obamacare

[DC Tom]

Haha, ok so then the mandate is constitutional b/c it's actually optional if it's cost effective to you!? What? Were you not of the opposite opinion earlier? (I could be wrong I don't keep a notebook of everybody's positions).

 

No, I never made that claim. I claimed a constitutional violation on First Amendment grounds (a couple of years ago, in fact, before the current brouhaha).

 

My only claim in that regard is that it's fiscally unsustainable.

[dayman]

None of my ideas addressed any need for anything, you !@#$ing nitwit. I specifically stated I wasn't going to get into "what's the best reform" yesterday.

 

If you're going to criticize my post for something, do it for something related to the actual content of the post, dipshit.

 

Also it must be easy to just trash everything, even industry in dire need of reform, and then just say "I'm not going to get into any ideas that may be better." You should be the speaker of the house.

 

No, I never made that claim. I claimed a constitutional violation on First Amendment grounds (a couple of years ago, in fact, before the current brouhaha).

 

My only claim in that regard is that it's fiscally unsustainable.

 

Well if you hate the bill because you don't think it's fair that's fine but where was your first amendment grounds haha? There are no first amendment grounds. I would like to here your argument there.

Edited March 29, 2012 by dayman

[IDBillzFan]

some data relevant to the discussion: "many or most of the patients with the higher health care costs in the nation have private insurance and higher relative incomes and are white."

So you're arguing that the largest health care costs in the country are not from uninsured people, but from people who DO have coverage?

 

I thought the problem with health care in our country is that the costs were out of control because too many people DON'T have coverage. I thought it was the uninsured that were the problem? I thought the answer was to provide coverage for the uninsured as the only way to bring costs down?

 

Have you had a change of heart?

[GG]

Also it must be easy to just trash everything, even industry in dire need of reform, and then just say "I'm not going to get into any ideas that may be better." You should be the speaker of the house.

 

And which industry in particular is in need of reform in your view?

[/dev/null]

some data relevant to the discussion: "many or most of the patients with the higher health care costs in the nation have private insurance and higher relative incomes and are white."

Kill Whitey!

[DC Tom]

Also it must be easy to just trash everything, even industry in dire need of reform, and then just say "I'm not going to get into any ideas that may be better." You should be the speaker of the house.

 

Did you read what I wrote last night? It was late, I was tired, and I wasn't going to get into it then, but I'd tell you later.

 

If you're going to be that big an idiot, I'll start treating you like one.

 

Well if you hate the bill because you don't think it's fair that's fine but where was your first amendment grounds haha? There are no first amendment grounds. I would like to here your argument there.

 

Christian scientists who believe that only prayer can heal being penalized for believing such (by being forced to pay a fine for not purchasing health insurance.) That was the specific example I used...two years ago.

[GG]

some data relevant to the discussion: "many or most of the patients with the higher health care costs in the nation have private insurance and higher relative incomes and are white."

 

I hope you recognize that the link debunks your argument. Doesn't the data prove that the problem is cost of providing care, and not access to insurance?

 

I do love the subheading:

 

The costliest 1% of patients consume one-fifth of all health care spending in the U.S., according to federal data. Health systems are trying to reduce the imbalance.

 

What in the world does that mean? Are reporters on auto-pilot to redistribute everything according to a bell curve, instead of the Pareto Principle on which the rest of the world lives?

Edited March 29, 2012 by GG

[Chef Jim]

Did you read what I wrote last night? It was late, I was tired, and I wasn't going to get into it then, but I'd tell you later.

 

If you're going to be that big an idiot, I'll start treating you like one.

 

 

 

Christian scientists who believe that only prayer can heal being penalized for believing such (by being forced to pay a fine for not purchasing health insurance.) That was the specific example I used...two years ago.

 

I think I may have even been the one that brought that up seeing my mother-in-law is a Christian Scientist. But guess what, now that she's in her late 80's and breaking down she's going to the doctor. So much for prayer uh lady.

[Doc]

So you're arguing that the largest health care costs in the country are not from uninsured people, but from people who DO have coverage?

 

I thought the problem with health care in our country is that the costs were out of control because too many people DON'T have coverage. I thought it was the uninsured that were the problem? I thought the answer was to provide coverage for the uninsured as the only way to bring costs down?

 

Have you had a change of heart?

 

I hope you recognize that the link debunks your argument. Doesn't the data prove that the problem is cost of providing care, and not access to insurance?

 

I do love the subheading:

 

 

What in the world does that mean? Are reporters on auto-pilot to redistribute everything according to a bell curve, instead of the Pareto Principle on which the rest of the world lives?

The great lie by the libs is that there were 50M people who were uninsured that needed to be insured, and this was the best way to do it. That number was a complete fabrication, as at-best, it's under 10M. Medicaid covers the poor, Medicare covers the elderly, and private covers the rest, except for those with pre-existing conditions. Just because people are too lazy to cover themselves or their kids, it doesn't mean they lack access to health care.

 

As for birddog's link, the only solution to the problem is rationing/denial of care to those 1%-ers. Which private insurance companies already do. And IIRC, birddog believes the government should be able to do it as well. But we should provide coverage to everyone cheaply.

[birdog1960]

I hope you recognize that the link debunks your argument. Doesn't the data prove that the problem is cost of providing care, and not access to insurance?

 

I do love the subheading:

 

 

What in the world does that mean? Are reporters on auto-pilot to redistribute everything according to a bell curve, instead of the Pareto Principle on which the rest of the world lives?

it also shows that the uninsured don't access care very often. from this data we can't conclude that they don't access it enough but mortality data does allow us to. so if you believe in medical darwinism, you may well be correct on the cost issue. i assumed, you, like me, had concluded we had evolved sociologically from our existence as pack animals. in the current model, the privately insured are paying $1000/year for the uninsured to get poor care. that's not a great bargain either.

Edited March 29, 2012 by birdog1960

[Doc]

I think I may have even been the one that brought that up seeing my mother-in-law is a Christian Scientist. But guess what, now that she's in her late 80's and breaking down she's going to the doctor. So much for prayer uh lady.

Sounds like that saying by Mike Tyson: "everyone has a plan 'til they get punched in the mouth."

[GG]

it also shows that the uninsured don't access care very often. from this data we can't conclude that they don't access it enough but mortality data does. so if you believe in medical darwinism, you may well be correct on the cost issue. i assumed, you, like me, had concluded we had evolved sociological from our existence as pack animals. in the current model, the privately insured are paying $1000/year for the uninsured to get poor care. that's not a great bargain either.

 

And the data shows that no one has been denied care if they walk into a hospital, despite the cases that always manage to get in front of TV cameras during political hot flashes.

 

If you want to talk about societal evolution, I'll agree to socialized healthcare if you come up with a viable plan to have people take care of their heath in the first place.

[Doc]

And the data shows that no one has been denied care if they walk into a hospital, despite the cases that always manage to get in front of TV cameras during political hot flashes.

 

If you want to talk about societal evolution, I'll agree to socialized healthcare if you come up with a viable plan to have people take care of their heath in the first place.

Why? It's the American way to treat the symptoms and ignore the underlying disease, along with refusing to take personal responsibility and expecting others to owe you something. Is it any wonder we're heading down the $hitter in this country?

[Rob's House]

it also shows that the uninsured don't access care very often. from this data we can't conclude that they don't access it enough but mortality data does allow us to. so if you believe in medical darwinism, you may well be correct on the cost issue. i assumed, you, like me, had concluded we had evolved sociologically from our existence as pack animals. in the current model, the privately insured are paying $1000/year for the uninsured to get poor care. that's not a great bargain either.

All your lofty philosophies sound fine in theory. This explains your love of academia where idealistic theories are allowed to flourish without the inconvenience of exposure to reality.

 

I've said this many times and NEVER had it addressed with a substantive & realistic response: How do you provide everyone unlimited access to the most state of the art medical technology known to man?

[dayman]

All your lofty philosophies sound fine in theory. This explains your love of academia where idealistic theories are allowed to flourish without the inconvenience of exposure to reality.

 

I've said this many times and NEVER had it addressed with a substantive & realistic response: How do you provide everyone unlimited access to the most state of the art medical technology known to man?

 

You can't. The real question is how can we make our system more efficient giving high cost services to those who need it, and lower cost service to those who do not.

[B-Man]

How do you provide everyone unlimited access to the most state of the art medical technology known to man?

 

 

You can't. The real question is how can we make our system more efficient giving high cost services to those who need it, and lower cost service to those who do not.

 

 

 

You're right, you can't.

 

But one way of helping the problem is having the physician (who is trained to make this type of value judgement) decide if Uncle Freddy really needs the Advanced Imaging Full Body Health Scan, because the doctor is afraid that Freddy's family will sue him if he doesn't get every test.

 

Call 1 - 800 - we'l lsue

 

.

[birdog1960]

You're right, you can't.

 

But one way of helping the problem is having the physician (who is trained to make this type of value judgement) decide if Uncle Freddy really needs the Advanced Imaging Full Body Health Scan, because the doctor is afraid that Freddy's family will sue him if he doesn't get every test.

 

.

agreed. and you have safe harbor protocols for both diagnosis and treatment that define the standard of care which is likely to be lower than most of the overusers now expect. my theory is that many understand this already and understand that to provide basic health care to everyone, they will need to give up their access to cafeteria medicine.

[Doc]

agreed. and you have safe harbor protocols for both diagnosis and treatment that define the standard of care which is likely to be lower than most of the overusers now expect. my theory is that many understand this already and understand that to provide basic health care to everyone, they will need to give up their access to cafeteria medicine.

Your theory would be incorrect. People who support Obamacare have no idea what's coming their way. And once they realize it, they'll be pissed, but have no recourse.

[birdog1960]

Your theory would be incorrect. People who support Obamacare have no idea what's coming their way. And once they realize it, they'll be pissed, but have no recourse.

maybe some of the people who support it are unaware. i'm certainly not. my point is that many of the people who oppose it are aware and this may well be the basis of their opposition.

Edited March 29, 2012 by birdog1960

[birdog1960]

 

 

If you want to talk about societal evolution, I'll agree to socialized healthcare if you come up with a viable plan to have people take care of their heath in the first place.

it's a good point. i wonder how americans would feel about lifestyle conditions for certain procedures: documented smoking cessation before bypass surgery, documented alcohol/drug abstinence before treatment of hepatitis, weight loss in obese patients before joint replacement etc.

i think it's very reasonable. you?