elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
^^ It would be nice if Obama would actually argue for what he believes in (hint: it's not competition, at least in this area).
Obama Care Could Be Deadly
- Thread starter gmsisko1
- Start date
LaMeRz
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']Having private money making companies "competing" against each other is a non-solution.
Healthcare is different from any commodity and is not equivalent to car insurance in that way.
This sums up my view:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/
What it means for insurance companies to compete is just another race to the bottom.[/QUOTE]
So competition is bad because insurance companies are 1. built to make money and 2. health insurance is complicated.
I found that article to be really shallow without giving and specific examples to prove his points.
Competition (with a possible baseline of coverage set by the government similar to car insurance) would set the bottom at a level that would be sufficient for most of the country. Also if there is competition and the public has a need for a simpler health insurance someone will find a way to please that market. Do you think a government run plan would make things any less complicated?
I do not believe competition is the only factor in solving the health care problem in this country but it is an important part. There needs to be legislation (instead of regulation) to set guidelines about how the companies can operate and a very plain, simple, and clear rights that the patients have in respect to the insurance companies.
Healthcare is different from any commodity and is not equivalent to car insurance in that way.
This sums up my view:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/
What it means for insurance companies to compete is just another race to the bottom.[/QUOTE]
So competition is bad because insurance companies are 1. built to make money and 2. health insurance is complicated.
I found that article to be really shallow without giving and specific examples to prove his points.
Competition (with a possible baseline of coverage set by the government similar to car insurance) would set the bottom at a level that would be sufficient for most of the country. Also if there is competition and the public has a need for a simpler health insurance someone will find a way to please that market. Do you think a government run plan would make things any less complicated?
I do not believe competition is the only factor in solving the health care problem in this country but it is an important part. There needs to be legislation (instead of regulation) to set guidelines about how the companies can operate and a very plain, simple, and clear rights that the patients have in respect to the insurance companies.
[quote name='LaMeRz']So competition is bad because insurance companies are 1. built to make money[/quote]
It isn't even a question insurance companies have a profit motive to deny people care and it happens often.
As the system is now and in your hypothetical "reforms" the only competition they have is to deny even more people care rescission and pre-existing conditions would be here to stay.
It was more about healthcare being complicated, there is nothing resembling enough information to make a rational decision. You cannot even get a ballpark figure on the price of just about anything (let alone how negotiating would work if it were a matter of life or death) which is what makes comparisons to any commodity laughable.
You make the comparison to car insurance but a car costs a relatively low fixed amount, a medical catastrophe can run hundreds of thousands of dollars easily.
And even if he was referring to just health insurance are you going to pretend the status quo isn't some byzantine behemoth?
What would you consider an example?
I consider millions of people who had insurance filing for medical bankruptcy enough evidence.
So which is it free market ponies for all or a government mandate of how much insurance can legally be offered?
Some plan on to keep agitating for a single payer system so I guess there we agree.
Yes.
I don't see it and I probably know about the issue than most of congress (to be fair the same could be said of mayonnaise for some senators), about two pages ago myke challenged Bob to show his work. I haven't seen anyone step to the plate yet.
Good luck with that, personally Lieberman managed to destroy every sliver of faith I had that the senate among others is capable of putting rational thought ahead of immediate self interest.
It isn't even a question insurance companies have a profit motive to deny people care and it happens often.
As the system is now and in your hypothetical "reforms" the only competition they have is to deny even more people care rescission and pre-existing conditions would be here to stay.
It was more about healthcare being complicated, there is nothing resembling enough information to make a rational decision. You cannot even get a ballpark figure on the price of just about anything (let alone how negotiating would work if it were a matter of life or death) which is what makes comparisons to any commodity laughable.
You make the comparison to car insurance but a car costs a relatively low fixed amount, a medical catastrophe can run hundreds of thousands of dollars easily.
And even if he was referring to just health insurance are you going to pretend the status quo isn't some byzantine behemoth?
What would you consider an example?
I consider millions of people who had insurance filing for medical bankruptcy enough evidence.
So which is it free market ponies for all or a government mandate of how much insurance can legally be offered?
Some plan on to keep agitating for a single payer system so I guess there we agree.
Yes.
I don't see it and I probably know about the issue than most of congress (to be fair the same could be said of mayonnaise for some senators), about two pages ago myke challenged Bob to show his work. I haven't seen anyone step to the plate yet.
Good luck with that, personally Lieberman managed to destroy every sliver of faith I had that the senate among others is capable of putting rational thought ahead of immediate self interest.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='LaMeRz']I found that article to be really shallow without giving and specific examples to prove his points.
[/QUOTE]
Krugman is the Economic Policy Adviser-version of Ayn Rand for hard-core Libertarians, except for Liberals. Don't diss him, or start watching your back...
[/QUOTE]
Krugman is the Economic Policy Adviser-version of Ayn Rand for hard-core Libertarians, except for Liberals. Don't diss him, or start watching your back...
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='LaMeRz']There needs to be legislation (instead of regulation)[/QUOTE]
That's like being told you need to wear pants instead of slacks.
That's like being told you need to wear pants instead of slacks.
Wow, it may actually be *worse* than I thought it would be. If major academic hospitals start to turn away Medicare patients, there we are really, really screwed.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona to stop treating some Medicare patients
Mayo Clinic in Arizona to stop treating some Medicare patients
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Wait, I thought the government were supposed to be the "death panels" because they were denying people care. This article makes it seem like hospitals are for-profit institutions that provide or deny a service based on one's ability to pay for it, which would be a violation of medical ethics and the hippocratic oath. In effect, the hospitals are the "death panels" we were warned about.
Oh, mercy. I'm so corn-fused now.
This is also what you get with nonsensical, wimpy, half-baked policies that are done in the name of "bipartisanship." Doctors and institutions more concerned with profit than the well-being of people they philosophically hide behind.
Didn't you get into medicine to help people, dopa? How does refusing treatment make you feel, then? Whatever happened to the old talking point that folks on the right had, that nobody is ever refused treatment in the US?
Oh, mercy. I'm so corn-fused now.
This is also what you get with nonsensical, wimpy, half-baked policies that are done in the name of "bipartisanship." Doctors and institutions more concerned with profit than the well-being of people they philosophically hide behind.
Didn't you get into medicine to help people, dopa? How does refusing treatment make you feel, then? Whatever happened to the old talking point that folks on the right had, that nobody is ever refused treatment in the US?
Blaming the doctors and hospitals for this is completely off-base. A hospital has to remain financially solvent or else, like any business, it folds. The government can't simply continue to cut reimbursement rates and expect hospitals to sustain that indefinitely. If the costs of treating a certain patient population exceed the amount you are reimbursed, that cannot be sustained unless the hospital is making enough money from private insurer reimbursement to compensate which now it seems, they aren't. Hospitals already skate on the edge of profitability and now we are reaching a breaking point. It would be immoral for hospitals to continue a course of financial self-destruction and deprive other patients access to care. It seems that my last blog post was particularly timely in predicting this trend in the coming year.
I had expected that we would first see community hospitals going this route first before this begins to spill over into the larger academic medical centers. The fact that a renowned institution like the Mayo Clinic system is already taking such steps does not bode well at all. My next prediction is that unless the government wises up in a hurry and finally gets around to fixing the Medicare reimbursement system, within six months, there will be headlines about non-Medicare accepting hospitals turning away ER patients that can't pay. Hospitals that don't take Medicare money are not longer bound by EMTALA (the regulation that requires hospitals to stabilize any acute medical emergency regardless of ability to pay). This is when the crap will really hit the fan.
I had expected that we would first see community hospitals going this route first before this begins to spill over into the larger academic medical centers. The fact that a renowned institution like the Mayo Clinic system is already taking such steps does not bode well at all. My next prediction is that unless the government wises up in a hurry and finally gets around to fixing the Medicare reimbursement system, within six months, there will be headlines about non-Medicare accepting hospitals turning away ER patients that can't pay. Hospitals that don't take Medicare money are not longer bound by EMTALA (the regulation that requires hospitals to stabilize any acute medical emergency regardless of ability to pay). This is when the crap will really hit the fan.
Last edited by a moderator:
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Whatever happened to the old talking point that folks on the right had, that nobody is ever refused treatment in the US?[/QUOTE]
They won't be refused treatment. They'll just visit the emergency room when the situation becomes dire.
They won't be refused treatment. They'll just visit the emergency room when the situation becomes dire.
[quote name='elprincipe']They won't be refused treatment. They'll just visit the emergency room when the situation becomes dire. [/QUOTE]
Just wait six months. There will be some ugly stories about ambulances diverted away from hospitals because of the type of insurance (or lack thereof) of the patient.
[/QUOTE]Just wait six months. There will be some ugly stories about ambulances diverted away from hospitals because of the type of insurance (or lack thereof) of the patient.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Except, dopa, that (1) it's one Mayo clinic - not the entire system, and (2) the portion of payout from medicare remains constant with what it always was, so it's unclear where the catalyst for denying service is, aside from trying to get one over because a for-profit institution is not happy with health care reform.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dopa345']Just wait six months. There will be some ugly stories about ambulances diverted away from hospitals because of the type of insurance (or lack thereof) of the patient.[/QUOTE]
I look forward to the stories that will come out in seven months.
I look forward to the stories that will come out in seven months.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I look forward to the stories that will come out in seven months.[/QUOTE]
Worst case scenario a little blood runs through the streets but hey not like it hasn't happened before, that is how the country was founded.
Edit: By which I mean our system was designed to keep any real reforms at bay in favor of kicking the can down the road until we are at (or merely at the cusp) of said blood.
Worst case scenario a little blood runs through the streets but hey not like it hasn't happened before, that is how the country was founded.
Edit: By which I mean our system was designed to keep any real reforms at bay in favor of kicking the can down the road until we are at (or merely at the cusp) of said blood.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']This is also what you get with nonsensical, wimpy, half-baked policies that are done in the name of "bipartisanship." Doctors and institutions more concerned with profit than the well-being of people they philosophically hide behind.
Didn't you get into medicine to help people, dopa? How does refusing treatment make you feel, then? Whatever happened to the old talking point that folks on the right had, that nobody is ever refused treatment in the US?[/QUOTE]
Hey, Myke - why don't you go to medical school, gather some like minded people and set up some free clinics? You seem to have a good heart and the passion to help others.
[quote name='dopa345']The government can't simply continue to cut reimbursement rates and expect hospitals to sustain that indefinitely. If the costs of treating a certain patient population exceed the amount you are reimbursed, that cannot be sustained unless the hospital is making enough money from private insurer reimbursement to compensate which now it seems, they aren't.[/QUOTE]
It's what happened to our local hospital. Low employment in this area had so many people on the Government Payroll. Local Hospital went bust because no one was paying the bills for the patients - and what the government was paying wasn't enough. Now, closest (real - not band-aid station) hospital is about 45 minutes away, via quick paced ambulance. We lost a couple of factories when the hospital closed because they couldn't afford the insurance rates for not having proper medical facilities within X miles. Which put more people on the government payroll.
Oh, what was that article I was reading the other day about the state of Illinois not having enough money to support all the services they try to provide?
Didn't you get into medicine to help people, dopa? How does refusing treatment make you feel, then? Whatever happened to the old talking point that folks on the right had, that nobody is ever refused treatment in the US?[/QUOTE]
Hey, Myke - why don't you go to medical school, gather some like minded people and set up some free clinics? You seem to have a good heart and the passion to help others.
[quote name='dopa345']The government can't simply continue to cut reimbursement rates and expect hospitals to sustain that indefinitely. If the costs of treating a certain patient population exceed the amount you are reimbursed, that cannot be sustained unless the hospital is making enough money from private insurer reimbursement to compensate which now it seems, they aren't.[/QUOTE]
It's what happened to our local hospital. Low employment in this area had so many people on the Government Payroll. Local Hospital went bust because no one was paying the bills for the patients - and what the government was paying wasn't enough. Now, closest (real - not band-aid station) hospital is about 45 minutes away, via quick paced ambulance. We lost a couple of factories when the hospital closed because they couldn't afford the insurance rates for not having proper medical facilities within X miles. Which put more people on the government payroll.
Oh, what was that article I was reading the other day about the state of Illinois not having enough money to support all the services they try to provide?
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']Worst case scenario a little blood runs through the streets,but hey not like it hasn't happened before, that is how the country was founded.
Edit: By which I mean our system was designed to keep any real reforms at bay in favor of kicking the can down the road until we are at (or merely at the cusp) of said blood.[/QUOTE]
No. I'm sure grieving relatives will fully understand that it would have been unprofitable to save their loved one, blame Obama and side with the doctors and hospitals.
Edit: By which I mean our system was designed to keep any real reforms at bay in favor of kicking the can down the road until we are at (or merely at the cusp) of said blood.[/QUOTE]
No. I'm sure grieving relatives will fully understand that it would have been unprofitable to save their loved one, blame Obama and side with the doctors and hospitals.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']It's what happened to our local hospital. Low employment in this area had so many people on the Government Payroll. Local Hospital went bust because no one was paying the bills for the patients - and what the government was paying wasn't enough. Now, closest (real - not band-aid station) hospital is about 45 minutes away, via quick paced ambulance. We lost a couple of factories when the hospital closed because they couldn't afford the insurance rates for not having proper medical facilities within X miles. Which put more people on the government payroll.[/QUOTE]
That Obama is one diabolical bastard. He caused what dopa predicted before the legislation was passed.
That Obama is one diabolical bastard. He caused what dopa predicted before the legislation was passed.
JolietJake
Banned
I really don't know the opinions of most Doctors, but i know my physician routinely complains about being told how he can treat his patients. He prescribes one thing and the insurance companies try to force you onto some cheaper alternative.
The fact that insurance companies have doctors on their payroll who's sole job it is to contradict your doctor is despicable. How the hell those people can sleep at night is beyond me, probably on a rather large bed of money.
The fact that insurance companies have doctors on their payroll who's sole job it is to contradict your doctor is despicable. How the hell those people can sleep at night is beyond me, probably on a rather large bed of money.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']We lost a couple of factories when the hospital closed because they couldn't afford the insurance rates for not having proper medical facilities within X miles.[/QUOTE]
If you don't mind, I'm going to call bullshit on this.
Many businesses have closed over the years for reasons other than health care being too expensive.
If you don't mind, can you provide the names of the companies that closed factories in the last five years?
I would do it myself, but google and the Carmi Times aren't helping.
What I would see first are benefits being cut first instead of closing the factory.
For example, my employer cut the 401K benefit of a 100% match for the first 5% gross pay to a 50% match.
If you don't mind, I'm going to call bullshit on this.
Many businesses have closed over the years for reasons other than health care being too expensive.
If you don't mind, can you provide the names of the companies that closed factories in the last five years?
I would do it myself, but google and the Carmi Times aren't helping.
What I would see first are benefits being cut first instead of closing the factory.
For example, my employer cut the 401K benefit of a 100% match for the first 5% gross pay to a 50% match.
Trelleborg, a rubber molding company, had two facilities - one was closed down, cutting about 1/3rd of their work force.
Another factory, that was looking to locate here, pulled us out of the running once the hospital closed.
By insurance rates, I'm talking about their own insurance - for on the job accidents and such. Without proper medical facilities in the area, the coverage they need is expensive. Hell, the coal mine was, supposedly, freaking out because the distance to the closest hospital - but, apparently, they got that all worked out...
Another factory, that was looking to locate here, pulled us out of the running once the hospital closed.
By insurance rates, I'm talking about their own insurance - for on the job accidents and such. Without proper medical facilities in the area, the coverage they need is expensive. Hell, the coal mine was, supposedly, freaking out because the distance to the closest hospital - but, apparently, they got that all worked out...
[quote name='mykevermin']Except, dopa, that (1) it's one Mayo clinic - not the entire system, and (2) the portion of payout from medicare remains constant with what it always was, so it's unclear where the catalyst for denying service is, aside from trying to get one over because a for-profit institution is not happy with health care reform.[/QUOTE]
Again, you're always focusing on semantics and miss the big picture entirely. The fact that an academic medical facility made the decision that to ensure financial viability in the future, they have to start turning away patients on Medicare is a very bad portent of things to come. Contrary to what you seem to think, the vast majority of hospitals are non-profit, include Mayo. They only require enough to stay in business and further their mission of caring for their local population. Unlike the government, they can't run deficits indefinitely.
The catalyst is that there is a 21% Medicare reimbursement cut due to kick in on February. Every year for the past seven years, Congress has passed a last-minute bill to delay the cut for following year because even they understand how ridiculous it is but they haven't made the effort to fix it. Because of the distraction of the health care bill, they failed to do it this year (they only postponed it a month to February, as if that will help matters).
Unfortunately, most people just don't understand the issues, especially the politicians, which is why we are in this mess.
Again, you're always focusing on semantics and miss the big picture entirely. The fact that an academic medical facility made the decision that to ensure financial viability in the future, they have to start turning away patients on Medicare is a very bad portent of things to come. Contrary to what you seem to think, the vast majority of hospitals are non-profit, include Mayo. They only require enough to stay in business and further their mission of caring for their local population. Unlike the government, they can't run deficits indefinitely.
The catalyst is that there is a 21% Medicare reimbursement cut due to kick in on February. Every year for the past seven years, Congress has passed a last-minute bill to delay the cut for following year because even they understand how ridiculous it is but they haven't made the effort to fix it. Because of the distraction of the health care bill, they failed to do it this year (they only postponed it a month to February, as if that will help matters).
Unfortunately, most people just don't understand the issues, especially the politicians, which is why we are in this mess.
dopa you are talking about a ridiculously tiny part of the Mayo organization and a pilot program that is "probably" going to fail.
I have yet to see a solution other than to deny people care in order to pay doctors and hospitals more, I am really not impressed.
I have yet to see a solution other than to deny people care in order to pay doctors and hospitals more, I am really not impressed.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Trelleborg, a rubber molding company, had two facilities - one was closed down, cutting about 1/3rd of their work force.[/QUOTE]
Assuming we're talking about the same operation ...
http://www.macraesbluebook.com/search/company.cfm?company=306520
http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=7795013
"Updated: Feb 05, 2008 2:07 PM EST ... White County's two major employers, Trelleborg Automotive and Elastec Environmental, haven't had any major layoffs lately."
When were these layoffs at Trelleborg Automotive? Was it before or after the auto market imploded? Ford in Louisville has laid off a lot of people, but it has nothing to do with distance to a hospital.
[quote name='UncleBob']Another factory, that was looking to locate here, pulled us out of the running once the hospital closed.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, it doesn't hold nearly the same weight as an existing employer scaling back solely because of insurance costs. The factory very well might have been given a better deal someplace else in terms of corporate welfare.
Assuming we're talking about the same operation ...
http://www.macraesbluebook.com/search/company.cfm?company=306520
http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=7795013
"Updated: Feb 05, 2008 2:07 PM EST ... White County's two major employers, Trelleborg Automotive and Elastec Environmental, haven't had any major layoffs lately."
When were these layoffs at Trelleborg Automotive? Was it before or after the auto market imploded? Ford in Louisville has laid off a lot of people, but it has nothing to do with distance to a hospital.
[quote name='UncleBob']Another factory, that was looking to locate here, pulled us out of the running once the hospital closed.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, it doesn't hold nearly the same weight as an existing employer scaling back solely because of insurance costs. The factory very well might have been given a better deal someplace else in terms of corporate welfare.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dopa345']Again, you're always focusing on semantics and miss the big picture entirely. [/QUOTE]
Will small pictures help?
EDIT: It looks like even Medicare is paying more for services and medicine than other countries.
Will small pictures help?
EDIT: It looks like even Medicare is paying more for services and medicine than other countries.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='dopa345']The catalyst is that there is a 21% Medicare reimbursement cut due to kick in on February. Every year for the past seven years, Congress has passed a last-minute bill to delay the cut for following year because even they understand how ridiculous it is but they haven't made the effort to fix it. Because of the distraction of the health care bill, they failed to do it this year (they only postponed it a month to February, as if that will help matters).
Unfortunately, most people just don't understand the issues, especially the politicians, which is why we are in this mess.[/QUOTE]
Congress will delay the cut again, that's for certain. They just delayed dealing with it so that they could claim the health-care bill cuts the deficit when it clearly increases it. They took this part of Medicare off the books to help cook them.
Unfortunately, most people just don't understand the issues, especially the politicians, which is why we are in this mess.[/QUOTE]
Congress will delay the cut again, that's for certain. They just delayed dealing with it so that they could claim the health-care bill cuts the deficit when it clearly increases it. They took this part of Medicare off the books to help cook them.
JolietJake
Banned
I'd like to know at just what point we can allow health care costs to reach before we can all agree it's hurting people. At what point can we all agree that charging these ridiculous rates really flies in the face of the hipocratic oath?
Because let's be honest for a moment, not all medical doctors are in the business to help people, at least not by the definition of "help" that most people would follow. It's hard for me to see how a plastic surgeon giving some woman extraordinarily huge breast implants is helping her. On the other hand, plastic surgeons make very good money doing just that every day.
Because let's be honest for a moment, not all medical doctors are in the business to help people, at least not by the definition of "help" that most people would follow. It's hard for me to see how a plastic surgeon giving some woman extraordinarily huge breast implants is helping her. On the other hand, plastic surgeons make very good money doing just that every day.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
Breast augmentation is almost always out of pocket, and costs are actually pretty competitive. Using breast augmentation and lasik aren't good arguments for anything but pro free-market reform.
As supportive as I am for this idea, in order to have our healthcare system in a more free-market setting, we have to shore up a number of others things first, which aren't happening, and won't happen. Much like my ideal situation would be to have a very free market approach to economy; but without a tightly regulated monetary system, this is impossible. A wise decision, for starters, would be to draw down our foreign policy by several hundred billion dollars a year and use some of that money to help cover healthcare costs, infrastructure funding, etc. On that topic, I'm still wondering where the $2.3 trillion dollars that were missing or unaccounted for as of 9/10/2001 are. It would probably be a good idea that find out where that went. According to a CBS report a few years ago, 25% of our defense spending cannot be accounted for. If that is still true, we're watching $250 billion a year vanish before our eyes. This is completely unacceptable.
At this point, I'm really indifferent as to what happens from here. The only proposals that will go anywhere will only further complicate the problems plaguing our healthcare system. Much like in our financial system and foreign policy. I think both progressives and libertarians should work together on slowing our foreign policy, stopping massive bailouts to corrupt bankers, ending farming subsidies to massive corporate farming, and cut off the spigot of funding to big pharma. Reversing the PATRIOT Act would also be nice. After that is accomplished, I'd hold more interest in whatever it is the government is doing now.
As supportive as I am for this idea, in order to have our healthcare system in a more free-market setting, we have to shore up a number of others things first, which aren't happening, and won't happen. Much like my ideal situation would be to have a very free market approach to economy; but without a tightly regulated monetary system, this is impossible. A wise decision, for starters, would be to draw down our foreign policy by several hundred billion dollars a year and use some of that money to help cover healthcare costs, infrastructure funding, etc. On that topic, I'm still wondering where the $2.3 trillion dollars that were missing or unaccounted for as of 9/10/2001 are. It would probably be a good idea that find out where that went. According to a CBS report a few years ago, 25% of our defense spending cannot be accounted for. If that is still true, we're watching $250 billion a year vanish before our eyes. This is completely unacceptable.
At this point, I'm really indifferent as to what happens from here. The only proposals that will go anywhere will only further complicate the problems plaguing our healthcare system. Much like in our financial system and foreign policy. I think both progressives and libertarians should work together on slowing our foreign policy, stopping massive bailouts to corrupt bankers, ending farming subsidies to massive corporate farming, and cut off the spigot of funding to big pharma. Reversing the PATRIOT Act would also be nice. After that is accomplished, I'd hold more interest in whatever it is the government is doing now.
JolietJake
Banned
It's a good argument for my point, which seems to have been missed. The point being that it seems to me that not all doctors are in the medical field to help people, plastic surgeons seem to be among the more money hungry.
Money is the reason that so many doctors choose to specialize, which is leading to a lack of primary care physicians. Though i'm sure a lot of it can also be tied back to education costs and the need to repay loans, but not all of it. Doctors aren't immune to the desire for more money, except that it's assume they're above that and thinking of our well being.
Does anyone happen to have information on the average incomes of doctors in different countries? I'm just curious as to how well physicians in the US are paid versus other countries.
Money is the reason that so many doctors choose to specialize, which is leading to a lack of primary care physicians. Though i'm sure a lot of it can also be tied back to education costs and the need to repay loans, but not all of it. Doctors aren't immune to the desire for more money, except that it's assume they're above that and thinking of our well being.
Does anyone happen to have information on the average incomes of doctors in different countries? I'm just curious as to how well physicians in the US are paid versus other countries.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='JolietJake']It's a good argument for my point, which seems to have been missed. The point being that it seems to me that not all doctors are in the medical field to help people, plastic surgeons seem to be among the more money hungry.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Breast augmentation is almost always out of pocket, and costs are actually pretty competitive. Using breast augmentation and lasik aren't good arguments for anything but pro free-market reform.
As supportive as I am for this idea, in order to have our healthcare system in a more free-market setting, we have to shore up a number of others things first, which aren't happening, and won't happen. Much like my ideal situation would be to have a very free market approach to economy; but without a tightly regulated monetary system, this is impossible.[/quote]
You are roughly the 35th person to keep chanting market-market-markets like some kind of mantra and I have yet to see anything backing it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1
As supportive as I am for this idea, in order to have our healthcare system in a more free-market setting, we have to shore up a number of others things first, which aren't happening, and won't happen. Much like my ideal situation would be to have a very free market approach to economy; but without a tightly regulated monetary system, this is impossible.[/quote]
You are roughly the 35th person to keep chanting market-market-markets like some kind of mantra and I have yet to see anything backing it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']You are roughly the 35th person to keep chanting market-market-markets like some kind of mantra and I have yet to see anything backing it up.[/QUOTE]
Let's just this.
By the power of the marketplace, I'll have affordable
health care.
Let's just this.
By the power of the marketplace, I'll have affordable
health care.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']You are roughly the 35th person to keep chanting market-market-markets like some kind of mantra and I have yet to see anything backing it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']As supportive as I am for this idea, in order to have our healthcare system in a more free-market setting, we have to shore up a number of others things first, which aren't happening, and won't happen. Much like my ideal situation would be to have a very free market approach to economy; but without a tightly regulated monetary system, this is impossible.[/QUOTE]
I'm not chanting market-market-market. Trying to institute a "market-market-market (also known as "TORT Reform" and "across state lines," and... that's about it)" policy without reconstructing the way our entire country runs would be absolutely disastrous. You'd end up with a system even more biased towards monopolies and special interests. The only way "across state lines" would work without completely changing our regulatory system would be if a public option and subsidization elimination program were also introduced. That way, the private sector wouldn't be able to shaft everyone in a race to the bottom without going bankrupt because of a mass exodus of people to the public option. This is a reasonable compromise and could be enacted fairly quickly, as long as special interests are locked out from negotiation. It would also be much less expensive (possibly even deficit neutral without raising taxes a dime if run correctly) than forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to insurance companies while we all watch our premiums get jacked up to cover for tighter profit regulations; because apparently, we like getting it from both ends.
The problem with our current regulatory environment, especially legislation that is reform oriented, is that our government bows to corporate special interests. Congress frequently creates legislation that often harms us as consumers/workers and gives corporations greater access to profit through loopholes or subsidization, or creates regulation that makes it more difficult for start up businesses to compete against established giants, allowing them to continue to devour as much pie as they want. Both scenarios are bad for Americans. Without shutting out special interests, we're going to continue to get legislation that is skewed toward whatever group throws the most money at a specific issue.
Add ending the war on drugs to my list of things that progressives and libertarians should work together towards eliminating. If anybody was or is paying attention to that, that is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']As supportive as I am for this idea, in order to have our healthcare system in a more free-market setting, we have to shore up a number of others things first, which aren't happening, and won't happen. Much like my ideal situation would be to have a very free market approach to economy; but without a tightly regulated monetary system, this is impossible.[/QUOTE]
I'm not chanting market-market-market. Trying to institute a "market-market-market (also known as "TORT Reform" and "across state lines," and... that's about it)" policy without reconstructing the way our entire country runs would be absolutely disastrous. You'd end up with a system even more biased towards monopolies and special interests. The only way "across state lines" would work without completely changing our regulatory system would be if a public option and subsidization elimination program were also introduced. That way, the private sector wouldn't be able to shaft everyone in a race to the bottom without going bankrupt because of a mass exodus of people to the public option. This is a reasonable compromise and could be enacted fairly quickly, as long as special interests are locked out from negotiation. It would also be much less expensive (possibly even deficit neutral without raising taxes a dime if run correctly) than forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to insurance companies while we all watch our premiums get jacked up to cover for tighter profit regulations; because apparently, we like getting it from both ends.
The problem with our current regulatory environment, especially legislation that is reform oriented, is that our government bows to corporate special interests. Congress frequently creates legislation that often harms us as consumers/workers and gives corporations greater access to profit through loopholes or subsidization, or creates regulation that makes it more difficult for start up businesses to compete against established giants, allowing them to continue to devour as much pie as they want. Both scenarios are bad for Americans. Without shutting out special interests, we're going to continue to get legislation that is skewed toward whatever group throws the most money at a specific issue.
Add ending the war on drugs to my list of things that progressives and libertarians should work together towards eliminating. If anybody was or is paying attention to that, that is.
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Trying to institute a "market-market-market (also known as "TORT Reform"[/quote]
It has already been pointed out that is just another red herring.
Likewise.
It isn't that I don't agree with you there, it is just that has basically nothing to do with "markets".
Like I said before, short of eliminating or neutering the Senate I see no solutions.
It has already been pointed out that is just another red herring.
Likewise.
It isn't that I don't agree with you there, it is just that has basically nothing to do with "markets".
Like I said before, short of eliminating or neutering the Senate I see no solutions.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2010/01/07/health-care-reform-state-winners-and-losers/
"The benefits of reform, as we measure them, are higher in “red” states. This is not surprising. Medicaid eligibility correlates with lack of insurance, which in turn is our measure of potential benefit, and conservative states are less likely to provide broad social-welfare benefits for the poor. For any given state, increasing Medicaid eligibility would redistribute resources within, but the redistributive benefits to a state from health care reform are likely to come from outside the state: those who will pay the most toward expanding coverage may disproportionately live outside the state."
Red state ninnies, even when they lose they win.
"The benefits of reform, as we measure them, are higher in “red” states. This is not surprising. Medicaid eligibility correlates with lack of insurance, which in turn is our measure of potential benefit, and conservative states are less likely to provide broad social-welfare benefits for the poor. For any given state, increasing Medicaid eligibility would redistribute resources within, but the redistributive benefits to a state from health care reform are likely to come from outside the state: those who will pay the most toward expanding coverage may disproportionately live outside the state."
Red state ninnies, even when they lose they win.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/how-the-world-balances-health-care-risk/
By contrast, Americans have been taught that health insurance is largely a private consumption item purchased year to year and customized to the individual’s circumstances. Indeed, the private health insurance industry in this country has never been able to offer individual Americans the kind of life-cycle health insurance citizens in virtually all other industrialized nations take for granted. With the exception of Medicare, all health insurance in the United States is basically temporary.
By contrast, Americans have been taught that health insurance is largely a private consumption item purchased year to year and customized to the individual’s circumstances. Indeed, the private health insurance industry in this country has never been able to offer individual Americans the kind of life-cycle health insurance citizens in virtually all other industrialized nations take for granted. With the exception of Medicare, all health insurance in the United States is basically temporary.
I am so sick of people worrying about themselves. This is such a huge issue. There should be universal healthcare. Who cares if the word SOCIALLLLLIST MEDICINE is used! Who cares if it's something the EVIL CUBA does!! This DOES work for other countries! The only reason why people say it WOULDN'T work for us is because they are too damn greedy to pay more taxes! Or worried about ohh no, the doctor won't make 500K a year!
So sick of this country and the selfish people who live here!! But then again, I do realize there are a lot of lazy people who do expect hand outs. I understand this..but still. I think we need to look passed those people and realize it's a good idea. Who cares if we are like France or UK or Cuba?
So sick of this country and the selfish people who live here!! But then again, I do realize there are a lot of lazy people who do expect hand outs. I understand this..but still. I think we need to look passed those people and realize it's a good idea. Who cares if we are like France or UK or Cuba?
Yes, the greedy ones are those who work and want to decide where their paycheck goes. Those who are demanding that we give up what we have worked hard to earn are not greedy at all. Damn those 
ers who want to keep their paychecks and God Bless those sainted souls who only want to take them away.
ers who want to keep their paychecks and God Bless those sainted souls who only want to take them away.That's easy to say, but how much would actually come out? Do you pay for health insurance from work now? If so, how much comes out of your paycheck? What if, what IF w/ a universal health care system.. the SAME amount came out in taxes? That's still a problem?
[quote name='lilboo']That's easy to say, but how much would actually come out? Do you pay for health insurance from work now? If so, how much comes out of your paycheck? What if, what IF w/ a universal health care system.. the SAME amount came out in taxes? That's still a problem?[/QUOTE]
If we did it like other countries it would be half to a third of what we pay now.
Don't expect anything of Bob however.
If we did it like other countries it would be half to a third of what we pay now.
Don't expect anything of Bob however.
[quote name='lilboo']That's easy to say, but how much would actually come out? Do you pay for health insurance from work now? If so, how much comes out of your paycheck? What if, what IF w/ a universal health care system.. the SAME amount came out in taxes? That's still a problem?[/QUOTE]
I've already said that if they can guarantee that no tax dollars are spent on a public option (or "socialized medicine" if you wish) I would have no problem with it - and, in fact, would support it. If the system showed that it provided better service/lower costs than my current system, then I would strongly consider switching.
Regardless, if a worker would rather pay 20% of his paycheck to private health care than 10% of his paycheck to the government for health care, shouldn't it be that individual's choice where they want to spend their own money? Is it really "greed" to earn money and say where you want to spend it?
I've already said that if they can guarantee that no tax dollars are spent on a public option (or "socialized medicine" if you wish) I would have no problem with it - and, in fact, would support it. If the system showed that it provided better service/lower costs than my current system, then I would strongly consider switching.
Regardless, if a worker would rather pay 20% of his paycheck to private health care than 10% of his paycheck to the government for health care, shouldn't it be that individual's choice where they want to spend their own money? Is it really "greed" to earn money and say where you want to spend it?
[quote name='UncleBob']I've already said that if they can guarantee that no tax dollars are spent on a public option (or "socialized medicine" if you wish) I would have no problem with it[/quote]
You never explained how that A) Matters or B) makes one bit of sense, mostly because you can't.
You never explained how that A) Matters or B) makes one bit of sense, mostly because you can't.
[quote name='UncleBob']I've already said that if they can guarantee that no tax dollars are spent on a public option (or "socialized medicine" if you wish) I would have no problem with it - and, in fact, would support it. If the system showed that it provided better service/lower costs than my current system, then I would strongly consider switching.
Regardless, if a worker would rather pay 20% of his paycheck to private health care than 10% of his paycheck to the government for health care, shouldn't it be that individual's choice where they want to spend their own money? Is it really "greed" to earn money and say where you want to spend it?[/QUOTE]
For me, I want what's best for me and everyone. That's the service AND price. What I don't understand is.. if I had a choice to pay 20% to a private insurance vs 10% to the government for healthcare..why would it matter? Why would you choose to pay more to get the same thing??
Also, if "no tax dollars are spent on a public option"..where else would the money come from? I personally think we should get rid of the private insurance companies since they are the biggest problem with this system as it is!
I'd like to see no private insurance with a government universal health care plan. OR. a BETTER system of what we have now. We need lower costs. We need insurance companies to NOT deny people! That's insane! When I had my appendix taken out (I did have insurance, thankfully) and I saw the bill..anesthesia was $14,000 LOL..wtf?!
So it truly needs to be one or the other.
Regardless, if a worker would rather pay 20% of his paycheck to private health care than 10% of his paycheck to the government for health care, shouldn't it be that individual's choice where they want to spend their own money? Is it really "greed" to earn money and say where you want to spend it?[/QUOTE]
For me, I want what's best for me and everyone. That's the service AND price. What I don't understand is.. if I had a choice to pay 20% to a private insurance vs 10% to the government for healthcare..why would it matter? Why would you choose to pay more to get the same thing??
Also, if "no tax dollars are spent on a public option"..where else would the money come from? I personally think we should get rid of the private insurance companies since they are the biggest problem with this system as it is!
I'd like to see no private insurance with a government universal health care plan. OR. a BETTER system of what we have now. We need lower costs. We need insurance companies to NOT deny people! That's insane! When I had my appendix taken out (I did have insurance, thankfully) and I saw the bill..anesthesia was $14,000 LOL..wtf?!
So it truly needs to be one or the other.
[quote name='lilboo']For me, I want what's best for me and everyone. That's the service AND price. What I don't understand is.. if I had a choice to pay 20% to a private insurance vs 10% to the government for healthcare..why would it matter? Why would you choose to pay more to get the same thing??[/quote]
First and foremost, there's no guarantee that what you get will be "the same thing". Which is why I would take a "wait and see" approach to a government option.
The same place private insurers get their money from now. Premiums. One of the big arguments against private insurers is how inefficient they are and the big ol' bonuses their high level executives get - the whole "for profit" thing. Is it just crazy to think that a non-for profit, efficiently ran insurance provider could run a good - and fair - business off of premiums?
I wouldn't be against a government-provided insurance (not a "public option") where individuals who have shown a good faith effort to find private insurance, but have been denied coverage at a reasonable rate (pre-existing conditions, etc.) could sign up. This particular service could use tax payer subsidies along with premiums paid in by members. This would, of course, have some details to work out (what qualifies as a "good faith effort", etc) and I would like to see some previsions put in (For example, if you have lung cancer, you sure as hell better not still be smoking and wanting taxpayers to pay for your medical care). But this is what I'd like to see.
First and foremost, there's no guarantee that what you get will be "the same thing". Which is why I would take a "wait and see" approach to a government option.
The same place private insurers get their money from now. Premiums. One of the big arguments against private insurers is how inefficient they are and the big ol' bonuses their high level executives get - the whole "for profit" thing. Is it just crazy to think that a non-for profit, efficiently ran insurance provider could run a good - and fair - business off of premiums?
I wouldn't be against a government-provided insurance (not a "public option") where individuals who have shown a good faith effort to find private insurance, but have been denied coverage at a reasonable rate (pre-existing conditions, etc.) could sign up. This particular service could use tax payer subsidies along with premiums paid in by members. This would, of course, have some details to work out (what qualifies as a "good faith effort", etc) and I would like to see some previsions put in (For example, if you have lung cancer, you sure as hell better not still be smoking and wanting taxpayers to pay for your medical care). But this is what I'd like to see.
See lilboo in Glibeterian wonderland it is better to spend billions (over the years trillions) subsidizing a companies profits rather than spend a cent from taxes or on a government program, because any other way the commies win.
Last edited by a moderator:
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='UncleBob']The same place private insurers get their money from now. Premiums. One of the big arguments against private insurers is how inefficient they are and the big ol' bonuses their high level executives get - the whole "for profit" thing. Is it just crazy to think that a non-for profit, efficiently ran insurance provider could run a good - and fair - business off of premiums?[/QUOTE]
This link provides answers from different points of view for exactly that question. It's an interesting small sample case study of the wider issue. 3 of the 4 basically state that the private insurers would grind them into dust, with the other 1 saying that it would be unfair to source these from the government because of an implicit guarantee, therefore letting them set artificially low prices and killing private insurers.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...eigh-in-on-nonprofit-healthcare-cooperatives/
This link provides answers from different points of view for exactly that question. It's an interesting small sample case study of the wider issue. 3 of the 4 basically state that the private insurers would grind them into dust, with the other 1 saying that it would be unfair to source these from the government because of an implicit guarantee, therefore letting them set artificially low prices and killing private insurers.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...eigh-in-on-nonprofit-healthcare-cooperatives/
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Yes, the greedy ones are those who work and want to decide where their paycheck goes. Those who are demanding that we give up what we have worked hard to earn are not greedy at all. Damn those ers who want to keep their paychecks and God Bless those sainted souls who only want to take them away.[/QUOTE]
What about the free public school education that allowed you to get that job? You've never benefited from a government program at all?
Quit acting like every cent you make was only because of your efforts.
ers who want to keep their paychecks and God Bless those sainted souls who only want to take them away.[/QUOTE]What about the free public school education that allowed you to get that job? You've never benefited from a government program at all?
Quit acting like every cent you make was only because of your efforts.
[quote name='depascal22']What about the free public school education that allowed you to get that job? You've never benefited from a government program at all?
Quit acting like every cent you make was only because of your efforts.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention the Police officers and Fire Department. How would it sound if I didn't want to waste MY tax dollars to save some other persons' house on fire! ESPECIALLY if that person is out of work!!
Quit acting like every cent you make was only because of your efforts.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention the Police officers and Fire Department. How would it sound if I didn't want to waste MY tax dollars to save some other persons' house on fire! ESPECIALLY if that person is out of work!!
bread's done