Carly Fiorina’s devastating testimonial on ObamaCare
This is not just another, “I beat cancer” testimonial. This is a calm, eloquent, and utterly damning clip. It perfectly captures the essence of the problem with the Democrats’ health care plan. Fiorina is not a partisan here. She doesn’t mention either political party by name. She also doesn’t mention that she’s a Republican or that she is a candidate for Senate in California. She’s just some woman named Carly Fiorina.
The Dems should fear statements like these.
She talks about the recent government panel’s mammogram recommendations and how the panel was instructed to focus on treatment and costs in reaching its conclusions.
Fiorina asks whether, under the bills being debated in Congress, “Will a bureaucrat determine whether my life is not worth saving?” And they way she presents the question, you wonder if, in fact, the Democrats’ plan really is the whole ball-game for deciding for yourself what kind of treatment you need.
She wonders whether “the federal government will at first suggest, and then mandate, new standards for prevention and treatment. Do we really want government bureaucrats rather than doctors dictating how we prevent and treat something like breast cancer?”
In response to the public blowback from the limited mammogram panel recommendation, Kathleen Sebelius, the HHS Secretary, said the panel doesn’t set federal policy. Fiorina suggests that the real question is whether they would set policy.
It would.
The Senate bill empowers this very task force with influencing future coverage and preventive care. Section 4105 explicitly authorizes the Secretary to deny payment for preventive services the task force recommends against.
She’s right. Under ObamaCare, she would probably be dead.
UPDATE: Allahpundit at Hot Air links. Thanks AP.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bill_Dupray, Bill Dupray. Bill Dupray said: #tcot Carly Fiorina’s devastating testimonial on ObamaCare: This is not just another, “I beat cancer” testim http://url4.eu/sd16 [...]
She is a testament to why Obamacare must be flushed down the toilet. The politicians need to start over and give the American people true, meaningful health care reform,and not just more government bureacracy. I will be posting this on my blog and H/T you on this one.
Thanks Teresa. This should really hit home with a lot of American women.
In response to another comment. See in context »teresamerica,
In response to another comment. See in context »What would the goals of true, meaningful health care reform be? I could snarkily suppose what I think you would want because I disagree with your politics, but I won’t. I sincerely want to know, and I want to ask one follow-up – how would we test or measure to assure that we reached the goal you desire?
Obamacare is all about the governments complete control where if they ram it down our throats we will have been pushed to the last sentence of our Declaration of Independence.
You know what else Ms. Fiorina doesn’t mention, Bill? That’s she’s a billionaire. She’s not regular folks. You don’t mention it either. How convenient. How insincere. Leading Republicans have explicitly stated that they want health care to be President Obama’s ‘Waterloo’ and have not at any moment offered a sincere policy alternative to the Democrats’ varying proposals for health care reform. They had more than 10 years with a majority in both houses of Congress and they did nothing about expanding health insurance availability for all Americans. Carly Fiorina is a plutocrat who has cheapened her experience with breast cancer in order to deny more Americans the ability to purchase affordable health insurance that she doesn’t need.
First, I didn’t know she was a billionaire. Nor do I care. Does her money bar her from expressing an opinion on a momentous political issue? Her cancer didn’t seem to care that she is a billionaire, any more than it would care if she were the Wal-Mart greeter. I guess, other than shooting the messenger, I don’t see why you are so offended by her warning that the government will ration care on those who end up on the public plan.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m offended because Carly Fiorina and people who are as successful as her will never be a victim of rationing, either in any scare-narios Republican critics of health care reform propose, or the rationing that gets done every day now in the private system we’ve been stuck with since Richard Nixon decided to let monopolistic corporate giants sell health insurance to the public.
What does Ms. Fiorina have to say about the denial of pre-existing medical conditions like breast cancer when you have a gap in coverage due to job loss, economic turmoil, or other personal problems? What does she have to say about so many of the GOP ‘alternatives’ to health care reform not even addressing the ability of health insurance companies to deny coverage that they’ll actually have to pay for? The kind that Carly Fiorina will never have to worry about because she’s got enough money to last her 3 lifetimes.
It’s been a real life problem in my family, and that’s why I’m offended. The Republicans want to stop health care reform so they can win an election, not so they can actually fix our nation’s broken health care systems. If they are returned to the majority in 2010 in either or both houses of Congress, there will not be a whit of a substantive reform proposal offered up to the American people by their majority.
In response to another comment. See in context »And you know what else neither or you mention ?
1. The task force in question is a combined task force of physicians and participants in the medical industry. And do you know who is a key ‘partner’ on the task force/ The American Health Insurance Industry Plans!!! In other words, the panel you are referring to comes complete with built in lobby interests.
2,. Know what else neither of you mention? The Amendment to the health care bill passed by the Senate this week not only repudiating the task force recommendation but SPECIFICALLY EXPANDING coverage for women for mammograms and Pap smears.
I’m sure there are many things you and Carly Fiorina can find wrong with the heatlh care bills. But don’t you think you should focus on the real issues rather than pretend ones designed to scare people?
I just don’t understand. why it is more important to win a political battle when we are talking about people’s lives. Is it really so important to defeat this that its worth sacrificing all credibility and concern for people’s lives?
Rationing is not a pretend issue. It is real and people should be afraid. So why do you give us “there is no argument, the science is settled” responses on that instead of defending what you apparently think is a perfectly acceptable practice of government making your health care decisions for you.
The real shame is that the Democrats are trying to do too much. They are trashing a system where 80%+ of people are satisfied with their coverage. There is no chance in hell that that figure will stay that high under government health care. They could have tried to tighten up loose edges on the best health care system in the world rather than chuck the whole thing. There is a lot of bipartisan support for a lot of reform, but the Dems have utterly excluded Republicans from participating. That is the problem.
In response to another comment. See in context »“There is a lot of bipartisan support for a lot of reform, but the Dems have utterly excluded Republicans from participating. That is the problem.”
Yeah as if the Republicans are trying to negotiate in good faith. Scare mongering FUD is all the conservative movement has at the moment. It’s rich listening to conservatives whine about not being able to participate, after the way they behaved with their majority when they had it. How many times have the Democrats shouted down the Republicans, cut their microphones, and literally turned the lights off on them? As an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY_OPcGBSrI
I don’t remember any outrage from the right when you guys had full control and behaved like a bunch of dictators. When the Democrats behave like that, let us know, until then you should have your mommy wipe away those tears.
When the Republicans idea of participating is to filibuster everything, introduce amendments that have no bearing on health care, and hold up tort reform as the holy grail of health care, then don’t act too surprised when nothing you want gets passed. Republicans put themselves in the minority, deal with it…
You decry “rationing” when there are daily stories of the private insurance companies engaging in the type of rationing that kills people by denying them care. I suppose it’s fine though as long as the free market is in charge.
And having the former CEO of Hewlitt Packard, that was given a golden parachute retirement when she nearly drove the company to bankruptcy, isn’t someone I’d trust too much. It’s amazing you pretend you didn’t know she was a billionaire, and try to pass her off as just some average Joe.
In response to another comment. See in context »How many times have the Democrats shouted down the Republicans, cut their microphones, and literally turned the lights off on them?
I assume that was rhetorical. August 1, 2008.
In response to another comment. See in context »Did you even read the article you just linked to?
The GOP going for a cheap stunt, isn’t the same thing as what went on during the Patriot Act hearings. This quote from a Republican pretty much sums up their childish antics:
“I love this,” Shadegg told reporters up in the press gallery afterward. “Congress can be so boring. … This is a kick.”
So 4 congressman refused to leave the chamber after being adjourned for five weeks and literally cheered as the lights were turned off, is now the same thing as testimony being cut short during a hearing on the Patriot Act. No wonder people don’t take the Republicans seriously.
Update 3: Democrats just turned out the lights again. Republicans cheered.
Again, from the article you linked to. I don’t remember the Democrats cheering, and going out for bullhorns during the hearing on the Patriot Act.
I guess drilling in a national wildlife refuge (which is what the GOP stunt was all about) is more important than asking questions about the Patriot Act.
In response to another comment. See in context »The problem is that these are false arguments.
1. We have an existing government system. Medicare and the VA. I think even those who are the largest critics of government provided healthcare would agree that there is far more rationing under the current private system, where an insurance company can deny coverage, than there is in the government provided system. What’s more, you misinterpret the provisions regarding the tasks forces that would refer evidence based medicine for recommendations. I can’t help but note that the panel you refer to, as does Carly Fiorina, is not a pure government tast force at all – it is a combination of independently participating physicians and companies who are stakeholders. As I noted, among the participants are the private insurance companies. How do you make an argument that this is an example of government rationing when the private insurance companies are a part of the decision making process? What’s more, nowhere in ANY of the proposed legislation does it say that ANY government task force would have final say in changes based on evidence based medicine. Again, I provided an example which you did not find it necessary to respond to. Despite the recommendation of the board that mammograms be initially given at 40, along came the Senate, and by a vote which included both Democrats and republicans, did just he opposite – they not only did not follow the recommendations of of this task force, they repudiated it by making the requirements for coverage even better than they were before the task force findings.
2. The 80% of Americans are happy with their health insurance is such a silly argument. It is long settled that insurance pools spend virtually all of their money on the 20% who get ill. That means that 80% are not getting ill. What a coincidence that 80% are happy with their health care. They have not yet had the opportunity to test it in an expensive illness scenario. Are you happy with your house fire insurance? If you haven’t had a fire, I suspect you are. I know I have no problem with my own. But then, I haven’t had a fire in my house so I’ve had no occasion to test it out. How will I know if it is any good until I have to test it, yet I’m certainly hoping I never have to put it to the test.
In response to another comment. See in context »The only way to know how really feel about their health care coverage is to ask those who have had to put it to the test.
Now, you may find that enough of these people were satisfied with their experience to make your point. While I am critical of health insurance companies, I know many who have had a good experience. Indeed, I’ve had more occasions than I like to test my coverage in very expensive scenarios and I have not been unhappy. So this is where you should make your point instead of pointing to data that really has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.
Unfortunately, we know that not everyone has such a great experience. We also know that the private insurance model is unsustainable because they must continue to raise prices in order to maintain satisfactory profit margins. Eventually, this will make the costs too high for even the middle class to afford. Then what?
As I’ve said, there are many things about the bills before Congress that require examination (I think its funny that you continue to refer to it as “Obamacare” as he’s had way too little to do with it all) and there is much you could complain about. However, they aren’t sexy. They don’t necessarily upset the people you are trying to scare because they are a bit complicated. But maybe you should have more faith in the people you are trying to persuade. Maybe you should argue on the real potential problems of this approach to health care — because you simply are not doing so. You are misdirecting. I know quite a few people who are not in favor of the changes being proposed – but they find the appeals you and others are using to convince your audience somewhat insulting because they aren’t true.
We will have rationing in health care whether we leave the system to the privates or give it over to the government. Why not accept this, admit it and move on to the real issues?
I survived the ‘Carly Years’ at HP unlike many less fortunate people. Carly ripped the guts and the heart & soul from HP. Mark my words; if she is allowed to ‘represent’ California she will do the same on a much, much larger scale. She is especially dangerous, because she is a very good spin doctor, so those not familiar with her will think she sounds fabulous. Unfortunately her words are her only strength. Certainly empathy and caring are not!
She is especially dangerous, because she is a very good spin doctor, so those not familiar with her will think she sounds fabulous. Unfortunately her words are her only strength. Certainly empathy and caring are not!
Hmmm. Sounds like a certain president I know.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yeah she does sound a lot like Ronald Reagan, I agree.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Dupray,
You quoted Ms. Fiorina as saying ““Will a bureaucrat determine whether my life is not worth saving?”
Private insurance company bureaucrats do that all of the time right now.
You wrote: “The Senate bill empowers this very task force with influencing future coverage and preventive care. Section 4105 explicitly authorizes the Secretary to deny payment for preventive services the task force recommends against.”
Private insurance companies already have that power right now and use it routinely.
As a multi-millionaire, Ms. Fiorina does not need either private insurance or Medicare.
Right now many Americans are denied exactly the sort of treatment Ms. Fiorina got either because they cannot afford insurance at all or it is denied by their private providers. Health care reform could solve both of those problems.
And the suggestion that government health care would deny fewer claims than private insurance is not true.
In response to another comment. See in context »Completely and flat out misleading.
In response to another comment. See in context »If you go take a look at the AMA Report Card you are citing, this speaks to claims submitted that are unpaid.
What it doesn’t speak to is where the true denial. Private health insurance companies require physicians to seek approval of most treatment and procedures prior to the procedure is done. Thus, their numbers of claim denial mostly speak to incorrectly filed claims or the smaller number of clams they reject when the physicians fails to seek advance approval.
Medicare does not require advance approval. thus, their claim rejection includes all incidents of fraud, mistake and efforts made to collect on procedures not covered by Medicare such as a face lift.
Why is it so necessary to those against health care reform to out and out mislead?
Mr. Dupray,
I think you missed the irony. Ms. Fiorina and you are saying that a new health care system would be bad because bureaucrats would decide who gets what services but in fact the current system is run by bureaucrats who decide what services you can or cannot get. So the proposed new system would be no better or worse than the current system. Moreoever, while millionaires like Ms. Fiorina have lots of options under the current system, millions of ordinary Americans have no options as they have no health insurance or not enough.
In response to another comment. See in context »@misterb First, one of the priorities of health care reform is to lower insurance premiums. The Reid Bill will lower only some people’s insurance premiums as stated by The Hill. I would make sure that reform would lower everyones insurance premiums regardless of whether the person’s poor or rich. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/69763-cbo-report-predicts-increases-in-insurance-premiums
I would have insurance cover pre-existing conditions. I would not mandate that everyone buy health insurance coverage or be fined and/or jailed because that is against the Constitution and the individuals’ privacy rights. I would not penalize employers for not providing health insurance to employees becuaese the insurance doesn’t meet the government’s requirements. What standards would the government go by? I would give insurance companies an incentive of some type-tax credits to insure employees.
The government has done nothing to revise our medicaid, social security, and welfare systems, so I don’t have much faith that the government plan would actually lower health insurance costs in the government’s plan.
For everyone that needs health insurance, I would have a sliding scale according to how much the person makes and provide an incentive for insurance comapanies to offer those people health insurance at very reduced rates-And, give the insurance companies tax credits.
I believe we need to figure out exactly how much each medical procedure and each test costs. I believe that everyone is charged way too much with regards to medical testing. Charge the patient 10%-15% above what the costs for the procedure are. Impose a 2% cap per year for increases on health insurance premiums.
Maybe, there should be some government official monitoring the costs but nothing else. The government should have nothing to do with my health care decision making.
I think you’re right. this is a damning statement. and it’s not a political statement or a partisan statement.
except that it’s not.
except that it’s a statement by a partisan… that might tend to make it appear partisan… and not just a partisan, but a republican candidate for governor of one of the largest states in the union.
and it’s a statement grounded in science not in emotion.
except that it’s not.
it is a statement made by a breast cancer survivor and clearly meant to enflame the fears of all women rather than appeal to the rational scientific reason of all americans… because she can’t. the science is against her. her experience is known in science as anecdotal evidence and science rightfully makes every effort to screen out such evidence. do we want to make public policy decisions based on reason and statistics or on the fears of those frightened by cynical political partisan operatives? hmm.
her experience as a breast cancer survivor doesn’t put her in a better position to make a scientific statement. it only puts her in a better place to make a partisan statement.
finally this thought on the premise of her script… do we want government bureaucrats deciding what the guidelines should be when it comes to making decisions about breast cancer? there is the reverse question to consider, for the last decades we’ve had insurance corporate bureaucrats deciding what the guidelines should be when it comes to making decisions about breast cancer… do we want that to continue? how’s that been working for most women in america… not just the billionaire corporate executive women?
It comes down to a choice. do we want corporate bureaucrats or government bureaucrats making these decisions. my opinion (but yours may vary) is that, with government bureaucrats, i can be certain that they will listen to the medical experts in establishing guidelines (as opposed to their shareholders) and , if we as citizens don’t like it, we have a vote in whether they keep their job. we don’t have a vote with corporate bureaucrats.
but that’s just me.
Great conversation.
I have two simplistic questions for both (informed, opinonated) “sides” in this discussion:
1) Under any of plans currently being considered by Congress, what happens to costs and services people like me (middle class; sole provider for family of 5; have “decent” coverage, but $thousands per year of uncovered costs; no real special medical needs at the moment [touch wood])?
2) What do we presume becomes of the “pipeline of doctors” under any of these plans? Do the best and brightest still strive to earn their MDs since the system is so great? Or do payment minimums, rules and regulations chase those away?
Mr. McNally,
You asked “What do we presume becomes of the “pipeline of doctors” under any of these plans? Do the best and brightest still strive to earn their MDs since the system is so great? Or do payment minimums, rules and regulations chase those away?”
I believe that your question implies that people might stop wanting to become physicians if they a new system of insurance comes into place. I would only note that I do not believe that the majority of people who become physicians do so principally for financial reward. They could probably make just as much successful accountants or lawyers. People who become physicians become physicians because they want to be physicians. There is no shortage of physicians in Canada or the UK, or any countries with a system of centralized insurance.
I would not foresee any interruption in the pipeline.
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks, David (or is that “Mr. Of Los Angeles?”) –
I agree that financial rewards aren’t most physicians’ primary drivers. Helping patients, curing people, “making a difference” seems to matter more to most of the good ones in my personal and professional experience.
Bureaucracies – of the private insurance kind or the governmental kind – can stifle that helping, curing, and doing that drives the best and brightest to become physicians.
And, while not a primary driver, the financial aspect still plays a role: newly-minted physicians exit school with tens or hundreds of thousands in loans to payoff and ever-increasing malpractice insurance premiums in addition to their other “costs of doing business.” So, suppressing and depressing payouts for physicians’ services – again, either publicly or privately – would negatively affect that financial equation.
So, does a double-whammy of more bureaucratic “stifling of the passion” and lower compensation overall – from governmental plans or the private ones forced to compete with them – dissuade more of the best and brightest away from med school and toward becoming the CPA or lawyer you mention?
I have a difficult time seeing how it would not and I’m hoping someone can show me otherwise as having generations of middling doctors (and I’ve met those, too) severely depresses me.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello Mr. McNally,
You wrote: “Bureaucracies – of the private insurance kind or the governmental kind – can stifle that helping, curing, and doing that drives the best and brightest to become physicians.”
I would only note that how every true that may be, it is as true now as it would be under the proposed health care reform. The only difference is that we currently have private bureaucrats working for insurance companies making those decisions. Is there some reason the bureaucrats of private insurance companies are less bureaucratic than some imagined government bureaucrat?
Moreover, we already have a pretty good idea how things would work because of Medicare and Medicaid. Physicians are not being driven out the business by those bureaucracies. Further yet, the US military and the VA operate gigantic single payer health care programs covering literally tens of millions of Americans that have not overly stifled physicians.
In closing I would only note that many countries such as Canada, Japan, Germany, and the UK have had some sort of national health insurance program for almost a century, if not more, and none of the medical schools there have any shortage of applicants nor have they driven out of work any terribly large number of physicians.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] gaffes, but this one’s superbly delivered and almost shockingly effective. A nice catch from Bill Dupray: At no point does she mention her Senate bid or even the words Republican, Democrat, or Obama. I [...]
Not so fast Bill. Did you miss Fiorina’s opening?? According to her opening words, Fiorina discovered she had cancer by finding a lump herself,”just two weeks AFTER A CLEAR MAMMOGRAM…” Her words. She is not alive because of a mammogram, but in spite of one. There are certainly some valid issues to discuss about the role of the advisory panel, but Fiorina’s fear-mongering is built on a sham. Another intentionally misleading argument carefully crafted by the powers that be to preserve the status quo…And they got you!
Hello nydave,
It is the problems like “false negatives” like Ms.Fiorina’s that contributed to the panel’s decision to discourage mamograms for women between 40 and 49s. If the rate of false negatives is too high, it is a waste of resources and creates a false sense of security.
In response to another comment. See in context »Dear Mr. Dupray,
Please stop writing.
Thanks
The general public
well played.
In response to another comment. See in context »Dear general public,
Stop reading Dave’s writing. I know it’s hard not to see what the other side has to say, but I really am swearing off his column after the forays I’ve made here.
signed,
In response to another comment. See in context »a progressive who wouldn’t mind a cohesive, fact-based debate with a conservative
Oops – not clever enough (DOH! I broke my vow!).
Don’t know why I typed “Dave” instead of “Bill”.
double DOH!
In response to another comment. See in context »Very clever.
In response to another comment. See in context »Couple things here:
>Fiorina is not a partisan here. She doesn’t mention either political party by name. She also doesn’t mention that she’s a Republican or that she is a candidate for Senate in California. She’s just some woman named Carly Fiorina.
Unless someone’s been in a coma for 15-20 years, they know who Fiorina is and what her party affiliations and political aspirations are. But nice try. sort of.
As to your continued assertion that private health care denies less than government health care: count in rejections of insurance coverage based on pre-existing conditions and inability to purchase a policy due to expenses, and re-do the math. Then get back to us.
The rationing of care argument has already been tackled for a 4th down.
I don’t think that gypsysister or any other progressives here could see reality and debate the facts if it smacked them in the face. The liberals just don’t want to accept the facts and esecially not regarding obamacare. Libs keep on having your heads in the sand…
So Mr. Duprey posts a youtube video of a millionaire who is running for public office under the republican flag, ex-ceo of a fortune 500 company, who battled breast cancer. Clearly, in his post, he states that she is just “A women,” no partisan politics because she didn’t mention the word republican, etc.
Later, after everyone says “Hey wait, she doesn’t represent millions of American women, because she’s a millionaire ex-ceo,” he says “Oh, well, i didn’t know that part.”
How about some intellectual honesty coming from the conservatives?
There is no way he couldn’t have known who she is, if he knew she was running for public office.
Please Teresa, you throw out these general comments about facts, or the lack thereof, then back it up with nonsense, or nothing (not sure which is worse).
Then, in your next post, you say you’re scared that by cutting costs, people will become disinterested in studying to become doctors because of a financial incentive. HOWEVER, in your post near the top of this list, you clearly state that costs should be capped at 10-15% and raises in premiums should be capped annually.
So which is it? No cost reduction and caps due to your opinion that all doctors are money grubbing whores who only study medicine to get rich, or cost reductions and caps which, again in your opinion, will narrow the pool of prospective doctors and health care professionals?
If you’re going to blast dems for not facing facts, then at the very least, try not to argue with yourself in multiple posts.
For postures sake:
“I believe we need to figure out exactly how much each medical procedure and each test costs. I believe that everyone is charged way too much with regards to medical testing. Charge the patient 10%-15% above what the costs for the procedure are. Impose a 2% cap per year for increases on health insurance premiums” – Teresaamerica
Then later on:
“I do believe that the amount of physicians would decrease because the reward or compensation for the physicians would not be adequate to entice a doctor to spend the massive amount of money it takes to become a physician.”
So I’ll ask, which is it?
Who knows, maybe someday we will actually see an honest debate, full of facts and devoid of partisanship. But it takes two to tango, and you obviously don’t want to dance.
In response to another comment. See in context »teresaamerica,
I do get your side of the debate; i was raised on your side. Government intervention = bad.
Then I traveled, left the burbs for the city, have taught kids and young adults who came from economic hardships both in the city and non-urban settings (as well as students who came from middle-upper class environments), and my perspective changed. Government can be a helpful agent to citizens in need. My side of the health care debate is that the supposed reform is merely a *re-forming* of the system we already have, and this this is unsatisfactory. I also disagree with you that the plan bouncing around our legislature right now has much to do with Obama, so I see no reason for myself to refer to it as “Obamacare.” It’s more like “BigPharmacare.”
On another tack, we can keep filling government positions with incompetent, and/or ineffective people, and the notion that the 10 most dangerous words are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
In response to another comment. See in context »@Steve McNally
I do believe that the amount of physicians would decrease because the reward or compensation for the physicians would not be adequate to entice a doctor to spend the massive amount of money it takes to become a physician.
I believe the costs related to health care must be fixed and the access to it. I believe that the U.S. does have the greatest health care in the world. Unfortunately, if this bill passes then there will be rationing of the highest degree among average citizens. That is how the government will reduce costs. The Democrats don’t see Americans as lives to be saved regardless of the cost. Democrats see it as reducing the costs, period, regardless of it affecting American lives.
I appreciate your response, teresamerica –
I’ve not read the thousands of pages in the bills currently under consideration, so I can’t give an informed response to what the affect of specific provisions will be.
Agreed regarding the necessity of cost controls. “Rationing,” though, has become a loaded word in these conversations – it’s pretty clear rationing already exists across insurance plans (private ones, Medicare, Medicaid, all of them, by necessity). It’s how we go about controlling costs where the work is: who decides, what sort of review process is in place once decisions are made, and what recourse exists for “exception handling” when a medical service has been rationed for someone who doesn’t fit into the the rule(s) covering it.
My point regarding “the pipeline” of physicians affects 100% of the people receiving those services: if being a physician is too onerous or not rewarding enough financially, and overly burdensome – and passion-sapping – from the PoV of adhering to all the imposed rules and regulations, we’re not going to continue to attract the best and brightest to the field of medicine. This would mean a decline in quality of care for 100% of the people receiving it a few graduating classes from that point. This is a net loss across the board.
Perhaps in these bills I’ve not read there are provisions for providing incentive to potential med students such as “graduate with a 3.5GPA, work to provide services for the un/under-insured for 4 years and we’ll waive your loan obligations.” This would be great, IMO, but I’ve not heard anything about such provisions.
In response to another comment. See in context »@dtafs
I stated, “I believe we need to figure out exactly how much each medical procedure and each test costs. I believe that everyone is charged way too much with regards to medical testing. Charge the patient 10%-15% above what the costs for the procedure are.” In this, I am referring to the hospitals charging too much money to its patients. Not the doctors. How much money the doctors make is different from what the hospital charges the patient.
Impose a 2% cap per year for increases on health insurance premiums” – Teresaamerica
In this I am referring to Insurance premiums, and not the doctors pay. Then later on: “I do believe that the amount of physicians would decrease because the reward or compensation for the physicians would not be adequate to entice a doctor to spend the massive amount of money it takes to become a physician.”
Physicians rewards and costs have nothing to do with insurance costs and the insurance companies’ bureaucrats not covering pre-existing conditions just to make an extra buck. The Insurance companies need to be reigned in, not the doctors.
If you read my content carefully, than maybe would get the fact none of my responses conflict with one another. Keep that head in the sand and focusing on being a partisan hack. I choose to look at what could make our health care access and health care affordability better without sacrificing the person’s health, and quality of health care.
O.K. I guess according to you Obama has NOT been pushing for health care reform? I guess according to you Obama hasn’t made many speeches on health care reform & encouraging both Houses to pass health care reform. If not, what the heck has he been pushing for?
It would have been nice for Obama to guide the congressman on his side of the aisle to come up with some meaningful type of health care legislation that would not hurt the American people with regard to health care. Who knows, maybe Obama has some hidden agenda in the health care legislation? It is a massive 1200 pages full of shalls which gives government much too much control over our liberties and freedoms. I am positive that it does not take that numerous amount of pages to fix just the health care costs and accessibility issues.
1200 pages is not a large number. it is less than some stephen king novels. it is less than a couple of the earlier harry potter novels. the health care industry, as the GOP loves to point out, is 1/6th of the american economy. would you expect health care reform to be handled by a pamphlet?
please. be serious.
In response to another comment. See in context »@teresaamerica
Wow, partisan hack. Hardly the case. I’m actually a registered republican lol. I just like to call out idiotic arguments, and the people that make them.
You can’t claim that doctors pay would not infact decrease if costs were capped. I think you should take a simple economics course, it might help you understand how money flows up and down.
If you capped cost it would directly impact the bottom line of doctors. Granted, some more than others. But none the less, it would have an effect.
Therefore, you’re arguing in a circle.
@dtafs
Insurance caps would not affect what the amount that doctors would be paid. It would only affect how much the employees at the insurance companies would be paid.
I have taken economics, so I know what I am talking about.
@Rick,
Thanks for making my point. It if was just about health care reform the bill would be smaller than a Harry Potter novel, or a Stephen King Novel.
[...] to pass her Stanford-graduate, ex-over-compensated chief executive, breast cancer survivor with a cadillac health insurance plan self as a woman who pulled herself up from her bootstraps will fail. While Sarah Palin is a magnet [...]