Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
You're talking about one part of a large system.
That's the beauty of a large system. If someone dares to talk about one part of it, they can be dismissed without discussion since their concern is so minimal compared with the massive bureaucracy that comprises the system. Sort of like all encompassing centralized government.
There always have been priority lists and there always will be. Even with private insurance you don't think they have their own version of the "death panel" to modulate shareholder value?
I don't know if they do. But they have specific, spelled out, benefits and limitations. And they can be bullied or convicted by government aided by sharp lawyers into paying for things they might object to. It's kind of difficult to convince the government to bully or convict itself in such cases (unless votes are in the balance). And private insurers provide a plethora of "versions," and, until the ACA, were not forced to provide certain things in all "versions." You were more able to get what you paid for rather than being coerced to pay for what you were forced to get.
As the population gets older people will be on medicare anyway and they'll consume the majority of the care. You're going to have capacity issues regardless.
-spence
|
And . . . how, again, was the ACA going to make this better and "more affordable"? Oh yeah, that's right . . . it was going to force the subsidization of some, without choice, at the expense of others. Right . . . that's how large bureaucratic centralized socialistic systems work. In every respect. Except for some very "special" cases, like abortion, where choice is paramount.