Obamacare seems to be working for this gentleman which goes to show that its working as intended with few issues. http://fox4kc.com/2014/02/13/man-wit...aved-his-life/
Your link does not work. In any case, the fact that one may be able to cherry pick one person for whom ObamaCare seems to work reasonably well does nothing--repeat, nothing--to vitiate the point that it will inevitably lead to rationing...
I don't think there's any guarantee that there will be rationing; anything is possible including no rationing. I think its mostly speculation at this point. We'll need more time to see if that will in fact happen.
I'm being rationed now even with the local Community Health Centers help I can't afford or get all the care they want me to get from a Diagnostic EKG to Insulin Therapy.
Well, let us see if we can connect the dots. President Obama has declared that containing healthcare costs is his primary objective, with regard to healthcare. The most effective way to contain healthcare costs is to ration healthcare. "Treatment that a doctor and patient deem needed or advisable to save the patients life or preserve or improve the patients health, but which runs afoul of the imposed standards, can be denied, even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it, according to the article itself. How one might reasonably conclude, from all this, that there is no certainty that ObamaCare will result in healthcare rationing, is utterly beyond me...
(1) If you disagree with the conclusions contained in the World Net Daily article cited, you would probably do better to cite those objections than merely to assault the source itself. (2) If your own insurance company has been "rationing" your healthcare--and you know much more about your own circumstance than I do--then I would suggest that your healthcare insurance is not optimal (to phrase it as charitably as possible).
A) Citing WND is an indication both of a mindset and a willingness to accept BS as facts. B) All insurance companies ration care. And have been doing so for at least the last 20 years.
If we've learned that nothing is guaranteed; they might change their minds at the drop of a hat. You just don't know until and if it happens.
(A) Your confusion of a center-right tendency and mere "BS" is indicative of your mindset. (And it also--much more importantly--provides a convenient excuse for you to ignore the facts contained therein, and merely attack the source.) (B) I scour the annual Benefit Plan booklet each January for any changes to my plan; and I can affirm that it pays toward any medical procedure that is widely accepted in the American medical community (i.e. any procedure that is not merely experimental). If you believe that your healthcare-insurance company rations healthcare procedures, you might want to address that. But it would probably be preferable for you to refrain from asserting (incorrectly) that "[a]ll" healthcare-insurance companies engage in rationing. (Besides, this is a mere deflection: If you are truly opposed to healthcare rationing--to all rationing--you should simply say so. But you appear to support healthcare rationing, given your weak tu quoque arguments.)
Why should I wish to support healthcare rationing now, in the hope that the powers that be just might "change their minds" at some point in the future, and decide against rationing?
right wing World Net = instant incredibility By contrast, for myself as a senior, I just got my summary statement which now includes services going back to October. My medical bills are now paid and, no, there was no "rationing" - a truth which is in marked contrast to the idiocy of the liars in World Net.
If you honestly think that rationing will in fact occur, then work to change the system. I don't think it'll happen at all so I'm not too concerned.
How can we "disagree with the conclusions contained in the World Net Daily article cited", if we can't read the article because your link takes us to the WND (*shudder*) takes us to the home page? But I looked it up anyway. It's a blog from 2010 from the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics, a fancy name for some anti-abortionists. http://www.nrlc.org/medethics/healthcarerationing And like many of the other right wing claims about Obamacare, it's a lie. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../25/howard-dean/rationing-health-care-reform/ http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/scary-medicare-claims/
There is a big issue here with 25 States and DC expanding or have expanded Medicaid this year the fundamentals are the fight is over to think about a repeal they now have half the Senate and a modest majority of House representation in their camp. So now is what can be done to fix the law overall in this area?
Under ObamaCare, it would certainly appear that this is destined to become the new reality. As I am not an activist--I do not intend to criss-cross the country, lecturing on the matter--my "work[ing] to change the system" will consist of my voting for candidates who strongly oppose the ACA. Repeal and replace makes a lot of sense to me.
just now they will blame it all on Obamacare, truth is we need a federal public option, let the people decide
Your first link is to a piece authored by Howard Dean. And if you consider WND to be a bit tendentious--well, Howard Dean is just about as biased as one may get. The second link is to an article that contains the assertion that "the law specifically forbids rationing or restriction of benefits." Which is technically true; but highly misleading. As the article itself notes: The politically correct types may not choose to call that rationing, officially. But that is precisely what it sounds like, to me. Oh, you might want to try this link: http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/feds-to-...-spend-on-own-healthcare/#EtsK3H24E0o25SFv.99
I don't think you'd have to criss-cross the country; like you mentioned, vote for the candidate which best represents your views. That's what I do.
' (1) The bold assertion, "No health insurance I know pays for 'whatever it costs'"--if true--would seem to indicate that the speaker does not "know" very many healthcare-insurance plans. I scour my Benefit Plan booklet each January for any changes to the plan; and I can report that it pays toward any procedure--without exception--that is not experimental, and is widely embraced by the American medical community. (2) I think it is a very good idea to eliminate the ban against insuring people with pre-existing conditions. After all, many such conditions are not the result of questionable lifestyle choices; some are, certainly, but many others are the result of congenital defects, or even diseases contracted from others. But most Republican lawmakers would happily go along with this particular change. All of what is ObamaCare is not necessary to accomplish this. (3) To refer to the lack of financial wherewithal to purchase healthcare insurance as "rationing" is simply disingenuous. Would you imagine that the financial inability to purchase a house means that houses are being "rationed"?
I would say if housing in your area is out of your ability to pay for any form of housing, and the government didn't use its power to make some housing affordable is "rationing" housing. I'm with the Community Health Service in my county and it helps but care is rationed some things I cannot afford even on a sliding fee scale but some things I can. So its better than nothing by far but I need Medicaid. Compare this to other nations like Indonesia that just instituted a national system everyone regardless of income are enrolled in a basic set of benefits, wealthy people pay in 5% of their income but can upgrade with more coverage but no one is being left out. Not rationed proper based on income to having coverage but what you get is rationed. So there is always going to be rationing in any system like that.
This would make perfect sense if one were to begin with the operating premise that the American people are subjects of the American federal government. I thoroughly reject that premise. I do not reject it merely 10 percent. Or 50 percent. Or even 90 percent. I reject it--get ready for this--precisely 100 percent. By your own admission, government-sponsored healthcare "is always going to be rationed." I rest my case...
