“have irrefutable proof it will reduce out-of-pocket healthcare costs by 50% for all Americans while providing "First, no. What they are proving in CA is that the cost increases are only about 50% of what they were going to be. They’re still going up, a lot. Secondly… “disirregardless”This is not a word. And it will kick in 1 October, and it will be a disaster. People don’t like it now (a majority want it repealed). I wonder how much it’s going to sour when people have to pay the bill.
It will be a good day for our nation when both sides can combine the best ideas from all sides in order to create a healthcare plan that reduces costs while providing better services.There are many good ideas from hospitals, medical practitioners, even insurance companies. Not as many good ideas coming from DC tho. I think I’ve seen more good ideas from some of our better commentators and/or their sources in GC, than I have in DC.To your very good health, neighbors.Respectfully,C.
Not really, Kent. Your inability to interpret these toons is once again, showing.And once again, your inability to actually refute his comment with anything resembling substance is showing.
Obamacare not liked by some; but my secondary ins went down by $220 per month when the 80% return to payers. went into afffect. A nice sum for two years. Also cost of drugs went down.
Onguard actually summarizes our entire problem with Congress, and governance across the nation with regard to “GOP” elected officials, not just those potentially running.
Since Reagan actually, let alone “W’s Debacle”, the GOP has had had NO INTEREST IN GOVERNING, or even attempting to work for the people of the nation, they merely focus on selling themselves, like RONCO products that don’t really work, in the next elections, even when they’re still a year and a half in the future.
The GOP has actually been campaigning for 2016, since 2008 when McCain and Caribou Barbie were obvious 53rd choice in a field of 52 candidates.
They are circling their wagons atop the land fill of garbage they’ve been covering up to keep the public from seeing the reality of.
Forbes disagrees with you. @ Justice: Fair question. It’s not a simple answer, though. While care providers may charge insurance companies more to compensate for the uninsured usage (and unpaid usage), it’s still less than what we are looking at now. As I’ve mentioned to Canuck in the past, Americans are not going to be good stewards of “free care.” If they have the access with little to no out-of-pocket expense, they are going to use it to the hilt. In addition, the reason why costs are going up is because the underwriting process is getting mucked with by the government. Not being able to charge high consumers (chronically ill and the elderly) more than double the low consumers (healthy young adults with no chronic issues), they are forcing the overall average up. @ Genome:“The more people covered, the lower the overall rates. "You are missing a qualifying descriptor here. The more healthy people covered, the lower the overall rates. If you have nothing but the sick and ill sign up, which is likely going to be the case, the costs will spike. Let’s look at it from a basic arithmetic approach, as you like to say. If you have an option of paying $500 a year to opt out of health insurance (as the fine/tax/whatever) and then just pick it up when you need it, why on earth would you want to pay $100 a month (post-subsidy) for care year-round? These college kids don’t want the health insurance, don’t need the health insurance, and likely won’t sign up for the exchanges. Why? Because free or almost free is better than expensive. As shown in my link, Forbes does a good job showing why young people have no incentive for signing up for it. It’s going to be too blasted costly for them to do it, when they are likely to not even use it. The fact that these kids likely aren’t going to sign up for it means the rest of the bill sits on the shoulders of those who are ill or elderly. This means premiums are going to spike. Most recent poll shows 53% of Americans disapprove of the PPACA. People are realizing it’s not workable.
“….. an impossible Conglomeration to fix an Illusion, …….”.I doubt if the 20,000+ Americans that die annually from treatable conditions and the 700,000 or so that declare medical bankruptcy annually would consider the current state of the health care system an illusion. .There might be an illusion going on between your ears.
“…..We are no longer valuable to this government. Never thought I would see the day!….”.I can’t believe you’d believe that load of bull!.I can’t say what will happen in specific situations. I can say what happens in the developed countries of the world with universal health care. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) as it relates to Medicare is about efficiencies in the system, not about reducing coverage or quality. Every advanced health care system in the world has some similar board that reviews costs and treatment options. Examples: Ten different tests might be prescribed by your doctor to treat a condition and your doctor would be reimbursed for each. But, quite likely only a couple or so actually affect patient treatment and outcome. If there is one heart available for transplant, do you give it to the 45 year-old with a family or the 85 year old with emphysema? The 85 year old with a life expectancy of a few weeks might be kept alive for another year on life support with no quality of life at a cost of $1million. Would you want that for yourself? I wouldn’t for me. Life altering health care decisions have always been made, they will continue to be made, and they will be made by mortal beings. There are no other choices. .My casual observations are that the medical systems often goes too far in keeping people clinically alive who have no quality or hope of recovery. But, patient welfare, driven by the Doctor’s hippocratic oath, will invariably trump treatment costs in a public health care system. .Take solace in the fact you are more likely to get a favourable decision when the decision is made by a health-care worker or independent board than by insurance executives.
“We are no longer valuable to this government. Never thought I would see the day!”
We’ve been liviing with those ‘death panels’ for decades. If the insurers won’t cover you, or you can’t afford coverage, you will die.
When my husband retired, I was still in treatment for breast cancer. The COBRA payment was higher than our (old) mortgage, and our income was halved. We couldn’t afford it. We couldn’t afford the treatment, either.
But they don’t discriminate, or not in terms of age, anyway. If they don’t want to treat you, forty or eighty, you can die. Their evaluations are arbitrary and not necessarily medically based.
So this ‘new reform’, so called, is nothing of the kind. The insurers will continue to dictate care, regardless of the victim’s age, education level, or disease. Their only concern is their quarterly bottom line.
What most of us were hoping for was an end to those death panels. We knew it was a thin hope, but we hoped.
Yes, my breast cancer has recurred. We all have to die of something, but to die of something treatable is the ultimate insult, whatever your age.
“We still have the same ‘death panels’ we’ve had for decades – if they don’t want to cover your illness, regardless of the reason, but sure, age is one of their excuses, they won’t cover you and you die prematurely.”
Absolutely true. For all the noise you hear about not wanting government bureaucrats deciding whether your maladies should be covered or not, it is and has been true that those decisions are now being made by insurance bureaucrats.
Cynically, they tell us providers that they are not telling us the patient does not deserve treatment; they just won’t pay for the treatment, deserved or not. Then they tell us it’s up to US to ensure that the patient is able to get care.
Okay, let’s review: they get money from the patient for months or years. When it’s time to pay up, they ain’t paying me to fix the problem. Not to say it shouldn’t be fixed, of course….now it’s up to me to find an alternative, and it’s fine with them if I work for free. After all, they didn’t get into their business to help people like I did……
I do not believe the PPACA is the step in the right direction, for a very simple reason: It violates states’ rights. It oversteps the bounds and limitations of the US Constitution. And it takes responsibility away from the individual and forces it on the taxpayers.Canuck was right before that with our very libertarian foundation in the US, and the individualistic approach the vast majority of Americans take to our lives, a universal/single-payer system won’t work. We, as Americans, won’t be good stewards of a universal health system because we will use it whenever we want without the concept of how much it costs, because we don’t incur the expense. That’s why we have so much waste going on right now: consumers of the health care services do not ask the question, “how much?” like we do with everything else. And that’s because to us, it’s free for a flat rate. You nationalize that approach with millions more who pay a flat rate or don’t pay at all, and you are going to see that usage increase needlessly. I think it was Washington that put out a study that proved the quality of life didn’t really change with or without insurance.To my points, specifically: it violates the sovereignty of States, because it’s forcing the states to adhere to a federal entitlement program, and expects them to bear the costs of them down the road. Yes yes, the feds will provide xyz dollars at the beginning, but in a decade that won’t be there. And just where, exactly, do the feds get those dollars? Well, from us, of course. If they wanted to do this correctly, they should have let people make the decision on a state-by-state basis like MA. After all, with all those liberal states out there (especially CA and NY), why didn’t they come out with their own public healthcare systems? If Romneycare was so awesome, why is no-one else using it? That’s how this little social experiment called the USA was meant to run. Things that work are added, things that don’t work are ditched. States are better equipped.Secondly, it oversteps the US Constitution, because it says to promote the general welfare, not provide it. Promote means to enable something to occur, not to make it occur. To remove impediments. They also are violating at least another instance of the Constitution: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We don’t have a say in if we buy this product, we HAVE to. That violates our right to Liberty. We don’t have the freedom of choice any more. We have to pay it in one form or another. It’s no different than forcing someone to tithe to a specific god or be punished by taxation. If that were passed, we would be up in arms over it. Why not this?A single-payer system will only work if the government controls every aspect of the health care system. And I can’t see that working here. Because if you control that, then you have to have them control the educational system, so the doctors don’t exit college with 150k in debt. And then you have to also reform the entire legal system to protect doctors from malpractice suits. And… it cascades from there. The medical system in America is so intertwined with everything else, a single-payer system is not viable without an overhaul of probably half the private sector in America. And it will cost a LOT of people their jobs. In addition, the PPACA didn’t address the issue that is plaguing the system: Cost. All it did was increase the number of people covered, not lower costs. The only way it’s pretending to force costs down is through the IPAB and cost controls. We still haven’t identified why the costs of insurance are so high to begin with. Until we do, no amount of “fixing” is going to remedy our health care maladies.
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
Is THAT who was on the grassy knoll?
ConserveGov over 10 years ago
As long as the Republicans hold their position against Government Mandated Healthcare they will win in a landslide in 2014.
greyolddave over 10 years ago
Lisa has is right again. Notice its just one wagon. The label says “consensus” but its empty. A consensus of one.
Wraithkin over 10 years ago
“have irrefutable proof it will reduce out-of-pocket healthcare costs by 50% for all Americans while providing "First, no. What they are proving in CA is that the cost increases are only about 50% of what they were going to be. They’re still going up, a lot. Secondly… “disirregardless”This is not a word. And it will kick in 1 October, and it will be a disaster. People don’t like it now (a majority want it repealed). I wonder how much it’s going to sour when people have to pay the bill.
chazandru over 10 years ago
It will be a good day for our nation when both sides can combine the best ideas from all sides in order to create a healthcare plan that reduces costs while providing better services.There are many good ideas from hospitals, medical practitioners, even insurance companies. Not as many good ideas coming from DC tho. I think I’ve seen more good ideas from some of our better commentators and/or their sources in GC, than I have in DC.To your very good health, neighbors.Respectfully,C.
ossiningaling over 10 years ago
I know, right? Maybe she’s on hiatus and a ghost writer is filling in?
Jason Allen over 10 years ago
Not really, Kent. Your inability to interpret these toons is once again, showing.And once again, your inability to actually refute his comment with anything resembling substance is showing.
retpost over 10 years ago
Obamacare not liked by some; but my secondary ins went down by $220 per month when the 80% return to payers. went into afffect. A nice sum for two years. Also cost of drugs went down.
alan.gurka over 10 years ago
Hey, you stole my word! I’ve been using “disirregardless” or “disirregardlessly” for years!Like your response to Clark bar.
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
Onguard actually summarizes our entire problem with Congress, and governance across the nation with regard to “GOP” elected officials, not just those potentially running.
Since Reagan actually, let alone “W’s Debacle”, the GOP has had had NO INTEREST IN GOVERNING, or even attempting to work for the people of the nation, they merely focus on selling themselves, like RONCO products that don’t really work, in the next elections, even when they’re still a year and a half in the future.
The GOP has actually been campaigning for 2016, since 2008 when McCain and Caribou Barbie were obvious 53rd choice in a field of 52 candidates.
They are circling their wagons atop the land fill of garbage they’ve been covering up to keep the public from seeing the reality of.
Wraithkin over 10 years ago
Forbes disagrees with you. @ Justice: Fair question. It’s not a simple answer, though. While care providers may charge insurance companies more to compensate for the uninsured usage (and unpaid usage), it’s still less than what we are looking at now. As I’ve mentioned to Canuck in the past, Americans are not going to be good stewards of “free care.” If they have the access with little to no out-of-pocket expense, they are going to use it to the hilt. In addition, the reason why costs are going up is because the underwriting process is getting mucked with by the government. Not being able to charge high consumers (chronically ill and the elderly) more than double the low consumers (healthy young adults with no chronic issues), they are forcing the overall average up. @ Genome:“The more people covered, the lower the overall rates. "You are missing a qualifying descriptor here. The more healthy people covered, the lower the overall rates. If you have nothing but the sick and ill sign up, which is likely going to be the case, the costs will spike. Let’s look at it from a basic arithmetic approach, as you like to say. If you have an option of paying $500 a year to opt out of health insurance (as the fine/tax/whatever) and then just pick it up when you need it, why on earth would you want to pay $100 a month (post-subsidy) for care year-round? These college kids don’t want the health insurance, don’t need the health insurance, and likely won’t sign up for the exchanges. Why? Because free or almost free is better than expensive. As shown in my link, Forbes does a good job showing why young people have no incentive for signing up for it. It’s going to be too blasted costly for them to do it, when they are likely to not even use it. The fact that these kids likely aren’t going to sign up for it means the rest of the bill sits on the shoulders of those who are ill or elderly. This means premiums are going to spike. Most recent poll shows 53% of Americans disapprove of the PPACA. People are realizing it’s not workable.
Gypsy8 over 10 years ago
“….. an impossible Conglomeration to fix an Illusion, …….”.I doubt if the 20,000+ Americans that die annually from treatable conditions and the 700,000 or so that declare medical bankruptcy annually would consider the current state of the health care system an illusion. .There might be an illusion going on between your ears.
Gypsy8 over 10 years ago
“…..We are no longer valuable to this government. Never thought I would see the day!….”.I can’t believe you’d believe that load of bull!.I can’t say what will happen in specific situations. I can say what happens in the developed countries of the world with universal health care. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) as it relates to Medicare is about efficiencies in the system, not about reducing coverage or quality. Every advanced health care system in the world has some similar board that reviews costs and treatment options. Examples: Ten different tests might be prescribed by your doctor to treat a condition and your doctor would be reimbursed for each. But, quite likely only a couple or so actually affect patient treatment and outcome. If there is one heart available for transplant, do you give it to the 45 year-old with a family or the 85 year old with emphysema? The 85 year old with a life expectancy of a few weeks might be kept alive for another year on life support with no quality of life at a cost of $1million. Would you want that for yourself? I wouldn’t for me. Life altering health care decisions have always been made, they will continue to be made, and they will be made by mortal beings. There are no other choices. .My casual observations are that the medical systems often goes too far in keeping people clinically alive who have no quality or hope of recovery. But, patient welfare, driven by the Doctor’s hippocratic oath, will invariably trump treatment costs in a public health care system. .Take solace in the fact you are more likely to get a favourable decision when the decision is made by a health-care worker or independent board than by insurance executives.
Wraithkin over 10 years ago
I stand corrected.
Hawthorne over 10 years ago
" … hanging around the neck of Obama and the Dem Libs who created it using tricks and deceptions."
Oh, you are funny! ‘ObamaCare’ is a thinly disguised copy of Romney’s plan in Massachussets! Or – are you now rejecting Romney as a Republican? rotfl!Hawthorne over 10 years ago
“We are no longer valuable to this government. Never thought I would see the day!”
We’ve been liviing with those ‘death panels’ for decades. If the insurers won’t cover you, or you can’t afford coverage, you will die.
When my husband retired, I was still in treatment for breast cancer. The COBRA payment was higher than our (old) mortgage, and our income was halved. We couldn’t afford it. We couldn’t afford the treatment, either.
But they don’t discriminate, or not in terms of age, anyway. If they don’t want to treat you, forty or eighty, you can die. Their evaluations are arbitrary and not necessarily medically based.
So this ‘new reform’, so called, is nothing of the kind. The insurers will continue to dictate care, regardless of the victim’s age, education level, or disease. Their only concern is their quarterly bottom line.
What most of us were hoping for was an end to those death panels. We knew it was a thin hope, but we hoped.
Yes, my breast cancer has recurred. We all have to die of something, but to die of something treatable is the ultimate insult, whatever your age.
I Play One On TV over 10 years ago
“We still have the same ‘death panels’ we’ve had for decades – if they don’t want to cover your illness, regardless of the reason, but sure, age is one of their excuses, they won’t cover you and you die prematurely.”
Absolutely true. For all the noise you hear about not wanting government bureaucrats deciding whether your maladies should be covered or not, it is and has been true that those decisions are now being made by insurance bureaucrats.
Cynically, they tell us providers that they are not telling us the patient does not deserve treatment; they just won’t pay for the treatment, deserved or not. Then they tell us it’s up to US to ensure that the patient is able to get care.
Okay, let’s review: they get money from the patient for months or years. When it’s time to pay up, they ain’t paying me to fix the problem. Not to say it shouldn’t be fixed, of course….now it’s up to me to find an alternative, and it’s fine with them if I work for free. After all, they didn’t get into their business to help people like I did……
Wraithkin over 10 years ago
I do not believe the PPACA is the step in the right direction, for a very simple reason: It violates states’ rights. It oversteps the bounds and limitations of the US Constitution. And it takes responsibility away from the individual and forces it on the taxpayers.Canuck was right before that with our very libertarian foundation in the US, and the individualistic approach the vast majority of Americans take to our lives, a universal/single-payer system won’t work. We, as Americans, won’t be good stewards of a universal health system because we will use it whenever we want without the concept of how much it costs, because we don’t incur the expense. That’s why we have so much waste going on right now: consumers of the health care services do not ask the question, “how much?” like we do with everything else. And that’s because to us, it’s free for a flat rate. You nationalize that approach with millions more who pay a flat rate or don’t pay at all, and you are going to see that usage increase needlessly. I think it was Washington that put out a study that proved the quality of life didn’t really change with or without insurance.To my points, specifically: it violates the sovereignty of States, because it’s forcing the states to adhere to a federal entitlement program, and expects them to bear the costs of them down the road. Yes yes, the feds will provide xyz dollars at the beginning, but in a decade that won’t be there. And just where, exactly, do the feds get those dollars? Well, from us, of course. If they wanted to do this correctly, they should have let people make the decision on a state-by-state basis like MA. After all, with all those liberal states out there (especially CA and NY), why didn’t they come out with their own public healthcare systems? If Romneycare was so awesome, why is no-one else using it? That’s how this little social experiment called the USA was meant to run. Things that work are added, things that don’t work are ditched. States are better equipped.Secondly, it oversteps the US Constitution, because it says to promote the general welfare, not provide it. Promote means to enable something to occur, not to make it occur. To remove impediments. They also are violating at least another instance of the Constitution: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We don’t have a say in if we buy this product, we HAVE to. That violates our right to Liberty. We don’t have the freedom of choice any more. We have to pay it in one form or another. It’s no different than forcing someone to tithe to a specific god or be punished by taxation. If that were passed, we would be up in arms over it. Why not this?A single-payer system will only work if the government controls every aspect of the health care system. And I can’t see that working here. Because if you control that, then you have to have them control the educational system, so the doctors don’t exit college with 150k in debt. And then you have to also reform the entire legal system to protect doctors from malpractice suits. And… it cascades from there. The medical system in America is so intertwined with everything else, a single-payer system is not viable without an overhaul of probably half the private sector in America. And it will cost a LOT of people their jobs. In addition, the PPACA didn’t address the issue that is plaguing the system: Cost. All it did was increase the number of people covered, not lower costs. The only way it’s pretending to force costs down is through the IPAB and cost controls. We still haven’t identified why the costs of insurance are so high to begin with. Until we do, no amount of “fixing” is going to remedy our health care maladies.