Obamacare

Mike Pence's 'Market-Based' Plan to Reform Medicaid Is Actually a Deal Between Hospital Lobbyists and the Administration to Expand Obamacare

The Republican governor's supposedly free market plan is a big industry giveaway.

|

American Enterprise Institute

After months of negotiation with the Obama administration, Republican Gov. Mike Pence has cut a deal for Indiana to become the 28th state to expand Medicaid under Obamacare.

The deal, and the conservative-friendly terms it is being presented in, reveal how eager Pence is to portray his participation as something other than a cave to the administration and a giveaway to hospital lobbyists.

The Indiana deal is based on a proposal, first introduced last May, to expand the program under the aegis of the state's 2008 Medicaid pilot, known as the Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP). Pence described his proposal, dubbed HIP 2.0., as a multi-tiered plan with different service levels that would rely partially on health savings accounts, and required beneficiaries to pay a small monthly premium or risk losing coverage.

When the proposal was introduced, Pence restated his opposition to Obamacare, and described his plan as an alternative. "Reforming traditional Medicaid through this kind of market-based, consumer-driven approach is essential to creating better health outcomes and curbing the dramatic growth in Medicaid spending," he said, according to the Indiana Star.

Some of those elements—in particular, the requirement that some beneficiaries pay small monthly premiums that would be deposited into a health savings account—were controversial with supporters of traditional Medicaid program, and since May of last year, Pence and the administration have negotiated over the details.

Pence's announcement today makes it clear that the governor got at least some of what he wanted. On Twitter, the governor noted that the plan "includes elements that have never before been approved by [the federal government] for a program of this magnitude," a Tweet that links to a slide noting the inclusion of health savings accounts. This suggests that the administration was willing to bend somewhat in order to encourage participation in the Medicaid expansion.

But while premiums will be part of the reform, they will be essentially meaningless for those before the poverty line, where most benefits cannot be cancelled for non-payment. In addition, the administration notes in a press release that the deal did not include a work requirement. 

Pence, meanwhile, is still trying to frame the plan as a conservative reform. "Medicaid isn't a program we should expand," he Tweeted today. Instead, he said, it's one "we should reform & that's exactly what we accomplished with HIP 2.0."

But of course the deal is an expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare. That's why the administration wanted it and agreed to it. Pence obviously knows that it is an expansion. His previous Tweet declared that effective next month, the HIP plan "will be available to more Hoosiers than ever before." 

Even more desperately, Pence also insists that the program "will be fully funded at no additional cost to [Indiana] taxpayers" and "will require no new state spending and no new taxes." This is only true in a way that hardly matters. Obamacare's Medicaid expansion is funded federally; according to the Congressional Budget Office, the expansion will cost more than $900 billion over ten years. 

Indeed, the lure of federal money is one of the major reasons Pence signed onto the plan. As Philip Klein of The Washington Examiner noted last May, Pence's office worked closely with hospital lobbyists to develop the expansion plan, which the Indiana Hospital Association approved. In essence, Pence brokered a lucrative deal between the hospital lobby and the Obama administration using taxpayer money, then decided to tout it as a "market-based" plan. 

NEXT: Anti-Vaping Researchers Called Out for Misleading Cancer Exaggerations by New York Times Columnist

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Even more desperately, Pence also insists that the program “will be fully funded at no additional cost to [Indiana] taxpayers”

    Who can pass up a free lunch?

  2. I, for one, am shocked.

    SHOCKED, I tell you!

  3. Get Paid Up To $23.75 Per hour w?w?w.W?i?k?i-Careers.C?o??m
    – No Experience Necessary
    – Beginners preferred
    – No websites needed
    – No CPA
    – No PPC
    – No One Click Wonder
    – No Fake Gurus
    – JUST REAL RESULTS
    Click Here For Details

    1. Get Paid Up To $23.75

      Check-plus for a very specific amount, huge minus for the “up to” phrase. Try again.

    2. But I like fake Gurus.

    3. Scammers getting personal. I like. =)

  4. Between this and The Mike Pence Propaganda News Network, he’s really been a boon to the great state of Indiana.

    OT: Mine protester sentenced to some prison time after stealing equipment from the mine during a protest.

    Her post-sentencing statement is the greatest thing I’ve read in months:

    ” The “lifestyle enforcement” aspect of my five year probation mandate (post-jail time) with full-time employment stipulation, is culturist, and out-of-touch with today’s employment landscape. Innumerable individuals work seasonal jobs for life in a responsible manner, thus Judge Fox’s ruling is based on the disappearing myth of the white American Dream that supports and enforces a destructive capitalist regime. In conjunction, Judge Fox exploited my sentencing hearing to serve as a symbolic trial for my identity as an anarchist, my appearance, and my ongoing affiliation with indigenous communities, extending to my adamant stance against industrial resource extraction- this is unacceptable, yet predictable. The judge seemingly desires to stifle dissent from all things wild and free, and may as well have based his sentence off a hypothetical book in progress entitled, “White Pride and Prejudice,” as the words fell from his mouth in a narrow, out-dated, and white-male privileged world perspective, and does not support or embrace hunting, fishing, or gathering.”

    1. Though I wish no harm on Stacey Saari, a geologist hired on G-TAC’s dollar, it saddens me that she continues to despise the fiber of my being, and continues to support industrial resource extraction that in turn supports death to the poorest of peoples in rural/wilderness landscapes. The clich?’ of “just doing your job” is no excuse to participate in colonial violence via corporate resource extraction.

      Gee, I can’t imagine why she hates you. Doesn’t everyone love to be called a murderer by White Indians trying to destroy their livelihood?

    2. He left out gamboling.

    3. Its like he wants to make sure that there is at least one Republican governor on the ten most loathsome politicians in America list.

      Indiana is a pretty level headed state. How in the hell did they end up with this assclown?

      1. Indiana is a pretty level headed state

        [citation needed]

        In my experience, Indiana is just Illinois without a Chicago to draw attention to itself.

      2. “How in the hell did they end up with this assclown?”

        Body Armor.

    4. That statement ROCKS!

    5. “Consequently, colonization is everywhere, so decolonization must happen everywhere.”

      Translation: The human population must be reduced to “sustainable” levels.

  5. So what does Gruber have to say about this?

    1. “please insert $400,000 USD for reply”

  6. Well, there is this:

    Hospitals are going to absorb the cost of these new Medicaid patients anyway. Hospitals generally run margins of no more than 3% in a good year (there are exceptions, but mostly on the downside).

    By law, they are not allowed to turn these patients away.

    They are going to lay those costs off on somebody. Either the “private” pay/insured population, or (partially) on the government via Medicaid.

    So, you can either impose a stealth tax on the private pay/insured population, or you can impose a more overt tax on, you know, taxpayers.

    1. “So, you can either impose a stealth tax on the private pay/insured population, or you can impose a more overt tax on, you know, taxpayers.”

      The first one is cheaper and needs no union clerks.
      I’ll take it.

  7. They are going to lay those costs off on somebody.

    The Faerie King?

  8. “will be fully funded at no additional cost to [Indiana] taxpayers”

    No, this time we’re not lying. Seriously, it’ll work. I promise. No joke. Really, you can trust us. OK, honestly, we’re telling the truth.

    1. We’ve reached the point where everything has to be magically free.

      Ah, the truthiness of it.

  9. The “lifestyle enforcement” aspect of my five year probation mandate (post-jail time) with full-time employment stipulation, is culturist, and out-of-touch with today’s employment landscape.

    That’s just, like, your opinion, Man.

  10. Hi peter,

    Maybe we should just go with single payer. France pays a third of what we pay per capita and they live longer.

    But that’s not really why I’m here. I love other people’s good fortune so I just thought I’d give a big round of congratulations to you and the writers at Reason. It lolokd like big pay raises for corporate-schilling reactionaries are in order. Keep a bottle of Dom cold for me, would ya?

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015…..paign.html

    1. I smell shit.

    2. After 100+ years of Marxist and left-wing economics wrecking one country after another, it is *you*–the allegedly futuristic leftoids–who are the tired, stale reactionaries.

    3. american socialist|1.27.15 @ 3:09PM|#
      “Hi peter,
      Maybe we should just go with single payer. France pays a third of what we pay per capita and they live longer.”

      Hi, shitpile,
      Still picking those lefty cherries? Paid your mortgage yet? Still licking mass murderer ass?

    4. “lolokd”? is that like a portmanteau of lol and looked?

    5. amsoc:

      It lolokd like big pay raises for corporate-schilling reactionaries are in order.

      Whereas american socialists get their funding from the proceeds ofcommunal hemp farms.

    6. “France pays a third of what we pay per capita and they live longer.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Escoffier

      1. Without this “Rags to Riches” “Chef” AMSOC you would never experience the elegant foods you are used to, while you take you private jet to the Davos party.

      2. JyPyrate believes that life span is a measure of healthcare?

        You need to get better data. Things like how many MRIs and CAT scanners per 100,000 people. Percentage of women over 45 with a recent mammogram (Canada is 1/3 ours. There’s a huge database, readable on the web, with several dozen metrics that most countries spend a lot of time and money — but it’s ignored.

        If you never do cancer testing, you never know how many people die of undiagnosed cancers. And your link to a French chef who died 80 years ago, is downright laughable, and has no such quote.

    7. AS,

      The problem with people like you is that you think you are somehow special.

      I’m not a libertarian so don’t confuse me with these guys. Just because your mother deemed you worthy to exit her vagina instead of killing you doesn’t mean that you’re entitled to my stuff. You, your family, your kids, dog, cat, whatever mean jack shit to me.

      I don’t need you AS, I don’t need any of the little poor people, I don’t need any of the shit you’re peddling. That rich guy that you hate so much though, yea I need him, he provides a salary, he pays for innovation, he has the resources to make shit. Your ilk, all you wanna do is take stuff for free for no other reason than you’re breathing.

      So essentially what I’m saying is that whether you have healthcare and live to 90 vs not having healthcare and dying at 60 doesn’t mean anything to me and I really don’t care. That’s your problem.

      1. Just because your mother deemed you worthy to exit her vagina instead of killing you

        It’s not “killing” before viability, unless you deny his mother’s unalienable right to liberty. You know what unalienable means, right?

        1. Thats a weak argument. Yes I know what unalienable means but I also dont believe in fairy tales. We only have what rights the Supreme Court decides we have. Yes, yes thats not the way it’s spposed to work but that’s the way it is.

          In regards to your snide remark, if his mother had aborted him then it would be killing but not murder. If you take something that is alive and make it not alive, you have killed it, ex. Grass, skin cells, lettuce, a rabbit.

          So my point stands. Just because his mother thinks he is special, doesnt make it so.

          1. Apparently, you believe in the fairy tale that the Supreme Court is never wrong. Or do you believe that it is impossible for the government to infringe upon our rights because we get our rights from the government, so if the government limits, say, your right to free speech, then you only have that right so far as it isn’t limited by the government, therefore your right to free speech is intact?

            1. Wow, what a mess of fallacies and contradictions

              Rhino
              Apparently, you believe in the fairy tale that the Supreme Court is never wrong.

              BAD assumption. Fallacy

              Right or wrong is not the issue. They decide what is a constitutional OR a human right. Only the structure can be right or wrong
              1) Individuals have equal rights.
              2) So can be only ONE definition/determination for all of us.

              If not the Court, since Marbury v Madison, then what do you propose as a SINGLE alternative, and why should we amend the Constitution?

              Or do you believe that it is impossible for the government to infringe upon our rights because we get our rights from the government,

              Same fallacy. And backwards.

              so if the government limits, say, your right to free speech, then you only have that right so far as it isn’t limited by the government,

              The legislature passes laws, so only they can limit my rights, and the court decides if they have done so, to defend our rights … from government. It’s called checks and balances. Likewise, the legislature can limit the court’s jurisdiction ? as when Ron Paul sought to strip homosexuals of defending their rights.

              If you cannot live in a society, there may be an island or remote cabin in the mountains. Or tell us your way to secure our rights in a pluralistic society.

            2. I must not have stated my thoughts very well.

              Of course I think the SC can wrong. They are dead wrong about their latest 4th Amendment ruling.

              That is exactly my point, however. This SC thinks that if a cop doesn’t know the law then that exempts them from the 4th Amendment. Put different judges on the court and they come to a different conclusion. So, in effect rights are not unalienable. If they were then there would be no debate because there would be universal agreement.

              If you think that life, liberty, and property are unalienable then I challenge you to commit certain victimless crimes and see if you don’t end up in prison. I challenge you to try and reverse a SC ruling that is blatantly infringing upon your rights.

              You will not succeed because the powers that be will not allow you to succeed and there’s nothing that you can do about it. That’s reality, not some fantasy about what should or shouldn’t be.

              Lastly, yes your right to free speech is in fact limited. We have things like hate speech laws that limit what you can say. That is in effect the gov’t telling you that there is a limit to your right. Therefore it is not unalienable. Is it right, no. However, that’s the way it is.

              1. Lastly, yes your right to free speech is in fact limited.

                Umm. no unalienable right can possibly be unlimited, because they can conflict with each other

                Your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose.

                There is no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

                When you get to high school …

                When fundamental rights are in conflict, ONLY the Court is empowered to draw the boundaries .. in a way that best respects both rights.

                NOW you say that once the court makes a free speech ruling on one law, there is a vast conspiracy if they hear any more free speech cases. Which again shows your contempt for equal and unalienable rights … of the individual being defended in the next case, for a different law.

          2. Thats a weak argument.

            OMG another one.

            Yes I know what unalienable means

            But like all statists, you oppose them being defended, or even defined. Your type has been the scourge of humanity for decades.

            but I also dont believe in fairy tales.

            Like your very next sentence?
            Or that you have a clue about rights?
            THOSE fairy tales?

            We only have what rights the Supreme Court decides we have. Yes, yes thats not the way it’s spposed to work but that’s the way it is.

            That IS the it’s supposed to be!!! Have
            But that’s an insane way to state it. Tell us who defends MY rights, or YOUR rights.

            In regards to your snide remark, if his mother had aborted him then it would be killing but not murder.

            Then there’s nothing to criticize, is there?

            If you take something that is alive and make it not alive, you have killed it, ex. Grass, skin cells, lettuce, a rabbit.

            Which is WHY it’s perfectly okay (pre-viability)

            So my point stands. Just because his mother thinks he is special, doesnt make it so.

            Then your point is even crazier than I thoght. All human beings are special, you hateful person who denies EVERYONE any defense of our unalienable rights. Don’t worry, I’d never confuse your kind with a libertarian.

            I need to take a shower now.

            1. I am not a statist but I am a realist. The point that I was making was that there are no such thing as unalienable rights. I agree that there should be but wanting something and having something are two totally different things. If there were such a thing as unalienable rights then why are our rights constantly being debated and watered down? It’s because they are not unalienable and are constantly being infringed.

              Additionally, I do not believe that every human being is special in the way that you think they are special. I was referring to the way that AmSoc thinks that just because he is breathing that me and him share some kind of bond and he has the right to my stuff or that I have any kind of responsibility and duty to him or anyone else.

              Your weak attempt at dragging me into some sort of abortion debate is amusing. I was not asserting one way or the other, only explaining to AmSoc that just because his mother didn’t kill him does not make him special.

              I wish that rights were unalienable or come from some sort of higher power but the fact remains that they do not. It’s fantasy at worst, idealism at best. I’m merely pointing out reality. They are made up by us and they are constantly changed by those who lord over us. Wishing it weren’t so doesn’t change the fact that this is the way it is.

              I have seen nothing that I have written that should make you need to shower or make you angry. We agree in some respects and disagree in others.

              1. cfskyrim
                I am not a statist but I am a realist.

                You’re in denial. You claim we have no rights at all ? because every court ruling is not to your liking. It’s called a Napoleon complex.

                You bitch that rights change (evolve). Was it okay to eliminate slavery?

                You totally ignore every question ? refuse to defend your premise ? and change your positions. Napoleanic.

                The point that I was making was that there are no such thing as unalienable rights.

                I’ll call you out again.
                1) You originally said rights were invented by the Court instead of defending a constitution.
                2) You originally said the Court is not the way it’s supposed to be, ignorance of the Constitution.

                One more time:
                1) Equal rights are, by definition ONE set of common standards.
                2) The Supreme Court is now the arbiter.
                3) Or ? what is your alternative (no answer)
                .

                If there were such a thing as unalienable rights then why are our rights constantly being debated …

                Umm, because they’re constantly attacked!

                …and watered down? It’s because they are not unalienable and are constantly being infringed.

                1) Already answered.
                2) Because you’re not a fucking emperor. (Nor is Ron Paul)

                I’ll address the rest of this, if and when you stop running from the questions. I do discussions, never have obeyed well.

                1. Oh Jesus Christ, you brought the ole slavery argument into this. That’s like invoking Godwin’s Law.

                  I’m not flip flopping. I’ll take responsibility for this as I am the writer and you’re not comprehending what I am saying.

                  I am not bitching about the Constitution or rights for that matter. You’ve had someone challenge that your idealistic, naive view of the way things should be and you’re having a heart attack.

                  I attacked a leftist, collective minded person and now I’m stuck trying to teach reality to man that should be old enough to know by now.

                  I never said that rights were invented by the court. I stated that the way things are in reality however is that you have what rights the court deems to give you based upon their current interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, our rights are nothing more than those interpretations.

                  If rights were truly inalienable, there would be no hate speech laws and no Patriot Act. If the Constitution were really the end all be all there would be no “Police Actions”, no abuse of the War Powers Act etc.

                  1. Further more I never agreed to answer questions from you nor did I open myself for questions.

                    At your insistence however, I don’t have much of an alternative. Mankind is imperfect and therefore any system designed by man is imperfect. There is no denying however that the Supreme Court is nothing more than 9 shills serving at the behest of the party of the President that appointed them. Why do Republican Presidents nominate conservative judges, while Democrat Presidents nominate radical judges? Why if rights are inalienable are they capable of being attacked? If they were so set in stone then any challenge to them would be quickly quashed but lo and behold that doesn’t happen.

                    I don’t get why you brought Ron Paul into this as if that’s supposed to mean something to me.

                    I have a question for you. On your little cute web page you advocate “Taking Back America”. How can you take something back that you’ve never held. Your little faction has never held power in this country and nor shall you ever (Check Duverger if you’re confused on that).

                    You’re not having a discussion. You are having an argument, failing to comprehend what I am writing, and making wild accusations about things that I’ve never even thought about. You are so stuck in your dogma that you think any challenge or alternative view is a personal attack on you and you immediately go on the defensive.

                    1. I never said that the Court was not supposed to defend the Constitution. There is however no provision for the Court to do such a thing and Marbury v Madison was the case that set the precedent for Judicial Review. It is an implied power and is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution (your ignorance, not mine). That is something you argue about, things that may or may not be implied.

                      If rights are therefore truly unalienable then they can not be argued and any infringement upon them must be struck down with haste. However, this does not happen so one must assume that rights are therefore not unalienable. Your 5th Amendment rights say you have right to legal counsel and a hearing, unless of course you’re suspected of terrorism and then those rights magically disappear (upheld by your great bastion of rights, the SC by the way).

                      As far as slavery, dude that is a weak argument. One could say the Constitution did apply to all men but it was ignored (what a shocker) and gradually we came in line with it and slaves were set free and gained rights. The rights didn’t change as you say, they were just finally recognized.

                    2. For the fifth time

                      I never said that the Court was not supposed to defend the Constitution.

                      Your very next sentence.

                      There is however no provision for the Court to do such a thing and Marbury v Madison was the case that set the precedent for Judicial Review. It is an implied power and is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution (your ignorance, not mine)

                      Speaking of ignorance. How much is 1 minus 1?

                      AGAIN. How then to ever defend anyone’s rights?
                      1) The Court defends rights.
                      2) If you deny Marbury v Madison, AND refuse to state an alternative …. you allow no way to defend individual rights. duh
                      3) 1-1=0

                      The fact that you have no alternative destroys your “argument”

                    3. Further more I never agreed to answer questions from you nor did I open myself for questions

                      (laughing) Then you should have shut the fuck up if you refuse the dialog I mentioned, Napolean.

                  2. If rights were truly inalienable, there would be no hate speech laws and no Patriot Act.

                    Still not your decision, Napolean. What’s your alternative?

                    (laughing) What about when rights are in conflict?

                    1. I normally don’t do this sort of thing but here goes. You are one of the dumbest mother fuckers on the face of the planet.

                      You do nothing but resort to childish antics in an attempt to belittle your opposition. The fact that you can’t comprehend what I am saying and continue to stay lost in your little delusional world all the more satisfies by first paragraph. God damn how dumb can someone be.

                    2. You attempted to call me a statist but it is in fact you dumb fuck. All you have ranted on about is the SC ruling on everything which was exactly my original point, that you only have the rights that the SC interprets that you have. You have done nothing but prove my point dumbass.

                      Your stupid analogy about me hitting you doesn’t even make fucking sense. I have no right to hit you but I do have the right to speak and you don’t have the right to silence it just because it offends you. The fire in a theater argument is also dumb as hell. I would expect reasonable people to look around and see for themselves there is no fire instead of stampeding like a bunch of dumb fuck Michael Hihns obviously would.

                      You wanna know what my alternative is. It’s to revise the Constitution and respell the rights interred within to where even a dumb fuck like you could understand them. The Founders made critical errors in that they pulled the ole “Well you know what I mean” stunt. All the more I never said I was displeased with the SC. I stated that there are no such thing as unalienable rights as you may think you have protection but the SC can interpret it a different way based upon their own biased assumptions.

                      You know this, which is why you never answered why Presidents nominate their lapdogs to the SC in the first place. Could it possibly be so that conservative or radical lenses will skew the decision to favor a certain political ideology? (That’s a rhetorical question, dumbass).

                    3. So let me spell out my argument so that even a dumb fuck retard like you can understand it.

                      Rights come from a group of individuals deciding what those rights shall be. They’re not natural, God ordained, or anything of the sort. Therefore they are subject to change at the whim of people because that is who fucking made them. My whole argument has been on the reality that while unalienable rights sound good in theory, that what we see in reality is a far different story. I never said we shouldn’t have rights, never said that we shouldn’t spell them out. I did say however, in reality we see that they are only unalienable so far as public opinion and the SC allows them to be.

                      Still not your decision, Napolean. What’s your alternative?

                      So who is the fucking statist? You think that just because the gov’t suspects me of terrorism that I lose my 4th and 5th amendment rights. Talk about thinking that the court is never wrong. You scared of little evil brown men, dumb fuck?

                    4. You think it’s reasonable for a cop who is ignorant of the law to detain me when I committed no offense, search me and use evidence discovered in said search against me?

                      You think it’s reasonable to force me to provide services to someone who I disagree with on personal grounds?

                      You think it’s reasonable to restrict speech because it might offend your sensitive ears or because you can’t control your emotions?

                      Now that we have that out of the way, rights are not unalienable as you could have the 2nd Amendment now but as soon as public opinion shifts, you will see the SC stop defending the 2nd. The same way you saw them shift gears on gay marriage, abortion, bi-racial marriages, etc. That means that your rights are at the whim of public opinion and the way the SC decides to respond, through their interpretations of the Constitution.

                      Me stating that the SC does not have powers stated explicitly in the Constitution to perform Judicial Review and also stating that I think it is fine for the SC to do so isn’t a contradiction. I was never bitching about anything of the sort. You are just too fucking stupid to realize otherwise, because you can’t read, dumb fuck.

                      So in closing, I would like to say that you are dumb as fuck. I would also like to say again that you are dumb as fuck. Lastly, you are dumb as fuck.

                    5. So which is it, o great and wise Master? Do I have unalienable rights to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure or can they be watered down by allowing a stupid cop to completely run all over them.

                      Do I have the right to a trial by jury or do I only have that for certain offenses.

                      Can I own property that I’m not harming anyone with or can the SC take that away because it makes Uncle Sam uncomfortable?

                      You’ll say that it’s the SC’s job to determine those things, which is exactly my point. You have what rights they determine. There’s no such thing as unalienable rights if you can be stripped of them based upon someone else’s interpretation and public opinion.

    8. It is true that the USA spends disproportionately for the results in health. I don’t think single payer is responsible for the difference, but other problems.

      1. Limited supply is always the problem for price increases.

        If Dufuss opened more medical schools with the money he proposes to offer two more years of high school, the cost of healthcare would go down.

      2. Limited supply is always the problem for price increases.

        If Dufuss opened more medical schools with the money he proposes to offer two more years of high school, the cost of healthcare would go down.

      3. Limited supply is always the problem for price increases.

        If Dufuss opened more medical schools with the money he proposes to offer two more years of high school, the cost of healthcare would go down.

        1. does the fact that you tripled the demanded quantity of your comment supplied lower it’s value?

        2. If Dufuss opened more medical schools with the money he proposes to offer two more years of high school, the cost of healthcare would go down

          It’s not a supply/demand problem. It’s the “free goods” problem when we can spend a quarter million or more for less than another year of life.

      4. Indeed, there are a few countries that spend even less public money than the US on healthcare but are as well-rated as us; Cyprus is one I think.

        1. I’ve just explained why.
          And nobody in our political class has a fucking clue what to do about it. Too busy pandering for votes (or donations)

      5. I don’t think single payer is responsible for the difference, but other problems.

        Lots of wrong answers to you, mostly because no politician has the guts to say it except Mitch Daniels. Obama said it, but then ignored it.

        Paraphrasing the numbers, Daniels nailed it. We’re the only society on earth that will pay $250,000 for six more months of life.

        In campaign/liar mode, Obama defined the problem quite well. His grandmother had a costly hip replacement AFTER she was diagnosed terminal with cancer, and died a few months later.

        Government healthcare assumes that we can trust politicians, faced with a choice between cutting our care or raising our taxes … will raise our taxes. If we look to Medicare, less than half of it is paid for with dedicated funding (FICA). A quarter trillion is subsidized from INCOME TAXES (which the middle class barely pays) and another $100 billion or so extracted from private insurers.

        Single payer kills people to, in effect, avoid a tax revolts. Canada’s plan was ruled an unconstitutional threat to human life, citing all the Canadians who suffer and/or die in waiting lists of a year or more.

        The funding was cut along with other things, during a tight money period in the late 90s.

        England had a similar scandal just last year, that one caused by reducing nursing staff to deadlt levels.

    9. Are you people really still using the word “reactionary?” Fellow, you subscribe to the system made up in the 19th century by a primitivist who didn’t know what shaving was and believed in the utterly discredited labor theory of value. You’re the one living in the past; you’re the socioeconomic equivalent of a creationist.

      And here’s a fun activity: go to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Europe

      Copy the first table into Excel, and make a scatter plot between ‘European ranking’ and ‘Public funding’, then click the ‘show trend line’ option.

      There is no correlation between the extent to which healthcare is publicly funded and the efficiency of the system. See for yourself.

      1. efficiency of the system. See for yourself.

        Correct on the lack of correlation, but totally wrong on the cause. Like when Canada’s plan was ruled an unconstitutional threat to human life, citing all the Canadians suffering and dying in waiting lists of a year or more.

        Canada just finished spending a half-trillion dollars to upgrade their treatment, which required the threat of a court order.

        The truth takes a little work. Canada, and the others, don’t do anywhere near our level of diagnostic testing. They don’t have the costly diagnostic equipment. And they have no access at all to our crazy end-of-life care.

  11. ‘Market-based’ = company gets paid

  12. The Republican governor’s supposedly free market plan is a big industry giveaway.

    *Shocked Face*

  13. Has anyone actually read all the fine details or watched any of Pence’s speeches on this topic? This blog is a strawman attack on a consumer-based approach to healthcare. This puts people in charge of their healthcare and is meant to be temporary. Eventually people have to get a good job so they can get their own health insurance. What do you people think about that?

    1. So instead of starting my own business, and being able to afford my own health insurance, or being able to afford health insurance for any employee’s, I can only afford to work for someone else in order to afford health insurance.

      Sounds like a shitty deal.

      1. Are you a Medicaid eligible?

  14. True enough, but like the stock mkt, you’re a fool to bet against the Fed. In this case, you have to realize that what we call the free mkt, is hardly free, and skewed towards those who can pay, a segment, which, thanks to the Fed, is increasingly leaving the rest behind. We have a choice: either give them welfare; or stop printing money which inflates assets owned mostly by the 1%. It’s like telling GM to stop making Cadillacs and make more Chevys. They won’t, and neither would Humana or any of the rest.

  15. my buddy’s step-sister makes $89 hourly on the laptop . She has been fired for 8 months but last month her income was $16413 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Get the facts………

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  16. Several errors. First apples and oranges:

    Even more desperately, Pence also insists that the program “will be fully funded at no additional cost to [Indiana] taxpayers” and “will require no new state spending and no new taxes.” This is only true in a way that hardly matters. Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion is funded federally; according to the Congressional Budget Office, the expansion will cost more than $900 billion over ten years.

    $900 billion is a federal number. THESE are state exposures.

    1) Doctor reimbursement rates increased to Medicare levels, which ended this year. First-visits increased sharply, including pre-expansion eligibles. Indiana’s political trap is to assume the higher fees or allow many of those newly covered to lose coverage again.
    2) Feds pay 100% of the additional costs from the expanded coverage, but ONLY from expanded eligibles. When pre-ACAeligibles enroll, the state pays all the additional costs.
    3) Starting next year, the feds 100% will start declining in steps to ?IIRC ? 90% after 10 years, with states making up the difference, or (again) pushing poor folks off a that cliff, again.

    Many governors, like Gary Johnson at the time, converted Medicaid into a prepaid HMO, with significant savings and no claims processing. Some states used all or part of the savings to expand coverage, all on their own.

    There is no libertarian plan for reform (not since the early 80s).

    1. Libertarian plan for reform…. get the fucking government out of the health insurance business.

      1. That’s not a plan, it’s an outcome. We have no plan.

        1. That’s because we’re not central planners.

          1. Dumbass. Not the same. (snicker)

            For any other retards, a plan in this context is a specific policy proposal to achieve the goals.

            “Git the fuckin’ gummint out” is the outcome, but I suspect libertarian fundamentalists might campaign on such a stupid fucking thing, when movement fundamentalists are less than 6% of the voters.

            This is why the libertarian label is rejected by even 85% of libertarians, according to the 2006 Cato/Zogby Poll.

            Libertarian tribalism has been a problem since our very beginning.

  17. just before I saw the bank draft four $7417 , I did not believe that…my… sister was like actualie receiving money part time from their laptop. . there friend brother had bean doing this 4 only six months and just paid for the mortgage on there place and purchased a new Honda NSX .
    read this post here======= http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.