Signal Boost: Dear GOP - You are killing people!

[genchaos]

Originally posted by acelightning at Signal Boost: Dear GOP - You are killing people!
Passed along from many people - original post by

Comments

Re: Sorry, not buying the Socialist Scam

[jhyanmar]

In response, many hospitals, doctors, and other health care organizations have dramatically increased their rates, and then offer what discounts they can to the uninsured or the underinsured. Since medical professionals are not supposed to be offering multiple costs in this way, let alone to medicare vs. private insurance, these efforts are rough and often miss the mark. In a system that values the bottom line more than human health or happiness, this is considered to be a feature rather than a bug by the executives. I, and many others, disagree with that notion.

Regulations are not necessarily an evil thing, or a cost without benefit. Over the last few decades, we have learned painfully that many doctors and medical research organizations have not followed ethical standards, at the cost of patient health and occasionally life. Protecting the lives, privacy, and health of patients is a noble thing, and does not deserve being lumped in with insurance paperwork, which has been shown again and again to have the underlying motivation of denying patient care.

Chiropractors charge much less for a number of reasons. Many health insurance companies simply refuse to pay for their services, and many others force strict oversight, especially since many of the studies that show benefit from chiropractor care have been challenged or have had troubling lack of experimental rigor. For these reasons, and because the education is less expensive, as well as the systems involved with their regulation. They cannot prescribe medication for the most part, and are thus less regulated. Surely you do not believe that the oversight concerning prescription medication should become more lax?

Interstate insurance shopping was considered, and rejected for many reasons. First, the projections for savings were low, both to the patients and to the nations. Second, many of the costs involved with healthcare have to do with the imposition of the insurance companies, not state to state regulation. Third, state healthcare laws and regulations, including the threat of state attorney general actions, have been all that stood between mass removal of coverage, or denial of coverage. Finally, many of the non-premium problems, such as life maximums, preexisting condition blocking, unethical removal of coverage, etc., would not be addressed and in many cases would be worsened by the loosening of coverage. It is interesting that you address hypocrisy in such a manner, as well; a progressive argument can be made for a federal means of addressing a problem, but I do wish to know the states' rights argument for reducing state to state protections.

The exemptions are in many cases politically motivated. Many states that are applying for coverage have been costing the rest of the country more, not less. Most red states take more in from government taxes than they pay, whereas blue states tend to pay more than they receive. However, the red states are under tremendous political pressure to make stands and meaningless gestures, especially at the apparent costs to their constituents. Most observers expect a similar set of results as happened during the stimulus debate: meaningless or harmful grandstanding, followed by quiet acceptance and the pretense that Republican politicians are responsible for the benefits without naming the source. For example, Texas' touted operation in the black budgetwise last year came 97% from Federal assistance, including in large part stimulus funds.