Rob's House Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Well it's not Kagan's fault for characterizing something as it is, as opposed to something you wish it was. Never mind dude, I give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Well it's not Kagan's fault for characterizing something as it is, as opposed to something you wish it was. That's not the point. The mindset is the point and that's why I brought it up. It's not the system but the belief by most liberals that money coming from the government is free as if it was just plucked from a tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 That's not the point. The mindset is the point and that's why I brought it up. It's not the system but the belief by most liberals that money coming from the government is free as if it was just plucked from a tree. And my point is it is fine to feel that way but that quote isn't an example of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Anyway it's besides the point. I doubt the medicare expansion is seen as unconstitutional and I still feel there is no way to tell for sure what will happen to the mandate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 And my point is it is fine to feel that way but that quote isn't an example of that. Really? Did you read her follow up analogy immediately after that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Really? Did you read her follow up analogy immediately after that one? Or just simply choose to ignore it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 kinda like that term...might have been more effective to add "titanic sized". I think shitload would have really got more attention. Or send the non-participents a bill for their treatment. But if they don't, or can't pay we're back to square one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 But if they don't, or can't pay we're back to square one. 180 days to pay, or they get repossessed. Solve the shortage of transplant organs. Two birds, one stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 What happened to dayman's entertaining response to DCTom's post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 For real though, you guys don't feel repealing this is a step backwards? You don't want reform? What about this reform is so radically different than the reform you would like to see that it is best the entire thing end up a waste of time and resources? No, I absolutely do not, because it is quite simply a badly designed piece of legislation that tries to be a compromise between two systems (market-based and socialized), and as such effectively implements neither. It is written by people who don't even understand economics at even a basic high school level, and implemented for no practical reason other than to give its proponents something to point to and say "See! We're for reform!" and to pander to the segment of the electorate (and it's a VERY large segment in this case) that doesn't know any better. It is very basically flawed and doesn't address the basic issues it claims to address (for example: it confuses health insurance premiums with health care costs, then proceeds to "control" health care "costs" by regulating insurance premiums and passing the actual costs - which it does nothing to address - to the insurers). Anyone who's for health care reform should embrace the repeal of this abortive piece of legislation as a step towards real reform. The Democrats, including Obama, should never have pushed for passage of this steaming pile of crap - once it was clear that the "reform" they were going to get was going to be a half-assed compromise that was not only useless but actively counter-productive to reform, they should have just ****-canned it and started over from square one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 No, I absolutely do not, because it is quite simply a badly designed piece of legislation that tries to be a compromise between two systems (market-based and socialized), and as such effectively implements neither. It is written by people who don't even understand economics at even a basic high school level, and implemented for no practical reason other than to give its proponents something to point to and say "See! We're for reform!" and to pander to the segment of the electorate (and it's a VERY large segment in this case) that doesn't know any better. It is very basically flawed and doesn't address the basic issues it claims to address (for example: it confuses health insurance premiums with health care costs, then proceeds to "control" health care "costs" by regulating insurance premiums and passing the actual costs - which it does nothing to address - to the insurers). Anyone who's for health care reform should embrace the repeal of this abortive piece of legislation as a step towards real reform. The Democrats, including Obama, should never have pushed for passage of this steaming pile of crap - once it was clear that the "reform" they were going to get was going to be a half-assed compromise that was not only useless but actively counter-productive to reform, they should have just ****-canned it and started over from square one. All the righteous bs I've given you in the past few days is superceded by this post. You now have intellectual superiority over DiN and Conner and my complete admiration. Your brother may still have more friends but, know that I still like your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) No, I absolutely do not, because it is quite simply a badly designed piece of legislation that tries to be a compromise between two systems (market-based and socialized), and as such effectively implements neither. It is written by people who don't even understand economics at even a basic high school level, and implemented for no practical reason other than to give its proponents something to point to and say "See! We're for reform!" and to pander to the segment of the electorate (and it's a VERY large segment in this case) that doesn't know any better. It is very basically flawed and doesn't address the basic issues it claims to address (for example: it confuses health insurance premiums with health care costs, then proceeds to "control" health care "costs" by regulating insurance premiums and passing the actual costs - which it does nothing to address - to the insurers). Anyone who's for health care reform should embrace the repeal of this abortive piece of legislation as a step towards real reform. The Democrats, including Obama, should never have pushed for passage of this steaming pile of crap - once it was clear that the "reform" they were going to get was going to be a half-assed compromise that was not only useless but actively counter-productive to reform, they should have just ****-canned it and started over from square one. But do you not think there are problems in the insurance market? This has some real reform to that note. It's a fair to say you want more done about costs but repealing this isn't going to further that. If anything isn't this a serious start to reform? Insurance is socialist it just is...everybody should have it I mean is that what you are really against? What is the main sticking point that makes this something that can't even be worked with? Basically what sort of reform would you imagine that would replace this and needs this to die to exist? Edited March 29, 2012 by dayman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 All the righteous bs I've given you in the past few days is superceded by this post. You now have intellectual superiority over DiN and Conner and my complete admiration. Your brother may still have more friends but, know that I still like your post. It's really what I don't get about the whole issue. "But it's reform!!!" So !@#$ing what????? Forcing "direct pay, point-of-service cash-on-the-counter, caveat emptor" would be health care reform, too...you could implement prison reform by releasing all the inmates. Are those reform programs? Yes. Are they good reforms? Uh...probably not, no. Just because it's "reform" does not make it a good idea. And you know what's truly sad? One of our ****-for-brains lunatics here is going to completely disregard everything I wrote and accuse me of being against reform and regurgitating "talking points". You know it's going to happen. And you know there's no point even arguing with them. That's why I have about 20k posts of "you're an idiot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 It's really what I don't get about the whole issue. "But it's reform!!!" So !@#$ing what????? Forcing "direct pay, point-of-service cash-on-the-counter, caveat emptor" would be health care reform, too...you could implement prison reform by releasing all the inmates. Are those reform programs? Yes. Are they good reforms? Uh...probably not, no. Just because it's "reform" does not make it a good idea. And you know what's truly sad? One of our ****-for-brains lunatics here is going to completely disregard everything I wrote and accuse me of being against reform and regurgitating "talking points". You know it's going to happen. And you know there's no point even arguing with them. That's why I have about 20k posts of "you're an idiot." I understand you have a problem with the dummies we deal with. It's not the DiN's or Conners. They are what they are and amount to target practice at the most. I bust your balls because you are a prick and you know it. That's ok, I generally agree with you. Anyway, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 But do you not think there are problems in the insurance market? This has some real reform to that note. It's a fair to say you want more done about costs but repealing this isn't going to further that. If anything isn't this a serious start to reform? Insurance is socialist it just is...everybody should have it I mean is that what you are really against? What is the main sticking point that makes this something that can't even be worked with? Basically what sort of reform would you imagine that would replace this and needs this to die to exist? Yeah...one problem with this conversation is that "reform" is not a point event. Reforming the health care system in this country is going to take years (for starters: because it's so big, and because it's so !@#$ed up). So asking "What sort of reform do you want?" is something of a fallacious question, since it implies that any of us have some sort of magical ability to untangle the Gordian knot the system's become with no unforeseen consequences. And while I do have an answer of where I'd start (and no, this legislation is NOT a good start, and repealing it does further efforts to address costs, because this legislation claims to but doesn't, because it doesn't even know what costs are. Like I said, it's not just bad. It's actively counter-productive), it's late and I'm tired...so another time. But one thing I do want to address before I'm outta here... Insurance is socialist it just is...everybody should have it I mean is that what you are really against? 1) it's not socialist (and you can't possibly expect me to accept "it just is" as an argument - either tell why it is, or don't say it is), it's market-driven. At its simplist, you pay into a pool a rate based on participation in that pool and the payout of that pool. That is not socialist. I'm not even sure insurance, in principle, can be a socialist concept (really not sure...I'll have to read up). That's also the worst part of the legislation - why should everyone have insurance? So everyone has care. Again, confusing the insurance with the care, which are not the same thing (and we'll ignore the "managed care" concept for now, since it is late). But then you pass a bill to provide everyone insurance (or that you claim does - even though it doesn't), but under terms where it's actually optional and under certain conditions cost-effective for the consumer to not buy it (e.g. I'm 20-something, healthy, and don't need it unless I get a serious illness - say, a brain tumor - in which case I can just go ahead and buy it when I get sick because the pre-existing condition now can't be refused). So now you haven't reformed health care at all...you've reformed health insurance, by adversely affecting the pay-in, while doing nothing to affect the pay out (because you haven't addressed actual costs), and basically reformed the US health care system in a way that takes it from "inefficient" to "inefficient and completely unsustainable". Because all you've really done is shifted the burden of health care costs from the consumer to the insurance industry, which sounds nice when you're stumping, but doesn't actually work because the money still has to come from somewhere. The insurance industry can't pass the cost on (rate increases are capped, they can't deny coverage), but they still have to pay the cost. They will eventually be paying out more than they take in. If you were to design legislation to kill an industry, this is how you'd do it. And that's just the very simple view. Now convince me that's a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Enter from the left bd60... yes, yes, yes! that's exactly what we want. kill the insurance industry. put it all in the hands of the efficient federal bureaucracy so everyone will have equal denial of medical services and no 71 year-old billionaire can steal the heart from a waiting gen xer drug dealer's wife that crossed the border last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Enter from the left bd60... yes, yes, yes! that's exactly what we want. kill the insurance industry. put it all in the hands of the efficient federal bureaucracy so everyone will have equal denial of medical services and no 71 year-old billionaire can steal the heart from a waiting gen xer drug dealer's wife that crossed the border last night. on cue...almost. i don't think we give transplants to the drug dealers wife. we don't give them to 71 yo billionaires unless there are no candidates with better expected outcomes or an adequate supply of hearts. that leaves a lot in between. speaking to your other point, did anyone notice the exchange yesterday about keeping a provision of the bill, in the event that the mamdate is ruled unconstitutional, thaat would cost the insurance industry billions? only caught soundbites yesterday, but presume it was due to the preexisting condition clause. could his be the trojan horse to put down insurers? could the writers of this bill be that brilliant? finally, none of dc's ideas address the need for universal coverage. obviously it's not a goal for him but is for many folks. put that in the "must have" category and devising a scheme gets complicated. anyone who thinks about it for a while will likely conclude that single payor is the best way. it just wasn't gonna pass. the pay at the counter idea is ridiculous on it's face. the vast majority of my patients couldn't pay out of pocket for a single hospital stay for pneumonia much less heart surgery. from a humanist standpoint this would result in untold needless deaths. from a financial, the collapse of the hospital system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 anyone who thinks about it for a while will likely conclude that single payor is the best way. There it is. Right on cue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 on cue...almost. i don't think we give transplants to the drug dealers wife. we don't give them to 71 yo billionaires unless there are no candidates with better expected outcomes or an adequate supply of hearts. that leaves a lot in between. speaking to your other point, did anyone notice the exchange yesterday about keeping a provision of the bill, in the event that the mamdate is ruled unconstitutional, thaat would cost the insurance industry billions? only caught soundbites yesterday, but presume it was due to the preexisting condition clause. could his be the trojan horse to put down insurers? could the writers of this bill be that brilliant? finally, none of dc's ideas address the need for universal coverage. obviously it's not a goal for him but is for many folks. put that in the "must have" category and devising a scheme gets complicated. anyone who thinks about it for a while will likely conclude that single payor is the best way. it just wasn't gonna pass. the pay at the counter idea is ridiculous on it's face. the vast majority of my patients couldn't pay out of pocket for a single hospital stay for pneumonia much less heart surgery. from a humanist standpoint this would result in untold needless deaths. from a financial, the collapse of the hospital system. Yes it's the insurance companies' fault that medical costs are high. How's this doctor? Why don't you cut your fees by 50% across the board if you're so humane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Yes it's the insurance companies' fault that medical costs are high. How's this doctor? Why don't you cut your fees by 50% across the board if you're so humane. Same reason he only pays the receptionist $10/hr and pats himself on the back for matching 401k contributions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts