![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ObamaCare marches on
Jun. 16th, 2009 10:45 amHe keeps saying that he just wants to insure the uninsured... what could be wrong with that?
Oh, maybe trillions of dollars in spending, undercutting the private insurance companies, shortchanging the medical community and transitioning to a single-payer system ala Great Britain and Canada.
The Congressional Budget Office came out with some numbers yesterday on the most complete incarnation of ObamaCare, the Kennedy-Dodd legislation.
According to the CBO director:
And that doesn't even take into account the 'public option' that Obama is pushing.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that government-run health care is not free? There are plenty of individuals and websites who can articulate the opposite to a single-payer plan far better than I can, but this is my understanding in a nutshell: if the government comes out with a plan that is "less expensive" because it is subsidized by taxpayer dollars, it's going to put many private insurance companies out of business because, without subsidies, they can't compete. Now, some companies will survive because there will always be people who are financially able to pay for their own health care, but millions who get insurance through their employers will be at the whim of those employers if they decide to only offer the government option. People who don't want government insurance will either have to go out and find their own, or go without, which is exactly what this plan is supposed to avoid.
And what about the doctors? All they have to do is look at Medicare and Medicaid, where as recently as this week Obama was talking about reducing the amount of reimbursement doctors and hospitals would receive for their Medicare/Medicaid patients. It's actually costing doctors more to take Medicare patients because the government has reduced the compensation amount. (ABC: Doctors Dumping Medicare and Medicaid) This means that fewer doctors are going to take on Medicare patients.
So let's flash forward to the future where Obama gets his government health care system which now serves millions because of its subsidized "affordability". What would stop the fed from doing exactly what it's doing now with Medicare and reducing doctor reimbursements? Absolutely nothing, except in this scenario the number would be much larger. What do doctors do then? Well, they either continue losing money, they stop taking patients who are on the government's plan, or they stop taking patients altogether.
Now, I'm not saying the health care system as it stands now is perfect. Like most insurance plans, they're overpriced. But the solution to this problem is not to throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater, to nuke the existing infrastructure and start over with the federal government in control. If you want to help people get insurance, let's talk about letting them write off their insurance premiums come tax time, or send out vouchers for people to use to purchase their own health care, which is something that would actually foster competition in the industry instead of eliminating it altogether.
I know this isn't the sexiest topic in the news today, but it's important. I don't want us to turn into another UK or Canada. I don't want there to be yet another instance where millions of Americans are turning to the federal government for the answers to their problems.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” -- Gerald Ford
Oh, maybe trillions of dollars in spending, undercutting the private insurance companies, shortchanging the medical community and transitioning to a single-payer system ala Great Britain and Canada.
The Congressional Budget Office came out with some numbers yesterday on the most complete incarnation of ObamaCare, the Kennedy-Dodd legislation.
According to the CBO director:
According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million. (Ed. -- Emphasis added.)
And that doesn't even take into account the 'public option' that Obama is pushing.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that government-run health care is not free? There are plenty of individuals and websites who can articulate the opposite to a single-payer plan far better than I can, but this is my understanding in a nutshell: if the government comes out with a plan that is "less expensive" because it is subsidized by taxpayer dollars, it's going to put many private insurance companies out of business because, without subsidies, they can't compete. Now, some companies will survive because there will always be people who are financially able to pay for their own health care, but millions who get insurance through their employers will be at the whim of those employers if they decide to only offer the government option. People who don't want government insurance will either have to go out and find their own, or go without, which is exactly what this plan is supposed to avoid.
And what about the doctors? All they have to do is look at Medicare and Medicaid, where as recently as this week Obama was talking about reducing the amount of reimbursement doctors and hospitals would receive for their Medicare/Medicaid patients. It's actually costing doctors more to take Medicare patients because the government has reduced the compensation amount. (ABC: Doctors Dumping Medicare and Medicaid) This means that fewer doctors are going to take on Medicare patients.
So let's flash forward to the future where Obama gets his government health care system which now serves millions because of its subsidized "affordability". What would stop the fed from doing exactly what it's doing now with Medicare and reducing doctor reimbursements? Absolutely nothing, except in this scenario the number would be much larger. What do doctors do then? Well, they either continue losing money, they stop taking patients who are on the government's plan, or they stop taking patients altogether.
Now, I'm not saying the health care system as it stands now is perfect. Like most insurance plans, they're overpriced. But the solution to this problem is not to throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater, to nuke the existing infrastructure and start over with the federal government in control. If you want to help people get insurance, let's talk about letting them write off their insurance premiums come tax time, or send out vouchers for people to use to purchase their own health care, which is something that would actually foster competition in the industry instead of eliminating it altogether.
I know this isn't the sexiest topic in the news today, but it's important. I don't want us to turn into another UK or Canada. I don't want there to be yet another instance where millions of Americans are turning to the federal government for the answers to their problems.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” -- Gerald Ford
