Posted by
Ed Bradford on Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:30:47 AM
RE: Rationing, Sebelius said [from mediamatters.com somewhere]:
"... and a lot of what we did in the office of the Kansas Insurance
Department was go to bat on behalf of those patients to make sure that
the benefits that they had actually paid for were, in fact, ones that
were delivered."
If the government takes over health care, who will go to bat for us when
the government says you can't have a hip replacement? Will I get a
contract when I'm 20 telling me what is covered so, after 60 years of
almost no health problems, at 80 I can get my hip replacement? If that
happens what about all the diseases and cures the develop during my 60
years of employment -- how do they fit into the contract?
Today, insurance companies tell you up front what is covered. Does the
Health bill? No. There is no mention of anything specific that is or is
not covered. No one would sign on to such an insurance plan without
knowing what is covered. In fact, I believe this "insurance plan" to be
illegal in most states.
It sounds to me like Obama believes that hip replacements are not
economical after a certain age. That would mean I could not get out of
the program what I paid into it -- or in other words, it is another
income redistribution scheme. This income redistribution scheme
redistributes more than just money -- it redistributes my health to
other people.
Health reform should focus on getting health care to those
who cannot afford it. It should not focus on having the government
become a giant insurance company with all of the overhead that would
involve.
Free clinics can address almost all health care access problems and
they would be a whole lot cheaper than $100B/yr.