The health care mess continues. The Bernie followers want single payer. Talk to the those using the VA, see how they like it. “But ours will be better they say.”
Britain has had single payer since they threw out Winston CHurchill immediately after he won WWII. An OP-ED in the WSJ on October 24th is attached, NHS Refuses Treatment. Although I actually agree that if a person has health damaging life style choices, over eating and smoking in the article, there ought to be consequences. My view is much higher health insurance premiums.
But, the government saying we will with hold treatment until you change is a typical over reach of bureaucracy, “I am in charge and I will actually endanger your health because I can.”
How about other lifestyle choices. I refuse to exercise! Well if your doctor decides you need to exercise then you will have to utilize the tools available today to monitor your exercise. Today those tools are used by companies to encourage healthy exercise so to lower premiums, or receive a bonus, whatever. I want to race cars, or pilot an aerobatic plane, or climb Mt. Everest-you pay a higher premium. You increase your risk of needing medical care, you suffer a consequence. All of the above will raise life insurance premiums, why not health?
My view of the issue is we want freedom without consequences. How about not requiring all people to purchase health insurance? Sheer idiocy. “You can’t force me to buy anything!” Well actually we can, do you want a car, you must buy a minimum insurance policy to cover liability. When some idiot decides not to buy health insurance and gets cancer, who pays, WE ALL DO!
Wow! This ranks at the top of lies. Not a lie you say, well, the below comes from Jim Geraghty of National Review online, today.
As Matthew Fleischer wrote in the Los Angeles Times in 2013, “Most young, middle-class Americans I know are happy that millions of previously uninsured people will receive free or heavily subsidized insurance under the Affordable Care Act. We just didn’t realize that, unless we had health insurance at work, we’d be the ones paying for it.” The chief architect later glibly joked about how gullible the public was when the administration was selling it: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”
I am in agreement that we as a rich country should not deny medical attention to anyone. What I disagree with is how the ACA has done it.
My wife and I are int he category of “we’d be the ones paying for it.” Our insurance costs have risen 200%, we are a combination of medicare and private. Our costs are now 12% of our income. We are blessed to have a higher than average income in retirement, however, when our president said the average household would see a reduction in total costs, he didn’t say those of us in this income category would see the kind of increases we have seen.
My hope and prayer is our system is changed so that:
- All people pay to fund health insurance, a $600 penalty is nuts, nuts, nuts. The penalty should be what they would pay for a private plan.
- States don’t get to create the requirements of a plan, too much opportunity for collusion. Insurance companies offer plans with a cafeteria approach of what the person wants and all plans have catastrophic coverage.
- The legal costs are reduced through tort reform.
- Drug costs are subject to the market place.
- Competition across state lines.
- Medical information is in some sort of database so that each doctor doesn’t have to have the burden of creating and updating information on their own, huge unnecessary cost.
- Kids are off parents plan at 21. If the parents want to pay for a private plan, let them.
- Higher charges for lifestyle choices that increase total medical cost, smoking, obesity, etc. Especially if repeat care is required for refusing to change your lifestyle.
This has got to change.
According to the Daily Signal, http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/16/alaska-courts-ruling-on-abortion-and-parental-notification-hurts-teens/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWTJNelpUWXdaVFZrWlRnNCIsInQiOiJ1UEt6cm82c3pjTGZpVE5jeUVyREVra3ZYRDVVK3p1SlZEdWNCU3M1TVVHRjgxM00zZ2hrSTg2ZXJXUWdGSEpYWXltb1VZRFBZRlhET0xKSWx6OU9tSjZFNzVwXC9OVHlLRk5GbUw3S1FFRVk9In0%3D, a minor girl must have parental permission go on a field trip, but not for an abortion, the Alaska Supreme Court just decided.
Good old Planned Parenthood sued over the issue. They provide roughly 1/3 of abortions in the U.S. The girl who wants an abortion cannot be prevented from having one under former law, only that parents have the need to know.
We as a society believe and support parental supervision. Except here. Why? Politics!
An unexpected pregnancy is a tough situation for an unwed mother to be in. Parents could react very negatively. Most parents don’t, they love the daughter and will support her; how about not telling parents they can’t know and trusting them in this area also? Another sign of large governments who know better than we do what is best for us.
The title from the WSJ article, July 25th, 2016, Philip B. Dreisbach.
He is a physician. He practices in California, oncology. California just passed a physicians assisted suicide law.
The law requires a physician to prescribe the drugs, versus appointing someone else to give cover to those requesting killing someone. The law does NOT require a psychological examination of the patient requesting the drugs. Heirs and the owners of care giving facilities can request the service.
He mentions that those pushing this also object to executing convicted felons. Huh?
This is definition of a slippery slope.
Signups for ACA half of what was expected.
This article and others like it report that the signups for “Obamacare”, or the ACA are up over last year but far short, by 50% of what was expected.
Well, another expectation not met by the law that Nancy Pelosi famously said, “Let’s pass it before we read it”, and Johnathon Gruber also said afterwards, “You can’t do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it’s written to do that.”
Rates are up, not down as “expected”. We don’t get to keep our current insurance if want to, another missed expectation. We don’t get to go to our doctors as expected. We don’t get the prescriptions we had in the past, another missed expectation………….
How about taking responsibility for messing up President Obama, Nancy and Harry! We are a rich country; all should have access to decent health care. We need to figure out a better way!
“The folly of targeting big pharma”
The article, reprinted in the WSJ on 12/10/15, above talks about Hillary Clinton attacking big pharma for high drug prices, and others of course, and states the case that drugs can reduce overall health care costs over time. The author is with the Progressive Policy Institute, and advocates for its’ namesake type of policies for the U.S. The PPI was started in 1989 as part of the Democrat Leadership Conference, a driver of Bill Clinton’s policies.
A progressive organization defending drug companies, now that is interesting! The ACA was supported by these same companies, also by large hospital and insurance organizations. And the result is….All of us are paying more, do not have the plan we had, can’t go to many of the doctors we want, many are not subject to the law because they are friends of B.O.(unions, etc.) while the rest of us suffer.
The ACA did address some necessary issues like total caps, pre-existing conditions, a path for all to obtain a plan. Its’ failure is more government control, less freedom for states to experiment, no competition across state lines, etc.
I believe drugs can reduce the cost of health care over time. I wish I knew why the PPI agrees with me, maybe I should open my mind a bit.