The Canadian system in fact banned private healthcare.

However, even if private care is not banned outright, a government funded system will crowd out everything else. Any competing private system would be very small, and very costly. And private insurance will be destroyed. So Obamacare will crowd out private medicine, except for a small nitch for the rich. And that nitch will likely be legislated away, if its superior quality makes Obamacare look bad.

If everyone is forced into the system, very very few would pay cash to go outside the system, so an exterior medical system would be very small if it even exists. Note that Canadians escape their system by coming to the US; where will we go? Mexico?

It is the economic result of the plan, not a direct rule (as of yet; we don't have the final plan yet anyway).

If everyone is forced to be on a plan, paying outside the system with cash will be very rare, and any private side system will be very small and expensive, if it exists.

If they pass Obamacare im sure we will all be hearing stories of people doing this. I for one in that situation would definately consider it, but i dont want to have any coc violations so i will leave it at that




 

It also depends on what you mean by "works". Lots of Obamabots have good things to say about Canadian, UK, German, or even Cuban healthcare systems, but which of those systems "work"?

It is also interesting to see people come out as "opposed" to Obama, yet in each particular argument they end up defending him. Odd.

Actually, yes it does. Provisions in the bill will gradually eliminate private insurance and make cash for services illegal. That is something in several european models and was in the original Hillary care.
[quote“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.

][/quote]

When I say that the government is unconcerned with whether or not it "works," I mean they aren't concerned with the inevitable loss of quality of care that will result from going from our current system to a public system.  For example, bureaucrats will not care that someone waits months for a procedure for which they formerly would have waited a matter of days.  If the patient dies while awaiting the procedure, well, no problem.  He died with health coverage.

Imagine a government program that sets fire to old people to make sure that they don't get cold in winter.  According to the government, they've eliminated the crisis of old people freezing to death, so the program works.  According to the program's beneficiaries, the plan sucks.

(edited to remove lots of old quotes)

ETA: DonS, just wanted to be clear that I know you're not advocating the Canadian, UK, Cuban, etc. systems! Just reiterating your point, I guess.

In no time at all heath care will become medieval, all around the world there will be socialized crap health care.

I am just waiting for the backlash from Oregon voters.   I can't see them standing for something like that, even though they're paying for it.

Getting back to the article. I live in Oregon and am on the hook for the cost of the Oregon Health Plan. I agree with the policy.
For these reasons.
I have seen 20-30 people on a daily basis for the last few months of their life as the went through palliative chemo. It does not fit what my definition of decreasing suffering, on the contrary it increases it.
Please find one person who felt better on chemo.
When a person has reached the end of their life we should help them to be as comfortable as possible in both physical and emotional terms. The majority of people do not understand what end of life treatments are actually intended to accomplish.  If you were to ask them and their family what to the goal of the treatment is they would tell you it's to save their life. This is the fault of the medical providers as much as the patients and families.
The plan does cover palliative care and that is what was offered to this patient in the letter. Because assisted suicide is LEGAL in Oregon that is one of the covered options. The letter did not say we will not cover chemo but we will pay to kill you. In Oregon the patient must choose and actively seek assisted suicide in a multi step process. It is not possible to thrust it upon a person against their will.

There is real evidence that politicians do care (somewhat) about the quality of healthcare systems. For example, when the American medicare system and also when the Canadian system started, both systems recived considerable initial funding. At first, politicians were proud and wanted to demonstrate the quality of the system; when the bills rolled in they flipped over into cost savings mode. Another example comes from the UK, where politicians mandated that patients be seen within 4 hours of entering the hospital (seems they were getting beat up on the quality of NHS), so what that now means is you have to wait in the ambulance (neat loophole!).

Generally, socialism has two settings: 1) fund the system like crazy 2) ration to achieve cost savings. What seems to happen is that new programs get huge funding, then over time rationing kicks in. Given our huge national debt (thank  you, Mr president), we will likely start off in ration mode if we pass a new healthcare system.

The public option will kill private insurance in two ways.

(1) As stated above, it will forbid new enrollment in private insurance.  Meaning that if you lose coverage for any reason (change jobs, unemployed, employer drops coverage, etc.) you are on the public "option" for life.  Also, all young people listed as dependents on their parent's plans will automatically go onto the public option without any choice whatsoever.  

(2) The public option will not be subject to market forces, and therefore will not compete fairly with private options.  I'm not even sure if they are going to charge anything for coverage.  It may be like public schools where you pay once via taxes for the "public option" whether you use it or not, and then pay twice if you want private school.  If that is the case then private insurance truly will be just for the rich like private school.  Even if you have to pay something for the public option, that something is not checked by market forces.  Guaranteed that the government will make it "affordable" meaning that it will undercut private insurance, and when it needs more money the feds will just print, borrow, or tax more.  The irony is that such practices (undercutting competition with unsustainable fees) would be illegal for a private company under anti-trust laws.  Under such a regime, the only private insurance that would make sense would be a supplemental policy that covered X procedures not covered by your basic public insurance.  But of course, that would be a "new" plan and verboten.  See point 1.

Sorry,  not a topic I follow, but when did assisted suicide become legal?

Didnt Dr. Jack do federal time for it?

Amazing how the left knows what's best for each and every one of us. And we are too stupid to figure it out ourselves.

Socialism is about control. Nothing more, nothing less.

Don't recall what happend with Dr Jack, but it wouldn't violate fed law if a state made it legal. If Dr Jack was crossing state lines to provide services, I suspect the feds could involve themselves (interstate commerce, etc).

If it's illegal, I'm sure our "president" will handle that.

Nobody said that the Oregon .gov is forcing assisted suicide on anyone.  It simply pays for that and not therapy that might prolong life, and chemo isn't the only treatment that can prolong life.  You said you see lots of people who have reached the end of their lives, so here's a personal example from me.

A loved one had an aggressive brain tumor that was going to kill her, no matter what.  However, she was offered the opportunity to have surgery to remove as much of the tumor as possible.  Not all of the malignant tissue was accessible, so the tumor would inevitably grow back and a second surgery would not be feasible.  She decided the surgery was desirable.

With bulk of the tumor gone, my loved one's life was extended by about a half year, and her quality of life was very good for most of that time.  Even though we knew that we had only delayed the inevitable, we were able to enjoy one last Christmas together, we had a number of good months during which we could enjoy our family, we had plenty of opportunity for goodbyes, and she had a chance to make sure that her affairs were in order.

Under the Oregon system, if we were dependent on government, that would not have been an option and we would have been forced to simply accept her death right then.  Because we were able to fund the surgery through private insurance, we had a choice.  Under Obamacare, that choice would be removed, and that's the issue.  I understand that it isn't practical for the State of Oregon to simply agree to pay for every elective procedure that people want, but that's the tradeoff one makes when subjecting oneself to the Oregon plan.  If all Oregonians were required to participate, which is what Obamacare does on a national scale, that choice goes away.

As you pointed out, you are on the hook for everyone else's care, and I also disagree with that.  You should not be responsible for anyone else's care but your own and your family's.  Shouldn't you be allowed to provide for your family to the best of your ability?  Once you foist that responsibility on the government, you give up the power of your choice.  Instead of everyone having access to the best health care they can, everyone has access to  –– and is forced to pay for –– the same, poor-quality care.  Why should we subject ourselves to that?

Kevorkian did time for it. IIRC he was possibly crossing state lines.

Anyway, assisted suicide for terminal patients because of quality of life? Slippery slope aint it? Pretty much leave the insane, crippled, and Downs Syndrome patients fucked in less than say 20 years.

Well, so they say.

As you said, "Socialism is about control. Nothing more, nothing less." I honestly don't think that providing the highest possible quality of care is their top priority.  At best, their goal is providing the best care that they are able to provide after they have gained control.  You pointed out correctly that this will inevitably lead to rationing and much poorer quality of care.  Because the results of such a system are plain for everyone to see in the nations you mentioned earlier, I cannot believe that our politicians simply aren't aware of the consequences of what they are trying to do.

I 100% agree that it's all about controlling us "serfs."

One of the many reasons I want out of this shit hole state.

How the hell is this a left position?

First, the Oregon Health Plan is a public welfare plan, not a private insurance.
Second, as with any insurance it has found that a treatment does not accomplish a the desired out come. In this case chemo does not decrease suffering in end of life care. This patient has been found to be terminal and no one is saying that chemo will cure or manage her disease process.
Third, she is not prevented from seeking chemo, she just has to pay for it herself .

What your saying is that I have to pay for it with my already inflated taxes, and in Oregon that's in the form of property taxes.

[quote]“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County. [/quote]





Well... at least she HAS health insurance.





And that's all that really matters.





Equal distribution of misery is only "fair".





I can't wait until everyone has to deal with this - or even better, just DLoken.

Yes, and that speaks to the eugenicist thinking that the left has traditionally embraced.  Ever since the Progressive era (and maybe before), the Left has loved the idea of engineering the "new man."  For recent examples, read Ecoscience, the textbook co-authored by Obama's science advisor, John Holdren.  It calls for reduction of the human population by selective, forced abortion, sterilization, and birth control.

If you want to read something more engaging and shorter, read some of Jesse Jackson's pro-life essays from the days before he ran for president as a Democrat.  He was pretty vocal about abortion being a racist tool to control the black population.  Crazy or not, check out the location of the majority of Planned Parenthood offices.

First the Obama plan is a mirror image of Medicare/Medicaid DPW type insurance.

Second high end insurance policies are available in the private end of things now that would cover this kinds of treatments.

Third it makes it harder to fund private insurance if youre forced to pay for shabby .gov health insurance out of your soon to be taxed to death income.

Theres no way high end private insurance isnt going to get even more expensive when plain Jane care is paid at the bottom dollar.

Aborting the sick and/or elderly, a good plan for a pro-choice government.

The scary part is that the masses dont know that is going to be the norm and not the exception.

They think with obongocare they will get all these medicines for free.

Wake up! NOT.

Not to mention if you take the profit motive away why would any drug company do the research for new medications?

Why not more props to the drug company for giving medicine to the lady for free?

Damn lib media.

That's the point.  Taxpayer-funded healthcare isn't going to pay for a 5k/month drug that isn't even going to cure you.  And, unless it's you or your family member being told that, most people don't want their tax money being used for that purpose.

I'm saying that if your on the government tit you don't get unlimited access with the gold card.
If you want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend your life 6 months, particularly since it will most likely be a particularly uncomfortable and agonizing, you can spend you own money. In the form of a private insurance plan or cash, your choice. If you don't want to do that you have to live by the rules establish by the people who are paying for the program and not benefiting from it.

What is the topic of discussion in this thread? The general  bash on the up coming obama socialized medical system, or a public welfare health insurance plan which made a rational decision about spending on medical treatments.

I think there is a misunderstanding, the Oregon Health Plan is the state welfare plan. It is not a mandated insurance for all Oregonians, just the welfare cases. It has been much abuses as the hospitals will sign up every one who presents at the ER in an attempt get at least some payment. This has been curtailed but a large percent of recipients would not qualify by most reasonable people who are on the hook to pay for the program.
I have never heard anyone hold this plan as a good scheme to emulate on a national level, even the most red on the left.

Fair enough.  I'm simply saying that it's bad that you have to be on the hook for other people's health care, and, for the people who are on Oregon welfare-heath care, it's bad not to have a choice.  I certainly understand and agree with your thought that those who depend on government instead of personal effort should not get the "gold card" treatment.

I understand that the Oregonian system isn't the model for Obamacare.  The original post was meant to present the situation in which the two Oregonians in question find themselves as examples of what we can expect from Obamacare.  In Oregon, it's a welfare-type benefit and, though everyone pays for it, not everyone is subject to it.  Under Obamacare, it will be universal and mandatory, so everyone will pay for it and be subject to it.