Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 That's retarded. Lack of insurance doesn't kill people. Lack of care does. And no, they are not the same thing. Stop making sense, you !@#$ing !@#$. I hate having to agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyal2dagame Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 That's retarded. Lack of insurance doesn't kill people. Lack of care does. And no, they are not the same thing. agreed, not the same thing, but most times go hand in hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 agreed, not the same thing, but most times go hand in hand Not always. Lack of care can be because of lack of means (e.g. insurance) or lack of availability (having to wait six weeks to get an appointment with a doctor). Or even simply lack of interest - my aunt died of leukemia last year despite having good insurance and excellent doctors available, she simply never went to the doctor until it was too late. My point being, though, not that insurance isn't an issue, but that it is merely one facet of the true issue: availability of care. Focusing on the "insurance" aspect exclusively is at best misleading, and at worst counter-productive, as an increase in demand resulting from universal insurance coverage could result in an increased lack of care because of unavailabilty. I've made it no secret that I disagree in principle with most of the suggestions for fixing health care...more so, I disagree with the misleading debate, being not about health care but health cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Not always. Lack of care can be because of lack of means (e.g. insurance) or lack of availability (having to wait six weeks to get an appointment with a doctor). Or even simply lack of interest - my aunt died of leukemia last year despite having good insurance and excellent doctors available, she simply never went to the doctor until it was too late. My point being, though, not that insurance isn't an issue, but that it is merely one facet of the true issue: availability of care. Focusing on the "insurance" aspect exclusively is at best misleading, and at worst counter-productive, as an increase in demand resulting from universal insurance coverage could result in an increased lack of care because of unavailabilty. I've made it no secret that I disagree in principle with most of the suggestions for fixing health care...more so, I disagree with the misleading debate, being not about health care but health cost. Point well taken on the universal insurance does not equal providing universal care and I question the need to do the insurance root instead of coming up with an alternative based on care. That being said, I disagree with you on the potential for increase of demand as a result of increasing universal insurance. Demand change is going be a result of population change both overall # and demographic, but it will have little to do with providing more or less insurance. That only affects who pays for the care and how much of it is spread around to people who don't use healthcare services much. If you are single and young you should oppose any reform, if you are old or have a family with kids or some other medical problem by and large this bill would hopefully ameliorate some of the cost of your care. Hopefully is the big if and that is what should be debated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Those questions are already answered. 1] They will have to now, like car insurance in some states, and will pay a small fine if they don't. 2] A chunk. And some of that 45,000 surely fit into that category. It doesn't affect the point one bit though, just a few thousand of that number. For arguments sake, lets say 5,000. 3] A bigger chunk. Lets use the same proportion of illegal immigrants in the overall non-insured as in the dead poll: 10,000 of the 45,000 (as most figures go from 8-11 million illegals out of the 47-48 million un-insured). That's 30,000 a year. You know, like 10 times more than died in 9/11. Every year. So far 302 people in the US have died from H1N1. Yet Americans are screaming for the govt to address it. 302. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyal2dagame Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 So far 302 people in the US have died from H1N1. Yet Americans are screaming for the govt to address it. 302. also out of the 3 million deaths per year, 401,500 of that are WWII veterans. that is 13% of the total number. average age of said vets from the greatest generation is currently 85-86 yrs old stats show approx 1100 WWII vets pass on every day numbers are always misleading........ and as we say on TSW, can be twisted any way you want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 As an anesthesiologist, I get ~2/3 less in public plans like Medicare and Medicaid, and these patients are usually the sickest ones I see. It's ridiculous. Another outcome of this dynamic (in combination with doctors and hospitals having to cover the bills of those who pay nothing) is that employers or private insurance plans are picking up a larger part of the tab than they should. What this is doing is forcing employers into a situation where they are moving towards catostrophic coverage for employees. Coverage has been chipped away year after year and this erosion will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I hear you, but the problem is as a citizen I can't afford your 2/3rds at an 8-15% growth rate. Most folks would take that in long term equities right now and yet you are getting that rate increase in a down economy... Sorry, I don't have sympathy when the system is stretching my finances.... Well that's a good point. Are you employed? What are you doing to curtail your expenses? Have you cancelled your cable TV? Your cell phone plan? stopped eating out? Entertainment? Any other wholly unnecessary things that you want, versus health care which you feel you have to have, and cheap? Do you take good care of your health? And once the economy recovers (and word is the recession's over...at least for the 90% who have a job), will I be getting paid more? I think we all know the answer to that one. And as for sympathy, it cuts both ways. If the public option happens, wait and see how long it is before you get an appointment. As it stands right now, 40% of doctors don't take new Medicare patients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 That is not what the public option in the plans being discussed is. People with private insurance now from their employers are not even eligible for the public plan. Nor are wealthy people who pay privately. NO ONE is being dumped into the public option. How are you so certain that this won't happen, Kelly? Because you've been told (lied to) that "you can keep your doctor, blah, blah, blah?" Have you seen the "penalties" to employers for not offering health care? They're so ridiculously low, that it makes financial sense for employers to drop every employee and take the "penalties." And the gubment's idea is to take the money from the penalties and use them to help pay for health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 How are you so certain that this won't happen, Kelly? Because you've been told (lied to) that "you can keep your doctor, blah, blah, blah?" Have you seen the "penalties" to employers for not offering health care? They're so ridiculously low, that it makes financial sense for employers to drop every employee and take the "penalties." And the gubment's idea is to take the money from the penalties and use them to help pay for health care. Liberals are sheep. They are, by their very inclination, more likely to trust the government than a true conservative. So why are you surprised that he believes this nonsense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Liberals are sheep. They are, by their very inclination, more likely to trust the government than a true conservative. So why are you surprised that he believes this nonsense? I don't know Kelly at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I don't know Kelly at all. He's one of the smartest liberals you'll meet. Unfortunately, where health care is concerned, he keeps adamantly promoting details of a plan for which there is currently no plan. As he mentioned earlier, 80% of it is probably in place, and the kicker is going to be paying for it, but that's like designing your dream house first and THEN looking at the cost. You only have so much money, so ultimately you realize the way to pay for it is to start eliminating certain parts of the blueprints. So the 80% isn't viable until we know what can be afforded without adding one dime to the deficit. Tall order. But you brought up a good point earlier; if the penalties to employers for not providing health care is less than the cost to provide it, employers will pay the fine and let their employees fend for themselves on the government plan. Larger employers who don't always have to fight for good talent will be the first to dump their staff's health care on the government, and as long as unemployment hovers in the 10% range, you won't need to provide extra goodies like private health care coverage in order to attract good talent because right now that talent just wants a paycheck before they go under. Vicious cycle that is being discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 He's one of the smartest liberals you'll meet. And VABills is one of the tallest midgets I know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 He's one of the smartest liberals you'll meet. Unfortunately, where health care is concerned, he keeps adamantly promoting details of a plan for which there is currently no plan. As he mentioned earlier, 80% of it is probably in place, and the kicker is going to be paying for it, but that's like designing your dream house first and THEN looking at the cost. You only have so much money, so ultimately you realize the way to pay for it is to start eliminating certain parts of the blueprints. So the 80% isn't viable until we know what can be afforded without adding one dime to the deficit. Tall order. But you brought up a good point earlier; if the penalties to employers for not providing health care is less than the cost to provide it, employers will pay the fine and let their employees fend for themselves on the government plan. Larger employers who don't always have to fight for good talent will be the first to dump their staff's health care on the government, and as long as unemployment hovers in the 10% range, you won't need to provide extra goodies like private health care coverage in order to attract good talent because right now that talent just wants a paycheck before they go under. Vicious cycle that is being discussed. Is that not Damning with faint praise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Well that's a good point. Are you employed? What are you doing to curtail your expenses? Have you cancelled your cable TV? Your cell phone plan? stopped eating out? Entertainment? Any other wholly unnecessary things that you want, versus health care which you feel you have to have, and cheap? Do you take good care of your health? And once the economy recovers (and word is the recession's over...at least for the 90% who have a job), will I be getting paid more? I think we all know the answer to that one. And as for sympathy, it cuts both ways. If the public option happens, wait and see how long it is before you get an appointment. As it stands right now, 40% of doctors don't take new Medicare patients. ?? I love the appointment wait time scare argument... it doesn't happen in Canada any more than it does here and how is that any different than now? I have to wait often times a month for a specialist for my son and our insurance doesn't cover the specialist best able to treat him.... And yes I have cut back eating out and entertainment and travel to pay for a lot of this. I could agree with you if health care and insurance were cheap but it is not... The reason is too many doctors spend a lot of time at the golf course and on private yachts etc. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but the one's that but most Doctor's live in the top 1% income bracket and until they drop down to say the top 25% bracket, I am not going to worry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 ?? I love the appointment wait time scare argument... it doesn't happen in Canada any more than it does here and how is that any different than now? I have to wait often times a month for a specialist for my son and our insurance doesn't cover the specialist best able to treat him.... And yes I have cut back eating out and entertainment and travel to pay for a lot of this. I could agree with you if health care and insurance were cheap but it is not... The reason is too many doctors spend a lot of time at the golf course and on private yachts etc. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but the one's that but most Doctor's live in the top 1% income bracket and until they drop down to say the top 25% bracket, I am not going to worry about it. Check, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 More lies from the Messiah. A story Obama told in front of Congress about a cancer patient dying from losing his insurance was not true (horrors! ). "One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it." WRONG!!! His coverage was yanked in April 2005. His sister, an attorney, and the Illinois Attorney General got it re-instated in 3 weeks. He never missed a chemo treatment. He died on January 6, 2009. Turns out that the The White House speechwriters picked up the story from Slate and never vetted the facts independently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 How are you so certain that this won't happen, Kelly? Because you've been told (lied to) that "you can keep your doctor, blah, blah, blah?" Have you seen the "penalties" to employers for not offering health care? They're so ridiculously low, that it makes financial sense for employers to drop every employee and take the "penalties." And the gubment's idea is to take the money from the penalties and use them to help pay for health care. Despite the blah, blah, blah nonsensical line, the low penalties offered is a good argument and should be debated. Any sense of where that is right now in the debate and what levels do you think would make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Check, please. Hey, I make my money off them,... trickle, I take photos of their tournaments and families for a living now.... but I digress... I then give it all back to them to treat my son... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 ?? I love the appointment wait time scare argument... it doesn't happen in Canada any more than it does here and how is that any different than now? I have to wait often times a month for a specialist for my son and our insurance doesn't cover the specialist best able to treat him.... And you think this is going to improve with nationalized healthcare? Guess what, you're the living embodiment of things to come for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts