[Qrhzbadu]

NY Times:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ing-the-curve/

The new Medicare Trustees Report is out. Comparing Table IIIA-2 in this year’s report and last year’s report, we get this:


In other words, the Medicare actuaries believe that the cost-saving provisions in the Obama health reform will make a huge difference to the long-run budget outlook. Yes, it’s just a projection, and debatable like all projections. And it’s still not enough. But anyone who both claims to be worried about the long-run deficit and was opposed to health reform has some explaining to do. All the facts we have suggest that health reform was the biggest move toward fiscal responsibility in a long, long time.

[johnbeller]

Because burying someone is a lot cheaper than treating them. Do you think about the stuff you post? Really the quality of care is going right into the crapper. But it will be cheaper, and that's good enough for the likes of you. I suppose?

[Butiqueso]

Yes, we Democrats love our Death Panels. We're planning to set up a HUGE bureaucracy to go door-to-door to kill your grandma. Look out!

[Slintreeoost]

No, you will achieve your Death Panels by rationing care like the British HealthCare system does. Which is why of course our President had to sneak in "Dr. Death Panel", a huge proponent of the British System, to avoid questions that would be raised during Congressional hearings.

[voksveta]

In my travels, I've seen people alive and well and thriving under state-run health care, thankyouverymuch. To the point where I've been to visit my "serrogate" family's elderly matron in her state-run, elder-care house, where she lived alone in a normal life environment, but still had an emergency call button in all rooms to call the actual eldercare building a few doors down. I very good system on both counts if you ask me.

[Z2sc8gEz]

In my travels, I've seen people alive and well and thriving under state-run health care, thankyouverymuch. To the point where I've been to visit my "serrogate" family's elderly matron in her state-run, elder-care house, where she lived alone in a normal life environment, but still had an emergency call button in all rooms to call the actual eldercare building a few doors down. I very good system on both counts if you ask me.

As long as you're alive and well that state run system might work, but heaven forbid you get sick and are deemed to be not worthy of the expense of treating you properly, as is done in the British System.

[Atmotteenrift]

No, you will achieve your Death Panels by rationing care like the British HealthCare system does. Which is why of course our President had to sneak in "Dr. Death Panel", a huge proponent of the British System, to avoid questions that would be raised during Congressional hearings.

There is already health care rationing in this country, Paul. Here's how it works. You break your arm. You come to the ER. They splint it and refer you to an ortho for casting. You call an ortho, but you have no insurance and you don't qualify for medicare or medicaid. The ortho wants $500 when you walk in the door. You don't have it. You come back to the ER. The ER says, sorry we don't cast. Find an ortho.You call more orthos. They all want money up front. You never have your arm properly cast. That's rationing. Those who have money or insurane get treatement, those who don't, don't.

[bromgeksan]

Do you really need me to amend that to say that people are kept alive and well? Like Dutch people I know that have had heart attacks or cancer? They were "allowed" to live.

The one questionable thing I've seen happen to friends or family there concerned mental health, and let's be honest, we do p!ss poor job of that here no matter who's paying the bill.

Or said state-run elder care. When you get old there, the state takes care of you. They are kept alive, despite your absurd claims. Wouldn't those people be the first the government would kill off? The Dutch have a great senior care system, so you're sounding absolutely ridiculous by claiming they just want to kill people.

May I suggest you find the Billy Joel four-disc greatest hits collection. His three volumes of GH, plus a fourth disc taken from his college Q&A tour. Go listen to the intro to Vienna.

[Poreponko]

Didn't know much (actually nothing) about the Dutch system so I did a little research. Seems the Dutch implemented their new system in 2006 as a cost containing measure, that seems to already be a failure. Question is what will the Dutch do now to contain costs, I see becoming more like the British system with their patient cost/benefit analysis.

The 2006 Enthoven-inspired Dutch health insurance reform, based on regulated competition with a mandate for individuals to purchase insurance, will interest U.S. policy makers who seek universal coverage. This ongoing experiment includes guaranteed issue, price competition for a standardized basic benefits package, community rating, sliding-scale income-based subsidies for patients, and risk equalization for insurers. Our assessment of the first two years is based on Dutch Central Bank statistics, national opinion polls, consumer surveys, and qualitative interviews with policy makers. The first lesson for the United States is that the new Dutch health insurance model may not control costs. To date, consumer premiums are increasing, and insurance companies report large losses on the basic policies. Second, regulated competition is unlikely to make voters/citizens happy; public satisfaction is not high, and perceived quality is down. Third, consumers may not behave as economic models predict, remaining responsive to price incentives. Finally, policy makers should not underestimate the opposition from health care providers who define their profession as more than simply a job. If regulated competition with individual mandates performs poorly in auspicious circumstances such as the Netherlands, how will this model fare in the United States, where access, quality, and cost challenges are even greater? Might the assumptions of economic theory not apply in the health sector? http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/novemb...om_the_net.php

[Sleedyhex]

There is already health care rationing in this country, Paul. Here's how it works. You break your arm. You come to the ER. They splint it and refer you to an ortho for casting. You call an ortho, but you have no insurance and you don't qualify for medicare or medicaid. The ortho wants $500 when you walk in the door. You don't have it. You come back to the ER. The ER says, sorry we don't cast. Find an ortho.You call more orthos. They all want money up front. You never have your arm properly cast. That's rationing. Those who have money or insurane get treatement, those who don't, don't.

There may be healthcare rationing in this country, but this is not an example of it. I cannot afford to buy a Lamborghini but that doesn't mean they are being rationed. Rationing is the controlled distribution of scarce resources.

[SteantyjetMaw]

There may be healthcare rationing in this country, but this is not an example of it. I cannot afford to buy a Lamborghini but that doesn't mean they are being rationed. Rationing is the controlled distribution of scarce resources.

Are you truly, really and truly, comparing not being able to have a BROKEN BONE CAST because you have no insurance and no money up front, to not being able to own a luxury vehicle? Really? You're not really that much of an elitist are you? Or are you that much of an idiot?

[fiettariaps]

Are you truly, really and truly, comparing not being able to have a BROKEN BONE CAST because you have no insurance and no money up front, to not being able to own a luxury vehicle? Really? You're not really that much of an elitist are you? Or are you that much of an idiot?

Just using an example that most can identify with to demonstrate the example used is not rationing. No doubt there is a problem with those lacking insurance but it is not one of rationing. If one were to solve the problem that DES describes, by providing Universal health care, that would lead to rationing. Just look at the British system.

[Drugmachine]

I am unfamiliar with the 2006 plan. Ironically, that's the last time I visited. However, the system before that was state-run, and worked fine. What the changes were I'll have to find out, but it was working okay. There had been talk of a private/public system, so it could be the addition of privatization was the problem over public care...

Yeah, looking at your post, that's what it was: it was privatizing a public plan that bulluxed things up. Are you sure that's a victory for your side?

[wasssallx]

Just using an example that most can identify with to demonstrate the example used is not rationing. No doubt there is a problem with those lacking insurance but it is not one of rationing. If one were to solve the problem that DES describes, by providing Universal health care, that would lead to rationing. Just look at the British system.

You're correct. My example was not technically rationing, it was one of access. The U.S. isn't instituting Universal Health Care, so your anology is moot. The new system will give more citizens access. Why do you believe that this system will lead to rationing?

[Gakeincidoniac]

Just using an example that most can identify with to demonstrate the example used is not rationing. No doubt there is a problem with those lacking insurance but it is not one of rationing. If one were to solve the problem that DES describes, by providing Universal health care, that would lead to rationing. Just look at the British system.

I know a lot of people on Universal Healthcare (not just in Britain, but other areas of Europe, and in Canada) and they're all perfectly happy with their healthcare. I, on the other hand, am not happy with mine. When I'm not working, I have zero,zilch, no healthcare. I'm a temporary employee right now, and when I'm working, I have really crummy healthcare that won't even cover an annual exam for an adult woman (found that out the hard way and now owe almost $500.). It's ludicrous that the most progressive and important country in the world doesn't take care of their own citizenship. It's a disgrace.

[MightyMasd]

Because the new system will not be able to contain costs, see above analysis of Dutch system. To the make sure that every citizen has access you will have to adopt an Universal System which as I have said will lead to rationing.

[CtEkM8Vq]

Because the new system will not be able to contain costs, see above analysis of Dutch system. To the make sure that every citizen has access you will have to adopt an Universal System which as I have said will lead to rationing.

Amazing that those I personally know with Universal Healthcare do not have the problems you are proposing will happen.

I would love to have Universal Healthcare. I wouldn't have to worry about the ER bill I'm about to get because my son got sick at Scout Camp with strep throat and got taken to the ER (and yes, right now, I have insurance, but I'm not even sure if my crappy insurance will pay for this trip to the ER). I wouldn't have to worry those weeks/months that there is no temp work and I *am* insured that me or my son get sick or injured and have to go to the hospital. Thankfully, this last uninsured time, I got an ear infection that a doctor a my church saw me for without cost (very nice young doctor), but that's not always an option.

It's "rationed" on the simple basis that those without insurance are unable to obtain even basic health care.

And even now, health care gets rationed WITH insurance. Try getting in to see a mental health counselor or psychologist/psychiatrist. In my area, even with an urgent need, it's a four month wait. That happens with seeing a specialist MD, as well. Not having universal healthcare doesn't guarantee you can call and get an appointment anywhere you need within a week or two.

[kavaTeexy]

Amazing that those I personally know with Universal Healthcare do not have the problems you are proposing will happen.

I love how that happens, and it often seems to be the same faction of people that say "I'll believe it when I see it." We had one guy in our office who kept telling a Canadian friend how Canada's system didn't work, yet she had life-saving surgery because of it.

He'd tellme how solar power is ineffective. I'd tell him I've built houses through Habitat that have solar power, yet I've visited those houses since the families have moved in, and the solar is a great advantage to them all. He said he needed proof. I told him where he could visit, and he didn't think visiting those houses counted as proof.

[Ccddfergt]

I love how that happens, and it often seems to be the same faction of people that say "I'll believe it when I see it." We had one guy in our office who kept telling a Canadian friend how Canada's system didn't work, yet she had life-saving surgery because of it.

He'd tellme how solar power is ineffective. I'd tell him I've built houses through Habitat that have solar power, yet I've visited those houses since the families have moved in, and the solar is a great advantage to them all. He said he needed proof. I told him where he could visit, and he didn't think visiting those houses counted as proof.

I don't know that solar power would be terribly effective where I live (the rainy Pacific Northwest), but if I owned my own home, I'd be looking into it. I pay far too much dinero to the power company every month.

[Nautilus]

You're correct. My example was not technically rationing, it was one of access. The U.S. isn't instituting Universal Health Care, so your anology is moot. The new system will give more citizens access. Why do you believe that this system will lead to rationing?

Actually, the closest thing we have to rationing in this country, which HCR attempts to minimize, is rescission undertaken by insurance companies when they make a decision that they've paid enough for a sick person's treatment and will refuse to pay for continued coverage, often at the point where a patient needs their insurance the most, like during cancer treatment.