"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:14:16 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

The debate will start all over again.

The problem is simple from the perspective of the Democrats - the need
to pass health-care reform but make it look like it saves money is
paramount. The only way to do that is to force states into expanding
Medicaid in order to absorb more of the uninsured. Keep in mind that
Medicaid costs are mainly borne by the states.

Will Obamacare actually save money?

No - it's a Ponzi scheme. State taxes will have to increase while the
President and his Congressional minions talk on about the cost
"savings" at the Federal level. States already dragging their asses
along the ground with diminishing revenues will find themselves
desperate for cash infusions - where exactly will that come from?

You're talking hard money here - taxes and revenues. There is no
other solution. And in return, reduced services - assuming that there
are physicians willing to work for $15/hr after spending a million
dollars on their education.

Every doctor I've talked to over the past three/four months hates this
thing and several who are ten/twelve years away from retirement are
planning on tossing in the towel now rather than later and/or changing
career from primary/specialist care to research or just taking their
money and running.

The irony is that the solution has staring them in the face the whole
time - open the anti-trust laws, let the companies compete in an open
market across state lines, allow doctors to charge what they feel is
appropriate for their services and complete tort reform. It seems to
work for worker's compensation - why not for medical practices?

Two of the docs I see on a regular basis told me that they could
charge less for their services if they could reduce their insurance
costs to a more reasonable level.

The one single issue I agreed with Ted Kennedy on was catastrophic
care - that is an area where the government could be of enormous
benefit. Otherwise Obamacare is going to be a fiscal disaster for the
middle class - pay more and get less.


I think you make good points. One of the arguments I've made for years is
for the return
of basic, affordable, catastrophic medical insurance plans. They won't
cover the removal of
a splinter from little Johnny's finger, but *will* cover serious, life
threatening injuries or
diseases. Major catastrophic medical insurance was relatively inexpensive
compared to the
minimal co-pay HMO type programs that pay for a doctor to wipe your nose.

A universal catastrophic health insurance program, subsidized for those who
cannot pay the
full premium (or any of it for that matter) would be far less expensive and
would provide
basic, life threatening care for everyone. Viagra, abortions for
convenience, cosmetic
and other non-life threatening procedures or services would be optional at
extra cost.

Eisboch