in the long term.

[Ray in Ohio]

um... what do "pell grants" have to do with health care?

That is just one small example of a LOT of things in this new LAW that has nothing to do with "Health Care" but is all about the government taking control of the american people.

[Gail in Virginia]

There is a HUGE difference. You can choose to go to anyone (who will see you) and pay them out of pocket. And then argue (or not) with the insurance company later. Hold a fund-raiser. Thumb your nose at them. Feel smug, ticked off, and/or superior. Whatever.

With government controls, you CANNOT make that choice; you can only go to whomever they authorize, for whatever treatment is mandated/approved. And if that's not right for you -- tough. As for the "arbitration" -- every disagreement becomes the equivalent of an OIC application, and we all know how many of those are approved.

When my younger girl was born, we had a midwife. At home. Not covered by insurance. Our choice (and a good choice, for us). We paid ourselves and have NEVER begrudged the cost. My chiropractor does not take insurance (and his rates are only $5/visit more now than they were twenty years ago). Neither does a friend who is an acupuncturist (and her visit rates are about the same as the chiropractor's rates). Both tell me that IF they accepted insurance, their rates would more than DOUBLE because of the extra people they'd have to hire just to chase the insurance companies and forms.

Does health -insurance- need reform? I've said many times that YES, it does. But strangling the system wholesale is not going to help anyone in the long term.

I was not aware that the new law required doctors to only participate in the government sponsored health care program. If that were the case, I don't think that doctors who feared dealing with insurance under the new requirements would be going into concierge-type practices. Yes, everyone will now be required to have insurance or pay a penalty; this was part of the republican sponsored bill during Clinton's administration and is not something new. The fact that you have insurance does not require you to submit a claim. And I am glad that you can afford to pay for all of your care out of pocket; not everyone is so lucky. In this area, most patients who pay cash wind up paying more because the insurance companies have negotiated lower payments for their insureds and any overhead is absorbed by the rest of the practice.

I would agree that this is not a complete or even optimum solution, but it is a start. Perhaps it can be amended into something everyone can live with, but only if we address what the law actually says and does.

[OldJack]

>>I would agree that this is not a complete or even optimum solution, but it is a start. <<

Yes its just a start. It will obviously get worse as a few want to control the actions of others. We have many laws that a few have gotten passed to control others already.. this is just another law to do the same.

[Catherine]

I was not aware that the new law required doctors to only participate in the government sponsored health care program. If that were the case, I don't think that doctors who feared dealing with insurance under the new requirements would be going into concierge-type practices. Yes, everyone will now be required to have insurance or pay a penalty; this was part of the republican sponsored bill during Clinton's administration and is not something new. The fact that you have insurance does not require you to submit a claim. And I am glad that you can afford to pay for all of your care out of pocket; not everyone is so lucky. In this area, most patients who pay cash wind up paying more because the insurance companies have negotiated lower payments for their insureds and any overhead is absorbed by the rest of the practice.

I would agree that this is not a complete or even optimum solution, but it is a start. Perhaps it can be amended into something everyone can live with, but only if we address what the law actually says and does.

It has to be completely repealed, as one of the provisions of the law is that major sections of it CANNOT be amended by future acts of Congress.

As for doctors only being able to participate in government sponsored programs -- that WILL (not may, will) be the end result of the provisions that systematically destroy and dismantle the private care industry.

And regardless of anything else, this will be a fiscal disaster. Here's a clip of what happens after you take out the accounting chicanery, as reported by the CBO. The fiscal stuff starts about 1 1/2 minutes into this 2 1/3 minute clip: CBO numbers

And a longer, more detailed, but slightly earlier version is here (it's missing the last correction by the CBO to announced "adjustments" after this was taped): Health Care as Ponzi scheme

[Jack from Ohio]

...I would agree that this is not a complete or even optimum solution, but it is a start. Perhaps it can be amended into something everyone can live with, but only if we address what the law actually says and does.

I want to know just exactly who will be willing to do the above stated amending? If you think OUR Congress as it now exists will even think about changing this monstrosity, I wonder what planet have you been living on?

Just My Not So Humble Opinion