GG Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 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? Of course I do. Good luck getting that passed by your party's crusade on preexisting conditions.
Doc Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Of course I do. Good luck getting that passed by your party's crusade on preexisting conditions. Even more luck getting people to actually do it.
dayman Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Even more luck getting people to actually do it. I think everyone agrees any policy based on people actually doing anything differently not a very wise one. Who knows though, we're probably 5 years a way from cigs being $20 a pack (at least in the city) so maybe at one point there will be no more daily smokers. Now if we can only do that for all other goods that hurt us (all goods).
Doc Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 I think everyone agrees any policy based on people actually doing anything differently not a very wise one. Who knows though, we're probably 5 years a way from cigs being $20 a pack (at least in the city) so maybe at one point there will be no more daily smokers. Now if we can only do that for all other goods that hurt us (all goods). The ONLY way to reduce health care expenditures is by people taking better care of themselves. There is NO other way to do it, outside of rationing. But to get people to comply, you'd need to pass more mandates. The insurance mandate is already bad enough.
dayman Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 The ONLY way to reduce health care expenditures is by people taking better care of themselves. There is NO other way to do it, outside of rationing. But to get people to comply, you'd need to pass more mandates. The insurance mandate is already bad enough. Well candy bars are smaller now, so I guess we're on the right track. hehe
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 I think everyone agrees any policy based on people actually doing anything differently not a very wise one. Who knows though, we're probably 5 years a way from cigs being $20 a pack (at least in the city) so maybe at one point there will be no more daily smokers. Now if we can only do that for all other goods that hurt us (all goods). So where do we draw the line? I would say it would be generally the consensus that a few beers are ok but 20 beers isn't a good idea. Do we make every beer $10 a can? Or just the 4th beer and more? Should sugar be outawed or just made so expensive nobody can afford it? Maybe we should outlaw coke & heroin and marijuana. I guess we did do that and it's certainly controlling that problem. What a schitty world you are proposing.
Magox Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 1. John Roberts is the smartest person on the Supreme Court … and it isn't close. Jeffrey Toobin has called Roberts the Court's best writer since Robert Jackson … he is also the court's most lucid thinker and most persuasive advocate. At every stage in the argument today, it was Roberts who identified and articulated the weaknesses in both sides arguments and it was Roberts who made sure that the lawyers commented on those weaknesses. He and Justice Kagan were operating at a totally different level than the rest of their colleagues today. 2. Elana Kagan is the second smartest person on the Supreme Court. With Justice Stevens gone, the left lost its craftiest and most thoughtful member. Justice Kagan appears to be more than capable of filling the void he left open. She is already a star and is clearly Robert's most worthy adversary. I continue to be unbelievably impressed by her moxy on the bench. She is thoughtful, listens, and when she speaks, she always says something worth hearing. 3. Barack Obama regrets selecting Sona Sotomayor right now. True to Lawrence Tribe's predictions, Justice Sotomayor (while undoubtedly bright) is truly not nearly as smart as she thinks she is. I cannot overemphasize how unimpressed I was by her over the course of two hours. She did more with her "questions" to bolster Clement's arguments (every time she asked a question, he would absolutely knock it out of the park) than any conservative member of the court could have done asking intentionally friendly questions. You could almost hear Kagan, Breyer and Ginsburg cringing every time she spoke. Breyer and Ginsburg actually began to correct her questions quickly after she asked them so that Clement wouldn't have too much fun with them. She talked a lot and said very little. I found her to be as unimpressive as Roberts and Kagan were impressive. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/27/justice-roberts-shines.html "Paul Clement is a god," said Tom Goldstein. "He gave the argument of his life." according to Tom Goldstein from Scotusblog Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74559.html#ixzz1qYgywV61
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/27/justice-roberts-shines.html Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74559.html#ixzz1qYgywV61 Didn't Kagan have the "boatload of money" question that was cause for ridicule after the response from Clement? Edited March 30, 2012 by 3rdnlng
GG Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 http://www.thedailyb...rts-shines.html Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz1qYgywV61 Frum should stick to speech-writing. The following is nonsensical: "In other words, the argument goes that we are in the health care market the minute we are born and its just merely a matter of timing." By that logic, we're in the water & food market the minute we're born, too. And we're in that market much more so than in healthcare.
dayman Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) FYI DC Tom, it was sort of interesting the scenario you put forth a while back and all I could say is nobody talks about that problem, no lawyers, no economists etc...I did a little snooping today about my day and found out why. I don't have a link for you b/c I just asked a lady I know who works in regulatory affairs and has worked with congress and directly with the white house on this very bill. She said the simple answer is buried in the bill you will see that it is impossible to simply do the cost benefit analysis, pay the fine when you are young and healthy, and then purchase. If you get a preexisting injury during that time if you do that then you are SOL despite the guarantee issue. AND on top of that apparently there's a scheme where if you don't get it when you can you get "locked out" of the market for a set period of time or something also...don't have have all the exact facts but just figured I'd put that out there. Nice point you made there though, it's not like any of us have read all those pages. Got me thinking anyway, but just so you know the Bill accounts for your scenario. It figures in all it's length they've thought about at least the most basic of problems. [/b] So where do we draw the line? I would say it would be generally the consensus that a few beers are ok but 20 beers isn't a good idea. Do we make every beer $10 a can? Or just the 4th beer and more? Should sugar be outawed or just made so expensive nobody can afford it? Maybe we should outlaw coke & heroin and marijuana. I guess we did do that and it's certainly controlling that problem. What a schitty world you are proposing. Haha, I was being sarcastic man. Certainly wasn't proposing some crazy world. Edited March 30, 2012 by dayman
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 FYI DC Tom, it was sort of interesting the scenario you put forth a while back and all I could say is nobody talks about that problem, no lawyers, no economists etc...I did a little snooping today about my day and found out why. I don't have a link for you b/c I just asked a lady I know who works in regulatory affairs and has worked with congress and directly with the white house on this very bill. She said the simple answer is buried in the bill you will see that it is impossible to simply do the cost benefit analysis, pay the fine when you are young and healthy, and then purchase. If you get a preexisting injury during that time if you do that then you are SOL despite the guarantee issue. AND on top of that apparently there's a scheme where if you don't get it when you can you get "locked out" of the market for a set period of time or something also...don't have have all the exact facts but just figured I'd put that out there. Nice point you made there though, it's not like any of us have read all those pages. Got me thinking anyway, but just so you know the Bill accounts for your scenario. It figures in all it's length they've thought about at least the most basic of problems. Haha, I was being sarcastic man. Certainly wasn't proposing some crazy world. Your sarcasm should vary a little bit more from your serious posts. I have you pegged as a dyed-in-the wool socialist. Am I right, or are you willing to denounce socialism?
GG Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 FYI DC Tom, it was sort of interesting the scenario you put forth a while back and all I could say is nobody talks about that problem, no lawyers, no economists etc...I did a little snooping today about my day and found out why. I don't have a link for you b/c I just asked a lady I know who works in regulatory affairs and has worked with congress and directly with the white house on this very bill. She said the simple answer is buried in the bill you will see that it is impossible to simply do the cost benefit analysis, pay the fine when you are young and healthy, and then purchase. If you get a preexisting injury during that time if you do that then you are SOL despite the guarantee issue. AND on top of that apparently there's a scheme where if you don't get it when you can you get "locked out" of the market for a set period of time or something also...don't have have all the exact facts but just figured I'd put that out there. Nice point you made there though, it's not like any of us have read all those pages. Got me thinking anyway, but just so you know the Bill accounts for your scenario. It figures in all it's length they've thought about at least the most basic of problems. Haha, I was being sarcastic man. Certainly wasn't proposing some crazy world. Until it's election time and the cameras start rolling. Enlighten me, when was the last time a politician running for office told somebody that he's SOL when the cameras are rolling?
dayman Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Your sarcasm should vary a little bit more from your serious posts. I have you pegged as a dyed-in-the wool socialist. Am I right, or are you willing to denounce socialism? Haha, I am not as you and some others must think. Fairly moderate. You all are so combative it's hard to be moderate though. Until it's election time and the cameras start rolling. Enlighten me, when was the last time a politician running for office told somebody that he's SOL when the cameras are rolling? Well if that isn't a set up for a Romney joke I don't know what is haha...
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Haha, I am not as you and some others must think. Fairly moderate. You all are so combative it's hard to be moderate though. How am I combative? All I said is that your positions seemed quite socialistic. Can you deny that or do you want to send up another canard? Edited March 30, 2012 by 3rdnlng
birdog1960 Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 Of course I do. Good luck getting that passed by your party's crusade on preexisting conditions. i don't see those two things necessarily being incompatible. because you cover treatment for a diabetics preexisting diagnosis doesn't mean they have to be eligible get a bypass if they smoke. it means they are insured for treatment of their diabetes which actually saves money by less folks needing dialysis , wound care, amputations and the like. it's not all or nothing just because they are able to get insurance.
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 i don't see those two things necessarily being incompatible. because you cover treatment for a diabetics preexisting diagnosis doesn't mean they have to be eligible get a bypass if they smoke. it means they are insured for treatment of their diabetes which actually saves money by less folks needing dialysis , wound care, amputations and the like. it's not all or nothing just because they are able to get insurance. New federal policy---rainbow farting unicorns are the future. The academic thinking is the cure-all.
Alaska Darin Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 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. And the answer is obviously 2500 pages of legislation?
ieatcrayonz Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 And the answer is obviously 2500 pages of legislation? I agree Mr. Limbaw. Things should be simplified. How about: From each according to his ability. To each according to his need. That sounds like something we can all agree upon.
GG Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 i don't see those two things necessarily being incompatible. because you cover treatment for a diabetics preexisting diagnosis doesn't mean they have to be eligible get a bypass if they smoke. it means they are insured for treatment of their diabetes which actually saves money by less folks needing dialysis , wound care, amputations and the like. it's not all or nothing just because they are able to get insurance. Good luck codifying that and having it pass one election cycle. You probably don't recognize it, but you've been advocating a conservative line as it relates to healthcare, because you know that people need to take a bigger charge of their health and their healthcare spending. The current legislation does nothing to fix the fundamental problem.
Doc Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 FYI DC Tom, it was sort of interesting the scenario you put forth a while back and all I could say is nobody talks about that problem, no lawyers, no economists etc...I did a little snooping today about my day and found out why. I don't have a link for you b/c I just asked a lady I know who works in regulatory affairs and has worked with congress and directly with the white house on this very bill. She said the simple answer is buried in the bill you will see that it is impossible to simply do the cost benefit analysis, pay the fine when you are young and healthy, and then purchase. If you get a preexisting injury during that time if you do that then you are SOL despite the guarantee issue. AND on top of that apparently there's a scheme where if you don't get it when you can you get "locked out" of the market for a set period of time or something also...don't have have all the exact facts but just figured I'd put that out there. Nice point you made there though, it's not like any of us have read all those pages. Got me thinking anyway, but just so you know the Bill accounts for your scenario. It figures in all it's length they've thought about at least the most basic of problems. I'd like to hear the specifics on what will deter people from not purchasing insurance until they need it, because the "penalty" is too low to accomplish that. And making people wait or telling them they're SOL doesn't fit with the "we need to insure everyone equally now before they die!" rhetoric. And even if there are things in the law that will force people to buy insurance, the rest of the law is sheer crap that will only escalate prices to levels never before seen. Not to mention introduce levels of inefficiency never before seen.
Recommended Posts