Left-wing economist Paul Krugman--an icon of the American left--is, at least, candid in his assessment of where healthcare must go (in his opinion) under ObamaCare: We must have a middle-class tax hike to fund it properly, in addition to the "death panels" (his own words) that were mentioned awhile back by Sarah Palin. Here are his exact words: And the link: Krugman: U.S. Needs Death Panels, Sales Taxes
We already have new taxes on the way. http://radioviceonline.com/another-obamacare-tax/ People just don't know about them because they didn't bother to read the 3000 page heath care reform bill before it was passed.
Health care issues are always a matter of deep consideration. In this context it is refers to have intelligence like this government has shown. They have imposed extra duty on people so that they can save some amount for heath care norms.
it requires an increase in payroll taxes on medicare for a start and then increasing the age when medicare kicks in. As far as private insurance, Obamacare did nothing that will decrease premiums. It did nothing but insure that premiums for private health insurance will increase at a faster pace and exchanges will not provide affordable insurance to those that currently cannot afford it. Most will find they don't qualify for premium assistance and will end up without insurance and paying the Penalty on top of it.
I would much prefer that our insurance carrier--not the federal government--should decide what those "health care norms" are. Currently, our own insurer--Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Tennessee--provides coverage for any procedure that is considered typical among American physicians in general. I would not want the government to start making those decisions instead--decisions that could be (rather heavily) influenced by cost-benefit ratios, based upon actuarial tables. (The same procedure that might be permitted for, say, a 34-year-old American, would likely be denied for an 85-year-old American, simply because it is too costly, given the latter's likely remaining lifespan.) And that is a really scary thought...
Not exactly. Krugman uses the phrase somewhat sarcastically (a barb at its absurd overuse on the right), but his meaning is clear: making sure we're paying for things that are going to have an effect. For instance, here he is in a blog post last summer: That's at the level of a given procedure or service, and it basically implies pricing in an accounting of the evidence base for that procedure/service's effectiveness. Palin's death panels were described thusly: "...my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obamas 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." I realize she later backtracked to pretend she was referring to end-of-life planning and the like but her language speaks for itself. There's a huge difference between paying for procedures that have demonstrated their effectiveness (based on clinical evidence) and hauling people--particularly the elderly and disabled--before a panel and making them justify why they are "worthy" of treatment. They're not even remotely related concepts.
I don't know if the upshot of ObamaCare would be to "haul...the elderly and disabled...before a panel," to which they would attempt to "justify why they are 'worthy' of treatment." A much more likely scenario, in my opinion, would be actuarial-table-based guidelines that would deny the best medical procedures to those who would appear to have the least remaining lifespan, even absent any known medical problems. (In other words, an eightysomething might very well be given second-rate medical care--or even palliative care--whereas a twentysomething or a thirtysomething, suffering from the same condition at a similar stage of development, would be afforded far superior medical care.) And as for the "procedures that have demonstrated their effectiveness (based on clinical evidence)" (italics in original), I would much prefer that my own doctor--not some government lackeys (even government lackeys festooned with MDs)--should make that call.
I would prefer that the medical profession decide what "health care norms" are as insurance carriers and the federal government will always take the less expensive route. So, individuals and families should get the coverage they are paying for based on standard care as determined by the Medical Profession. Should Medicare cover debriding the toe nails of a Nursing home patient that has toe nails too thick for nursing home staff to cut and too long to allow them to wear shoes or walk? It takes special equipment to cut these nails and it is done for free by nursing home medical consultants. They are called rams nails. Should surgeons be paid to amputate a foot or toe or limb but not for treatment that attempts to save the foot, toe or limb? That is what happens many times now. Isn't it more cost effective to provide palliative treatment to Diabetics than to wait for them to require surgical intervention? Many treatments that ward off surgery for diabetics are currently not covered by Medicare. Know the facts before you speak, please.
The term, "the medical profession," is quite imprecise. Do you mean, perhaps, MDs who have become bureaucrats in some new government agency? I trust my own doctor's judgment far more than I trust the judgment of those who have a financial incentive to trim healthcare costs... What "treatment that attempts to save the foot, toe or limb" is not generally covered by private insurance? If "[m]any treatments that ward off surgery for diabetics are currently not covered by Medicare," as you assert, then perhaps they should be. In any case, if this is correct, it just provides me with another argument against government-sponsored healthcare. And as for your plaintive query, "Isn't it more cost effective to provide palliative treatment to Diabetics than to wait for them to require surgical intervention?": The simple fact is that "palliative" treatment is treatment that makes one feel better, without curing the underlying disease--sort of like taking a couple of Tylenol caplets for a migraine headache. Perhaps you are confusing palliative care with preventive care? If so, it is probably you who should know the facts before attempting to educate others...
