I could have sworn that Romney just a couple of months ago was LAUDING how WONDERFUL his MA state takeover of the Healthcare of all of their citizens was a GREAT thing and he was PROUD of it! Why Obamacare is just the federal government’s take on it!

I am shocked that it leads to rationing…just shocked… /snark off

Look at this editorial by Mitt Romney back in 2006.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008213

The libs voted in the wrong guy. Romney would have had ‘National Health Care Ruin’ in the bag already.

The game at the ER or the Doc’s Office will become just like the game at your car dealer’s service department. The only way the Doc can make any money is by doing the 2 hour procedure in 1 hour. Before long we’ll be needing laws that make them do estimates and give us back the used parts they took out.

is already set up like this with insurance except it’s a monthly fee not annual. They get the co-pay if the patient comes in but it’s a set amount per month for keeping the patient. That is why they started offering all this wellness stuff vs admitting people and running as many test as they could. I’m not sure but I think to some degree it’s already like this with insurance. I know for sure they get a set amount for keeping the patient as “their patients” from the insurance.

And the public insurance system runs a fee per patient per quarter system. At least for GP’s. It is currently at 25€ a quarter…what does it lead to?

It leads to there being a dearth of doctors in areas where there are only publicly insured patients, especially in areas with lots of elderly patients or rural areas where they cannot generate the numbers to cover their overheads.

In Germany about 85% of people are on the public system, which has premiums at a minimum of 1800€ ($2600) a year, split 50/50 with employer/employee (no other split allowed unless self employed) and a maximum of about 8400€ ($12,000) based on 15% of your salary (on the half half basis). The other 15% are self employed or employees who earn more than 60k€ ($90K) a year and can opt out of the public system….they, like myself, often end up paying significantly less than they would on the public system, but are barred form opting back in, unless their income falls dramatically for a sustained period of time.

Well, the doctors rely on these privately insured patients to have any chance of making any money…and this in a country with low malpractice insurance and significantly different tort laws (no % of winnings cases allowed). You will find doctors en masse in neighbourhoods with high income people who tend to be privately insured, you are lucky to find any in poor parts fo town, or rural areas, and in towns with lots of old people, forget about it….

Try and get into any good doctor, and the first question is “public or private”…if you are privately insured,a nd they know you will be paying the fair rate, you get an appointment same day, if you are public, expect to hear that the doctor is not taking any new patients, or a couple fo weeks wait. The left here rails against the private patients,a dn woudl like to see them banned, but truth be told, they are the only thing keeping german Medicine anywhere near being first world….

Good doctors who want to see their renumeration stay in line with their talent will flock to areas where people can pay their fees,a dn will largely opt out of taking patients where they don’t earn enough money….the effects might not come right away, but years down the road, the migration will occur, adn america will suffer a dire shortage of specialists, GP’s and rural doctors, a phenoma most countries with rationed care know all too well…..

when I got this today it only had about 25,000 hits

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

The more we read, the more we find out.

Can someone explain to me what the provision is supposed to be? Is it a one time amnesty period, where anyone with a pre-existing condition can sign up fro insurance for let’s say the next 16 months and not be denied….or is the idea that you can go without insurance claiming you can’t afford it, and then when you find out you have a condition that would lead to bills that are higher than your premiums, you can then sign up for the program? The second just seems asinine…..

I mean I will be honest, a pre-existing cancer condition is definitely keeping me from moving back to the US to be self employed. I have been covered my entire life, but no new insurance company is goign to take me…..I am more than willing to take a high deductable policy with a HSA, to really just insure agaisn tthose bills over $10,000 a year. I have tried to apply for insurance prior to considering a move back to the states, but once I mark the pre-existings, I get denied every time. My only chance would be to work for someone else, whcih I don’t really want to do. This means I am trapped in the country I currently reside in, with the insurance company I have been with for the past 15 years (and am very happy with).

I think there should be consumer protections which stop insurance companies from denying coverage to people who have been continually insured, potentially with mandated reinsurance programs to mitigate the individual policyholder risk. I would much rather see that than the many minimum coverage mandates the states have that push prices up, and portable insurance that crosses state lines would also be the greatest reforms possible.

But I don’t understand why anyone would sign up for pre-emptive insurance when they are healthy if they cannot be denied once they find out they have something…..

RomneyCare should be a lesson for all of us. Government intervention and control of health care inevitably lead to rationing.

If we don’t stop the federal government from further socializing our medicine, we’ll have similar problems in every state. One good way to send Congress a message is with the pink slip effort. Almost 3 million pink slips are heading to Congress now. Go to SendCongressAPinkSlip.com to find out more.