Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (11791)	11/24/2009 4:41:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

What budget? There is no budget. If your starting from scratch, then no there is no (government) budget for it. The point is that we aren't starting from scratch. We have Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP. There are government health care budgets. Also I believe the original article assumed, or at least considered likely, that some form of "reform" would pass creating an additional program, that would add even more to the government budget. BTW - Arguing how you should have the program operate if we are going to have the government take over much of the spending (either totally and directly, or through more regulation and mandates for all, while directly taking over part with the "public option") doesn't imply that you actually think its a done deal that the government will do so. And thinking the government will take it over, doesn't imply that you support that change. Talking about how the government could contain costs by denying some services does not imply that you think health care is a right. In fact if you thought it was an unlimited right you'd support the country going bankrupt to spend every last dollar it can on health care claims. "We can't abolish Medicare and Medicaid. So rationing it in some way is the only choice for fiscal conservatives." Point out when I have ever proposed abolishing these programs. It doesn't matter if you proposed abolishing them or not. That's irrelevant to the point. The point is that they won't be abolished, at least not any time soon. So we will have the government dealing with health care claims and spending money on them. We can either just accept every claim (and have massive fraud as well as massive overspending on non-needed, non-helpful, or otherwise questionable procedures), or we can decide which ones we will pay and which ones won't get paid. One thing is to look for fraud and try not to pay it. I gather you support that. But would you limit it to that, or should the government automatically be on the hook for any non-fraudulent claim that falls under the umbrella of one of its programs (either Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP now, or perhaps more extensive coverage in the future)? If so, why?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (11791)	11/24/2009 5:24:25 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

You post as if healthcare is a right. I do no such thing. Your animus reads way to much into my statements. Who cares if an insurer goes bankrupt because they chose to cover more conditions than there actuary contemplated? Another company would pick up the plan and modify it suitably. Medicare and Medicaid aren't a right IMO but they are most definitely the law. For public programs, there is no other insurer to step in and pick up the pieces as you describe. If they go bankrupt, we go bankrupt. Legitimate fiscal conservatives would not allow that to happen. Instead they would ration to get costs under control. See above. I don't see anything above or anywhere else from you that shows how you can be a fiscal conservative and oppose rationing. You haven't addressed that directly and I can't find anything in your post from which to infer it. My father has been on medicare for over thirty years. Medicare coverage doesn't have any impact on his health care, it merely affects how his providers report it. Medicare is rationed now and will either be more so in the future or it will blow the budget. If it has had no impact on your father's health care, that is either because he has not had occasion to need some product or service that is not covered or because the claim was taken care of by someone other than Medicare. Medicare rationing has had no effect on my health care, either. That's because, when Medicare doesn't pay, either my secondary insurance pays or I do. I have in only two years on Medicare run into things that Medicare doesn't cover. However, it hasn't impacted my care. The fact that some people aren't affected by the rationing doesn't inform the topic at all. Point out when I have ever proposed abolishing these programs. You haven't. I was not suggesting that you had. I'm only laying out the range of options for keeping public claims payments from bankrupting us. We can abolish the public systems or we can ration how claims are paid. That's it, best I can tell. I can imagine no other option. Given that allowing a generous payment policy to bankrupt us is not an option for a fiscal conservative, we're left with choosing between abolishing the programs and rationing them. Abolishing them is not feasible even if that were what you wanted. So only rationing is left. If you refuse rationing, the only option left for a fiscal conservative, then you cannot be considered a fiscal conservative.