The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[Tiberius]

 

 

These sort of vapid arguments do nothing to advance the discussion.

 

It's these sort of comments are the reasons why over half the board wants to punch you in the face.

 

It's not that the GOP wants tax cuts for the "rich", it's that they want to reduce taxes period, it just so happens that in Obamacare the taxes were for the "rich", and they want to repeal all the taxes.

 

There are free market concepts that they believe would work better, and the fact of the matter is that for certain circumstances it would work better, but not for everyone. There are always winners and losers and for the GOP, under the current plan there are too many losers for the public to accept. The only way they will draft a bill that can not only pass congress but test the time of public approval is if they do things that they aren't used to doing, which is accept a larger role from government along with many of their free market ideas.

 

That way they can pick off some Democrats to pass it through, the product would lead to almost the same level of overall coverage and premiums would go down. That would be the smart thing to do. It's early, but from what I'm reading it does appear that the bill will prioritize the expansion of coverage more so than the house bill, which of course means larger tax credits AKA subsidies.

http://theweek.com/cartoons/697992/political-cartoon-paul-ryan-ahca-medicaid

[reddogblitz]

They aren't going to become doctors.

That's the whole point. Your plan will incentivize a decrease in health care providers, while at the same time increasing the demand for health care providers.

When this occurs, the quality of care decreases, and access to care decreases.

And this doesn't even begin to address other aspects of medical costs, such as R&D for new drugs and treatments.

When you suck the profits out of an industry, you destroy that industry.

I saw an editorial in the paper yesterday that seemed to indicate an increase in the number of people in an area getting health insurance results in hospitals adding on to meet the demand.

 

If you ran a hospital, would you expand knowing that you would soon have fewer patients able to pay? After the election, Denver Health Medical Center put off almost $74 million in construction projects. The plan was to serve more low-income residents, many of them newly insured under Obamacare.

 

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/killing-not-only-obamacare-but-the-jobs-it-has-crated/ Edited May 11, 2017 by reddogblitz

[TakeYouToTasker]

I saw an editorial in the paper yesterday that seemed to indicate an increase in the number of people in an area getting health insurance results in hospitals adding on to meet the demand.

 

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/killing-not-only-obamacare-but-the-jobs-it-has-crated/

Were I you, I would hesitate to get my news from agenda driven op-ed pieces which disregard the laws of supply, demand, and human motivation.

[reddogblitz]

Were I you

Which YOU ARE NOT thank goodness.

[TakeYouToTasker]

i think it does. hence our chasm of a divide

The problem is that you're wrong, and you don't understand the fundamental nature of rights.

 

The rights we enjoy, know as "natural rights", are "negative rights".

 

They are defined as "negative" because they require nothing more than the inaction of others for you to enjoy. The freedom of speech requires nothing more than the government not restricting your speech. The freedom of religion requires nothing more than the government not instituting a state religion.

 

These rights are all fundamentally derived from property rights, as gives way to self-determination and self-ownership. If I own myself, I own my own time, my own interests, my own thoughts and beliefs, etc. It is this basic concept which makes slavery so abhorrent.

 

"Positive rights" are an entirely different animal. Positive rights actually require the actions of others on your behalf or they cannot exist, and in doing so, in their basic nature, actually violate the negative rights of others as they undo the foundations of negative rights.

 

One can not be said to have ownership of himself, his time, his thoughts and beliefs; if in fact another person has the right to conscript him for whatever their purpose.

 

Positive and negative rights are fundamentally incompatible.

 

Either you believe that individuals are best served under the condition of freedom, or that they are best served under the condition of servitude. You can't have it both ways.

[GG]

Which YOU ARE NOT thank goodness.

 

I'm guessing the reason he's saying that he's not you is that he's one of the people who would go to the trouble of fact checking dubious points made in emotional op-eds, such as yours.

 

Have you validated the data the linked op-ed made in defending ACA? Because if you did, you would know that the data runs totally opposite of what the op-ed is claiming.

[reddogblitz]

Were I you, I would hesitate to get my news from agenda driven op-ed pieces which disregard the laws of supply, demand, and human motivation.

Here's an AP story that says pretty much the same thing about new clinics being opened and people hired as a result of more people with insurance.

 

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — When Colorado expanded Medicaid coverage under former President Barack Obama’s health care law, the largest provider in the Denver region hired more than 250 employees and built a $27 million primary care clinic and two new school-based clinics.

 

Emergency rooms visits stayed flat as Denver Health Medical Center directed many of the nearly 80,000 newly insured patients into one of its 10 community health centers, where newly hired social workers and mental health therapists provided services for some of the county’s poorest residents. Demand for services at the new primary care clinic was almost immediate.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/13/denver-health-other-hospitals-worry-about-newly-uninsured/

[GG]

Here's an AP story that says pretty much the same thing about new clinics being opened and people hired as a result of more people with insurance.

 

 

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/13/denver-health-other-hospitals-worry-about-newly-uninsured/

 

Because Denver Health was a model of ACA investments and repercussions. Welcome to the side effect when you conscript doctors into national healthcare programs (note the dateline of the article):

 

Denver’s historic safety-net hospital is scrambling to recover from a slew of doctor resignations.

Why are so many doctors leaving Denver Health?

Physicians heading the departments of medicine and surgery at Denver Health Medical Center left last year and have not yet been replaced. This month, three of its five neurosurgeons, including the chair, gave notice of their intent to leave April 1.

In addition, the chiefs of ophthalmology and oral surgery have left, along with six hospitalists — doctors who specialize in the medical care of hospital patients. The hospital also confirmed that Dr. Christopher Colwell, who heads emergency medicine, and Dr. Jeff Johnson, a top trauma surgeon, are leaving for other jobs.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Because Denver Health was a model of ACA investments and repercussions. Welcome to the side effect when you conscript doctors into national healthcare programs (note the dateline of the article):

 

Denver’s historic safety-net hospital is scrambling to recover from a slew of doctor resignations.

 

Don't worry. Their neurosurgeons, and other high demand specialists, have been replaced with 250 social workers.

 

That's a wash, right?

[GG]

Don't worry. Their neurosurgeons, and other high demand specialists, have been replaced with 250 social workers.

 

That's a wash, right?

 

Forward!!

[reddogblitz]

Sounds to me like we're both right. New clinics were opened and people hired. Patients were cared for. And some doctors left for greener pastures.

 

I guess the 80,000 newly insured should just suck on it so those half a dozen neurosurgeons can keep thier cushy salaries.

[Chef Jim]

Sounds to me like we're both right. New clinics were opened and people hired. Patients were cared for. And some doctors left for greener pastures.

 

I guess the 80,000 newly insured should just suck on it so those half a dozen neurosurgeons can keep thier cushy salaries.

 

Yeah those neurosurgeons sitting around, drinking coffee, gabbing away. Those lazy bastards.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Sounds to me like we're both right. New clinics were opened and people hired. Patients were cared for. And some doctors left for greener pastures.

 

I guess the 80,000 newly insured should just suck on it so those half a dozen neurosurgeons can keep thier cushy salaries.

Well, given that actual health care requires providers capable of performing care, I'd say the inability to staff actual doctors capable of performing complex surgeries is kind of a big deal, no?

 

Again, insurance means zilch if it can't get you the medical care you need, and it can't get you the medical care you need if it doesn't compensate those professionals who can deliver that care in a way they deem acceptable.

 

But hey, I'm sure individuals with brain tumors will be thrilled to speak with one of the 250 newly staffed social workers.

[IDBillzFan]

Sounds to me like we're both right. New clinics were opened and people hired. Patients were cared for. And some doctors left for greener pastures.

 

I guess the 80,000 newly insured should just suck on it so those half a dozen neurosurgeons can keep thier cushy salaries.

 

The reason people are spending so much time correcting you is because you're taking the predictable, low-hanging-fruit argument the left makes about Obamacare: it's the "even if we help one person" line of thinking.

 

It's commendable, and admirable, and caring and thoughtful.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't work unless EVERYONE thinks like you do. And a large majority of people don't. Because when you're forced to be commendable, admirable, caring and thoughtful, you're actually none of those things. By the time you rest your entire argument on "Well, I guess you just want these people to suck on it," you're no longer trying to argue your case but explaining that what you really want, ironically, is for all the people who don't agree with you to, y'know, suck on it.

[Tiberius]

Well, given that actual health care requires providers capable of performing care, I'd say the inability to staff actual doctors capable of performing complex surgeries is kind of a big deal, no?

 

Again, insurance means zilch if it can't get you the medical care you need, and it can't get you the medical care you need if it doesn't compensate those professionals who can deliver that care in a way they deem acceptable.

 

But hey, I'm sure individuals with brain tumors will be thrilled to speak with one of the 250 newly staffed social workers.

And Obmacare started the process of doctors moving from different hospitals?

 

The reason people are spending so much time correcting you is because you're taking the predictable, low-hanging-fruit argument the left makes about Obamacare: it's the "even if we help one person" line of thinking.

 

It's commendable, and admirable, and caring and thoughtful.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't work unless EVERYONE thinks like you do. And a large majority of people don't. Because when you're forced to be commendable, admirable, caring and thoughtful, you're actually none of those things. By the time you rest your entire argument on "Well, I guess you just want these people to suck on it," you're no longer trying to argue your case but explaining that what you really want, ironically, is for all the people who don't agree with you to, y'know, suck on it.

That's not it. People come in here and don't know how a right wing circle jerk can going going on half truths and cherry picked facts.

[GG]

Sounds to me like we're both right. New clinics were opened and people hired. Patients were cared for. And some doctors left for greener pastures.

 

I guess the 80,000 newly insured should just suck on it so those half a dozen neurosurgeons can keep thier cushy salaries.

 

Not really. This is a taste of things to come as more medicine becomes socialized. You cannot provide sustainable high quality care in a universal health system.

 

Which system would you prefer, wider availability for all and lower service for all or lower availability for all and better service for most.

[Tiberius]

 

Not really. This is a taste of things to come as more medicine becomes socialized. You cannot provide sustainable high quality care in a universal health system.

 

Which system would you prefer, wider availability for all and lower service for all or lower availability for all and better service for most.

Conjecture, speculation and BS

[Joe Miner]

Conjecture, speculation and BS

Oh good, you've started typing your posts in shorthand.

[reddogblitz]

Not really. This is a taste of things to come as more medicine becomes socialized. You cannot provide sustainable high quality care in a universal health system.

 

Which system would you prefer, wider availability for all and lower service for all or lower availability for all and better service for most.

This is the typical black and white thinking that is SO prevalent on TBD and elsewhere.

 

Other countries seem to be able to provide good quality care for all. People I've talked to in England and Canada tell me that's what they have. Of course, one can find horror stories anywhere and I have no doubt they are true.

 

I have yet to hear opponents to my plan offer a viable alternative. Just stone tossing which I expected anyway.

Except meathead that is.

[TakeYouToTasker]

This is the typical black and white thinking that is SO prevalent on TBD and elsewhere.

 

Other countries seem to be able to provide good quality care for all. People I've talked to in England and Canada tell me that's what they have. Of course, one can find horror stories anywhere and I have no doubt they are true.

 

I have yet to hear opponents to my plan offer a viable alternative. Just stone tossing which I expected anyway.

Except meathead that is.

It's not stone tossing. It's a very clear and succinct opposition to a very real and permanent disruption to the way on-demand health care is delivered in this country, which will upend the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

 

People in England and Canada have care rationing, and in the overwhelming majority of Europe individuals are encouraged to accept death rather than be provided care in advanced age. This is well documented. It's a system which strips away the top quality care the overwhelming majority of a country enjoys in order to make sure everyone has access to a lesser quality of care.

 

It's an economic issue. You cannot have care that is universal and abundant, high quality, and cheap. There is no way to incentivize for all three of these variables, because they work against each other.

 

As for alternatives, many have been suggested. I've suggested some in a recent related thread. It's intellectually lazy to say: "No one who disagrees with me has even suggested any alternatives." when exactly the opposite has happened very recently, in this thread and other threads, on the forum you are now reading.

 

Other suggestions

 

 

I propose doing things that would put the pressure of markets into the realm of health care, and would encourage the expansion of care providers.

 

- At birth, every US citizen, along with the SSN, would receive an HSA. Contributions to this HSA would be 100% tax deductible to any person, business, or other entity that would contribute to it, with no limits. The dollars in this HSA would roll over annually, and could be spent only on medical care. These accounts would be subject to a 100% estate tax at the time of death, with the dollars being shifted into a trust account, which unlike SS and Medicare, could not be comingled with the general fund, or borrowed against in any capacity. This trust would pay it's proceeds directly into the accounts of living citizens. Individual states and employers would also have the flexibility to contribute dollars into the accounts of their citizens and employees as they saw appropriate.

 

- Using the Interstate Commerce Clause for it's proper purpose, to strip away each individual state's right to restrict it's own insurance markets, and allow individuals to purchase insurance across state lines, forcing insurers to compete for business.

 

- Mandate that doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, provide 100% price transparency allowing consumers to shop for their health care the same way they shop for anything else, putting actual market forces on the medical industry to drive down prices.

 

- Implement tort reform, lowering the costs of malpractice insurance.

 

- Implement patent reform, shortening the duration of product monopoly, driving down the price of drugs and their delivery systems.

 

- A national pool for catastrophic care.

Edited May 11, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker