Government-Run Health Care Works So Well!
That's why Obama is chomping at the bit to force so much more of it on us. In The New York Times, Nicholas Confessore writes about how well Medicaid has been working in New York State:
New York's Medicaid system, the state's largest single expense, lost at least $92 million to improper payments, billing errors and poor recordkeeping during the last five years, according to several audits released Tuesday by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.In one instance, a Medicaid recipient in Poughkeepsie was provided with $300 round-trip daily taxi service to visit her child in a long-term care facility in Albany, which cost the state roughly $196,000 before the authorization was revoked.
One of the three audits revealed that the State Department of Health made at least $53 million in improper payments for nearly 26,000 people who had improperly been assigned two Medicaid identification numbers by local social service agencies, apparently in error. Another found that an incorrect reimbursement rate entered into the Health Department's claims system had resulted in $20.3 million in improper payments.
At least $1.2 million was paid out incorrectly for neonatal services or for transportation services not covered by Medicaid, according to Mr. DiNapoli.
Don't fix what's broken -- spread the brokenness around! (Because we have such a vast Federal budget surplus.)
Lieberman will filibuster the final version because the method of paying for the plan, robbing from medicare, is not fiscally responsible.
Ken at December 25, 2009 8:10 AM
There's probably some political reason for this, but I still don't understand why the solution to millions of uninsured isn't expanding Medicaid to anyone who wants it. Just remove any means test from qualification for government assistance. Then, the middle-class uninsured could be covered by the same terrible, underfunded system that poor people are stuck with, or they could buy private insurance, or get a job with benefits, or continue to go uninsured. Wouldn't the expansion of Medicaid just be so much simpler?
Tyler at December 25, 2009 8:38 AM
Why do simple, Tyler, when you can do grossly incompetent and complex to the point of being incomprehensible?
I've heard "progressive" leaning moms (all poor and unmarried, or married to "musicians" or the like, mind you) who just can't wait for this to pass, because they can't find a Dr who takes medicaid. Excuse me, why do you think Drs will all of a sudden be willing to work for next to nothing after this bill passes?? Stupid. Really, there are just sooo many stupid people here.
momof4 at December 25, 2009 9:09 AM
If you want kids, you need to marry somebody you're sure will stick around (based getting to know their character over time), and who earns enough and can continue earning enough to support them. And you need to have only as many children as you can support, taking into consideration paying for serious health problems a child may incur. If you want to marry a "musician," maybe you don't get to bring children into his dream of someday making it. Want kids? Realize the enormity of what you owe another human being you bring into the world, and do what it takes to be a responsible parent, and find yourself a nice, sweet, stable guy with a businessman haircut and a boring but stable source of income.
Amy Alkon at December 25, 2009 9:25 AM
Lieberman will filibuster the final version because the method of paying for the plan, robbing from medicare, is not fiscally responsible.
I would not rule out Lieberman deciding to filibuster a bill that has been tailored precisely to fit his demands on cost; the man appears to enjoy vexing his erstwhile caucus mates just because. But he's already voted for cloture with the Democrats a bunch of times on this bill; if it does not change substantively between now and a final vote (and it will not because everyone understands that the Senate won't go any farther) it will be hard for him to explain the switch. And Democrats at that point will have no choice but to expel Jim from their caucus, thereby stripping him and Connecticuit from a substantial amount of influence.
M4: Does this bill expand Medicaid? I thought that it's primary mechanism was subsidizing the purchase of insurance offered by private companies. Is this wrong?
Whatever at December 25, 2009 12:57 PM
We all know the dems want us all to be on medicaid, and are working towards that as fast as they can get away with. And yes, when the gov't is paying the bill as they would have been in the public option (that thankfully seems dead in the water) they would pay the same rates as medicaid. No doubt, their "cost effectiveness panel" will also be setting acceptable rates for Drs to charge, which will I'm sure be medicaid rates as well.
We can talk all we want about the language actually in the bill, but we all know how every gov't program ever designed has worked out. It's going to suck. It's costs are going to overrun substantially. It's going to grow and grow and grow. And our taxes are going to rise to pay for it. All 60% of us that pay taxes, that is.
momof4 at December 25, 2009 5:29 PM
It is ironic that proposed cuts to Medicare may sink the current healthcare bill, I hope.
Medicare itself is not sustainable at current tax rates, and is distorting healthcare in toxic ways. Medicare requires hospitals and doctors to accept the Medicare reimbursement as the entire payment for treatment, at below the cost of treatment. The hospitals don't want to turn away those patients, so they cost-shift the loss into higher prices for the insured. Critics then claim that "the healthcare system is broken" because prices are skyrocketing.
What irony. Medicare policy, among other factors controlled by government, is to blame for the price increases. It is a hidden tax on the insured.
The free market in healthcare is breaking, and the government is breaking it. Our policy makers have already designed a system of price controls that doesn't work. Their solution is to cover up this failure by blaming "the market". The "market" is short for the freedom of people to produce and cooperate among themselves.
That freedom is what the government wants to take away, in favor of higher hidden taxes and directed rationing. Your leaders have been buying votes with lavish promises of what the government will deliver. Their plan is to put you all in one boat, then make you pay for their promises to prevent the boat from sinking.
Obamacare Bails Out Medicare.
The funding for Medicare/Medicaid should be discussed and apportioned publicly, rather than tie all of U.S. healthcare in suffocating regulation while it goes broke anyway.
- -
ObamaCare and the Doctor
EasyOpinions.blogspot.com/2009/08/obamacare-and-doctor.html
Dr. Zane F. Pollard posted a frightening article describing Medicaid, and by extension ObamaCare.
Medicaid pays for medical services to the poor, and in this case to poor children who face vision impairment or blindness. Regardless, Medicaid denies and delays their care.
Consider that Medicare/caid are intentionally underpaying for the medical care that they mandate. The government is proud of how they are negotiating lower prices for their medical plans, but those plans are still going bankrupt with exploding costs and fraud.
Andrew_M_Garland at December 25, 2009 5:55 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/25/governmentrun_h.html#comment-1684633">comment from Andrew_M_GarlandAndrew, thank you so much for that comment -- you cut through the BS so well. Much, much-appreciated, as are all your comments.
Amy Alkon at December 25, 2009 6:57 PM
Breaking News! Merry Christmas from Al Qaeda:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8430612.stm
A Nigerian member of The Religion of Peace tried to set off an incendiary bomb strapped to his leg aboard US Airways Flight 253 (278 passengers) as it approached Detroit. Instead of meeting 72 virgins in Paradise, our jihadi ended up with 3rd degree burns, no pants on, & beaten to a pulp by the passengers & crew. Safe landing, only 2 minor injuries among the passengers.
Martin at December 25, 2009 7:14 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/25/governmentrun_h.html#comment-1684641">comment from MartinThanks - I tweeted this a while ago. Gregg is in Detroit now, and just flew in this morning - I was very upset about this.
My tweet:
@amyalkon Quran, Verse of the Sword, commands Muslims convert or kill infidels. Unsuccessful mass murder attempt on Detroit flite http://bit.ly/7gENi
Amy Alkon at December 25, 2009 7:54 PM
We all know the dems want us all to be on medicaid, and are working towards that as fast as they can get away with. And yes, when the gov't is paying the bill as they would have been in the public option (that thankfully seems dead in the water) they would pay the same rates as medicaid.
In other words, you are spouting total bullshit without regard to actually knowing the proposed legislation does. Just so we're clear about this when you make future comments on this issue - whatever you say is entirely unconstrained by facts.
Whatever at December 25, 2009 8:37 PM
Whoever (or whatever) thinks that the concept thst the majority party responsible for this abomination wants all of us on government health insurance is "total bullshit" obviously hasn't read the relevant provisions of both bills (House and Senate versions) as I have. Let me summarize in simple terms.
Come 2013 or 2014, whenever it is, all employers with 50 or more employees who don't cover a certain percentage of their employees' health premiums will begin to remit a penalty equal to 8% of their payroll to the government each quarter with their payroll tax return. The naive out there believe this is the club that will force employers to keep providing insurance coverage to their employees.
Those of us, however, who have seen and understand how business decisions are made, can run some simple numbers and easily figure out that exactly the opposite will happen. Given the choice between spending, in many cases, over 15-20% of their payroll on health insurance premiums, along with the expense and hassle of administration of the plan(s), and simply paying 8% to the government and washing their hands of the whole mess entirely, businesses will, quite rationally, choose the latter. As a stockholder of any corporation, I would expect my management to make such a decision, because, in terms of dollars and cents, this is the decision that will best maximize shareholder value. It is my expectation (and, I believe, the Democrats' as well) that exactly this will happen. All employees, and their covered dependents, will be dumped into the government system, with predictably disastrous results for all concerned and for the country.
If the purpose of "health care reform" was really to provide care to the uninsured, any legislation would have concentrated on how, on a more cost-effective basis, to provide such care in a setting other than in hospital emergency rooms, where everyone has been required to be provided care, by law, for over 20 years now. Then, the Democrats would not have had to fuck with employer-provided coverage, which fully 85% of the over 170 million employees and dependents covered thereunder are completely happy with.
If, on the other hand, insuring the uninsured is just a smoke screen to force everyone in this country (except those politicians and others influential enough to have their own plans) to become utterly dependent on politicians for their health care, and thus their very survival, then they come up with something like what they've passed.
Now, I've laid out the argument. An appropriate response will not be to call my documented facts "total bullshit". An appropriate response will be to go read the legislation, as passed by both houses, and tell me specifically where the fallacy is in my argument. I await a response from any and all.
cpabroker at December 25, 2009 9:22 PM
"whatever you say is entirely unconstrained by facts."
If so, then much like you! Although when I say every gov't program overruns costs by tens of billions, that is fact. That gov't programs tend to be pie-in-the-sky dreams dashed in practical realities of mired beaurocracies and cost overruns and delays, that's fact. That the standard of care for everyone insured, above medicaid level, will fall while their prices rise has been well published fact these last 2 days. The only people poised to have any benefit are the people with no insurance: too much money for medicaid, but not enough (according to them) to buy their own. Not a real large group, and not something I'd see overhauling an entire pretty damn good system for.
And the democratic caucus is on record saying this is a step towards the desired end of single payer healthcare in the US. Meaning, us all in medicaid. Fabulous.
momof4 at December 25, 2009 9:29 PM
M4: By what mechanism does the Senate health care bill expand access to health insurance for most Americans who don't currently have it provideded by their jobs?
Whatever at December 25, 2009 11:08 PM
My tax dollars.
momof4 at December 26, 2009 5:58 AM
Your ignorance of how the healthcare bill works means that your opinions on it can be disregarded. Can't have a battle of wits with the unarmed.
Whatever at December 26, 2009 12:54 PM
To Amy Alkon,
Thank you very much for your encouragement.
Andrew_M_Garland at December 26, 2009 2:58 PM
And Whatever, your naivete on how well this is going to work means you have nothing of substance to share, either. Because the democrats have wanted to do this for 50 years, and they are going to damnit! Desires of the constituents be damned! Gotta grab that chance before they get voted out on their asses. That's your general shtick on this, right?
momof4 at December 26, 2009 8:46 PM
Gotta grab that chance before they get voted out on their asses. That's your general shtick on this, right?
Yes, pretty much. Get it done while you can. Because once it's passed, it will be able to be modified, but very unlikely to be undone. And in the long run, I think these reforms are going to be good for the American people, even if they aren't real happy about it right now. Our current healthcare trajectory is untenable - we're spending more than everyone else, with health expenses rising substantially faster than our incomes. This figure does a great job explaining the problem:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20120a77d19db970b-popup
Also, people are complaining about something they don't understand. Like when you compare a bill that works through subsidizing private insurance policies to Medicaid. It isn't the same thing.
Whatever at December 27, 2009 2:23 PM
we're spending more than everyone else, with health expenses rising substantially faster than our incomes.
And the government will fix this how? By taking the money as taxes? By taking even more than we're already spending? By adding layers of expensive and inefficient governmental bureaucracy on top of whatever exists now? And this fixes the problem you specify how?
kishke at December 27, 2009 5:35 PM
Whatever wants to be taken seriously, then he links to Andrew Sullivan?
You, sir, are dumber than dogshit if you are getting anything from him and you believe it.
And that you believe for a fraction of an instant that any government run system is superior to what we have now, proves that you are naive on a dangerous level.
brian at December 27, 2009 5:50 PM
Leave a comment