A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Healthcare Plan

[Mark B. Morrow]

Because its better than government which screws up everything. i dont want to have to wait in lines, wait for months until surgery, or have a price put on my head.

 

 

Except that none of that is true. Try doing some research.

[RangerM]

Why though? I really don't understand what attachment people have to health insurance companies.

Nobody has any great love for insurance companies. However, most people DO value their liberty, and for the government to deny access to anything regardless of one's ability and/or willingness to pay (and one's ability/willingness to provide) is called rationing, and runs counter to liberty.

 

Except that none of that is true. Try doing some research.

An article by Ezekiel J Emanuel, special advisor to the President on healthcare.

 

This might be worth reading before you dismiss ausrutherford's concerns outright.

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions, Lancet 2009; 373: 423–31

 

Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We

evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classifi ed into four categories: treating people equally, favouring

the worst-off , maximising total benefi ts, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is

sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined

into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points

systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the

complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates

prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

 

I'm not saying that Emanual "wants to kill grandma", however when a limited supply (of healthcare resources) is countered with unlimited demand, you wind up with scarce resources.

 

The current system is based on one's ability to pay (and by extension his industriousness). The system described in the article has nothing to do with industriousness, but is based on another set of standards that aren't fixed, and are subject to alteration on the whim of personal (or political) expediency.

Edited August 30, 2009 by RangerM

[suv_guy_19]

So liberty is more important than the life of another then....how interesting.

[RangerM]

So liberty is more important than the life of another then....how interesting.

What value is there in life without liberty?

 

Even a gilded cage, is still a cage.

[suv_guy_19]

Liberty is not limitless though anyway, and certainly not in the home of the Patriot Act.

 

Putting that aside, does the health insurance industry alone really give more liberty than an insurance industry augmented by a government option? Is that mot simply giving more choice and liberty?

[RangerM]

Putting that aside, does the health insurance industry alone really give more liberty than an insurance industry augmented by a government option? Is that mot simply giving more choice and liberty?

Could you please explain how you believe the "government option" as it is currently defined in the published H.R. 3200 gives more choice and liberty?

[suv_guy_19]

It allows for another choice.

[RangerM]

It allows for another choice.

For how long?

[suv_guy_19]

Other countries have both private and public options (except for here....and even here to an extent). I don't see why anything would end up differently in the US.

[macattak1]

Other countries have both private and public options (except for here....and even here to an extent). I don't see why anything would end up differently in the US.

 

Obama is not offering a choice. He is offering a public option for a few years until he can get rid of the private option. So what you speak of is only for a limited time. Then it is only public and no private.

 

I am confused as to why some continue to want to talk about how wonderful the 1/2 built bridge is with out admitting or acknowledging just where the other 1/2 of the bridge leads? And where it leads to is zero private health insurance.

 

Peace and Blessings

[suv_guy_19]

You have no proof of that. No one is proposing a single payer system where private coverage is outlawed (as we have here). Even with a single payer system, there can still be private insurance and care. You're looking under the bed to find something that isn't all that scary at all.

[RangerM]

Putting that aside, does the health insurance industry alone really give more liberty than an insurance industry augmented by a government option? Is that mot simply giving more choice and liberty?

Other countries have both private and public options (except for here....and even here to an extent). I don't see why anything would end up differently in the US.

Here is the link to the actual H.R. 3200, as published. I'd assume since they went to the trouble of writing this legislation that this is what they'd like to see passed into law, wouldn't you?

 

I'll just take a fairly important part regarding just how "optional" the Government Option is........ (NOTE: This section starts at Page 16 of the PDF at the link above, just so you can find it for yourself)

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

( a ) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—

 

Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the

first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

Sounds good so far, but..........

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—

( A ) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll

any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

( B ) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—

Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

Ok, what we have here is a section saying that if you are covered "before the first day of Y1", you stay covered (as well as any dependents).

 

However, if you are not covered by an individual health plan on the first day the Government Option is available, then you have no option BUT the Government Option.

 

Let's see what's next.....

( b ) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLANS.—

(1) GRACE PERIOD.—

( A ) IN GENERAL.—

The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

Hmm.......after the 5-year "Grace Period", any individual health plan "must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101"?

 

That means that an individual health plan has to be equal to or more than (in coverage) the Government Option. What kind of choice is that? I can purchase any plan I want so long as it matches the Government Option?

 

Let's move on.....

( B ) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS

PLANS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the following:

(i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)( B )(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5).

(ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733© of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A) of such section.

In plain English, this says that C.O.B.R.A. is no longer an option. In essence, lose your job, your only option is the Government Option.

 

Essentially, under the rosiest of scenarios, the net result (after 5 years) is the government option is your ONLY option. (unless you wish to make the case that a look-alike is an "option", which is distinction without difference).

 

That's not choice and it's not liberty.

[suv_guy_19]

That's not what it says. It says that the plan must meet at least the same standards. Also, what is a dependent?

 

That plan is only one of many, and it will probably end up being changed. I have a real doubt that a plan that outlaws private insurance (even if it should) will pass the House or the Senate.

[RangerM]

That's not what it says. It says that the plan must meet at least the same standards. Also, what is a dependent?

SUV, it's right in front of you.....

The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

 

That doesn't say "standards". It says "requirements" of the government plan.

 

A dependent is a person's child. What it says that if you have a child after day one of the government plan, your child can be covered under the existing private plan (up to 5 years).

That plan is only one of many, and it will probably end up being changed. I have a real doubt that a plan that outlaws private insurance (even if it should) will pass the House or the Senate.

I never said it "outlaws private insurance", but if private insurance MUST (by law) be a mirror image of the plan that the government dictates, there is no choice.

 

I've seen what they want, regardless of what bill is passed.

 

If you refuse to read what's in front of your eyes (following the link I provided to the bill itself), then I think we're done here.

[suv_guy_19]

I never said it "outlaws private insurance", but if private insurance MUST (by law) be a mirror image of the plan that the government dictates, there is no choice.

 

It doesn't have to be a mirror image, it has to be at least a mirror image. There's nothing saying that it can't meet and exceed it.

[RangerM]

It doesn't have to be a mirror image, it has to be at least a mirror image. There's nothing saying that it can't meet and exceed it.

No, it says it MUST meet or exceed it.

 

There's a difference.

 

(actually I'm presuming that "exceed" part, because the word exceed doesn't appear there)

Edited August 30, 2009 by RangerM

[suv_guy_19]

That's what I just said. That's a good thing. It doesn't allow insurance companies to refuse people on technicalities.

[RangerM]

That's what I just said. That's a good thing. It doesn't allow insurance companies to refuse people on technicalities.

 

Exactly.

 

What the government dictates, is your only option....making it the "government option", and the end of choice.

[suv_guy_19]

No, it's not your only option, because the private sector could provide something even more comprehensive. Your choice would be enhanced because you wouldn't have to worry about choosing crap anymore.

[Edstock]

if private insurance MUST (by law) be a mirror image

But, does it say "mirror image"? It seems to say that it must meet minimum standards that equal the government plan. And with the efficiency of private enterprise, the private plans should have no problem meeting standards and requirements — or even exceed them.

 

Intelligence and Perspective

[RangerM]

No, it's not your only option, because the private sector could provide something even more comprehensive. Your choice would be enhanced because you wouldn't have to worry about choosing crap anymore.

 

You're definitely right that I wouldn't have to worry about choosing crap anymore. I'd have (effectively) one choice.

 

But, does it say "mirror image"? It seems to say that it must meet minimum standards that equal the government plan. And with the efficiency of private enterprise, the private plans should have no problem meeting standards and requirements — or even exceed them.

 

Intelligence and Perspective

"Mirror Image" is euphamism for a look-alike, a facsimile, or the same thing as the government plan.

 

It's not about efficiency of the insurance companies, it's about personal choice. In the end, regardless of provider, you have none, because the same requirements (the bill doesn't say "standards") apply no matter the source.

[Edstock]

But does it say that standards or requirements cannot be exceeded?

 

Intelligence and Perspective

[RangerM]

But does it say that standards or requirements cannot be exceeded?

 

Intelligence and Perspective

No. I admitted my presumption of that in my response to suv_guy_19 above.

[macattak1]

You have no proof of that. No one is proposing a single payer system where private coverage is outlawed (as we have here). Even with a single payer system, there can still be private insurance and care. You're looking under the bed to find something that isn't all that scary at all.

 

Taping an individual on saying "I am going to do 'A'" is considered high quality evidence in a court of law when it comes time to produce evidence for or against that person.

 

If you have failed to see and hear the Often provided Obama recordings on how he wants to end private HC Ins, but it will take 10 to 15 years then I am not sure what to say other then; No. You have not seen the evidence that he wants to end it.

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

But, does it say "mirror image"? It seems to say that it must meet minimum standards that equal the government plan. And with the efficiency of private enterprise, the private plans should have no problem meeting standards and requirements — or even exceed them.

 

Intelligence and Perspective

 

Then why a govt. plan? Why not just those govt minimums?

 

Peace and Blessings