What's Good About the ACA (Obamacare)?

[birdog1960]

You'll note, that if you read carefully, I've addressed this already in the portion of my posts that repeatedly mention catastrophic and chronic medical expenses and a nationalized risk pool for these things.

 

 

Your examples have cherry-picked data and disregard many economic and social realities that separate the US from other nations, many of which have been mentioned by Doc, and despite some distaste you may have for those facts, you can't simply hand-wave them away. As for "my system" it's hardly mine, it's largely the system that was in place in the 60's before Big Insurance and Big Pharma lobbied their way into government and convinced the average American that it would be cheaper for them to pay massively inflated costs with scare tactics, and has existed in every other industry in the world for thousands of years driving technological advancement and lowering consumer costs. These strategies aren't just proven, but they are the only proven kid on the block, everything else being a varied take on the failed models of centralized planning.

you guys are incredible! i'm disregarding and hand waving? Really, who are the partisan shills here. you're flying your true colors

 

and you call me out on a fallacy like appeal to authority (which can be considered valid reasoning if the authority is universally well regarded) and let stand a post with an obvious ad hominem attack and deeply flawed premises?

 

so stop ypor hand waving and come up with some refuting data. i've cited the only study in this thread that is comprehensive and well accepted. you and doc choose to disregard it and criticise but with no data to back up your cricisms. have it at. i'm waitin g with baited breath.

[ieatcrayonz]

you guys are incredible! i'm disregarding and hand waving? Really, who are the partisan shills here. you're flying your true colors

 

and you call me out on a fallacy like appeal to authority (which can be considered valid reasoning if the authority is universally well regarded) and let stand a post with an obvious ad hominem attack and deeply flawed premises?

 

 

Is all this talk about fallacies and homo stuff really appropriate in this thread? Sex, sex, sex....what does that have to do with health care?

 

Anyway if you think the premises are deeply flawed you don't understand professor commies. Let me ask you a few questions:

 

1. Were there professor-ish doofusses with all the answers in that video?

 

2. Did those answers involves the world stopping on a dime and waiting while they introduced and implemented the system where government an/or professors would control everything?

 

3. Did those answers involve you having less control over your own care and medical providers having less control than they currently have?

 

4. If you were a drug company in the proposed grand new world of the bearded commies, would you invest a lot of money in R&D?

 

I didn't watch the video but I'm pretty sure I know the answer to all of those questions just by looking at the dorks in the Youtube frame you posted.

 

 

so stop ypor hand waving and come up with some refuting data. i've cited the only study in this thread that is comprehensive and well accepted. you and doc choose to disregard it and criticise but with no data to back up your cricisms. have it at. i'm waitin g with baited breath.

 

 

This is funny. It is like asking people to refute that heaven is a great place. The professor commies only have to say "the system will handle that because....blah blah blah bs bs.......to keep kicking the stupid argument down the road. I'd rather just call a commie a commie and ignore them. Our society should really consider my approach. And you really shouldn't taunt people by using commie videos and trying to look smart at least until you understand the use and meanings of simple phrases.

Edited July 23, 2012 by ieatcrayonz

[Doc]

you guys are incredible! i'm disregarding and hand waving? Really, who are the partisan shills here. you're flying your true colors

 

and you call me out on a fallacy like appeal to authority (which can be considered valid reasoning if the authority is universally well regarded) and let stand a post with an obvious ad hominem attack and deeply flawed premises?

 

so stop ypor hand waving and come up with some refuting data. i've cited the only study in this thread that is comprehensive and well accepted. you and doc choose to disregard it and criticise but with no data to back up your cricisms. have it at. i'm waitin g with baited breath.

The Commonwealth Fund is a liberal foundation and can be largely ignored because they're not comparing apples to apples, for reasons I mentioned, along with the ones that TYTT mentioned (Big Pharma and Insurance paying-off pols to make them more money). And again, Obamacare does little to improve the situation.

[birdog1960]

The Commonwealth Fund is a liberal foundation and can be largely ignored because they're not comparing apples to apples, for reasons I mentioned, along with the ones that TYTT mentioned (Big Pharma and Insurance paying-off pols to make them more money). And again, Obamacare does little to improve the situation.

and again, show me some data to refute it. show me where the illegal aliens, and whatever other groups you want to scapegoat, cost north of $4k per person per year extra in the us. explain the poor outcomes despite the huge expense in the us.

 

i'll be waiting a very long time most likely since no one, even the private insurance cos, want to fund a study that will almost surely further illuminate their problems. they, like every other reasonable person that looks at this issue, knows that for profit medicine is expensive and inefficient.

 

even the conservative politicians don't make the lame arguments you guys are making.

 

and taskers idea to go back to the system of the early 60"s. brilliant! it worked so well for the elderly back then. the risk pool he's talking about is medicare ie the govt covering all the expensive cases. now that's progress.

 

what this boils down to in my mind is that one side believes that providing basic healthcare to all citizens is the only reasonable, moral and ethical course and oner side says "screw em", it's their own fault. don't think these 2 opinions can ever be reconciled.

[Doc]

and again, show me some data to refute it. show me where the illegal aliens, and whatever other groups you want to scapegoat, cost north of $4k per person per year extra in the us. explain the poor outcomes despite the huge expense in the us.

 

i'll be waiting a very long time most likely since no one, even the private insurance cos, want to fund a study that will almost surely further illuminate their problems. they, like every other reasonable person that looks at this issue, knows that for profit medicine is expensive and inefficient.

 

even the conservative politicians don't make the lame arguments you guys are making.

 

and taskers idea to go back to the system of the early 60"s. brilliant! it worked so well for the elderly back then. the risk pool he's talking about is medicare ie the govt covering all the expensive cases. now that's progress.

 

what this boils down to in my mind is that one side believes that providing basic healthcare to all citizens is the only reasonable, moral and ethical course and oner side says "screw em", it's their own fault. don't think these 2 opinions can ever be reconciled.

LOL! You're talking "reasonable, moral, and ethical" when you favor rationing? So when premature infants are born, you're okay with letting them die, right? Just like other socialized medicine countries do, so they can claim "better" infant mortality rates and lower costs? Denying cancer drugs to cancer patients? Alzheimer's drugs? Hip and knee replacements? Cataract surgeries? Transplants to all but the previously healthy? Turning-off life support even when there's a slim chance of recovery?

 

Sorry, I don't have that data on how much that would save, but it's obviously a lot. But to talk about what's "ethical or moral" is pretty laughable.

[birdog1960]

LOL! You're talking "reasonable, moral, and ethical" when you favor rationing? So when premature infants are born, you're okay with letting them die, right? Just like other socialized medicine countries do, so they can claim "better" infant mortality rates and lower costs? Denying cancer drugs to cancer patients? Alzheimer's drugs? Hip and knee replacements? Cataract surgeries? Transplants to all but the previously healthy? Turning-off life support even when there's a slim chance of recovery?

 

Sorry, I don't have that data on how much that would save, but it's obviously a lot. But to talk about what's "ethical or moral" is pretty laughable.

but in the current model, it's ok to deny even basic care to those who can't afford it? that's the choice. basic care for everyone and elective care to those who can afford it. or elective and basic care to 4/5 of the population with the rest getting the scraps from charity care. and even that model isn't sustainable. it's costing exhorbitant amounts with poor outcomes. very few could afford that level of care on their own. how does it work out that we can afford it colectively? we can't. yes, a system that provides for the most people at the lowest cost requires allocation of scarce resources to be done in a rational way.

 

and, um, they do cataract surgeries and chemo and transplants and joint replacements in all of the countries compared in the study. they wait longer for them (excepting chemo) because there is less capacity for elective needs and more for basic.

Edited July 23, 2012 by birdog1960

[WorldTraveller]

you guys are incredible! i'm disregarding and hand waving? Really, who are the partisan shills here. you're flying your true colors

 

and you call me out on a fallacy like appeal to authority (which can be considered valid reasoning if the authority is universally well regarded) and let stand a post with an obvious ad hominem attack and deeply flawed premises?

 

so stop ypor hand waving and come up with some refuting data. i've cited the only study in this thread that is comprehensive and well accepted. you and doc choose to disregard it and criticise but with no data to back up your cricisms. have it at. i'm waitin g with baited breath.

I believe this is the most worked up I've ever seen you.

 

We are definitely an in election year. lol

[ieatcrayonz]

but in the current model, it's ok to deny even basic care to those who can't afford it? that's the choice. basic care for everyone and elective care to those who can afford it. or elective and basic care to 4/5 of the population with the rest getting the scraps from charity care. and even that model isn't sustainable. it's costing exhorbitant amounts with poor outcomes. very few could afford that level of care on their own. how does it work out that we can afford it colectively? we can't. yes, a system that provides for the most people at the lowest cost requires allocation of scarce resources to be done in a rational way.

 

and, um, they do cataract surgeries and chemo and transplants and joint replacements in all of the countries compared in the study. they wait longer for them (excepting chemo) because there is less capacity for elective needs and more for basic.

 

In other words nobody has any freedom to decide on what they can or cannot get from the health care system? Even if they spent their life earning billions they still have no freedom to choose their care. Everybody is dependent on the bearded commies? That sounds like a good plan because bearded commies are usually nice and they smile a lot.

 

And are preemies not included in the "basic care" part or the "everyone" part? Are the bearded commies the deciders of who fits the "everyone" part, the "basic care" part, or both?

 

P.S. I'm waiting with "bated breath" for you to answer the 4 questions I raised in my earlier post.

Edited July 23, 2012 by ieatcrayonz

[birdog1960]

yet your willing to state unconditionally that they explain a significant part of the cost difference?

[Doc]

but in the current model, it's ok to deny even basic care to those who can't afford it? that's the choice. basic care for everyone and elective care to those who can afford it. or elective and basic care to 4/5 of the population with the rest getting the scraps from charity care. and even that model isn't sustainable. it's costing exhorbitant amounts with poor outcomes. very few could afford that level of care on their own. how does it work out that we can afford it colectively? we can't. yes, a system that provides for the most people at the lowest cost requires allocation of scarce resources to be done in a rational way.

 

and, um, they do cataract surgeries and chemo and transplants and joint replacements in all of the countries compared in the study. they wait longer for them (excepting chemo) because there is less capacity for elective needs and more for basic.

No one is denied health care in this country. If you have a problem, you can go to the ER and get treated. If you don't have insurance, you can pay out of pocket to be seen by a doctor. The notion that medical care should be cheap or free, is ridiculous. It has to be paid somehow. If you don't have any interest in keeping your costs down by taking better care of yourself, you have no right to complain about how expensive it is to take care of you. Again the problem is most people have no skin in the game and no incentive to change their behavior, yet they want the latest and greatest, want it immediately, and don't want to pay for it, while wanting the right to sue and get the maximum they can if something goes wrong. Again Obamacare does NOTHING to solve these problems and will only make costs increase faster than ever, and we're finding that out in the other socialized countries as their costs begin to escalate annually despite not having the underlying problems we have here in the US.

[birdog1960]

No one is denied health care in this country. If you have a problem, you can go to the ER and get treated. If you don't have insurance, you can pay out of pocket to be seen by a doctor. The notion that medical care should be cheap or free, is ridiculous. It has to be paid somehow. If you don't have any interest in keeping your costs down by taking better care of yourself, you have no right to complain about how expensive it is to take care of you. Again the problem is most people have no skin in the game and no incentive to change their behavior, yet they want the latest and greatest, want it immediately, and don't want to pay for it, while wanting the right to sue and get the maximum they can if something goes wrong. Again Obamacare does NOTHING to solve these problems and will only make costs increase faster than ever, and we're finding that out in the other socialized countries as their costs begin to escalate annually despite not having the underlying problems we have here in the US.

once again, the "let them eat cake argument". is that what you wrote about in the "why i want to be a doctor" essays for med school applications?

 

can't you see that the reason our outcomes are bad is that a significant percentage of the populataion gets substandard care?? or doesn't that matter to you? nevermind, i know the answer.

Edited July 23, 2012 by birdog1960

[Doc]

once again, the "let them eat cake argument". is that what you wrote about in the "why i want to be a doctor" essays for med school applications?

 

can't you see that the reason our outcomes are bad is that a significant percentage of the populataion gets substandard care?? or doesn't that matter to you? nevermind, i know the answer.

I certainly care. That's why I implore my patients to quit smoking, despite the fact that it does nothing for me (a patient quitting smoking after the impending surgery doesn't help with the impending surgery and I likely won't see them ever again anyway). What I am saying is that it starts with the patient and his/her lifestyle choices for the majority of cases.

[ieatcrayonz]

once again, the "let them eat cake argument". is that what you wrote about in the "why i want to be a doctor" essays for med school applications?

 

can't you see that the reason our outcomes are bad is that a significant percentage of the populataion gets substandard care?? or doesn't that matter to you? nevermind, i know the answer.

Pertinent link

[3rdnlng]

I certainly care. That's why I implore my patients to quit smoking, despite the fact that it does nothing for me (a patient quitting smoking after the impending surgery doesn't help with the impending surgery and I likely won't see them ever again anyway). What I am saying is that it starts with the patient and his/her lifestyle choices for the majority of cases.

 

Had some serious surgery a dozen years ago and the anesthesiologist of course "interviewed" me ahead of time. The smoking question came up and when I told him I'd been tobacco free for the last three months he commented that "you cant't believe how much that makes it better for you going through this". Just FWIW.

[Doc]

Had some serious surgery a dozen years ago and the anesthesiologist of course "interviewed" me ahead of time. The smoking question came up and when I told him I'd been tobacco free for the last three months he commented that "you cant't believe how much that makes it better for you going through this". Just FWIW.

Yep. We like ex- or non-smokers. Again quitting after the surgery doesn't help us much.

[Rob's House]

but in the current model, it's ok to deny even basic care to those who can't afford it? that's the choice. basic care for everyone and elective care to those who can afford it. or elective and basic care to 4/5 of the population with the rest getting the scraps from charity care. and even that model isn't sustainable. it's costing exhorbitant amounts with poor outcomes. very few could afford that level of care on their own. how does it work out that we can afford it colectively? we can't. yes, a system that provides for the most people at the lowest cost requires allocation of scarce resources to be done in a rational way.

 

and, um, they do cataract surgeries and chemo and transplants and joint replacements in all of the countries compared in the study. they wait longer for them (excepting chemo) because there is less capacity for elective needs and more for basic.

Here's where I check out of the conversation. I can accept that not everyone gets the economics of thing, but that's where the discussion gets interesting. But here the conversation goes completely off the tracks.

 

When we start pretending the world is different from the way it is to make arguments more compelling; such as pretending mass numbers are denied access to basic medical treatment and dismissing out of hand the very real factors that Doc mentioned, and then moralizing to avoid acknowledging the economic realities; it becomes impossible to have a meaningful discussion. It's like me trying to discuss my liver health while denying I'm a heavy drinker despite going through three cases a week.

 

The reason our output lags relative to input has more to do with manipulation of supply & demand than any other single factor. You don't need an advance degree in economics to know that. Anyone who's taken a 300 level course on the subject & can't explain that should ask for his tuition back.

 

And this word "ad hominem" does not describe what TTYT did in the post you called out. Ad hominem is when I say you're an aging liberal hippy douche and therefore we shouldn't listen to you.

[birdog1960]

Here's where I check out of the conversation. I can accept that not everyone gets the economics of thing, but that's where the discussion gets interesting. But here the conversation goes completely off the tracks.

 

When we start pretending the world is different from the way it is to make arguments more compelling; such as pretending mass numbers are denied access to basic medical treatment and dismissing out of hand the very real factors that Doc mentioned, and then moralizing to avoid acknowledging the economic realities; it becomes impossible to have a meaningful discussion. It's like me trying to discuss my liver health while denying I'm a heavy drinker despite going through three cases a week.

 

The reason our output lags relative to input has more to do with manipulation of supply & demand than any other single factor. You don't need an advance degree in economics to know that. Anyone who's taken a 300 level course on the subject & can't explain that should ask for his tuition back.

 

And this word "ad hominem" does not describe what TTYT did in the post you called out. Ad hominem is when I say you're an aging liberal hippy douche and therefore we shouldn't listen to you.

ad hominem was attacking the argument based on the proponents being "communist". maybe you should brush up on your logic before some "communist" law school prof reams you a new one.

 

this is my last post on the subject as i've discovered it futile to try to convince heartless people including doctors who feel it altruistic to do things that don't help ]him for patients on occasion, to be compassionate. this wouldn't be needed if basic care was readily available to all americans. it's a fact that it's not and it's pretty easy to find evidence to prove it but you all choose to avert your eyes. thankfully, there are those that look hard.

 

now comes the classless, juvenile sarcasm and insults of the unfortunate people in the pictures...

[WorldTraveller]

ad hominem was attacking the argument based on the proponents being "communist". maybe you should brush up on your logic before some "communist" law school prof reams you a new one.

 

this is my last post on the subject as i've discovered it futile to try to convince heartless people including doctors who feel it altruistic to do things that don't help ]him for patients on occasion, to be compassionate. this wouldn't be needed if basic care was readily available to all americans. it's a fact that it's not and it's pretty easy to find evidence to prove it but you all choose to avert your eyes. thankfully, there are those that look hard.

 

now comes the classless, juvenile sarcasm and insults of the unfortunate people in the pictures...

So if you oppose it, you're "heartless"?

 

Geez

Edited July 25, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[TakeYouToTasker]

ad hominem was attacking the argument based on the proponents being "communist". maybe you should brush up on your logic before some "communist" law school prof reams you a new one.

Please quote where I called you, or anyone else for that matter, a communist; or even mentioned communism at all.

[Doc]

ad hominem was attacking the argument based on the proponents being "communist". maybe you should brush up on your logic before some "communist" law school prof reams you a new one.

 

this is my last post on the subject as i've discovered it futile to try to convince heartless people including doctors who feel it altruistic to do things that don't help ]him for patients on occasion, to be compassionate. this wouldn't be needed if basic care was readily available to all americans. it's a fact that it's not and it's pretty easy to find evidence to prove it but you all choose to avert your eyes. thankfully, there are those that look hard.

 

now comes the classless, juvenile sarcasm and insults of the unfortunate people in the pictures...

The irony is you're talking about others being "heartless," yet you support rationing of care, or delaying procedures until people are incapacitated, suffering through pain and/or impairment until then. I don't get how you rationalize that. Merely providing affordable (hah!) health insurance is enough for you, despite the fact that substandard care will be given?

 

As for compassion, if you don't give a **** about your body/health, why the !@#$ should I? For too long we've been burdened by this notion of "compassion" and doing everything to try to save everyone. The truth is not every should be saved. Especially when it's at the expense of society as a whole.