80/20 RULE

[Alaska Darin]

So basically you don't agree because you don't agree and any support will always be the product of some scam to convince you that what you're already convinced of is not the case.

 

It's the adhominem defense and it's cyclical. If you begin with the principle that everyone is lying to you, you've already established your basis for disagreement and an "out" for every situation.

 

Gallup, CNN, Kaiser, Real Clear Politics (which is an aggregation of Rasmussen, CNN, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, Fox, Gallup and possibly some others) are all lying to you and they just cherry picked data to advance an agenda to take your guns, tax you incessantly, and give your money to colored crack fiends.

 

You're better left to Alaska, confortably apart from those who may "hurt" you, in drunken bliss raving about the coming apocalypse, Ruby Ridge, Manchurian Candidates, and implanted data chips, before you inevitably pass out and have to be carried home by your wife.

 

You can't debate with someone who sets as a groundrule that anything after the word "go" is a lie.

Kinda like how anyone who disagrees with you must be a drunk, redneck, backwoods, looney, conspiracy theorist, right hypocritical !@#$head?

 

Look in the mirror. You're your own worst enemy and you're too stupid or narcissistic to even realize it.

 

2700+ pages that "we have to pass it so we can see what's in it." But hey, we have polls.

[dayman]

 

Also, THENEWBILLS says

 

 

 

Sure, I believe its necessary, but that doesn't mean any legislatively crafted Healthcare reform is necessary. It needs to be done right, and other than the total cost of the bill and the potential economic risks it poses to the economy, the biggest area where this bill fails is bending the cost curve of health care. People and businesses need relief with the cost of health insurance premiums, and no, that does not mean more subsidies to offset those rising premiums. If there is one thing that rational thinking people have learned about increased subsidies, is that it adds to the price of the underlying subsidized product.

 

The way you bend the cost curve is by addressing the cost of health care, not by reforming the health insurance industry, which is what this bill attempts to do.

 

It was a horrible piece of legislation, that struck out on cost, premiums and the potential negative impacts on the economy.

 

I'd much rather scrap this bill and start over.

 

Obama is a straight up socialist in people's eyes for compromising on the single payer issue, adopting the Republican mandate, and starting to reform the industry. How in God's name would you expect him to actually pass legislation that directly effects the COST? At this point...it is what it is and we'll take it and begin moving forward. Not sure what ideas the right have put forth to curb cost or reform insurance btw but if you know please tell me...

Edited May 12, 2012 by TheNewBills

[GG]

Do you think the ACA will bring health care costs down in a meaningful way?

Of course they will, because 99.99% arguing on behalf of ACA don't know (or don't acknowledge) the difference between insurance and healthcare.

 

Obama is a straight up socialist in people's eyes for compromising on the single payer issue, adopting the Republican mandate, and starting to reform the industry. How in God's name would you expect him to actually pass legislation that directly effects the COST? At this point...it is what it is and we'll take it and begin moving forward. Not sure what ideas the right have put forth to curb cost or reform insurance btw but if you know please tell me...

 

This is an absolute crock, because the way the law is written, insurance companies will stop writing health policies within a decade because they won't be able to charge the necessary premiums to provide coverage, which will force more and more people into the government plans. And voila, a single payer system appears out of nowhere.

[Juror#8]

Do you think the ACA will bring health care costs down in a meaningful way?

 

No.

 

I believe that it does what I mentioned in post #1 that it does: it provides a beginning point for tackling the extant care subsidy debacle.

 

I said, very clearly, that I like much of the ACA and I'm glad that someone had the courage to take it on. It is a floor, not the ceiling. It is finally an effort to deal with a VERY real problem. Everyone else would rather complain about the escalating costs and not deal with the problem systemically. Everyone else for the last 40 years before the current WH talked but did little to nothing. This WH did something, though imperfectly; and I'm appreciative of the courage it took to do that.

 

There is also much that I have concerns about: I think that the bill itself is bloated and can be trimmed down to address issues much more proximately and without the added cost; the exchanges that take effect in 2014 will likely have governance and logistical challenges; the administrative cost structure will likely be burdensome and rife with overages, scam, and inconsistencies.

 

I've delved into the legislation enough to know that there are things that I like and things that I don't like. Some just see "_________ trillion," "giveaway," "poor-people," "Fox," "mandate," etc. And they read/listen to what it takes to support those themes.

 

Not sure this country can pursue greatness being that profoundly discourteous to nuance.

 

Kinda like how anyone who disagrees with you must be a drunk, redneck, backwoods, looney, conspiracy theorist, right hypocritical !@#$head?

 

Look in the mirror. You're your own worst enemy and you're too stupid or narcissistic to even realize it.

 

2700+ pages that "we have to pass it so we can see what's in it." But hey, we have polls.

 

That's the point, you're not disagreeing with me. If we had a reasoned disagreement than far be it for me to call you anything but a principled opponent.

 

I'd respect that and move on.

 

But it is intellectually suspect when someone says that everything in opposition to them is a lie - in order to insulate their beliefs from criticism or re-evaluation. Polls - lie. Blogs - lie. Articles - lie. Newspapers - lie.

 

The only one talking in absolutes is YOU ([paraphrasing] ACA is bad; it sucks; don't care about you; evidence is partisan).

 

The only one (as between you and I) speaking dialectically, is me ("the bill has challenges," "it's a floor," "it's a canvas to be improved upon...").

 

I haven't spoken in absolutes. My only compliment to the bill was that there are certain provisions that people - republicans, democrats, and independents - really like.

 

You need the mirror.

[IDBillzFan]

Obama is a straight up socialist in people's eyes for compromising on the single payer issue, adopting the Republican mandate, and starting to reform the industry. How in God's name would you expect him to actually pass legislation that directly effects the COST? At this point...it is what it is and we'll take it and begin moving forward. Not sure what ideas the right have put forth to curb cost or reform insurance btw but if you know please tell me...

It's like every Democrat I know somehow forgot they had full control of the WH, House and Senate for two freaking years. The only thing that stopped the president from getting single payer was the Democratic Party. As it stood at the time, they had to bribe and threaten Dems just to create the abortion that is ACA.

 

And this point, it is NOT what it is. One of the only consistent things about this law has been that virtually 60% of all Americans want it repealed. If the Supreme Court doesn't toss it out, then it's up to this country to elect a person who will.

[Juror#8]

Sure, I believe its necessary, but that doesn't mean any legislatively crafted Healthcare reform is necessary. It needs to be done right, and other than the total cost of the bill and the potential economic risks it poses to the economy, the biggest area where this bill fails is bending the cost curve of health care. People and businesses need relief with the cost of health insurance premiums, and no, that does not mean more subsidies to offset those rising premiums. If there is one thing that rational thinking people have learned about increased subsidies, is that it adds to the price of the underlying subsidized product.

 

The way you bend the cost curve is by addressing the cost of health care, not by reforming the health insurance industry, which is what this bill attempts to do.

 

It was a horrible piece of legislation, that struck out on cost, premiums and the potential negative impacts on the economy.

 

I'd much rather scrap this bill and start over.

 

Can you develop this point some more? It sounds like you have an idea for health reform that in principally different. How can you address the cost of health care short of cost controls though? Are you referring to allowing individuals to go to different states for health insurance so as to stimulate competition?

[GG]

Can you develop this point some more? It sounds like you have an idea for health reform that in principally different. How can you address the cost of health care short of cost controls though? Are you referring to allowing individuals to go to different states for health insurance so as to stimulate competition?

 

Find one instance where cost controls have been effective?

 

Good luck I'm that quest because you wont find it. Cost controls never work because they never address the demand side. Once you implement cost control, providers will cut back on service, and good providers will leave the field. In healthcare that will mean a lot more rationing of inferior services. Sure more people will be covered, but overall quality will suffer. Superprivate health clinics and services will pop up to serve the 1% who'll be able to afford it, but the rest will wait in line for institutionalized care.

 

I guess that counts for progress in some people's eyes because they think that doctors and hospitals will behave exactly the same under a public cost control model as they do under a private insurance model.

Edited May 12, 2012 by GG

[Juror#8]

Find one instance where cost controls have been effective?

 

Good luck I'm that quest because you wont find it. Cost controls never work because they never address the demand side. Once you implement cost control, providers will cut back on service, and good providers will leave the field. In healthcare that will mean a lot more rationing of inferior services. Sure more people will be covered, but overall quality will suffer. Superprivate health clinics and services will pop up to serve the 1% who'll be able to afford it, but the rest will wait in line for institutionalized care.

 

I guess that counts for progress in some people's eyes because they think that doctors and hospitals will behave exactly the same under a public cost control model as they do under a private insurance model.

 

I read you first sentence and stopped to reply.

 

I've NEVER suggested cost controls are a good thing. If you read the context of my statement, I'm asking what is there besides cost controls IF your goal is to "bend the cost curve." I don't know and that's why I'm asking him.

 

I don't agree with cost controls. Period.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Juror#8

[dayman]

Can you develop this point some more? It sounds like you have an idea for health reform that in principally different. How can you address the cost of health care short of cost controls though? Are you referring to allowing individuals to go to different states for health insurance so as to stimulate competition?

 

I'm on your side as far as the AFA being fine. But I'll address this issue b/c none of the anti-Obama side seem to get it. NO LEGISLATION WILL ON IT'S OWN...and there are reforms that will effect the way the government pays within the existing AFA that are in line with the LONG TERM CHANGE that must occur (will take years). Yes you could say "well we're worry about the uninsured in 10 years when the system is reformed" but that's not acceptable by many people's standards (including mine). The bottom line is the insurance industry is in the beginning stage of shifting from fee-for-service format to a fee-for-result structure, it's going to take time...maybe 20 years honestly to fully reform..there is no magic legislation that Republicans have up their sleeve that can somehow accelerate this. There isn't. And leaving to the states and just doing nothing is just ridiculous the states do a lot of things better than the federal government but healthcare isn't one of them. It has to do with the contracts the insurance companies have with the providers, same w/ government, and so on. Also it has to do with people purchasing INDIVIDUAL services having more skin in the game so it works more like a free market and you shop for a service instead of paying 1000% more for an MRI b/c the doctor you see set you up an appointment at the hospital.

 

 

 

This is an absolute crock, because the way the law is written, insurance companies will stop writing health policies within a decade because they won't be able to charge the necessary premiums to provide coverage, which will force more and more people into the government plans. And voila, a single payer system appears out of nowhere.

 

What you've said is an absolute crock, sir. I'm sorry but there's no other response to what you wrote than to just say you don't know what you are talking about. Nothing about "the way the law is written" is going to put health insurance companies out of business I promise you that. You can choose not to believe me, but just know you sound like an idiot.

 

It's like every Democrat I know somehow forgot they had full control of the WH, House and Senate for two freaking years. The only thing that stopped the president from getting single payer was the Democratic Party. As it stood at the time, they had to bribe and threaten Dems just to create the abortion that is ACA.

 

And this point, it is NOT what it is. One of the only consistent things about this law has been that virtually 60% of all Americans want it repealed. If the Supreme Court doesn't toss it out, then it's up to this country to elect a person who will.

 

90% of Americans have no idea how their own healthcare plan works. You would judge healthcare reform off public sentiment?

Edited May 12, 2012 by TheNewBills

[jjamie12]

No.

I believe that it does what I mentioned in post #1 that it does: it provides a beginning point for tackling the extant care subsidy debacle.

 

Then I just don't understand how the rest of what you wrote here makes sense. Fundamentally changing the trajectory of health care costs is the ONLY thing that can take us from 'health care costs are bankrupting the country' to 'health care costs are NOT bankrupting this country'. Doing all of the 'good' things that you like, WITHOUT fundamentally changing the cost of care only adds to and turbo charges the problems that we have.

 

I've delved into the legislation enough to know that there are things that I like and things that I don't like. Some just see "_________ trillion," "giveaway," "poor-people," "Fox," "mandate," etc. And they read/listen to what it takes to support those themes.

Not sure this country can pursue greatness being that profoundly discourteous to nuance.

Generally, I agree. Sometimes nuance gets in the way of common sense, though. I believe this is one of those times. We have a health care cost problem in this country. You and I both agree that this bill didn't do anything to address that. What other nuance do you need, really?

[Magox]

Can you develop this point some more? It sounds like you have an idea for health reform that in principally different. How can you address the cost of health care short of cost controls though? Are you referring to allowing individuals to go to different states for health insurance so as to stimulate competition?

First I would say there is no immediate sustained beneficial outcome for the long-term. Having said that, first and foremost it begins with the body.

 

1) How do we promote healthier living, better eating habits and more exercise and effectively filter this into the economy? There needs to be an emphasis on this, if we can smoke less cigarettes, eat less unhealthy foods, and exercise more as a society bending the cost of health care will go down over time.

 

2) There needs to be more medical file sharing. A central database for all medical providers would be helpful, it would promote more efficiency.

 

3) Tort Reform. There is a tangible impact and then there is an unquantifiable psychological impact. We do know that Doctors are scared shitless about getting sued, it is hard to judge exactly how many wasted and useless tests are performed by doctors simply because they dont want to get sued, but Id venture to guess that it isnt a negligible overall cost.

 

4) What about moving more towards a pay-for-performance sort of structure as opposed to the traditional fee-for-service system. Lets concentrate more on quality rather than quantity of care.

 

5) More preventative health care programs.

 

 

Those are a few ideas.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

90% of Americans have no idea how their own healthcare plan works. You would judge healthcare reform off public sentiment?

Gee, if only Obamacare actually WAS health care reform. It is anything but...

 

And yet this doesn't stop you from rolling out the tired old progressive talking point: the reason progressive programs are not liked by the people is because 90% of the people are just not smart enough to know what is best for them.

 

Ridiculous.

Edited May 12, 2012 by LABillzFan

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

 

 

 

90% of Americans have no idea how their own healthcare plan works. You would judge healthcare reform off public sentiment?

 

Good lord no. Next thing they will want is elections. The state knows best.

[dayman]

First I would say there is no immediate sustained beneficial outcome for the long-term. Having said that, first and foremost it begins with the body.

 

1) How do we promote healthier living, better eating habits and more exercise and effectively filter this into the economy? There needs to be an emphasis on this, if we can smoke less cigarettes, eat less unhealthy foods, and exercise more as a society bending the cost of health care will go down over time.

 

2) There needs to be more medical file sharing. A central database for all medical providers would be helpful, it would promote more efficiency.

 

3) Tort Reform. There is a tangible impact and then there is an unquantifiable psychological impact. We do know that Doctors are scared shitless about getting sued, it is hard to judge exactly how many wasted and useless tests are performed by doctors simply because they don’t want to get sued, but I’d venture to guess that it isn’t a negligible overall cost.

 

4) What about moving more towards a pay-for-performance sort of structure as opposed to the traditional fee-for-service system. Lets concentrate more on quality rather than quantity of care.

 

5) More preventative health care programs.

 

 

Those are a few ideas.

 

1. Agreed but let's be real...

 

2. Agreed

 

3. Disagree but you acknowledge that the cost is negligible so whatever..but just know tort reform is evil.

 

4. THIS IS THE ENTIRE DEAL! This IS how you reform healthcare. You change the pay structure, and then you make sure that those making the purchasing decision have enough skin in the game so that the industry actually works like a free market.

 

5. Agreed but let's be real...what this is really saying is the mandate is necessary...which I agree with just tell this to the GOP and remind them it was their idea please...

 

 

...anyway the point of my post was to just make sure everyone knew my feeling on the subject (lol)...point 4 is where it is at and that's serious talk....

Edited May 12, 2012 by TheNewBills

[jjamie12]

 

4. THIS IS THE ENTIRE DEAL! This IS how you reform healthcare. You change the pay structure, and then you make sure that those making the purchasing decision have enough skin in the game so that the industry actually works like a free market.

...anyway the point of my post was to just make sure everyone knew my feeling on the subject (lol)...point 4 is where it is at and that's serious talk....

 

How does ACA address your point #4? Please be as specific as you can.

 

If it doesn't, how can you say (from a few posts above) that you're "fine" with the ACA?

[dayman]

How does ACA address your point #4? Please be as specific as you can.

 

If it doesn't, how can you say (from a few posts above) that you're "fine" with the ACA?

 

Well like I said above, this isn't a reform that will happen with a piece of legislation IMO (generated by either side) outside of a single payer system in which case I guess you could accelerate the process but it still couldn't be overnight (and either way I'm not here to advocate a single payer system). Obviously the government is a huge purchaser but this change will still start in the private sector and it is moving that way slowly. Your insurance company and your doctor developing a more outcome based payment system and then (necessarily) you driving down the cost of your own care by shopping for the services you do need in a way that more resembles a free market, thus driving down the cost of care (and coincidentally driving up the demand for general practitioner services relative to specialists).

 

As for why I'm fine with ACA? Because of all the good things it does bring. Yes you could argue that maybe it would be better to continue to put off the issues effecting the uninsured for 10 or so years until we can work out what we are dealing with...but to me that is not acceptable morally b/c really this is something that needs to be addressed yesterday. And yes I know everyone ultimately receives the care they absolutely need but as has been repeated over and over in discussions like this there's the shifting of costs issue (and explosion of emergency costs issue) which does go to the underline cost of healthcare. Things like the 80/20 rule, the mandate/preexisting injury system, the extension of the age the child can stay on and other plan-related reform...it should theoretically encourage competition among plans it does try and address fraud...etc...I'm not ready to trash it. I call it progress.

Edited May 13, 2012 by TheNewBills

[DC Tom]

Obama is a straight up socialist in people's eyes for compromising on the single payer issue, adopting the Republican mandate, and starting to reform the industry. How in God's name would you expect him to actually pass legislation that directly effects the COST? At this point...it is what it is and we'll take it and begin moving forward. Not sure what ideas the right have put forth to curb cost or reform insurance btw but if you know please tell me...

 

Actually, he's a socialist for wanting single payer. He's a coward for compromising.

[Alaska Darin]

That's the point, you're not disagreeing with me. If we had a reasoned disagreement than far be it for me to call you anything but a principled opponent.

 

I'd respect that and move on.

 

But it is intellectually suspect when someone says that everything in opposition to them is a lie - in order to insulate their beliefs from criticism or re-evaluation. Polls - lie. Blogs - lie. Articles - lie. Newspapers - lie.

 

The only one talking in absolutes is YOU ([paraphrasing] ACA is bad; it sucks; don't care about you; evidence is partisan).

 

The only one (as between you and I) speaking dialectically, is me ("the bill has challenges," "it's a floor," "it's a canvas to be improved upon...").

 

I haven't spoken in absolutes. My only compliment to the bill was that there are certain provisions that people - republicans, democrats, and independents - really like.

 

You need the mirror.

First: I don't care about your opinion of me. I've stated it at least once already. You can stop with that entire line. I didn't care about being popular when it was supposed to be important and I care less about it now. You're a freakin' cat toy.

 

The rest of your post is a giant pile of horseshit. You don't speak "dialectically" about a 2700+ page bill and call it a "floor", a "canvas", or any other comparative word based on the criteria you're using unless you're a !@#$ing drone. ACA doesn't even begin to address the real reasons why health care is expensive in America because if it did the governments at all levels would get the blame it deserves and there is a chance we may be able to make actual headway.

 

I really appreciate the "I know you are but what am I" part of the post. Pretty obvious there's absolutely no original thought going on. Keep reading the polls and pretending that the 3 pages that "some people really like" somehow absolve the 2697+ other pages that none of the politicians nor their apologists has ever read and the cost estimates that have doubled in the last year (and will likely double again withing 24 months).

 

I speak in absolutes because I have principles and convictions and I'm not solely shaped by the information I'm bombarded with on a daily basis. It's called leadership. I'm not surprised you don't recognize it. Few people can anymore.

[dayman]

I speak in absolutes because I have principles and convictions and I'm not shaped solely by the information I'm bombarded with on a daily basis. It's called leadership. I'm not surprised you don't recognize it. Few people can anymore.

 

LOL. Classic.

[Doc]

Actually, he's a socialist for wanting single payer. He's a coward for compromising.

I agree with the first part, but he compromised because he couldn't get this POS passed any other way and they "had to do something." So they did the next best thing and came up with a 2,700 page monstrosity that will bankrupt insurance companies and lead to single payer.

 

As for paying for quality, that's never going to fly.