How will health care really be prioritized under Obamacare

[Bern80]

I'd like to take an attempt at throwing the pimary argument for Obamacare on its ear. We are being sold this proposal under the auspice that it is a problem in this country that, if not but for cost, people that need (remember that word for later) to be treated, would be. Instead of priortizing treatment by money (which is really not true in the first place), we will treat people on the basis of whether they need to be treated or not.

Does anybody really beleive that's how it will turn out when government gets its teeth into it? Or will it be more like the thread about the kid that died in the UK? Where despite his need some buarucrat gets to decide whether he deserves to live or not based on his life choices.

So is priortizing health care by who needs it with minimal cost to the indidvidual really the right thing to do? Is it really so wrong to insist on people take responsiblity for their health care cost. If the cost of things weren't what they were, we probably woudl not have a problem with that. After all if people have to pay for it and can be refused on the basis of being able to pay, one would think people woudl start to catch on that they have to plan for such things financially. As with so many other thngs in society Government doesn't do the strenght of society any favors by absolving its people of responsibility.

 

[Coyote]

I'd like to take an attempt at throwing the pimary argument for Obamacare on its ear. We are being sold this proposal under the auspice that it is a problem in this country that, if not but for cost, people that need (remember that word for later) to be treated, would be. Instead of priortizing treatment by money (which is really not true in the first place), we will treat people on the basis of whether they need to be treated or not.

Does anybody really beleive that's how it will turn out when government gets its teeth into it? Or will it be more like the thread about the kid that died in the UK? Where despite his need some buarucrat gets to decide whether he deserves to live or not based on his life choices.

I'm not sure what you are asking...treatment is already prioritized according to treatment and need (ask any insurance company bureaucrat).

That is - if you have insurance...if you don't and if you aren't wealthy, then you are just plain fucked

 

[auditor0007]

I'd like to take an attempt at throwing the pimary argument for Obamacare on its ear. We are being sold this proposal under the auspice that it is a problem in this country that, if not but for cost, people that need (remember that word for later) to be treated, would be. Instead of priortizing treatment by money (which is really not true in the first place), we will treat people on the basis of whether they need to be treated or not.

Does anybody really beleive that's how it will turn out when government gets its teeth into it? Or will it be more like the thread about the kid that died in the UK? Where despite his need some buarucrat gets to decide whether he deserves to live or not based on his life choices.

You're using the example of the 22 year old who didn't get a liver because he was a drunk? You've got to be kidding. He woulnd't have gotten the liver in the US even with the best health insurance policy money can buy.

 

[Bern80]

I'd like to take an attempt at throwing the pimary argument for Obamacare on its ear. We are being sold this proposal under the auspice that it is a problem in this country that, if not but for cost, people that need (remember that word for later) to be treated, would be. Instead of priortizing treatment by money (which is really not true in the first place), we will treat people on the basis of whether they need to be treated or not.

Does anybody really beleive that's how it will turn out when government gets its teeth into it? Or will it be more like the thread about the kid that died in the UK? Where despite his need some buarucrat gets to decide whether he deserves to live or not based on his life choices.

You're using the example of the 22 year old who didn't get a liver because he was a drunk? You've got to be kidding. He woulnd't have gotten the liver in the US even with the best health insurance policy money can buy.

What does his lifestyle have to do with treating his pain. I mean that's what we're being sold here, isn't it? That all these people are suffering because it costs too much. That if we just let government do it people won't suffer. But not so fast, government is still going to let you suffer if they deem you are the one responsible for your own poor health. If it isn't unreasonable to expect people to have taken care of themselves physically to obtain health care, why is it so damn UNreasonable to expect that people take care of their health from a financial stand point?

 

[Coyote]

I'd like to take an attempt at throwing the pimary argument for Obamacare on its ear. We are being sold this proposal under the auspice that it is a problem in this country that, if not but for cost, people that need (remember that word for later) to be treated, would be. Instead of priortizing treatment by money (which is really not true in the first place), we will treat people on the basis of whether they need to be treated or not.

Does anybody really beleive that's how it will turn out when government gets its teeth into it? Or will it be more like the thread about the kid that died in the UK? Where despite his need some buarucrat gets to decide whether he deserves to live or not based on his life choices.

You're using the example of the 22 year old who didn't get a liver because he was a drunk? You've got to be kidding. He woulnd't have gotten the liver in the US even with the best health insurance policy money can buy.

What does his lifestyle have to do with treating his pain. I mean that's what we're being sold here, isn't it? That all these people are suffering because it costs too much. That if we just let government do it people won't suffer. But not so fast, government is still going to let you suffer if they deem you are the one responsible for your own poor health. If it isn't unreasonable to expect people to have taken care of themselves physically to obtain health care, why is it so damn UNreasonable to expect that people take care of their health from a financial stand point?

Uh...no.

What's being "sold" here is basic affordable healthcare, not miracles. In terms of responsibility for your own health choices that remains unchanged from the situation as it is now.

 

[Bern80]

You're using the example of the 22 year old who didn't get a liver because he was a drunk? You've got to be kidding. He woulnd't have gotten the liver in the US even with the best health insurance policy money can buy.

What does his lifestyle have to do with treating his pain. I mean that's what we're being sold here, isn't it? That all these people are suffering because it costs too much. That if we just let government do it people won't suffer. But not so fast, government is still going to let you suffer if they deem you are the one responsible for your own poor health. If it isn't unreasonable to expect people to have taken care of themselves physically to obtain health care, why is it so damn UNreasonable to expect that people take care of their health from a financial stand point?

Uh...no.

What's being "sold" here is basic affordable healthcare, not miracles. In terms of responsibility for your own health choices that remains unchanged from the situation as it is now.

Ans you don't think just maybe there might be link between the people waiting for government to provide them health care and people that maybe don't take so great care of themselves?

And how does basic (that's a term we need to talk about too) affordable health care cost over a trillion dollars. We have maybe 5% percent of the population that is chronically uninsured (which, keep in mind is different than not being able to obtain actual care) and there's a crisis on our hands?