Impeach John Roberts?

[DC Tom]

yep. this is precisely why so many haves are against it. the have nots will take some of their healthcare resources. but as the number of uninsured has grown so have the number that will benefit from the bill. i prefer to think that most humans aren't innately selfish but the evidence from opinions on this bill show otherwise.

 

Actually, it's because unless you put controls in place to manage the exclusive-use resource, you're going to blow up a large segment of the economy and make sure no one has anything. The law doesn't suck because it's giving other people "my" health care. The law sucks because it completely ignores very basic economic principles and can't possibly work.

 

If you supported actual health care reform, and weren't just a mentally deficient partisan shill, you wouldn't support this law.

[birdog1960]

Actually, it's because unless you put controls in place to manage the exclusive-use resource, you're going to blow up a large segment of the economy and make sure no one has anything. The law doesn't suck because it's giving other people "my" health care. The law sucks because it completely ignores very basic economic principles and can't possibly work.

 

If you supported actual health care reform, and weren't just a mentally deficient partisan shill, you wouldn't support this law.

i do. as others have alluded to this is the first step towards single payer, and it's a big one. the ice is broken.

[Adam]

i do. as others have alluded to this is the first step towards single payer, and it's a big one. the ice is broken.

I can't see single payer happening- ever.

[DC Tom]

i do. as others have alluded to this is the first step towards single payer, and it's a big one. the ice is broken.

 

Which is true (sort of...if you ignore the pandering to the insurance and drug industries) But fundamentally ridiculous. The first step to reform is to utterly destroy the existing system, and somehow the economic dislocation and expense that causes will somehow be more productive than ACTUALLY implementing single payer? That's truly a communist idea - the only way to implement some economic ideal of equality being to slash-and-burn the existing system and start from scratch.

 

Utterly retarded. You are the epitome of fallacy of prioritizing good will over reality. Unfortunately, that'll make you the epitome of the triumph of reality over good will - because no matter how many group hugs you want to legislate, reality can't be fooled.

[Juror#8]

Very well stated.

 

Our ACA advocates on the board seem to have a blind spot to this, no matter who posts it.

 

Everyone (supposedly) will be covered, but there are limited resources (and I contend then will get even scarcer) and an increased amount of clients.

 

There will be delays

There will be panels.

 

 

.

 

I've tackled this very question in another thread that delved deeply into resource preservation and exacerbation of existing injury. I had the conversation with Tom and others. In fact, no one was able to answer my contention that early access to health insurance will result in end game resource preservation.

 

Question: Will more people on the insurance rolls mean that more resources will be required beyond that which would have been required had not more people been on the insurance rolls?

 

In order to make the argument that there won't be enough pie left for the hungry, don't we have to assume the bolded point above as "fact."

[Doc]

Which is true (sort of...if you ignore the pandering to the insurance and drug industries) But fundamentally ridiculous. The first step to reform is to utterly destroy the existing system, and somehow the economic dislocation and expense that causes will somehow be more productive than ACTUALLY implementing single payer? That's truly a communist idea - the only way to implement some economic ideal of equality being to slash-and-burn the existing system and start from scratch.

 

Utterly retarded. You are the epitome of fallacy of prioritizing good will over reality. Unfortunately, that'll make you the epitome of the triumph of reality over good will - because no matter how many group hugs you want to legislate, reality can't be fooled.

It's funny money to them. Monopoly money.

[birdog1960]

Which is true (sort of...if you ignore the pandering to the insurance and drug industries) But fundamentally ridiculous. The first step to reform is to utterly destroy the existing system, and somehow the economic dislocation and expense that causes will somehow be more productive than ACTUALLY implementing single payer? That's truly a communist idea - the only way to implement some economic ideal of equality being to slash-and-burn the existing system and start from scratch.

 

Utterly retarded. You are the epitome of fallacy of prioritizing good will over reality. Unfortunately, that'll make you the epitome of the triumph of reality over good will - because no matter how many group hugs you want to legislate, reality can't be fooled.

the aca passed with great difficulty. there's only one route to single payer and that's sloooow and stepwise. that's the reality for those who desire it. it miay well never happen but if it does it will be this way.

[Juror#8]

Fixed. If anything, actual care will be more difficult to get. You can't increase the use of an exclusive-use resource without decreasing availability.

 

 

Question: Will more people on the insurance rolls mean that more resources will be required beyond that which would have been required had not more people been on the insurance rolls?

[DC Tom]

Question: Will more people on the insurance rolls mean that more resources will be required beyond that which would have been required had not more people been on the insurance rolls?

 

Yes, actually. Yes, I'm aware that the complaint was that we incur a cost for the uninsured anyway, as they get urgent care in the ER...but wasn't a big part of the complaint that too many people couldn't get health care for lack of insurance? And won't those people now be using more health care resources? Or are you suggesting that an increase in insurance coverage is not going to prompt an increase in health care usage?

 

Hell, the mantra this whole time has been "Health care for all!" If that's at all accurate, then more people are going to be using the same resources. If that's NOT accurate, and scarcity isn't an issue...then what the hell was the point of the reform?

 

And that's not even considering the other economic unrealities in the legislation. Such as: insured or uninsured, patients still incur costs, and those costs still get passed back ultimately to the American consumer (via taxes or premiums). So where exactly is this savings supposed to come from? Transferring the liability between entities is not "saving" anything. One might argue that it comes from the caps on annual increases on premiums...which ultimately passes the cost to the insurers themselves (which will ultimately bankrupt them and lead to their nationalization...thus achieving birddog's cherished "single payer", albiet much more destructively and expensively than is at all necessary).

 

Which also illustrates the fallacy of addressing "health care costs" by regulating health insurance: by making the insurance more affordable to the consumer while playing a shell game with costs, you're accomplishing at best nothing (at worst backing the health insurance industry - "health care industry," as the supporters of the ACA confuse - into a corner.

 

How is this at ALL constructive reform?

[Doc]

Yes, actually. Yes, I'm aware that the complaint was that we incur a cost for the uninsured anyway, as they get urgent care in the ER...but wasn't a big part of the complaint that too many people couldn't get health care for lack of insurance? And won't those people now be using more health care resources? Or are you suggesting that an increase in insurance coverage is not going to prompt an increase in health care usage?

 

Hell, the mantra this whole time has been "Health care for all!" If that's at all accurate, then more people are going to be using the same resources. If that's NOT accurate, and scarcity isn't an issue...then what the hell was the point of the reform?

 

And that's not even considering the other economic unrealities in the legislation. Such as: insured or uninsured, patients still incur costs, and those costs still get passed back ultimately to the American consumer (via taxes or premiums). So where exactly is this savings supposed to come from? Transferring the liability between entities is not "saving" anything. One might argue that it comes from the caps on annual increases on premiums...which ultimately passes the cost to the insurers themselves (which will ultimately bankrupt them and lead to their nationalization...thus achieving birddog's cherished "single payer", albiet much more destructively and expensively than is at all necessary).

 

Which also illustrates the fallacy of addressing "health care costs" by regulating health insurance: by making the insurance more affordable to the consumer while playing a shell game with costs, you're accomplishing at best nothing (at worst backing the health insurance industry - "health care industry," as the supporters of the ACA confuse - into a corner.

 

How is this at ALL constructive reform?

Because reform was needed. And now that it's been upheld, we only need another 1,500 pages of changes and another 32 committees to make it run as well as all the other government programs.

 

You were more diplomtic than I was planning on being. "F'ing obviuosly" is what I was going to reply, but since he was asking you, I thought I'd let you have first crack at it.

 

I get the sense that supported of Obamacare think that utilization of health care resources will at best stay flat. And that costs won't rise. And that the ER's will suddenly go silent. And that rainbows will fart unicorns.

[DC Tom]

I get the sense that supported of Obamacare think that utilization of health care resources will at best stay flat. And that costs won't rise. And that the ER's will suddenly go silent. And that rainbows will fart unicorns.

 

I get the sense that they don't really care, because it feels good to do good things for people and that's what's important.

 

I always thought it felt better to do good things for people in the context of reality, myself...

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

Yes, actually. Yes, I'm aware that the complaint was that we incur a cost for the uninsured anyway, as they get urgent care in the ER...but wasn't a big part of the complaint that too many people couldn't get health care for lack of insurance? And won't those people now be using more health care resources? Or are you suggesting that an increase in insurance coverage is not going to prompt an increase in health care usage?

 

Hell, the mantra this whole time has been "Health care for all!" If that's at all accurate, then more people are going to be using the same resources. If that's NOT accurate,

and scarcity

isn't an issue...then what the hell was the point of the reform?

 

And that's not even considering the other economic unrealities in the legislation. Such as: insured or uninsured, patients still incur costs, and those costs still get passed back ultimately to the American consumer (via taxes or premiums). So where exactly is this savings supposed to come from? Transferring the liability between entities is not "saving" anything. One might argue that it comes from the caps on annual increases on premiums...which ultimately passes the cost to the insurers themselves (which will ultimately bankrupt them and lead to their nationalization...thus achieving birddog's cherished "single payer", albiet much more destructively and expensively than is at all necessary).

 

Which also illustrates the fallacy of addressing "health care costs" by regulating health insurance: by making the insurance more affordable to the consumer while playing a shell game with costs, you're accomplishing at best nothing (at worst backing the health insurance industry - "health care industry," as the supporters of the ACA confuse - into a corner.

 

How is this at ALL constructive reform?

 

this is the most relevant point. in any system, health care will be rationed. private or public. competition can help, taxing the rich to a point can help, having everyone pay into the system can help, etc. but you will never get around the rationing aspect. its just better or worse depending on the system. people always say we spend twice as much as everyone else but as tom pointed out, those costs are just passed on through taxes. this has to do with a fundamental value system of markets. im not so sure health care applies to a market philosophy, one reason being, a person cannot refuse to get health care when they are sick. its not like shopping for shoes. you could imagine how problematic it would be if we all had to have nike shoes in order to survive, the price would skyrocket in a market. a great example of this is what patent laws did to the access to hiv medication, the price went through the roof... this is why health care workers make less in single payer systems.

 

it's a tough question. i lean towards having a market system for basic health care needs, and single payer for catastrophic care. im not sure how this would look budget wise and the problem is so complex, i dont think you can solve the problem unless we developed a much higher technological capacity, like with AI...

Edited June 29, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[Adam]

Fixed. If anything, actual care will be more difficult to get. You can't increase the use of an exclusive-use resource without decreasing availability.

This is one of the more interesting thoughts on the law, but I raise a question to it: If it spreads the resource more thin than it was, wouldn't that lead to more people getting into the medical profession, due to more opportunities?

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

This is one of the more interesting thoughts on the law, but I raise a question to it: If it spreads the resource more thin than it was, wouldn't that lead to more people getting into the medical profession, due to more opportunities?

 

depends on the market. and if there are price controls, people might not go to med school because their investment does not payoff. people do not go to school for 10 years to make 75k a year...

[DC Tom]

This is one of the more interesting thoughts on the law, but I raise a question to it: If it spreads the resource more thin than it was, wouldn't that lead to more people getting into the medical profession, due to more opportunities?

 

Theoretically, and more likely we end up importing doctors from other countries and loosening standards of care (so that, for example, psychologists or nurses can prescribe medication). But 1) there's still a significant lag between demand and supply (meaning supply won't catch up for "a while," if ever with increasing demand). And 2) it's more than just "doctors". There's time (i.e. time spent by doctors in administrivia is lost to patients, or the time required by administrivia requires more trained support staff), equipment (my use of an MRI precludes yours for the same time period), medication (free vaccinations - a great idea - means increased demand for something that no one wants to manufacture because of unlimited liability and low margins).

 

Which is why it's such a shoddy bill. "Free vaccinations!" without a method of actually supplying them? The triumph of Sesame Street over reality.

 

this is the most relevant point. in any system, health care will be rationed. private or public. competition can help, taxing the rich to a point can help, having everyone pay into the system can help, etc. but you will never get around the rationing aspect. its just better or worse depending on the system. people always say we spend twice as much as everyone else but as tom pointed out, those costs are just passed on through taxes. this has to do with a fundamental value system of markets. im not so sure health care applies to a market philosophy, one reason being, a person cannot refuse to get health care when they are sick. its not like shopping for shoes. you could imagine how problematic it would be if we all had to have nike shoes in order to survive, the price would skyrocket in a market. a great example of this is what patent laws did to the access to hiv medication, the price went through the roof... this is why health care workers make less in single payer systems.

 

it's a tough question. i lean towards having a market system for basic health care needs, and single payer for catastrophic care. im not sure how this would look budget wise and the problem is so complex, i dont think you can solve the problem unless we developed a much higher technological capacity, like with AI...

 

You !@#$ing idiot. While you're not wrong, what you just wrote runs completely counter to EVERY bull **** ECONOMIC POST YOU'VE MADE UP TO THIS POINT!!!!!

[OCinBuffalo]

...prime debate material, not that a significant majority of the electorate will digest it... maybe if they have a group of invalids in a series of ads about it.

This is the diametric opposite of what will happen. First of all, the electorate knows about this issue. It's the height of wishful thinking to presume otherwise.

 

2nd, if I was Romney, I'd stay away from Obamacare/tax, whatever. Why?

1. It's not like the entire Republican constituency won't be making Tom's argument on every single talk show, so why does he have to?

2. It's not like the TEA party won't be making the freedom argument. Notice: I said freedom, not constitutionality. We cannot argue that Obamacare makes us more free, as that would be ludicrous. By definition, Obamacare is designed to make a large decision...for people, and then give them fixed and predetermined options within that decision. So, again why does Romney have to?

 

Obama would also be wise to stay away from this topic in debates. That's because arguing against the economics or the freedom arguments is fraught with landmines. One slip up and he risks creating a deadly soundbite, that will not go away. Obama sans teleprompter = not good. We haven't seen him decisively win a debate yet. Paul Ryan shredded him in that televised "meeting". If anything McCain beat him soundly once, and tied the rest. And that's McCain. The very last thing Obama wants is to start out a debate on defense. And, that's precisely where he will be if the Obamacare issue is raised. Look, I understand that Obama will be on defense for most debates on most issues. However, there's a difference between defending from midfield and from your own 10 yard line.

 

Given these, I fail to see how this is "prime debate material" for either candidate. I fully expect the PACs to hit this issue all day, every day. Romney is smart to let them, and stay away, and Obama is smart to let them, hope the ads aren't that great, weather the storm and hope the loss isn't too great. The polls don't lie: this is a loser for Obama, because a large majority of our people hate it.

 

Separate from that: I have no idea why Rendell is telling Democrats to stand up and defend this awfulness...well, I do if his agenda is to run himself, or have Hillary do it, in 2016. Or, he may just be as pragmatic as I am: you can't run away from your signature issue, it's an albatross, and you might as well stand in there and take it. He's going to lose on it either way, better to lose like a man, and reduce the damage.

 

As far as impeaching John Roberts? Retarded. Both on principle(because the man has them, and stood by them), and...read the above. John Roberts, regardless of intention, may have just done more political damage to the left than anyone realizes. Also: it's not like he isn't smart enough to know that. Nothing is funnier than watching liberals praise a guy who may have just put the noose around their necks.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

Theoretically, and more likely we end up importing doctors from other countries and loosening standards of care (so that, for example, psychologists or nurses can prescribe medication). But 1) there's still a significant lag between demand and supply (meaning supply won't catch up for "a while," if ever with increasing demand). And 2) it's more than just "doctors". There's time (i.e. time spent by doctors in administrivia is lost to patients, or the time required by administrivia requires more trained support staff), equipment (my use of an MRI precludes yours for the same time period), medication (free vaccinations - a great idea - means increased demand for something that no one wants to manufacture because of unlimited liability and low margins).

 

Which is why it's such a shoddy bill. "Free vaccinations!" without a method of actually supplying them? The triumph of Sesame Street over reality.

 

 

 

You !@#$ing idiot. While you're not wrong, what you just wrote runs completely counter to EVERY bull **** ECONOMIC POST YOU'VE MADE UP TO THIS POINT!!!!!

 

 

tom, for once can we just have a normal conversation without being dicks to each other? christ.... you start this **** everytime.

Edited July 1, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[/dev/null]

tom, for once can we just have a normal conversation without being dicks to each other?

Doubtful. Tom can't even say hello to somebody without being a dick

[DC Tom]

tom, for once can we just have a normal conversation without being dicks to each other? christ.... you start this **** everytime.

 

When you start showing you're capable of a normal conversation, I'll stop being a dick.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

When you start showing you're capable of a normal conversation, I'll stop being a dick.

 

you started it.