|
This was from march 25 2009, I didn't see where it said a final decision was reached, have there been developments since?
I did not see any references. As an appeal case, it could take some time.
The key element is a State claiming a right to overrule doctor's in Medicaid cases, along with the direct statement that the government run Medicaid program is rationed.
|
Yeah I caught that, but on the plus side the family won the initial dispute if I'm reading it correctly, so one could say there is some hope. Still it's frightening that the case attempted to apply weaning without discussing it with the primary physician and family to determine if it was even possible for the case which is what frightens me. That kind of across the board attempts at policy are what always keep me on my toes.
And what leads some of us to oppose universal health care even when accused of a lack of humanity for not wanting everyone to be covered.
The possibility that you have humanity is not proven by the accusation that you lack humanity.
Notice how the article mentions that medicaid provides beneifts 'until the age of 21'? Yeah, because like Fryer says, any 21 year old should be able to earn the six figure salary needed to buy private insurance. If you can't even do that, you can move to another country to be with all the those lazy foreigners.
[Seriously, just try mentioning 'pre-existing illness' to an insurance agent: they will literally tell you to not even bother.]
No, but the lack of intellectual integrity is almost always proven by framing an argument with such an accusation against an opponent.
So when did you stop beating your wife?
That kind of across the board attempts at policy are what always keep me on my toes.And what leads some of us to oppose universal health care even when accused of a lack of humanity for not wanting everyone to be covered.
Seems to me that a part of the problem is that whats in place is halfway between universal health care and private for profit healthcare. In essence the private doctor and the the state have differing goals as the private doctor's can increase their take home pay by billing the state as much as possible while the state, recognizing that they are in danger of private doctors over charging the system, are trying to maintain the right to overrule them in order to try and keep costs down.
In a universal healthcare system the state usually controls the monetary compensation of the doctors and therefore removes the incentive for the doctors to burden the system by recommending unneeded treatments. This is the weakness with an insurance based system as well. In an insurance based system the private for profit doctors are monetarily rewarded if they can over charge the insurance providers. The insurance providers in turn deal with this by either being quick to find ways to refuse to pay (leaving a very surprised customer suddenly on the hook for medical bills they thought they were protected against due to the fact that they had insurance) or they pass the extra costs on to their customer base making the program more expencive for everyone involved.