If its GOAL were to kill and bankrupt the middle class, profit healthcare couldn't do it any better

Phoebe Loosinhouse

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Sep-08-09 09:50 AM
Original message

If its GOAL were to kill and bankrupt the middle class, profit healthcare couldn't do it any better

I mean really, if you think about it. An industry that takes premiums from citizens and businesses and then does everything in its power it can possibly do to deny actual provision of services. The model could possibly be working a little too well right now, since overreaching is causing the sleepy, gullible populace to wake up when they find themselves riddled with disease and empty pockets with a big REJECTED stamped on their foreheads.

Reading this opinion on Talking Points made me have this stray thought. Perhaps it's just part of the larger plan. Maybe we just need serfs and lords and everyone else is just "surplus population".

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/09/on_offense_2.php#more?ref=fpblg
On Offense
Josh Marshall | September 8, 2009, 9:16AM
skip

In short, the problem isn't that your insurance costs too much or that you might lose it or anything like that. The problem is that you have insurance, especially insurance through your employer. Ideally you wouldn't have insurance at all or at least you'd have much less of it.

That's the essence of where Republicans want to go. And why Democrats aren't making that a lot more clear is a very good question without any good answers. The problem is that you go to the doctor and agree to take the tests the doctor recommends. Shadegg and Hoekstra want a system where if your doctor suggests a biopsy for a suspicious lump you think about the pros and cons. Is it worth the money? Do you have the money? How suspicious is the lump anyway? Maybe you get the first one. But not necessarily the follow up scan six months later.

This is the essence of the Republican plan: the fact that you're insured and aren't directly feeling the cost of individual tests and procedures is the problem and getting rid of the insurance concept is the solution. Give you a structure where you can save money for future procedures and medications (the more money you have the better) and you decide how much medical care you think you can afford. That's what HSAs are about (google it). That's the gist of the column and it's not surprising because that's what most conservative policy ideas are about.

To be clear, such an approach probably would cut costs because most people just couldn't afford to get a lot of care, which is a great way of cutting costs. But remember, the problem according to most Republicans in Congress isn't that there's not enough insurance or that it's not good enough. It's that there's too much. The problem is that you have insurance. And good policy will take it away from you.

***********************************************************************************************************************************
I did actually once hear Rush Limbaugh idly wondering aloud why people even HAD insurance and why they didn't just pay for what they need out of pocket like he does. Big disconnect.