Two Years On: Obamacare

You're right on some points, but I think at least one point is being missed.

The fact that some things are better treated with strictly medication is correct. But one of loopholes that continues to increase in size are procedures that patients undergo. As technology improves - combined with skyrocketing medical costs, increasing demand and providers who show all signs of plain greed - procedures that used to require a full inpatient stay have transformed into outpatient procedures.

Some of those outpatient procedures - in spite of the label - end up with patients spending a night or two in the healthcare facility. Medicare will pay for the hospital room, procedure, etc. ... but will not pay for the meds doled out during the patient's stay. Why? Because Medicare Part D isn't taking care of it - and it usually kites the secondary provider the patient might have bought. The difference between outpatient and inpatient clinically involves, among many things, a level of patient care. Medicare doesn't see that ... it simply won't pay for the meds taken by the patients while in the facilities. Worse, it's exceedingly difficult for the patient, even if he/she knows how long the stay might be, to bring the meds with them because of liability concerns.

Medicare-eligible folks don't want to hear this, and it's difficult to blame them because these folks get stuck with some uncomfortable bills, and not because of carelessness or because they were so bent on gaming the system. In all fairness, the bills aren't impossible - not the five-, six- and seven-figure bills they would have without Medicare - but some of them are watching every cent and a $500 bill for meds and other services is an inconvenience for many of them.

Medicare desperately needs to update Part D, and take care of this.

 

The Supreme Court will make that decision (along party lines) in the near future, I'm sure. The problem will then return to what to do about the $43 billion in health costs (phantom commerce) that annually get shifted to those of us who actually pay for health insurance.

 

Borrow money to pay them.

Raise money through taxes to pay them.

Deny them health care.

Ignore the problem.

There are any number of possible solutions to the problem that don't involve violating fundamental rights and giving the government unprecedented, dangerous powers.

 

Ragu, since you're saying health care is a commodity then it's okay for people to die because they can't afford it?

 

Auto insurance is a requirement state by state. It is not a Federal requirement. New Hampshire for example does not require insurance but does require proof of financial mean to register a car.

It is not analogous to Obamacare.

 

Why would that be the case?

What in the term of the word "commodity" means people should die without it?

 

Instead of Verrilli the White House should have sent Baravelli to
argue their case. They could not have done any worse.

 

Well, if Jeffrey Toobin is convinced, that's it. After all, he correctly predicted OJ Simpson's guilty verdict.

He also said the Court would uphold Obamacare 8-1 or 7-2 a few days ago, based on the law. Fucking stooge.

 

Which fundamental rights are violated by the ACA?