http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/9/764064/-Alright-Republicans,-We-Give-Up.
QuoteDear Republicans,
Over the past week, we have seen your passionate protests and heard your concerns about Democratic proposals for health care reform. We have considered your insightful and well reasoned arguments, and on behalf of progressives everywhere, I am here to say: OK! We give up! We are willing to compromise on the proposals that concern you. You've won! Yay!
In accordance with your cogent and potent criticisms, these are the terms of our concession:
1. We will not euthanize your grandmother. This is the big one, and I really hope you guys appreciate how much of a concession this is on behalf of the progressive movement. Since the days of the Bull Moose Party, progressives have wanted nothing more than to slaughter old people by the millions. That much is obvious. After all, if we wanted senior citizens to have long and healthy lives, why would we have created Social Security and Medicare? Think about it. Death to grannies has long been the core of progressive policy, so it's not without some consternation that we give it up. So there: no euthanizing old people. You've got it.
2. Rahm Emanuel's brother will not kill Sarah Palin's baby. While this will require us to gut HR 3200 "America's Health Choices and Murder Sarah Palin's Baby Act of 2009," we're currently working with Henry Waxman to remove the extensive Sarah Palin's baby-killing provisions from the final bill. While this will probably cost us Andrew Sullivan's support, we recognize that this is a necessary sacrifice for securing broad bipartisan support of health care reform.
3. The government will not nationalize hospitals and other health service providers. This is another big one. Though the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has correctly pointed out that current Democratic proposals involve adopting the British health care system, we now recognize that this is not politically viable. The final bill, accordingly, will not involve the nationalization of hospitals and other health service providers. This will be a major setback to Obama's well known communist agenda, but again, we progressives agree with the Blue Dogs that we need to reach a broad national consensus by responding to Republican concerns.
4. We will make the health care reform bill available for all Americans to read as soon as possible. I know that conservatives and pundits have been eagerly anticipating an opportunity to read the final health care reform bill, and after extensive discussion, we have decided to comply with your request. While we would like to have unseen drafts languishing in committee forever, we have asked Senate Democrats like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad to deliver a bill as soon as possible in order to allow the public to read it. As you know, progressives wanted nothing more than to keep these drafts hidden for as long as possible, but in the interests of transparency and bipartisan consensus, we recognize that it's vital to move the legislative process forward. In fact, it is our hope that Baucus and Conrad will return from the August recess early in order to ensure that the public has as much time as possible to inspect their work.
5. We will not subsidize abortions with your hard-earned tax dollars. Despite the fact that both FactCheck.org and Politifact insist that we already made this concession months ago, we're going to make extra-special-super sure that we did. Just give me a second...
...
...
...
... yep, we did.
6. We will not allow the government to have direct access to your bank account. I know several conservatives I've spoken to are deeply concerned about this measure, and while we progressives are always looking for new ways for the government to unlawfully violate your privacy and steal your money, we have decided to remove this provision from the final bill. While we may include a way for individuals to voluntarily set up an electronic funds transfer with their insurance provider, we will no longer push for government access to all individual bank accounts. You've won this one.
7. We will not provide illegal immigrants with unlimited free health care. Though progressives want nothing more than to provide unlimited social services to illegal immigrants while denying them to everyone else, we now recognize that this plan was, perhaps, a bit inequitable. However, while they will not be receiving unlimited free health care, each illegal immigrant will still receive a pretty pony. I'm sorry, but we have to draw the line somewhere.
8. Private health insurance will not be eliminated. Though, as Drudge recently pointed out with a damning YouTube video, the long-stated Republican goal of moving away from employer-based coverage somehow means "eliminating private insurance" when Obama talks about the same thing, we've decided to preserve private insurance plans for those who want them. However, we have yet to convince ultra-socialist Charles Krauthammer to drop his communist crusade against employer-based (i.e., according to Drudge, "all private") coverage.
9. You will not be issued a "National Health Insurance ID." While we thought this was a fun idea, the final version of the health care reform bill will not require you to have any kind of ID when you're pulled over for drunk driving or found loitering outside of a military base. In fact, you are hereby encouraged not to carry any proof of insurance whatsoever. Trust me, it's a terrible idea!
10. There will be no super-secret-awesome health care program for ACORN employees. Though we love our election-stealing squirrels, we have decided that they'll have to settle for the same options as everyone else.
With these concessions having been made, I trust that we can now move forward on health care reform with a broad, bipartisan consensus. Blue Dogs and Republicans, you can now rest easy knowing that the concerns of the town hall protesters have been met. While the progressive dream of a nation in which old people are slaughtered to pay for the abortions of ACORN-employed illegal immigrants will again have to be deferred, we are willing to settle for a bill without these measures in the name of bipartisanship.
Congratulations, Republicans. You've won this round.
:lulz:
Just out of curiosity, does the healthcare reform bill do anything at all?
Yes, it creates a crappy government-run insurance plan for those who can't currently afford insurance.
And then it kills your grandmother.
:mittens:
I sure would like to see some actual healthcare reform.
~sigh~
I could use some insurance.
That article was funny though.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 10, 2009, 04:53:02 PM
Just out of curiosity, does the healthcare reform bill do anything at all?
It gets a foot in the door for reform to happen.
Full-scale was never going to happen overnight, esp this early in the Obama presidency and with the weak-ass'd Democrats that are currently running scared from Republitard fuckery.
But, it's a start.
I was reading somewhere today, not sure where, about a woman who couldn't afford insurance who had her teeth knocked out by an abusive ex boyfriend two years ago. She couldn't afford to get them replaced, either, but has spent thousands of dollars on painkillers and antibiotics to treat the continual infections.
Two years ago. Continual infections. The combination of those phrases makes me cringe.
Quote from: LMNO on August 10, 2009, 04:54:01 PM
Yes, it creates a crappy government-run insurance plan for those who can't currently afford insurance.
which is better than none, right?
You'd think so.
The fear seems to be that, if the gvt plan is too cheap, employers will stop offering healthcare, and people will naturally choose the cheap gvt plan, putting the more expensive insurance companies out of business, and creating a gvt monopoly of health care.
Of course, these are the same people who claim that the gvt is too ineffecient to run anything correctly or cheaply, so there's a bit of disconnect there.
There's going to be, according to people who have their fingers on the pulse (like my husband, I guess, who not only works for a non-profit that's subsidized by both the state of CA as well as the private hospital Children's of San Diego, but also sits on the Governator's Healthy Families advisory board) of the issue, a government insurance agency that will take over and eventually phase out the private ones.
The private agencies are tanking...it's time they be submerged already.
I would just like to get antibiotics when I get sick.
Oh, and to see a dentist every now and again.
Oh and if I get cancer to not slowly rot and die.
That's all I ask.
Quote from: LMNO on August 10, 2009, 05:12:17 PM
...
Of course, these are the same people who claim that the gvt is too ineffecient to run anything correctly or cheaply, so there's a bit of disconnect there.
doesn't deficit spending account for this disconnect?
Quote from: LMNO on August 10, 2009, 05:12:17 PM
You'd think so.
The fear seems to be that, if the gvt plan is too cheap, employers will stop offering healthcare, and people will naturally choose the cheap gvt plan, putting the more expensive insurance companies out of business, and creating a gvt monopoly of health care.
Of course, these are the same people who claim that the gvt is too ineffecient to run anything correctly or cheaply, so there's a bit of disconnect there.
They seem to have a misunderstanding then.
Its already cheaper for me to get private health insurance than to pay for anything any of my previous employers provided. It'd be very hard for the government to beat the 'nothing' those companies pay for health insurance.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 10, 2009, 05:24:00 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 10, 2009, 05:12:17 PM
You'd think so.
The fear seems to be that, if the gvt plan is too cheap, employers will stop offering healthcare, and people will naturally choose the cheap gvt plan, putting the more expensive insurance companies out of business, and creating a gvt monopoly of health care.
Of course, these are the same people who claim that the gvt is too ineffecient to run anything correctly or cheaply, so there's a bit of disconnect there.
They seem to have a misunderstanding then.
Its already cheaper for me to get private health insurance than to pay for anything any of my previous employers provided. It'd be very hard for the government to beat the 'nothing' those companies pay for health insurance.
TITCM
Basically, the private companies will not be able to compete with the government one that will not only give a helluvalot of tax breaks to the companies but also be dirt cheap for the consumer. Slowly but surely, the private insurance companies will be sunk.
As they should be.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 10, 2009, 05:17:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 10, 2009, 05:12:17 PM
...
Of course, these are the same people who claim that the gvt is too ineffecient to run anything correctly or cheaply, so there's a bit of disconnect there.
doesn't deficit spending account for this disconnect?
That population tends to be the one that WANTED the overspending in the military complex.
I just want some fucking health insurance that doesn't cost a third of my paycheck. Because a third already goes to taxes and another third to rent.
I don't care whether it's public or private, but it ain't here now.
every single person in france, even the homeless, have better health care than I do. WHAT THE FUCK.
Quote from: Cramulus on August 10, 2009, 07:36:10 PM
I just want some fucking health insurance that doesn't cost a third of my paycheck. Because a third already goes to taxes and another third to rent.
I don't care whether it's public or private, but it ain't here now.
every single person in france, even the homeless, have better health care than I do. WHAT THE FUCK.
Well sure, but its easy to insure them... you know they'll never get into a fight.
Quote from: Cramulus on August 10, 2009, 07:36:10 PM
I just want some fucking health insurance that doesn't cost a third of my paycheck. Because a third already goes to taxes and another third to rent.
I don't care whether it's public or private, but it ain't here now.
every single person in france, even the homeless, have better health care than I do. WHAT THE FUCK.
It'll never happen in the US. Other countries can afford to have public health care because they put price controls in, not just on hospitals and doctors, but on medical supplies and drug companies. But we won't even talk about the part the medical supply companies play in this, and Obama outright appointed the CFO of a medical supply company to run health and human services, which shows were his opinions on the matter are. The drug companies get at least a little bit of crap, but I haven't heard of anyone suggesting we actually put price controls on those since the 90s.
Thought that this was funny too:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/dont_need_to_be_a_rocket_scientist.php?ref=fpblg
QuotePeople such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
:facepalm:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 10, 2009, 11:14:03 PM
Thought that this was funny too:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/dont_need_to_be_a_rocket_scientist.php?ref=fpblg
QuotePeople such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
:facepalm:
We need to spread this meme under the guise of being Conservatards
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 10, 2009, 11:14:03 PM
Thought that this was funny too:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/dont_need_to_be_a_rocket_scientist.php?ref=fpblg
QuotePeople such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
:facepalm:
Wouldn't it be the US system that does that?
Almost everyone will spend a point in their career without health insurance after all. And having been in the disability system, I knew quite a few people who never pursued work simply because the loss of state plans if they did (anything above minimum wage, even 5 minutes overtime, used to disqualify you, nowadays its better, but they still take everything you make above what your disability check is, so why bother?) were unacceptable in their condition. Hell, even the private stuff was worthless to them, pre existing conditions.
Quote from: Cramulus on August 10, 2009, 07:36:10 PM
I just want some fucking health insurance that doesn't cost a third of my paycheck. Because a third already goes to taxes and another third to rent.
I don't care whether it's public or private, but it ain't here now.
every single person in france, even the homeless, have better health care than I do. WHAT THE FUCK.
Quote from: Squid on August 10, 2009, 05:16:37 PM
I would just like to get antibiotics when I get sick.
Oh, and to see a dentist every now and again.
Oh and if I get cancer to not slowly rot and die.
That's all I ask.
Dear USA
stuff like this is number 3 i didn't move to the states.
the American healthcare system is a fucking farce in a western nation.
squid should be able to get medical treatment, having it blocked by financial lack of means is barbaric, and cram should be able to get treatment and be able to pay for more than his rent. Bums in france getting better treatment than american working Cramspags... you should be fucking ashamed of your nation. People should not be bankrupted by illness. spend thousands of dollars on meds because she couldnt get her teeth fixed?
public healthcare has been demonised as some kind of filthy socialist thing by the right wing in America.
if thats the case i love the nhs and am a filthy socialist. this britspag screams at America... get with the fucking program!
or kill me.
In that case I'm proud to be a filthy socialist.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 11, 2009, 12:04:59 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 10, 2009, 11:14:03 PM
Thought that this was funny too:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/dont_need_to_be_a_rocket_scientist.php?ref=fpblg
QuotePeople such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
:facepalm:
Wouldn't it be the US system that does that?
Yes, in the US system he more than likely would have been denied coverage a long time ago and he would have wracked up millions of dollars in debt by now. But I guess that it is ok as long as it is a private insurance company that does it.
Stephen Hawkings actually responded to this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/12/birthers-stephen-hawking-paul-rowen
QuoteThe danger, says the Investor's Business Daily, is that he borrows too much from the UK. "The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof, are legendary. The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror script ... People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." We say his life is far from worthless, as they do at Addenbrooke's hospital, Cambridge, where Professor Hawking, who has motor neurone disease, was treated for chest problems in April. As indeed does he. "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told us. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived." Something here is worthless. And it's not him.
Did they really believe Hawking was American or something?
:x
Quote from: Cain on August 12, 2009, 05:53:20 AM
Did they really believe Hawking was American or something?
:x
Well, he does speak in an American accent.
sheesh.
yeah, maybe if his voice doodad sounded english...
i haven't heard him in a while....
Hasn't he got a better speech synthesizer yet? there's no reason he couldn't have the accent and voice inflection of his choice now, right?
also, although i really don't know jack about the health care system, i'd like to weigh in on the side of not wanting it run by the govt. It seems that wanting this would require faith in the competence and benevolence of the govt., neither of which i possess.
i have tried to engage a few people who were passionate about the health care debate, but my questions were answered with nonsense after a short amount of time in each case. i have given up attempting to get a good understanding of this complex problem at the moment, as i don't have the time to devote to becoming an expert. i simply have to observe my fundamental belief stated above, and then fall on the side of this group of nuts, as opposed to that group of nuts in regards to the current legislation. i think most people are in the same situation, however they feel that if they don't go around acting like they know what they are talking about, then the other side will 'win'.
among all the health care experts here, :wink: has anyone looked at the feasibility of health care coops as an alternative to for-profit insurance etc? just something i'm curious...
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 03:44:06 PM
i haven't heard him in a while....
Hasn't he got a better speech synthesizer yet? there's no reason he couldn't have the accent and voice inflection of his choice now, right?
Apparently he sees the computery voice as
his voice now, and goes to great lengths to make sure his new computers keep the old voice.
Quote from: Igor on August 12, 2009, 03:57:44 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 03:44:06 PM
i haven't heard him in a while....
Hasn't he got a better speech synthesizer yet? there's no reason he couldn't have the accent and voice inflection of his choice now, right?
Apparently he sees the computery voice as his voice now, and goes to great lengths to make sure his new computers keep the old voice.
you're shitting me.
serious? he has decided that Dr. Sbaitso is his true voice?!
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 03:44:06 PM
i haven't heard him in a while....
Hasn't he got a better speech synthesizer yet? there's no reason he couldn't have the accent and voice inflection of his choice now, right?
also, although i really don't know jack about the health care system, i'd like to weigh in on the side of not wanting it run by the govt. It seems that wanting this would require faith in the competence and benevolence of the govt., neither of which i possess.
i have tried to engage a few people who were passionate about the health care debate, but my questions were answered with nonsense after a short amount of time in each case. i have given up attempting to get a good understanding of this complex problem at the moment, as i don't have the time to devote to becoming an expert. i simply have to observe my fundamental belief stated above, and then fall on the side of this group of nuts, as opposed to that group of nuts in regards to the current legislation. i think most people are in the same situation, however they feel that if they don't go around acting like they know what they are talking about, then the other side will 'win'.
among all the health care experts here, :wink: has anyone looked at the feasibility of health care coops as an alternative to for-profit insurance etc? just something i'm curious...
I don't know ANYone who wants the government in America to take over anything other than what they absolutely have to.
Be that as it may, in the choices of: have not, or have...having one that's run by the government is going to supersede not having any at all.
Co-ops may be the midway step, since I really sincerely doubt that the Democrats are going to "man up" and institute universal health care. The fact is, the insurance companies have screwed the pooch so far on this one, there's no way this runaway train can ever be brought back on track. We have the most expensive health care system in the world, but it's also deeply inefficient to the point of failure and near-bankruptcy.
It goes so far as to be crippling to the industry as a whole, and it will take a government takeover to fix it. Period. Regulation is the only way out of this at this point. The red herrings thrown out by Newt I'm-a-big-white-hypocrite Gingrich and Sarah I-flunked-basic-learning-in-school Palin have only served to confuse a public that should be learning their options, not screaming about what people are telling them is going to be taken away.
The debate is better clarified by just realizing the following: SOMETHING'S gotta GIVE. In this case, it will be (hopefully) the demise of big business running health care in the US into the ground.
(Unfortunately, big business and the government tend to be fucking every night under the sheets)
Soundwave's old voice from the cartoon or GTFO
Iptuous- about gov't run healthcare, it would sure beat the hell out of what I have now. People who already have insurance can keep what they have. They aren't going to force everybody onto their thing, it'll just make the rates more competitive.
I really can't say how great or shitty it would be. I had military health insurance when I was a kid and what I can say about that was when I got sick, I got treated. I could see a doctor and get medicine. When I broke a bone, it got set, I got crutches and my parents didn't get a few thousand dollars in med bills (like I did a few years ago, there's more awful to that story too that I won't go into, my ankle will never be the same because of money).
I want something. Something I can afford. I can't spend $450 a month on insurance with a shitty deductible and big co-pays and you have to pay for all your prescriptions and all the other shit they won't cover.
I just can't afford that, that's groceries, man.
I just want SOMETHING. I don't care how shitty it is. Long as it's cheap, I know you get what you pay for.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 04:21:33 PM
Quote from: Igor on August 12, 2009, 03:57:44 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 03:44:06 PM
i haven't heard him in a while....
Hasn't he got a better speech synthesizer yet? there's no reason he couldn't have the accent and voice inflection of his choice now, right?
Apparently he sees the computery voice as his voice now, and goes to great lengths to make sure his new computers keep the old voice.
you're shitting me.
serious? he has decided that Dr. Sbaitso is his true voice?!
It'd be weird as hell to hear his voice as anything else for me.
Jenne,
If the system is broken and failing, then it will be replaced organically with something else. (why wouldn't it?) Presumably, something that works better. (at least initially)
why do you say that .gov takeover is the only way to fix this situation? Things break under development and growth and are replaced by something else. That seems completely natural...
now if .gov comes in to 'fix' the situation it will displace any organic solution that is voluntarily participated in by the consumer, no? how is this beneficial? Especially when you note the corruption inherent in our current gov?
Squid,
having insurance through my employer, I haven't had to look for individual private insurance. Is there really no affordable option for you? Are there no co-op group health things that you can get on? I'm assuming you are self-employed.... I thought I heard about self-employment group health options on NPR a month or so ago.
Also, regarding the military health care, I can relate. I'm an airforce brat. When I was born I cost my folks $18. (which they not infrequently remind me) I had decent health care and it cost them very little. But that's simply because it was taxpayer funded... it really wasn't any cheaper I'm guessing, except for the fact that you could get litigious if things went poorly, so that's not a risk cost added... If you join up, then you too can get healthcare on the backs of the US taxpayer. (I hear they are hiring resettlement camp guards right now).
I can understand wanting health care if you aren't able to afford it right now, but i don't see it as a 'right' so I can't get behind the .gov providing it.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 05:25:25 PM
Jenne,
If the system is broken and failing, then it will be replaced organically with something else. (why wouldn’t it?) Presumably, something that works better. (at least initially)
why do you say that .gov takeover is the only way to fix this situation? Things break under development and growth and are replaced by something else. That seems completely natural…
now if .gov comes in to ‘fix’ the situation it will displace any organic solution that is voluntarily participated in by the consumer, no? how is this beneficial? Especially when you note the corruption inherent in our current gov?
[snip]
I can understand wanting health care if you aren’t able to afford it right now, but i don’t see it as a ‘right’ so I can’t get behind the .gov providing it.
Because--there's nothing else. There's no one else. Who do you propose? I may not trust my government, but I trust the corporations even less. Lesser of 2 evils. And there are other countries, one to the very north of us, who have been very successful.
By the way, Ippy, by strict definition, we ALREADY HAVE a socialist health care system in our government--medicare makes it so. This is just one more step so that we don't keep screwing the backsides of the poor and the middle class as well.
Lastly, I find your last statement infinitely sad.
If the system is broken and failing, it will be gamed and defended by the people who make money off the broken system. If it is replaced, it will be replaced by whatever system those in power want it to be. At this point in time, the government is the only power system that is (theoretically, at least) "for the people". It sucks, and it's corrupt, but it's the only system ordinary people can (try) to influence.
You can get self-insured, but it has been shown (Slate, I think) that many of the contracts have language that can deny you coverage for just about anything. So you "have" insurance, but it doesn't actually "insure" you.
Quote from: Jenne on August 12, 2009, 05:29:38 PM
Because--there's nothing else. There's no one else. Who do you propose? I may not trust my government, but I trust the corporations even less. Lesser of 2 evils. And there are other countries, one to the very north of us, who have been very successful.
if you don't like what a corporation provides, you can ignore them. deny them your money. (assuming they aren't in collusion with the .gov) you cannot say the same thing about the .gov, so we need to be more careful with what power we hand to them.
Quote from: Jenne on August 12, 2009, 05:29:38 PMBy the way, Ippy, by strict definition, we ALREADY HAVE a socialist health care system in our government--medicare makes it so. This is just one more step so that we don't keep screwing the backsides of the poor and the middle class as well.
I agree. medicare is a socialist health care system that is now failing.
Quote from: Jenne on August 12, 2009, 05:29:38 PM
Lastly, I find your last statement infinitely sad.
Yes. it is. i am slowly coming to realize that i am, by most definitions, evil.
Quote from: LMNO on August 12, 2009, 05:34:18 PM
If the system is broken and failing, it will be gamed and defended by the people who make money off the broken system. If it is replaced, it will be replaced by whatever system those in power want it to be. At this point in time, the government is the only power system that is (theoretically, at least) "for the people". It sucks, and it's corrupt, but it's the only system ordinary people can (try) to influence.
I don't think that the people that make money off the system will simply back down if the .gov takes over something. they will simply have undue influence on a structure that can enforce their decisions with a monopoly on violence. stick you in a hole if you don't comply. that hardly seems to be an improvement.
as far as ordinary people influencing systems, i would think that the collective effect on the market is
just as strong an a stronger influence than the collective effect on the political structure.
Quote from: LMNO on August 12, 2009, 05:34:18 PM
You can get self-insured, but it has been shown (Slate, I think) that many of the contracts have language that can deny you coverage for just about anything. So you "have" insurance, but it doesn't actually "insure" you.
The .gov's legitimate function is to enforce voluntary contract and prosecute fraud. so they should step in on these cases. that doesn't mean they should provide the coverage.
"Deny them your money"? And then they bankrupt you. To death.
Come on, dude. Really? You think that capitalism and the Free Market(tm) are going to work here? That's a no-go show at this point in time. We've tried it, it failed. Period. 40m Americans sans health care, and the government is already picking up what tabs are to be had, when people can get the gumption up to get some doctoring.
Medicare is actually one of the few things that IS working. Medicare allows doctors to do the doctoring, not the insurance companies who know fuckall about what procedures are needed and what meds are needed.
Private practices and private hospitals are "treating and streeting" atm. That's failure. When the bottom line figures in more than a person's health, that's failure. What's your life worth? What's your kid's life worth?
More to you than you can pay, at this point.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 05:25:25 PM
~snip~
Squid,
having insurance through my employer, I haven't had to look for individual private insurance. Is there really no affordable option for you? Are there no co-op group health things that you can get on? I'm assuming you are self-employed.... I thought I heard about self-employment group health options on NPR a month or so ago.
Also, regarding the military health care, I can relate. I'm an airforce brat. When I was born I cost my folks $18. (which they not infrequently remind me) I had decent health care and it cost them very little. But that's simply because it was taxpayer funded... it really wasn't any cheaper I'm guessing, except for the fact that you could get litigious if things went poorly, so that's not a risk cost added... If you join up, then you too can get healthcare on the backs of the US taxpayer. (I hear they are hiring resettlement camp guards right now).
I can understand wanting health care if you aren't able to afford it right now, but i don't see it as a 'right' so I can't get behind the .gov providing it.
A) No, or I would have insurance.
B) WHAT?? I work for a giant bank. A giant bank that gives not one or two shits about the little guy that works for them.
Self employed. Pffffsht. I WISH.
C) You don't see healthcare as a right? So, if I get sick, I don't have the right to get treated and live? Thanks buddy.
Here's another rant from dear old Squid-
I have a friend who claims to be disabled because she got hooked on anti-psychotics and anti-depressants while in the midst of trying to get
attention.
She gets social security checks every month (that I pay into) and
free fucking healthcare.
She doesn't work. I repeat-
SHE DOESN'T WORK! (bitch)
I work my
ASS off, have the carpel tunnel and tendinitis to prove it (also a bad back and something with my connective tissue being fucked up as well as degenerative disease in my lower lumbar) and I have
NO INSURANCE. I pay into medicaid, that
I cannot has, bi-monthly.
Ya herd? I can't see a doctor to fix the problems caused by my job, while my friend sits on her stupid ass popping pills pretending to be crazy and doing NOTHING with no responsibilities.
Is that fair? Fuck off America.
"There's workman's comp if it was job related", Been there done that they did nothing for me except give me anti-inflamatories that made me puke in my pance.
I work
hard. I work long hours, at night, sacrificing family time to give them a roof over their heads. I can't see a doctor??
You don't think I have the right?
What. You think insurance is a privilege? No, sir. I do not agree with you.
I think everyone has the right to live. And the right to live comfortably.
Quote from: Jenne on August 12, 2009, 06:47:59 PM
"Deny them your money"? And then they bankrupt you. To death.
:? explain...
Quote from: Jenne on August 12, 2009, 06:47:59 PMCome on, dude. Really? You think that capitalism and the Free Market(tm) are going to work here? That's a no-go show at this point in time. We've tried it, it failed. Period. 40m Americans sans health care, and the government is already picking up what tabs are to be had, when people can get the gumption up to get some doctoring.
we tried it? when? i thought private industry was influencing politics to their benefit. That's not really 'free market'...
Quote from: Jenne on August 12, 2009, 06:47:59 PMMedicare is actually one of the few things that IS working. Medicare allows doctors to do the doctoring, not the insurance companies who know fuckall about what procedures are needed and what meds are needed.
I was under the assumption that the unfunded liabilities of medicare were one of the great problems in our economic future. if it is the case medicare will not be able to pay for what it claims responsibility for, then it is broken. I was also under the assumption that a growing number of doctors are no longer accepting medicare. is this not true?
Quote from: Jenne on August 12, 2009, 06:47:59 PMPrivate practices and private hospitals are "treating and streeting" atm. That's failure. When the bottom line figures in more than a person's health, that's failure. What's your life worth? What's your kid's life worth?
More to you than you can pay, at this point.
I'm unfamiliar with the term 'treating and streeting' as far as the worth of my/my kid's life.... it will
always be more than i can pay. i'm not sure what you are getting at there....
Quote from: Squid on August 12, 2009, 06:50:15 PM
B) WHAT?? I work for a giant bank. A giant bank that gives not one or two shits about the little guy that works for them.
Self employed. Pffffsht. I WISH.
oh yeah, i fergot. i knew that. so that sucks. is it industry standard for banks not to provide insurance (in whatever position you fill)?
Quote from: Squid on August 12, 2009, 06:50:15 PM
C) You don't see healthcare as a right? So, if I get sick, I don't have the right to get treated and live? Thanks buddy.
No, man... you have the right to seek healthcare, obviously. pursuit of life, liberty, and property, and all that.... you just don't have the right to make other people pay it involuntarily. if you join some scheme that spreads the cost as evenly as possible on a voluntary basis, that's awesome. but .gov is coercion.
Quote from: Squid on August 12, 2009, 06:50:15 PM
Here's another rant from dear old Squid-
I have a friend who claims to be disabled because she got hooked on anti-psychotics and anti-depressants while in the midst of trying to get attention.
She gets social security checks every month (that I pay into) and free fucking healthcare.
She doesn't work. I repeat- SHE DOESN'T WORK! (bitch)
I work my ASS off, have the carpel tunnel and tendinitis to prove it (also a bad back and something with my connective tissue being fucked up as well as degenerative disease in my lower lumbar) and I have NO INSURANCE. I pay into medicaid, that I cannot has, bi-monthly.
Ya herd? I can't see a doctor to fix the problems caused by my job, while my friend sits on her stupid ass popping pills pretending to be crazy and doing NOTHING with no responsibilities.
Is that fair? Fuck off America.
"There's workman's comp if it was job related", Been there done that they did nothing for me except give me anti-inflamatories that made me puke in my pance.
I work hard. I work long hours, at night, sacrificing family time to give them a roof over their heads. I can't see a doctor??
You don't think I have the right?
What. You think insurance is a privilege? No, sir. I do not agree with you.
I think everyone has the right to live. And the right to live comfortably.
You indicate frustration that someone is mooching off a system that you are forced to pay into. We are eye to eye on that one. but you want to expand the system? i don't understand that.
privilege? privi ledge.... private law.... no. that's not what it should be. but it is a product. not a right.
everyone has the right to life. your comfort is on you and fate/luck. i don't think life is fair, and i think that trying to enforce fairness with (ultimately) the barrel of a gun, rather than through voluntary contract, is not the proper way to go about things...
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 07:27:08 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 12, 2009, 06:47:59 PM
"Deny them your money"? And then they bankrupt you. To death.
:? explain...
Quote from: Jenne on August 12, 2009, 06:47:59 PMCome on, dude. Really? You think that capitalism and the Free Market(tm) are going to work here? That's a no-go show at this point in time. We've tried it, it failed. Period. 40m Americans sans health care, and the government is already picking up what tabs are to be had, when people can get the gumption up to get some doctoring.
we tried it? when? i thought private industry was influencing politics to their benefit. That's not really 'free market'...
Quote from: Jenne on August 12, 2009, 06:47:59 PMMedicare is actually one of the few things that IS working. Medicare allows doctors to do the doctoring, not the insurance companies who know fuckall about what procedures are needed and what meds are needed.
I was under the assumption that the unfunded liabilities of medicare were one of the great problems in our economic future. if it is the case medicare will not be able to pay for what it claims responsibility for, then it is broken. I was also under the assumption that a growing number of doctors are no longer accepting medicare. is this not true?
Quote from: Jenne on August 12, 2009, 06:47:59 PMPrivate practices and private hospitals are "treating and streeting" atm. That's failure. When the bottom line figures in more than a person's health, that's failure. What's your life worth? What's your kid's life worth?
More to you than you can pay, at this point.
I'm unfamiliar with the term 'treating and streeting' as far as the worth of my/my kid's life.... it will always be more than i can pay. i'm not sure what you are getting at there....
Medicare has its problems, but it's more reliable than most insurance or no insurance at all. There's nothing more frustrating to a doctor than not being able to follow through with critical surgeries or procedures that can save a person's life or make their lives that much better because its coverage's been denied. And who pays when the patient can't? The doctor. S/he goes unpaid until a settlement is reached. Years later.
State programs are currently very broken. But that's because big business broke the economy, which fed into the state coffers and broke the state budgets. Perhaps that's what you are meaning.
You are never going to separate the government from the insurance companies when so many of the companies are run by former government bigwigs and vice versa. Not to mention the powerful lobbyists that people pay lip service to getting rid of but no one ever really does.
As for treating and streeting--it's when folks who are in sometimes critical condition are triaged and then dumped back onto the streets. Rather than being admitted. Because they cannot pay. This happens often, and most often to the poor. It's a shocking state of affairs...and it will increase in scope if something isn't done and done soon.
Medicaid and Medicare are only in financial trouble for the same reason the rest of the country is, healthcare costs have doubled in the last 10 years, and will likely double again if not checked, supposedly one of the key things Omaba is trying to do is put price controls on health care to prevent this, my inclination is to call him a liar, but the medical lobby seems to believe he'll do it.
I have never heard of a doctor that won't accept medicare, though I've been to one who was rejected by medicare (his services were primarily non vital, I was in to track down a digestive issue that turned out to be a food allergy). There might be a few libertarian type ones who refuse to accept it on principle i suppose. But in general people don't turn down money.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 04:21:33 PM
Quote from: Igor on August 12, 2009, 03:57:44 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 03:44:06 PM
i haven't heard him in a while....
Hasn't he got a better speech synthesizer yet? there's no reason he couldn't have the accent and voice inflection of his choice now, right?
Apparently he sees the computery voice as his voice now, and goes to great lengths to make sure his new computers keep the old voice.
you're shitting me.
serious? he has decided that Dr. Sbaitso is his true voice?!
I've heard that too. I suppose after a while, you would get used to it.
A long while.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 12, 2009, 07:38:58 PM
Medicaid and Medicare are only in financial trouble for the same reason the rest of the country is, healthcare costs have doubled in the last 10 years, and will likely double again if not checked, supposedly one of the key things Omaba is trying to do is put price controls on health care to prevent this, my inclination is to call him a liar, but the medical lobby seems to believe he'll do it.
I have never heard of a doctor that won't accept medicare, though I've been to one who was rejected by medicare (his services were primarily non vital, I was in to track down a digestive issue that turned out to be a food allergy). There might be a few libertarian type ones who refuse to accept it on principle i suppose. But in general people don't turn down money.
a google of 'doctors opting out medicare' give plenty of articles...
such as this WSJ article that says:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019.html
QuoteConsider that the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission reported in 2008 that 28% of Medicare beneficiaries looking for a primary care physician had trouble finding one, up from 24% the year before. The reasons are clear: A 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association, for example, found that only 38% of primary-care doctors in Texas took new Medicare patients. The statistics are similar in New York state, where I practice medicine.
More and more of my fellow doctors are turning away Medicare patients because of the diminished reimbursements and the growing delay in payments. I've had several new Medicare patients come to my office in the last few months with multiple diseases and long lists of medications simply because their longtime provider -- who they liked -- abruptly stopped taking Medicare. One of the top mammographers in New York City works in my office building, but she no longer accepts Medicare and charges patients more than $300 cash for each procedure. I continue to send my elderly women patients downstairs for the test because she is so good, but no one is happy about paying.
:lulz: So yeah, the docs who can count on richer patients making up the shortfall are going to refuse Medicare patients (or ONLY medicare--several elderly are now medicare PLUS private), because they know they can.
There are a lot of docs (in fact, probably most in the US) who'd be out of business if they tried that.
so the statistic that only "38% of primary-care doctors in Texas took new Medicare patients" is incorrect? or are we wealthy enough here that 62% or the primary doctors don't have to worry about it?
You'd have to compare that to how many ALREADY WERE Medicare patients..."new" medicare patients just means they weren't this doctor's patients before. And I don't know what state-run programs there are in TX, either.
I need more data on what TX is doing and where it's going, private vs. public on this issue.
I don't deny, eta, that Medicare is doesn't have problems. BUT and BUT even the TOP health care insurance policies HAVE problems.
The only guarantees right now are if you WORK for the GOVERNMENT. That...oughtta say something for gov't-run healthcare.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 08:54:41 PM
so the statistic that only "38% of primary-care doctors in Texas took new Medicare patients" is incorrect? or are we wealthy enough here that 62% or the primary doctors don't have to worry about it?
Yes, those doctors are high class types, where you see the same doctor every month. Successful ones usually have nearly as many patients as they can handle, so why would they take less money? The only reason to accept Medicare would be if you're still getting a private practice going, and getting more work is more important than getting highly paid work. Primary care doctors are pretty rare outside of pediatrics too, you'd have a hard time finding one even if you pay cash.
Clinics and hospitals almost all still take Medicare.
Quote from: Jenne on August 12, 2009, 08:59:57 PM
The only guarantees right now are if you WORK for the GOVERNMENT. That...oughtta say something for gov't-run healthcare.
...wait....
are you implying that healthcare to .gov workers is not a net drain on all the other taxpayers?
God forbid that they don't drop dead because they were denied coverage.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 09:09:08 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 12, 2009, 08:59:57 PM
The only guarantees right now are if you WORK for the GOVERNMENT. That...oughtta say something for gov't-run healthcare.
...wait....
are you implying that healthcare to .gov workers is not a net drain on all the other taxpayers?
O jesus. Are you SERIOUS?
I'm also talking about vets as well.
:?
forgive me for being such a dimbulb, here. perhaps i didn't articulate well enough.
my question was whether you were implying that the health care that the gov provides to their workers is fully funded by the payments that they deduct from what they pay them... that is to say, does that system fund itself, or does it rely on taxes from non govt workers to support it?
i'd also like to point out that i'm not intending to come across as combative here, and have clearly stated that i really don't know the details of the problems facing our system. if i'm making you impatient, i can stfu.... :oops:
Oh, ok, I took your tone wrong then. Sorry. :(
Ok, I'm going to get some facts for you tonight. I'm very serious when I say my husband's a pretty good expert on all this. He flies up to Sacramento to sit on a panel about all these things for the gov't of CA. So let me ask him your questions so I can be lazy and not have to dig shit up that may or may not satisfy or apply.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 09:20:07 PM
:?
forgive me for being such a dimbulb, here. perhaps i didn't articulate well enough.
my question was whether you were implying that the health care that the gov provides to their workers is fully funded by the payments that they deduct from what they pay them... that is to say, does that system fund itself, or does it rely on taxes from non govt workers to support it?
i'd also like to point out that i'm not intending to come across as combative here, and have clearly stated that i really don't know the details of the problems facing our system. if i'm making you impatient, i can stfu.... :oops:
Its a drain on taxes either way (patent office and post office not included).
that's true.
i guess i would have to make the (baseless) assumption that the wages the gov worker are making (including health benefits) would have to be comparable to non gov workers for that to be meaningful at all....
of course, it still stands, that just because gov workers are receiving health care that doesn't cost them an arm and a leg, doesn't mean that .gov health care for everybody would be a viable solution...
At this point neither is the private system. I will admit I'll admit I don't hold out hope that this will turn out to be more than government pork for medical supply companies, but we are frankly, fucked if we don't, we may as well try for something else.
Jenne: So, is Medicare "broken"?
Dr. Mr. Jenne: Well, its cost projections need to be raised. Everything in medical care is becoming more pricey, as everything in medicine is just costing more. Procedures are more complex, technology is more expensive and more advanced, and everything in general is just more expensive.
Not only that, but more and more people are using it. There are more older people, people are living longer, and this means it is just used way more than projected.
Jenne: So what happens with the doctors who refuse Medicare? Can they do that?
Dr. Mr. Jenne: Yes, they can, because they are private businessmen. But if they are a doctor who sees patients over the age of 65, then they HAVE to accept Medicare, like my dad [aside: he's a cardiologist, sees 99.99% elderly patients]. Otherwise they won't see patients at all.
Jenne: So what about the 40m who don't have medical care? Why should that be on the backs of the rest of us who do?
Dr. Mr. Jenne: Because it's already on our backs. Because the hospitals and clinics are being crippled by those who don't have medical care, the costs are already carried by those of us who do, and so all our costs are rising.
You see, right now in America, all health care is the same. Everyone gets a Mercedes. In order for everyone to have affordable health care, we'll have to give less. A basic program for everyone at the outset.
Jenne: But what about those who say they don't want the socialized medical care the government would bring?
Dr. Mr. Jenne: We already have that. If you don't want socialized medicine, then you need to let people die in the streets. When you call 9-1-1, that's socialized medicine. If they call 9-1-1, they aren't billed, and emergency rooms MUST treat them.
So if you don't want socialization, then you need to come to their home after a 9-1-1 call, look for their insurance card, and if they don't have one, give them a cross and say, "Good luck" and be on your way down the road.
The thing is, people are using the emergency room as their stopgap measure for health care, and this also creates larger costs. Because someone is billed--sometimes they are, sometimes it's the state or the federal government. Either way, someone's paying, and it's the law.
So the point is to get a basic policy on everyone, so that the people who are naturally opting out, like your brothers, who don't have to get private medical insurance because they are young and healthy, end up helping to broker the costs of people like your parents, the middle aged ones who need health care and would have to pay for it whether it's $1000 a month or not.
But you get a basic plan that everyone can afford, and it evens out.
***********************************************************************
Hopefully that clears up why I have some of the positions I do. Any more questions?
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 07:27:08 PM
Quote from: Squid on August 12, 2009, 06:50:15 PM
B) WHAT?? I work for a giant bank. A giant bank that gives not one or two shits about the little guy that works for them.
Self employed. Pffffsht. I WISH.
oh yeah, i fergot. i knew that. so that sucks. is it industry standard for banks not to provide insurance (in whatever position you fill)?
Quote from: Squid on August 12, 2009, 06:50:15 PM
C) You don't see healthcare as a right? So, if I get sick, I don't have the right to get treated and live? Thanks buddy.
No, man... you have the right to seek healthcare, obviously. pursuit of life, liberty, and property, and all that.... you just don't have the right to make other people pay it involuntarily. if you join some scheme that spreads the cost as evenly as possible on a voluntary basis, that's awesome. but .gov is coercion.
Quote from: Squid on August 12, 2009, 06:50:15 PM
Here's another rant from dear old Squid-
I have a friend who claims to be disabled because she got hooked on anti-psychotics and anti-depressants while in the midst of trying to get attention.
She gets social security checks every month (that I pay into) and free fucking healthcare.
She doesn't work. I repeat- SHE DOESN'T WORK! (bitch)
I work my ASS off, have the carpel tunnel and tendinitis to prove it (also a bad back and something with my connective tissue being fucked up as well as degenerative disease in my lower lumbar) and I have NO INSURANCE. I pay into medicaid, that I cannot has, bi-monthly.
Ya herd? I can't see a doctor to fix the problems caused by my job, while my friend sits on her stupid ass popping pills pretending to be crazy and doing NOTHING with no responsibilities.
Is that fair? Fuck off America.
"There's workman's comp if it was job related", Been there done that they did nothing for me except give me anti-inflamatories that made me puke in my pance.
I work hard. I work long hours, at night, sacrificing family time to give them a roof over their heads. I can't see a doctor??
You don't think I have the right?
What. You think insurance is a privilege? No, sir. I do not agree with you.
I think everyone has the right to live. And the right to live comfortably.
You indicate frustration that someone is mooching off a system that you are forced to pay into. We are eye to eye on that one. but you want to expand the system? i don't understand that.
privilege? privi ledge.... private law.... no. that's not what it should be. but it is a product. not a right.
everyone has the right to life. your comfort is on you and fate/luck. i don't think life is fair, and i think that trying to enforce fairness with (ultimately) the barrel of a gun, rather than through voluntary contract, is not the proper way to go about things...
First part- they provide it sure. I just can't afford it is all. You can has if you can pay. I cannot.
Second bolded- I don't want anyone to involuntarily pay anything. The people who'd be paying in on it are the people who'd have it. The more people you have on the system the cheaper it gets. I want that.
Last bit there, the frustration- I am forced to pay into it yes, in the hopes that when I retire I'll have this healthcare crap that I paid for in my youth. Also if something happens to me my family gets taken care of.
The expansion would be me paying into something I can use now. Instead of paying for my lazy friend to sit on her ass and be stupid (you know :cuntpunch: I love her and all but fuck her)
I don't think life is fair either, but it can be a little more fair than what it is now. It just
can.
Medicaid isn't exactly the best thing in the world. I watched a friend die of cancer cause they wouldn't give her basic chemo and they sent her to some hokey doctor that just made it worse. Watching someone you care about waste away because some piece of crap doctor had to use an "experimental" drug... it's shitty.
Why couldn't somebody just give her the damn treatment she needed??
This subject is touchy for me I guess.
I'm pissed that I'm fucked if I get sick, I'm pissed I had to watch a friend die and I'm pissed that another friend is just a lazy mooch and gets a free ride.
I don't want a free ride, man. I just want something I can
afford.
Is that too damn much to ask??
And Jenne - a vigorous clap for your last post there.
Man, Squid, I'm sorry to hear about that... :( And thank you. Dr. Mr. Jenne is great at answering this shit, and he can do it on a federal or state level. Though his expertise lies primarily on the CA state system for kids. But he's had to research it for his own fam, has worked in his dad's office since he got into the country (15 years old), and keeps tabs on this shit in general.
Health care reform, for better or for can't-truly-get-much-worse, needs to fucking happen NOW.
Jenne,
that is all exactly how i understood it to be.
it seems that i am simply evil, because i believe that people should have the right to take the calculated risk of not having insurance, even if it means that they pay the consequences if they get run over by the wheel of fortune. it sounds like that would bring down the burden on the system that is indirectly causing premiums to rise on those who do choose to have insurance, allowing more to have it who currently can't afford it.
i'm positive that it is vastly more complicated than this simple description, and my simple response, but that is the conversation as i have had it a few times now.
to me, it boils down to people saying that our half assed socialized medical system is not working, so we need to go all the way with it, where i only see problems being caused by the socialized aspects themselves, with the 'solution' being to strip them away....
Squid,
I agree that sucks.
hard.
it seems weird that a major bank can't get a good rate on insurance... it's Wells Fargo, right? that's big, man. who do they offer through?
as far as paying in.... if the gov is offering benefits, everybody pays, no? if they have liabilities and they can't meet them with the current cash coming in, they don't just go bankrupt. the cost will be passed on to the public at large. like Dr.Mr.Jenne said, costs are going up faster than anticipated. i'm guessing that's not a trend that will go away...
also, i want to stress the point that i'm not really evil. i not trying to be a dick here, and i really can sympathize. (i experienced a ~similar thing with a friend, too) I would really like for you to be able to afford good health care.... i would like everyone to be able to afford fantastic health care...
No ONE solution can solve it as it is. That's very much the truth. And like as not, any solution will create problems as it solves others.
Be that as it may...you either take the gun away and give a stick, or you just get the bullet. Without benefit of armor.
My husband almost died 2 years ago of aplastic anemia. If we hadn't HAD the insurance,
1) he'd probably be ok, but his care wouldn't have been as quick or as on-the-spot
2) we'd have lost our house, our payments are more than 1/4 of what he made/month back then
3) without the insurance to carry the bills, we'd be in hock and he'd have to probably take on a second job and I would also have to work 70+ hours/week instead of taking care of my kids and working from home
4) (the most important) HE'D NEVER GET ANY INSURANCE EVER AGAIN. He now has what is known as the dreaded "pre-existing condition."
Now, we're in our 30's, and 2 years ago we were younger, fitter than we are now. There are millions out there like us, making a lot less money, owning a lot fewer assets with a lot less education and much shittier careers.
I cannot fathom what their lives are like going through what we did, WITHOUT insurance.
There's no need for that. Not for the richest country in the world, the bestest, the mostest Godlike in the universe! Yes, I'm getting facetious here, sorry...but I think the point is: it's fucked up to consider that THIS cannot be done or SHOULD not be done.
People shouldn't lose their livelihoods because they all of a sudden got in a trainwreck and had the (mis)fortune to survive it.
Well ya know, if I ever do get really fucking sick, I hope I just die off quick so I don't become a giant financial burden on my family.
Fuck it.
I'll just use a .35 cent bullet and save everyone some hassle.
Quote from: Jenne on August 13, 2009, 05:11:53 AM
4) (the most important) HE'D NEVER GET ANY INSURANCE EVER AGAIN. He now has what is known as the dreaded "pre-existing condition."
yeah... this seems like a big wrinkle.
i'll just flop my ignorance out on the table here.
the problem here is that the insurance companies wont enter into a contract with you knowing that it's a bum deal for them. (I can't fault them there) so you need to be in contract as soon as you can with as good a deal as you can. but the contract is generally tied to your employer, so you're either stuck in place, or you're screwed.
is there anything else about that issue that i'm overlooking?
Quote from: Squid on August 13, 2009, 05:21:36 AM
Well ya know, if I ever do get really fucking sick, I hope I just die off quick so I don't become a giant financial burden on my family.
Fuck it.
I'll just use a .35 cent bullet and save everyone some hassle.
Do it right, spend the extra 15 cents for hollow point.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 13, 2009, 05:46:50 AM
Quote from: Squid on August 13, 2009, 05:21:36 AM
Well ya know, if I ever do get really fucking sick, I hope I just die off quick so I don't become a giant financial burden on my family.
Fuck it.
I'll just use a .35 cent bullet and save everyone some hassle.
Do it right, spend the extra 15 cents for hollow point.
Oooh. Good call.
that'll cost a bit more than .35 for the good ones....
i can offer an affordable coverage plan, though.
:lol:
Quote from: Squid on August 13, 2009, 04:58:09 AM
This subject is touchy for me I guess.
I'm pissed that I'm fucked if I get sick, I'm pissed I had to watch a friend die and I'm pissed that another friend is just a lazy mooch and gets a free ride.
MOVE TO THUNDER BAY SQUIDDY
ahhhh...
.....
we got bears....
everyone like bears..
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 05:05:06 AMit seems that i am simply evil, because i believe that people should have the right to take the calculated risk of not having insurance, even if it means that they pay the consequences if they get run over by the wheel of fortune.
well, you can say "should have the right to", you say that because of your freedom ideals, right? but apart from freedom there is one extra factor which you cannot ignore. well you can (you should have the right to), but it would reduce your whole idea to a pipe dream along the level of "wouldnt it be nice if everybody would just stop fighting so we can has world peace".
and that factor is, whether, given all these fucking monkeys on this fucking planet,
it would actually work.you see, let's say people have the right to voluntarily not have insurance. so a bunch of hardcore liberians like you choose to not have insurance and they feel all free and empowered and shit, and then some of them get sick, and some of them become handicapped and others die, but because they are such idealistic free motherfuckers they are all tough and stand to their principles and say "HAR *cough* but it was a *wheeze* calculated risk that I took, and I had the *groan* FREEDOM to take it!", and then they curl up and die as happy free men.
and that is fucking lovely, you know?
(I mean, if that's your thing)
unfortunately, there's also a bunch of fucking monkeys living on this planet. and they will voluntarily choose not to have insurance, not because of freedom, but because at that short-sighted point in their life it means they dont think they need it and dont wanna pay. and then they get sick, and they get no medical help. and then they whine and whine and whine because this is inhumane and you can't just let people die of an infected toenail just like that not in this America and they show up at the first aid, and they whine. and a few of the monkeys might say to them "yes but you took a calculated risk not to get insurance and these are the consequences" and turn away. but other monkeys, enough to make your entire plan fall to pieces, will help them. either because they think this is the "right thing to do", or because they can't stand to see other monkeys suffering like that, or because the sick monkeys trick them with complicated lies about "human rights" and such.
and in the end, even though people can freely choose to take a calculated risk and voluntarily choose not to pay insurance, everybody--except perhaps the hardcore freedom motherfuckers that turn their cold hard backs to any and all sick monkeys they see--ends up involuntarily paying for everybody else. except this time it's even worse, because because some monekys choose to be whining sick freeloaders, the distribution is not fair and the ones that shout loudest get a better deal than the quiet monkeys that just want the freedom to take a calculated risk and voluntarily choose to DO pay for insurance.
so yeah, I get your ideas, Ippy. and they seem sound at first, but then it turns out that, in order for your ideas to actually work out, first you need to get the monkeys on this planet to stop acting like monkeys.
well, if you happen to manage that, I got a whole lot of other ideas that also might work :)
however, calling yourself "evil" doesn't suddenly solve the monkey problem on this planet, IMO.
Did you just call him a "liberian"? :lol:
What 000 said, but shorter:
If you choose not to have insurance and get hit by a car and fall into a coma, you're taking an ambulance to the hospital and getting treatment, no matter what. After a few days your family might pull the plug on you, but the rest of us are still footing the bill until then, even though you didn't want us to.
Quote from: The Wise Dr.Mr.JenneSo if you don't want socialization, then you need to come to their home after a 9-1-1 call, look for their insurance card, and if they don't have one, give them a cross and say, "Good luck" and be on your way down the road.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 12, 2009, 03:44:06 PM
also, although i really don't know jack about the health care system, i'd like to weigh in on the side of not wanting it run by the govt. It seems that wanting this would require faith in the competence and benevolence of the govt., neither of which i possess.
I'm going to skip the rest of the no doubt thoughtful and interesting discussion that happened ITT and point out:
I got my wisdom teeth and my 8-inch-long appendix pulled out on the gubbamint's (read: YUOR) dime, and I think it's fucking awesome.
Now taking bets on whether or not a private insurance company would have denied my claim or given me shit about my appendectomy because having an abnormally long appendix was a pre-existing condition.
</inflammatory, ill-reasoned argument>
I'm curious... in what way would a gvt run insurance plan be more incompetent than an HMO?
I know the standard line is, "the gvt wouldn't run it right," but no one give any details on what exactly they would fuck up.
000,
you say that this is the crux of the matter.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 13, 2009, 08:11:04 AM
...but other monkeys, enough to make your entire plan fall to pieces, will help them. either because they think this is the "right thing to do", or because they can't stand to see other monkeys suffering like that, or because the sick monkeys trick them with complicated lies about "human rights" and such.
...
in the end..., everybody ends up involuntarily paying for everybody else.
in order for that to be the case, you are having to define their charity based on some moralistic, empathetic, or philosophic grounds to be 'involuntary'.
is that the way you see it? (or did i excesively snip your comment and miss the point entirely?)
ETA: also, Trip, i just wanted to point out that i'm not one of the 'hardcore liberians' that want
everything privatized. i understand the value of public infrastructure.
The way I intepreted that is that no matter what philispohical economic argument you make, if your mother gets shot and she doesn't have health care, you're taking her to the hospital to get treated.
The cost gets distributed to the rest of us as a result.
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 02:01:57 PM
The way I intepreted that is that no matter what philispohical economic argument you make, if your mother gets shot and she doesn't have health care, you're taking her to the hospital to get treated.
The cost gets distributed to the rest of us as a result.
If i take her to the hospital, and she doesn't have health care, why wouldn't
I get stuck with the bill?
I'm assuming you don't have health insurance either.
Let's say the bullet does massive internal damage, but not immediately fatal. Multiple surgeries are needed, as well as rehabilitiation and about a month in the hospital.
And let's say that the bill comes to $200,000. And let's say you make $25,000 a year, most of which goes to rent, food and gas; so you have no savings.
So, you declare bankruptcy. And the hospital doesn't get paid. How does it defray costs? By passing it along to the other patients, for starters. By charging more to those with healthcare.
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 02:15:29 PM
I'm assuming you don't have health insurance either.
Let's say the bullet does massive internal damage, but not immediately fatal. Multiple surgeries are needed, as well as rehabilitiation and about a month in the hospital.
And let's say that the bill comes to $200,000. And let's say you make $25,000 a year, most of which goes to rent, food and gas; so you have no savings.
So, you declare bankruptcy. And the hospital doesn't get paid. How does it defray costs? By passing it along to the other patients, for starters. By charging more to those with healthcare.
right. that makes sense to me, except for two points.
-that last sentence. are you saying the hospitals will charge a different rate to those that have insurance than those that don't? or are you just saying they will simply raise prices to factor in unpaid services?
-second point is the monkeys that 000 mentioned that will give out of charity. growing up in church i saw this all the time. here at the office i work at, i've seen it too. ive seen friends bail each other out.
sure, there would be times when somebody is unable to get charity for their misfortune, and have to declare bankruptcy. this would have to be factored into the hospital's costs just like general loss in a retail store. if they were unwilling to do this, or it was simply economically infeasible, they could choose to only work on patients with coverage, or cash up front.
The cost for services in hospitals takes into account estimated losses. If they didn't, they would be losing money as a rule. If they didn't, any unpaid service would cost them money. That's simple economics. And there's this thing called the Hippocratic Oath. A doctor can't not treat an injured person in an emergency room. There might be a few laws stating the same thing.
"Charity"... so, only people with friends who can afford to pay should get treated if they don't have healthcare?
I guess what I'm seeing from you is a willingness to let a fellow citizen die if they're poor.
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 02:40:06 PM
The cost for services in hospitals takes into account estimated losses. If they didn't, they would be losing money as a rule. If they didn't, any unpaid service would cost them money. That's simple economics. And there's this thing called the Hippocratic Oath. A doctor can't not treat an injured person in an emergency room. There might be a few laws stating the same thing.
"Charity"... so, only people with friends who can afford to pay should get treated if they don't have healthcare?
There are.
And if there was enough charity to cushion the cost of healthcare, healthcare wouldn't be a problem. Also, people like my uncle who oppose government-run healthcare are also the sort of people who won't pay for their own disabled sister's health insurance despite having a net worth of over a million dollars.
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 02:41:13 PM
I guess what I'm seeing from you is a willingness to let a fellow citizen die if they're poor.
That would be the corporate model of health insurance. The Free Market values profit, and it is 120% possible to make a glorious profit while allowing people to suffer and die.
I guess my views on the matter are that if a citizenry of a country are healthy and educated, that I'll be living in a more tolerant, more interesting, less violent society.
I'll gladly pay taxes to make that happen.
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 01:49:33 PM
I'm curious... in what way would a gvt run insurance plan be more incompetent than an HMO?
I know the standard line is, "the gvt wouldn't run it right," but no one give any details on what exactly they would fuck up.
My primary concern is the political interference, IE, the ability of women to get medically necessary abortions while republicans are in power.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 13, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 01:49:33 PM
I'm curious... in what way would a gvt run insurance plan be more incompetent than an HMO?
I know the standard line is, "the gvt wouldn't run it right," but no one give any details on what exactly they would fuck up.
My primary concern is the political interference, IE, the ability of women to get medically necessary abortions while republicans are in power.
Go on...
It seems to me that we will always have to deal with taxes... the government will always take some of our money and do *something* with it. Out of all the possible things it could do, providing an optional healthcare system for its citizens seems like a much better way of spending the money. My darling Sjaantze has no health insurance, if she was a guy and we were living together, she could get on my insurance... but she's female, so she can't. She works in landscaping, there's no insurance there. In the winter she does bartending, there's no insurance there.
The healthcare situation, I think, is one that betrays the inherent flaws in the 'capitalistic' society. The claim is that the market will provide... yet, we didn't see the market provide here... Any time in the past 20 years the Market could have come up with a solution and pushed for legislation to cover it... Healthcare Co-Ops on a per city basis, Basic healthcarre packages that covered emergencies and only necessary stuff... but instead 'the market' was focused on profit, to the point that the health care industry looked for ways NOT to pay for healthcare, in order to have more profit.
The government is probably one of the worst entities to try to manage a huge system like healthcare, but its got to be better than Cigna, United and the rest of the blood sucking assholes out there promoting the Slave Free Market
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 02:41:13 PM
I guess what I'm seeing from you is a willingness to let a fellow citizen die if they're poor.
it would seem so. :cry:
(even though i have given to people that were in need)
and what i'm seeing from you is a willingness to extort money from citizens for a program that is out of the purview of the federal govt.
Quote from: Cainad on August 13, 2009, 02:45:33 PM
Also, people like my uncle who oppose government-run healthcare are also the sort of people who won't pay for their own disabled sister's health insurance despite having a net worth of over a million dollars.
i know that your not saying that since your uncle is a rich asshole and he opposes gov run healthcare, that all (or even most!) of those that oppose gov run healthcare are rich assholes like your uncle?...
so what are you getting at there?
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 02:49:01 PM
I guess my views on the matter are that if a citizenry of a country are healthy and educated, that I'll be living in a more tolerant, more interesting, less violent society.
I'll gladly pay taxes to make that happen.
i savagely prefer the onus of responsibility to rest on the individual, knowing full well that, given human nature, society as a whole will be less tolerant, and more violent. (i would argue the 'interesting' point)
Quote from: Squid on August 13, 2009, 03:07:00 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 13, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 01:49:33 PM
I'm curious... in what way would a gvt run insurance plan be more incompetent than an HMO?
I know the standard line is, "the gvt wouldn't run it right," but no one give any details on what exactly they would fuck up.
My primary concern is the political interference, IE, the ability of women to get medically necessary abortions while republicans are in power.
Go on...
I hadn't thought about this angle. Hmm...
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 03:12:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 02:41:13 PM
I guess what I'm seeing from you is a willingness to let a fellow citizen die if they're poor.
it would seem so. :cry:
(even though i have given to people that were in need)
and what i'm seeing from you is a willingness to extort money from citizens for a program that is out of the purview of the federal govt.
So: Money is more important than human life. Gotcha.
I never thought you'd be
that much of a greedy bastard, Ipt.
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 13, 2009, 03:07:38 PM
The healthcare situation, I think, is one that betrays the inherent flaws in the 'capitalistic' society. The claim is that the market will provide... yet, we didn't see the market provide here... Any time in the past 20 years the Market could have come up with a solution and pushed for legislation to cover it... Healthcare Co-Ops on a per city basis, Basic healthcarre packages that covered emergencies and only necessary stuff... but instead 'the market' was focused on profit, to the point that the health care industry looked for ways NOT to pay for healthcare, in order to have more profit.
Right. this has me curious. if there is a market there (and there certainly is) for better coverage, then why
hasn't it emerged? Although i am ignorant of the answer, i would be willing to wager that it is because of legislative interference bought by the crappy existing system.... That isn't capitalism. that is fascism.
am i incorrect in my wager?
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 03:12:47 PM
Quote from: Cainad on August 13, 2009, 02:45:33 PM
Also, people like my uncle who oppose government-run healthcare are also the sort of people who won't pay for their own disabled sister's health insurance despite having a net worth of over a million dollars.
i know that your not saying that since your uncle is a rich asshole and he opposes gov run healthcare, that all (or even most!) of those that oppose gov run healthcare are rich assholes like your uncle?...
so what are you getting at there?
That if there were a lot of wealthy people who were generous enough to pay for the healthcare of the less-rich, they would.
They don't. Unless you've got a plan to make the wealthy a whole hell of a lot more charitable than they are now, people giving out of the goodness of their hearts isn't going to fix the problem.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 03:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 13, 2009, 03:07:38 PM
The healthcare situation, I think, is one that betrays the inherent flaws in the 'capitalistic' society. The claim is that the market will provide... yet, we didn't see the market provide here... Any time in the past 20 years the Market could have come up with a solution and pushed for legislation to cover it... Healthcare Co-Ops on a per city basis, Basic healthcarre packages that covered emergencies and only necessary stuff... but instead 'the market' was focused on profit, to the point that the health care industry looked for ways NOT to pay for healthcare, in order to have more profit.
Right. this has me curious. if there is a market there (and there certainly is) for better coverage, then why hasn't it emerged? Although i am ignorant of the answer, i would be willing to wager that it is because of legislative interference bought by the crappy existing system.... That isn't capitalism. that is fascism.
am i incorrect in my wager?
I would say so. Because in order for an insurance company to maximize their profits (as any competently-run for-profit business does), they have to find as many reasons as possible to not pay out. The only government interference involved is that these companies can hire lawyers to argue that they shouldn't have to pay out for less than the cost of paying out.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 03:12:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 02:49:01 PM
I guess my views on the matter are that if a citizenry of a country are healthy and educated, that I'll be living in a more tolerant, more interesting, less violent society.
I'll gladly pay taxes to make that happen.
i savagely prefer the onus of responsibility to rest on the individual, knowing full well that, given human nature, society as a whole will be less tolerant, and more violent. (i would argue the 'interesting' point)
Having loads and loads of people who spend their entire lives struggling to keep themselves and their families alive is only 'interesting' insofar as it provides a backdrop for a dramatic narrative about making the situation better.
And you get movies like The Rainmaker.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 03:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 13, 2009, 03:07:38 PM
The healthcare situation, I think, is one that betrays the inherent flaws in the 'capitalistic' society. The claim is that the market will provide... yet, we didn't see the market provide here... Any time in the past 20 years the Market could have come up with a solution and pushed for legislation to cover it... Healthcare Co-Ops on a per city basis, Basic healthcarre packages that covered emergencies and only necessary stuff... but instead 'the market' was focused on profit, to the point that the health care industry looked for ways NOT to pay for healthcare, in order to have more profit.
Right. this has me curious. if there is a market there (and there certainly is) for better coverage, then why hasn't it emerged? Although i am ignorant of the answer, i would be willing to wager that it is because of legislative interference bought by the crappy existing system.... That isn't capitalism. that is fascism.
am i incorrect in my wager?
Yes, because Insurance is a bad game for profit... and the market runs on profit. People WILL get sick and in today's society, Sick = Lots and Lots of Money. The only way you MAKE money in the insurance game is to:
1) Insure healthy people who aren't likely to get sick a lot.
2) Don't isnure people who Are likely to get sick (pre-existing condition etc).
3) Try not to pay out too much when someone DOES get sick.
A corporation has enough people that they can balance sick vs healthy to a profit, though even then (and I speak from personal experience) the Insurance company will work very hard to pay as little as possible and you'll find (even with the good insurance I have here) that suddenly "that's not covered" gets added to "this is your deductable" and thousands of dollars still leave your pocket.
Insuring a Co-Op of random citizens is likely to have more 'less healthy' people, than a corporation. Thus it would be much less profitable.
In the end, I think health care is simply an area where profit shouldn't be the driving factor. If profit isn't the driving factor... then it doesn't get served by the Market, as it exists in todays society.
I don't think you're being evil or selfish, hell, I know where you're coming from... I don't trust the government to do anything. However, the existing system is broken, very, very broken. The existing system is corrupt, Cigna and their cronies have engaged in all sorts of nasty practices and thats towards the people that HAVE insurance. Let alone the poor sods that have none. If the government were trying to force a single healthcare system for everyone, I would see that as a harsh solution, but an optional system for people that need it seems entirely reasonable to me.
And in the end, if abortion, birth control pills and/or end of life consults aren't covered, thats still better than nothing.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 03:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 13, 2009, 03:07:38 PM
The healthcare situation, I think, is one that betrays the inherent flaws in the 'capitalistic' society. The claim is that the market will provide... yet, we didn't see the market provide here... Any time in the past 20 years the Market could have come up with a solution and pushed for legislation to cover it... Healthcare Co-Ops on a per city basis, Basic healthcarre packages that covered emergencies and only necessary stuff... but instead 'the market' was focused on profit, to the point that the health care industry looked for ways NOT to pay for healthcare, in order to have more profit.
Right. this has me curious. if there is a market there (and there certainly is) for better coverage, then why hasn't it emerged? Although i am ignorant of the answer, i would be willing to wager that it is because of legislative interference bought by the crappy existing system.... That isn't capitalism. that is fascism.
am i incorrect in my wager?
Or is it?
"Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor."
Nothing in that definition says that the owners can't game the system to provide themselves a stronger foothold in the market to make more money. In fact, the best position for a capitalist company to be in is a monopoly. So, the health care industry does what it can to make itself a monopoly and get away with it. The current situation is completely in line with Capitalist ideas.
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 13, 2009, 03:07:38 PM
The government is probably one of the worst entities to try to manage a huge system like healthcare, but its got to be better than Cigna, United and the rest of the blood sucking assholes out there promoting the Slave Free Market
My father worked for the federal government. As such, he got the federal healthcare program. That's the one that all federal employees get, the janitor and the senator.
Well, turns out he got cancer. Sucks, yeah?
Well, the government run program worked
perfectly. He was able to go to Sloan-Kettering, go through treatment, have a bone marrow stem cell transplant (that was actually really cool. They took some of his (clean)marrow, then nuked the fuck out of him,
destroying all the existing bone marrow, then injected the bone marrow cells back into his blood stream, which
worked their way back into the bone and grew new bone marrow).
The total cost of treatment was probably close to a million dollars, without health insurance. But with the fed program, they didn't even have to mortgage their house.
He's now in the back yard, at 68, chopping down trees. Literally.
I'd like to thank all the taxpayers in the US for saving my father's life.
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 03:52:36 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 13, 2009, 03:07:38 PM
The government is probably one of the worst entities to try to manage a huge system like healthcare, but its got to be better than Cigna, United and the rest of the blood sucking assholes out there promoting the Slave Free Market
My father worked for the federal government. As such, he got the federal healthcare program. That's the one that all federal employees get, the janitor and the senator.
Well, turns out he got cancer. Sucks, yeah?
Well, the government run program worked perfectly. He was able to go to Sloan-Kettering, go through treatment, have a bone marrow stem cell transplant (that was actually really cool. They took some of his (clean)marrow, then nuked the fuck out of him, destroying all the existing bone marrow, then injected the bone marrow cells back into his blood stream, which worked their way back into the bone and grew new bone marrow).
The total cost of treatment was probably close to a million dollars, without health insurance. But with the fed program, they didn't even have to mortgage their house.
He's now in the back yard, at 68, chopping down trees. Literally.
I'd like to thank all the taxpayers in the US for saving my father's life.
:mittens:
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 03:52:36 PM
I'd like to thank all the taxpayers in the US for saving my father's life.
You're welcome, now could you send him over to clean out my gutters?
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 03:52:36 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 13, 2009, 03:07:38 PM
The government is probably one of the worst entities to try to manage a huge system like healthcare, but its got to be better than Cigna, United and the rest of the blood sucking assholes out there promoting the Slave Free Market
My father worked for the federal government. As such, he got the federal healthcare program. That's the one that all federal employees get, the janitor and the senator.
Well, turns out he got cancer. Sucks, yeah?
Well, the government run program worked perfectly. He was able to go to Sloan-Kettering, go through treatment, have a bone marrow stem cell transplant (that was actually really cool. They took some of his (clean)marrow, then nuked the fuck out of him, destroying all the existing bone marrow, then injected the bone marrow cells back into his blood stream, which worked their way back into the bone and grew new bone marrow).
The total cost of treatment was probably close to a million dollars, without health insurance. But with the fed program, they didn't even have to mortgage their house.
He's now in the back yard, at 68, chopping down trees. Literally.
I'd like to thank all the taxpayers in the US for saving my father's life.
I like these stories. Where the people live. :mittens:
I'm gonna come right out and say that I'm a dirty fucking socialist hippy bastard who thinks everyone in my community deserves adequate health care whether they can afford it or not and I am more than willing to front part of that bill via my taxes, knowing that I'll benefit when everyone benefits from good health and education, and that anyone who disagrees with me can go live like a hermit somewhere becoming of the selfish narcissistic antisocial bastards that they are. Or fucking kill me.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 02:30:19 PM
-that last sentence. are you saying the hospitals will charge a different rate to those that have insurance than those that don't?
That's almost exactly what they do now. They do not "charge" a different rate... but they accept a different amount for payment.
Look at any insurance company "explanation of benefits" document that comes to the insured after a medical bill has been submitted for payment. The bill will have a column for Billed Amount, and another column for "Allowed amount" (that's what the insurance company is willing to pay), and another column for "Deductible amount, and a final column for "Amount you owe".
The Insurance company has already negotiated an agreement to accept the lesser figure on the difference between "Billed amount" and "Allowed amount" with the provider... and they have already established the "Deductible Amount" with you per coverage contract. Assuming your medical need was on the 126 page of "covered procedures" the insurance company provided you along with your handy 26 digit group coverage insurance card there will be no difference between the last two columns....
However.... if you are uninsured, you get a bill from the hospital... with the "billed Amount". They have no negotiated agreement with you, private payer citizen... so you get charged an entirely different (and greater... sometimes MUCH greater)... amount than the Third Party payer citizen.
This particular practice is a big part of what "broke" the system to begin with.
There are things such as non-market goods. Even capitalist philosophers like Hayek are willing to admit this. They might argue over what constitutes a non-market good, but in theory, they acknowledge its existence, as a proposition.
Personally, I think any argument based on charity is wishful thinking, because the sort of community which lends itself to charity doesn't really exist anymore. In classical Athens, if you got robbed, then your neighbours would help you fight off the robber, or even replace items they stole, out of generosity, as well as a sense of community and honour. That sort of culture exists only very rarely in a hyper-individualised, industrial society. Some would even argue it is necessary to destroy that sort of altruistic society in order to build a modern capitalist system (the meeting point of Karl Polyani, Ayn Rand and Karl Marx).
Also, there are likely economic arguments for universal health care. How many hours are lost each year to bad health in the USA, due to people not being able to afford care? If the tax burden is mostly placed on individual payments, and not coporate tax, how much more would companies have in their budgets, to put towards job creation and industry expansion? And so on and so forth.
And of course, there is the moral argument. Namely that any society which thinks people should be left to suffer and possibly die due to lack of money, isn't really much of a society at all.
Combine the points, and I feel that is a fairly solid argument for some form of universal healthcare, be it the French system, which could probably be adapted to America with minimal problems, or the more radical British form, with the NHS.
Quote from: singer on August 13, 2009, 08:44:52 PM
That's almost exactly what they do now. They do not "charge" a different rate... but they accept a different amount for payment.
...
However.... if you are uninsured, you get a bill from the hospital... with the "billed Amount". They have no negotiated agreement with you, private payer citizen... so you get charged an entirely different (and greater... sometimes MUCH greater)... amount than the Third Party payer citizen.
...
This particular practice is a big part of what "broke" the system to begin with.
That, obviously, needs to be addressed. So, what i'm hearing, is that the costs are rising overall because of uninsured patients not paying at all. yet they charge a higher rate to the uninsured than they do to the insurance companies because there is no negotiated price point before hand. it can be assumed that the procedure done at the insured price point is still profitable to some amount, otherwise, they would not do it at all. So why wouldn't they accept an 'allowed amount' from the uninsured (that is still profitable to some level), rather than receive nothing at all? i asked this question to someone pushing for the reform, and got no coherent reply....
Quote from: Cain on August 13, 2009, 08:50:03 PM
...
Personally, I think any argument based on charity is wishful thinking, because the sort of community which lends itself to charity doesn't really exist anymore. In classical Athens, if you got robbed, then your neighbours would help you fight off the robber, or even replace items they stole, out of generosity, as well as a sense of community and honour. That sort of culture exists only very rarely in a hyper-individualised, industrial society.
I didn't realize how lucky i was to live among family and friends of this sort. perhaps the problem is a cultural deficiency, rather than a legislative one?
Quote from: Cain on August 13, 2009, 08:50:03 PM
Also, there are likely economic arguments for universal health care. How many hours are lost each year to bad health in the USA, due to people not being able to afford care? If the tax burden is mostly placed on individual payments, and not coporate tax, how much more would companies have in their budgets, to put towards job creation and industry expansion? And so on and so forth.
And for those of us willing to sacrifice some efficiency at the altar of liberty?
Quote from: Cain on August 13, 2009, 08:50:03 PMAnd of course, there is the moral argument. Namely that any society which thinks people should be left to suffer and possibly die due to lack of money, isn't really much of a society at all.
I would argue that the society that must be legislatively coerced to do the right thing isn't really much of a society at all.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 09:34:44 PM
Quote from: singer on August 13, 2009, 08:44:52 PM
That's almost exactly what they do now. They do not "charge" a different rate... but they accept a different amount for payment.
...
However.... if you are uninsured, you get a bill from the hospital... with the "billed Amount". They have no negotiated agreement with you, private payer citizen... so you get charged an entirely different (and greater... sometimes MUCH greater)... amount than the Third Party payer citizen.
...
This particular practice is a big part of what "broke" the system to begin with.
That, obviously, needs to be addressed. So, what i'm hearing, is that the costs are rising overall because of uninsured patients not paying at all. yet they charge a higher rate to the uninsured than they do to the insurance companies because there is no negotiated price point before hand. it can be assumed that the procedure done at the insured price point is still profitable to some amount, otherwise, they would not do it at all. So why wouldn't they accept an 'allowed amount' from the uninsured (that is still profitable to some level), rather than receive nothing at all? i asked this question to someone pushing for the reform, and got no coherent reply....
Dunno, but I watched Sjaantze go through bankruptcy because of Medical bills that the hospital had no inclination to lower to a payable amount. In fact, since she lived in the same house as me... they said she didn't qualify for any help at all. Why? Because that's the system I guess. She tried several times to work out some kind of payments, but in the end had to declare bankruptcy.
Quote
Quote from: Cain on August 13, 2009, 08:50:03 PM
...
Personally, I think any argument based on charity is wishful thinking, because the sort of community which lends itself to charity doesn't really exist anymore. In classical Athens, if you got robbed, then your neighbours would help you fight off the robber, or even replace items they stole, out of generosity, as well as a sense of community and honour. That sort of culture exists only very rarely in a hyper-individualised, industrial society.
I didn't realize how lucky i was to live among family and friends of this sort. perhaps the problem is a cultural deficiency, rather than a legislative one?
I don't think anyone is claiming its a legislative deficiency, it seems to be a cultural deficiency that is being addressed through legislation... cause changing culture is not exactly something the Fed can do... at least with the legislation they can help the huge numbers of people that desperately need it.
Quote
Quote from: Cain on August 13, 2009, 08:50:03 PM
Also, there are likely economic arguments for universal health care. How many hours are lost each year to bad health in the USA, due to people not being able to afford care? If the tax burden is mostly placed on individual payments, and not coporate tax, how much more would companies have in their budgets, to put towards job creation and industry expansion? And so on and so forth.
And for those of us willing to sacrifice some efficiency at the altar of liberty?
The alter of liberty? What sort of liberty is risked here? The liberty to die with huge bills? The liberty to choose between paying your bills, eating and buying the medicine you need to live?
I love liberty, but that seems like bullshit to me.
Quote
Quote from: Cain on August 13, 2009, 08:50:03 PMAnd of course, there is the moral argument. Namely that any society which thinks people should be left to suffer and possibly die due to lack of money, isn't really much of a society at all.
I would argue that the society that must be legislatively coerced to do the right thing isn't really much of a society at all.
Welcome to America... are you new here?
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 13, 2009, 08:37:12 AM
Did you just call him a "liberian"? :lol:
i did that cause TBH i never remember which one is libertarian and which is liberal and I didnt want to make that part of the discussion so I did it extra-wrong on purpose :)
Ippy, really? You are legislatively coerced to do the right thing ALL DAY LONG.
Roads, taxes, how you get water and electricity, stopping at traffic lights, the list goes on and on...
You're THERE. You are IN IT. This isn't the kind of thing (health care for those who need it not just want it and can afford it) that will make society worse. I can't see it, I really can't.
Because even the people who are afraid that women won't get bc pills or abortions need to realize that if a doctor or pharmacist is committed to doing their jobs, that won't happen, either. The law's pretty straight on that as-is, and I don't see the doctors and pharm set allowing that to go down without a fight.
Great thread, everyone...we need an Ippy here to give our brains a wriggle.
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 13, 2009, 10:04:38 PM
Dunno, but I watched Sjaantze go through bankruptcy because of Medical bills that the hospital had no inclination to lower to a payable amount. In fact, since she lived in the same house as me... they said she didn't qualify for any help at all. Why? Because that's the system I guess. She tried several times to work out some kind of payments, but in the end had to declare bankruptcy.
'just because' is the same unsatisfactory answer i've always gotten at this point of the conversation...
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 13, 2009, 10:04:38 PM
The alter of liberty? What sort of liberty is risked here? The liberty to die with huge bills? The liberty to choose between paying your bills, eating and buying the medicine you need to live?
I love liberty, but that seems like bullshit to me.
I view taxes as an encroachment upon ones liberty. (a necessary one, to some extent, i admit) that doesn't seem outlandish to me...
...and so you live alone, don't drive on the streets, etc.? Bullshit. You are not a hermit, and living within society means you adhere to its laws for a common good. Taxes contribute to that common good.
Quote from: Jenne on August 13, 2009, 10:13:07 PM
...and so you live alone, don't drive on the streets, etc.? Bullshit. You are not a hermit, and living within society means you adhere to its laws for a common good. Taxes contribute to that common good.
no, man.
that was Kai who said i wanted to be a selfish hermit.... not me.
i realize that there are infrastructure things that are best done publicly.
i realize that laws for the common good are necessary in so far as they protect the individual against fraud and violence, etc.
i don't think that
anything that could lead to a smoother functioning society should be centrally enforced, though.
you've read Brave New World, right? that society functioned efficiently and everyone was happy and healthy, too...
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 01:49:33 PM
I'm curious... in what way would a gvt run insurance plan be more incompetent than an HMO?
I know the standard line is, "the gvt wouldn't run it right," but no one give any details on what exactly they would fuck up.
HMO is the private insurance company right?
it totally depends. that's why I dont go around shouting you should have basic health insurance just like in the Netherlands.
both insurance corporations and governments can fuck it up, it depends on all sorts of external (cultural/national/economic) factors. I know the Dutch government got it down pretty well, but so do the private companies. I mean, it still could be better, which is why the Dutch national passtime is complaining about shit (it might be annoying but it WORKS, bitches), but compared to the USA, well what I hear in this thread, sorry to say but it sounds like certain demographics are on the level of a fucking third-world country. The very rich in NL might be in the position to buy extra experimental expensive treatment, but they are only marginally better, the difference is not that big. Laser, contacts or glasses (im gonna get laser from my fire insurance money--I have -5 on both my eyes, getting them fixed without needing glasses anymore seems like probably the best investment, one that's valuable even if all economy goes to shit).
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 13, 2009, 10:13:07 PM
...and so you live alone, don't drive on the streets, etc.? Bullshit. You are not a hermit, and living within society means you adhere to its laws for a common good. Taxes contribute to that common good.
no, man.
that was Kai who said i wanted to be a selfish hermit.... not me.
i realize that there are infrastructure things that are best done publicly.
i realize that laws for the common good are necessary in so far as they protect the individual against fraud and violence, etc.
i don't think that anything that could lead to a smoother functioning society should be centrally enforced, though.
you've read Brave New World, right? that society functioned efficiently and everyone was happy and healthy, too...
I don't see a difference between a public health system and public infrastructure. Both are things that all society benefits from with costs distributed across society, and with a net benefit which would not be profitable for an individual/corporation to tackle it.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 01:56:48 PM
000,
you say that this is the crux of the matter.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 13, 2009, 08:11:04 AM
...but other monkeys, enough to make your entire plan fall to pieces, will help them. either because they think this is the "right thing to do", or because they can't stand to see other monkeys suffering like that, or because the sick monkeys trick them with complicated lies about "human rights" and such.
...
in the end..., everybody ends up involuntarily paying for everybody else.
in order for that to be the case, you are having to define their charity based on some moralistic, empathetic, or philosophic grounds to be 'involuntary'.
is that the way you see it? (or did i excesively snip your comment and miss the point entirely?)
not quite. what they want (also what I want, because I'm seeing it work over here) is a society where people take care of eachother. because they think the whiners (from the post you quoted) are right, in some sense. even though they are assholes for not contributing, their claim that as human beings they should be entitled to medical help is right (in their opinion, which doesnt need to be your opinion).
so, maybe "involuntary" was too strong a word. they want society to work like that, and the only way to do that (with any degree of efficiency) is to deal out healthcare to everybody. because they dont just want to give healthcare to people that join this game. they also dont want to be the sort of people that have to turn their back to someone in need, regardless. because that requires you to be a cold motherfucker, which may be aokay for a liberain, but if they didnt have any problem with that, they wouldnt want this.
so in that perspective, their desire for society to function that way is just as valid as the one you described.
so hypothetically, that would work if you'd have two separate societies, where one is your liberal fend for yourself type you describe, and the other has healthcare. (pelase ignore the hyperbole)
a problem with this, (apart from that I've never really seen this work with any decent standard of healthcare-- but correct me if im wrong), is that your society requires to be 100% non-monkey. and by that I mean that I believe that this empathy is a fundamental property of human nature. some people might be able to resist it, refuse a man bleeding to death coming to first aid until they show insurance or pay up (this is common in Africa btw, according to a friend who worked there as a doctor), but I believe there will always be a substantial part of the population that cannot stand to see suffering if they can help it.
so, even if from a philosophical perspective, both types of society are equally valid (if they really are, I just followed one line of reasoning), the one that you describe would still have a part of the population paying for healthcare of freeloaders.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 09:34:44 PM
That, obviously, needs to be addressed. So, what i'm hearing, is that the costs are rising overall because of uninsured patients not paying at all. yet they charge a higher rate to the uninsured than they do to the insurance companies because there is no negotiated price point before hand. it can be assumed that the procedure done at the insured price point is still profitable to some amount, otherwise, they would not do it at all. So why wouldn't they accept an 'allowed amount' from the uninsured (that is still profitable to some level), rather than receive nothing at all? i asked this question to someone pushing for the reform, and got no coherent reply....
Oh no... I don't believe this is entirely the case. I believe that the un/underinsured pay all right. They pay as much as they can when they see that astronomical amount mentioned by LMNO.... $500.00 a month, or $50.00 a month.... whatever they can.... because it's their HEALTH at stake here.... and they probably still have follow-up appointments and they don't want to be turned away for non-payment.... so they pay whatever they can... but... they aren't un/underinsured because they are rich bastards... they are un/underinsured because they can't afford insurance in the first place.
(Someone more inclined than myself can probably check the national median cost for family coverage, I'm just basing my estimate on my experience. $1,500 per month for family coverage... more than what I could afford monthly if my employer wasn't underwriting the majority of the expense.)
So... when the hospital or clinic billing department gets tired (after 2 or 3.... sometimes even 4 months) of $50.00 per month payments.... because they would like to see 10%... (which we have already ascertained is more than what I am speculating is the average monthly cost of insurance) ... they turn the account over to a collections agency... who tack on additional fees...
...meanwhile scared patient fearing a future of compromised medical care continues to pay.... whatever they can.... until they can't anymore.
And.... I don't believe we can assume that the negotiated price point is still profitable... I believe we can assume that fat juicy contract with insurance company is enough of a carrot to make hospital administraors agree.... and plan to 'make up the difference' elsewhere... like in the bill of that un/underinsured schmo... just charge them enough more to subsidize the insurance company's discount. After all... they are sick and scared... they don't have the numbers or the clout to "negotiate a deal"....
...meanwhile scared patient fearing a future of compromised medical care continues to pay.... whatever they can.... until they can't anymore.
And then there's equipment. Damned expensive... and not everybody will use that shiny new MRI machine.... so we gotta pay for it somehow... oh I know.... how about we start to charge $2.00 for every cotton ball and q'tip used.... everybody uses those... we can charge ALL our patients an artificially inflated price for sterile supplies... and the amount is too small for the insurance watchdogs to waste their time tracking and contesting... for sure we don't need to worry about that un/underinsured schmo kicking about this particular gouge... after all they have neither the numbers or the clout to do anything about it.
...meanwhile scared patient fearing a future of compromised medical care continues to pay.... whatever they can.... until they can't anymore.
I know some tough negotiators who have told their hospitals "I did my research. You are charging me more than the "normal allowed" amount and I won't pay the difference".... but folks who know what those amounts are... and aren't too sick or scared to risk pissing off the administration/billing department of maybe the only health care facility for miles around... those folks are few and far between.
The short, (but still unsatisfactory) answer to "why won't hospitals accept a negotiated payment from an individual when they will from a corporation?" is this.... because they don't have to. They can count on most sick scared recovering patients to pay whatever inflated amount they can afford... damn near in perpetuity... and they always have the ability to "write off" the lingering unpaid amount (once the patient dies... or declares bankruptcy... or whatever.... ) saving a tidy sum on their corporate taxes
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 03:18:07 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 13, 2009, 03:07:38 PM
The healthcare situation, I think, is one that betrays the inherent flaws in the 'capitalistic' society. The claim is that the market will provide... yet, we didn't see the market provide here... Any time in the past 20 years the Market could have come up with a solution and pushed for legislation to cover it... Healthcare Co-Ops on a per city basis, Basic healthcarre packages that covered emergencies and only necessary stuff... but instead 'the market' was focused on profit, to the point that the health care industry looked for ways NOT to pay for healthcare, in order to have more profit.
Right. this has me curious. if there is a market there (and there certainly is) for better coverage, then why hasn't it emerged? Although i am ignorant of the answer, i would be willing to wager that it is because of legislative interference bought by the crappy existing system.... That isn't capitalism. that is fascism.
am i incorrect in my wager?
um, i would assume that given your love of capitalism and the free market, you'd be familiar with the theory behind it? and I dont mean the theory that is obvious at first sight, there are also loads of very counter-intuitive things that happen in a free market. efficiency (the economic term) is one of them. may I suggest you to read the "undercover economist" by Tim Harford. there are a bunch of very solid reasons why the free market doesnt always end up as the most optimal solution (too long to explain in a few sentences though, but it happens often enough). he also gives a bunch of good and interesting ways to support the free market to get to a more optimal solution. taxes, subsidizing, are some of them. also, it's an easy and interesting read :)
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 03:52:36 PM
The total cost of treatment was probably close to a million dollars, without health insurance.
what?
I have to say, with my healthcare I'm always surprised how much it actually costs, because I hardly ever get a bill, but sometimes I see it on my insurance reports.
But a million? Wow.
afaik, insurance companies rate the value of a human life at something like 100k-200k or so. (yes of course they do the fight club thing, you bet health insurance companies have a price on a human life)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8199615.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8199615.stm)
this debate has made the UK really realise how lucky it is.
Well us brits are tweeting furiously in defence of the nhs, mostly in testimonials. The tory who slagged it off to the US probably wont get his nomination for the next election..
A rash of facebook testimonials from my friends such as "Neil P would have been deaf from childhood without the NHS."
I would probably have died with my mum and the difficult birth I had. My younger sister would have been dead from Meningitis if it wasnt for the NHS, and wuldnt have received the essential after-care and therapies needed to get a 20 year old learning to walk, talk, read, all from scratch because of the resulting brain damage..
My National Insurance only runs at about 10 per cent, from this we get entitlement to unemployment benefits, healthcare, and for the older generation, a pension. (the viability of the nationalised pensions to the X and Y gens looks shaky, but hey... nothings perfect.) as well as other state benefits.
I just don't see how a civilised nation can call itself civilised when many millions cannot get sick without bankruptcy.
America, you are Doing It Wrong.
Love, the Britspags.
Quote from: Kai on August 13, 2009, 07:55:09 PM
I'm gonna come right out and say that I'm a dirty fucking socialist hippy bastard who thinks everyone in my community deserves adequate health care whether they can afford it or not and I am more than willing to front part of that bill via my taxes, knowing that I'll benefit when everyone benefits from good health and education, and that anyone who disagrees with me can go live like a hermit somewhere becoming of the selfish narcissistic antisocial bastards that they are. Or fucking kill me.
I would have said this. I would have if this discussion would have been among Dutch people, however since this discussion is about USA healthcare, I dont think I'm in a position to make such a statement. Glad you think so, Kai.
I'd like to disagree with the characterization of people without health care as not being "responsible" for themselves, and to do that I'm going to back up and go over my understanding of capitalism.
Capitalism, like every other economic system, is a system which determines i) what and how goods and services will be produced and ii) who gets those goods and services.
People are rewarded with currency for producing a good or service; the reward is directly related to how much the good is desired and how much of it is already out there, minus a penalty for the other goods consumed in creating the product. This naturally leads people to make more of the things we don't have enough of, while discouraging people from wasting resources producing things nobody wants. The genius (and problem) of the system is that the reward is also used to determine who gets what - the reward is a coupon for more goods and services, aka currency. These coupons, over enough transactions, eventually set the reward for the production of goods and services at reasonable levels (most of the time.) It's a very democratic system - one coupon is one vote for determining how much of a prize should be awarded for what, and therefore determining what should be produced.
The problem is that the voting is weighted by how many of these coupons an individual or organization has. Those with few coupons are relatively powerless, only able to exert influence if a great deal of them get together. The effect of this is that the goods produced are not oriented to serve the public society in general, but rather the portion of the public that holds enough of these coupons.
The current economic system is essentially the same as a democracy which limits suffrage to landowners, just substitute "coupon" for "land" and "production" for "legislation." The healthcare situation in America is analogous to a democracy in which only landowners can vote determining that the best kind of health care is the system which provides it to the landowners, wasting as little of it as possible on the sharecroppers.
Viewed in this light, the American movement towards a public health care system is an attempt by people who have not enough of the coupon-votes to induce industry to produce more healthcare services to use political votes, which are (somewhat) more evenly distributed, to effect the same end.
Somewhere along the way I meant to show how those without enough coupons weren't being irresponsible, but I guess I got lost in my own reasoning?
After having thought about it all day when I was supposed to be enjoying the aquarium, dammit (fuck you, PD.com!), here is the reason I consider a government-run health care plan to be a good idea:
Every single case of real-world government-run health care I've seen has been adequate to excellent. My own health care and my family's all come courtesy of the US Military (thank you, Iptuous, and everyone else, for paying your $0.002 towards my appendectomy :p ) and it all runs smoothly and perfectly under the Tricare insurance program. The same is true of all my military brat friends.
So, the Fed pays for the health care of the US Military, and doesn't fuck it up. Score one on our own soil; don't even need to ask them socialist foreigners who don't know any better. Now you can argue "but that's for the military specifically blah blah blah" okay look shut up that's not the point, at all, ever. The point is, the Fed took your money and uses it properly. Motherfucking shocker (I know I'm surprised).
Every single horror story I've ever heard about uncaring government bureaucracies comes from scaremongering speeches from American conservatives; never have I heard anything to suggest that occasional fuckups (which I'm sure happen) are the rule rather than the exception. People who live in countries with government-run health care systems all seem to think that their system is adequate-to-great, as opposed to here, where opinions about health care seem to range from "fuck this shit" to "it's brilliant if you can pay for it, yeah."
And then there's the argument which amounts to "Fuck you, Federal government!" While I'm generally behind this attitude because the Fed is certainly capable of colossal fuckups and commits them like there's no tomorrow, in this case the only thing this argument has going for it is, well, itself. I don't like sticking to principles when they are obstructive to the general health of human beings. Also, there's no point in arguing when people are just bumping opposed principles against each other.
Quote from: GA on August 13, 2009, 11:47:49 PM
Viewed in this light, the American movement towards a public health care system is an attempt by people who have not enough of the coupon-votes to induce industry to produce more healthcare services to use political votes, which are (somewhat) more evenly distributed, to effect the same end.
Somewhere along the way I meant to show how those without enough coupons weren't being irresponsible, but I guess I got lost in my own reasoning?
I dunno, but you basically illustrated the point that the poor do not have sufficient buying power to make it profitable for the industry to handle their health care.
Quote from: GA on August 13, 2009, 10:48:42 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on August 13, 2009, 10:27:32 PM
i realize that there are infrastructure things that are best done publicly.
i realize that laws for the common good are necessary in so far as they protect the individual against fraud and violence, etc.
I don't see a difference between a public health system and public infrastructure. Both are things that all society benefits from with costs distributed across society, and with a net benefit which would not be profitable for an individual/corporation to tackle it.
yeah that's an interesting quesion, Ip, why do you think infrastructure is necessary to be done publically, but healthcare isn't?
are roads more important than human life? (sorry that sounds like a really loaded question, but I cant find another way to ask it)
cause IMO both are equally important. you dont have proper roads, everything gets bogged down. but if people are sick, same thing, right? except it's even more direct. roads are an indirect way for general happiness, people getting medical aid, are more direct, cause the people getting treated (and their friends/famyily) are more happy.
i just think cause humans are the entities that DO shit, makes them a sort of infrastructure in a way, no?
the health care we have is less than perfect
government already is got its fingers in the system we have
government fucks things up consistently
adding more government to a health care system that is already in trouble is going to help ?
i have visions of this creating a healthcare system that ends up being random parts sewn together like something from a Nanking experiment. bad insurance policy welded to government agencies sewn to existing government medical programs kept running on a taxation life support system..
maybe goverment can do a good :lulz: job of it :roll: this time :x
And now for my argument on why public healthcare is just another kind of public infrastructure.
Infrastructure is a system, which while not necessarily generating profits in and of itself, nevertheless is a net gain for just about everybody. Roads and bridges many not be revenue sources, but the profits enabled by having cheap, safe transportation of goods and raw materials benefits everybody, far exceeding the cost to build and maintain them. Likewise, the local police don't make a dime of profit when they apprehend a criminal, and in fact lose a great deal of money employing, training, and equipping officers, but having a safe community is better for every business in the area.
Now, American businesses lose an ungodly amount of money every year in lost productivity when employees get sick and are unable to work, or at least unable to work as efficiently. The current setup, with few (if any) paid sick days and little health insurance, means that an employee who is getting sick will usually take as little off work as possible, coming in for several days at reduced efficiency before finally getting too sick to work and missing even more time completely. (Those who get sick enough will soon find themselves with little currency, which very quickly leads to becoming one of those "irresponsible whiney people" who can't afford their own healthcare. I knew I'd get to that point somewhere.) And if the above employee is actually contagious, prepare for even worse results. People without healthcare and paid sick days (Americans get a disgustingly low number of paid sick days compared to civilised-with-an-S countries) end up paying for the pound of cure rather than the ounce of prevention. Overall, we'd be paying less money with a good universal healthcare plan.
I hate to argue with hypothetical situations, but bear with me for a moment here. Suppose there was a dangerous, contagious disease with the potential to blossom into a pandemic, whose initial symptoms were very similar, if not identical to, the common flu. Remember that this is all hypothetical - any resemblance to the Bird Flu, the Swine Flu, or any of a bazillion agents possibly employable as a bioterror attack is purely coincidental. Now, Alice starts developing flu-like symptoms. Since she doesn't have any paid sick days and a doctor's visit would have to come out of her pocket, she decides to just be responsible and provide for her kids by going in to work. This is normally a pretty safe decision - statistically, she'll recover from the flu on her own in a few days, and if any of her coworkers gets sick from her, that's a cost that management pays, not her. Unfortunately for Alice, this is a hypothetical scenario in which the above dangerous, contagious disease exists. Had she gone to the doctor's and taken off work, as she probably would have if she had had insurance and paid sick days, the doctor would after a simple test have discovered that this was not the common flu but the Contagious, Lethal, and Hypothetical Flu (good thing it's only hypothetical, otherwise we could be in trouble.) The doctor would have been able to notify somebody important about this, who would be able to implement anti-pandemic policies and suchlike. Since she didn't go to the doctor, however, the disease spreads undetected through the office until it reaches somebody who does have health insurance, when it is reported. So by the time people are aware that the thankfully hypothetical disease is in their area, it's already established a foothold.
:mittens:
but is all medical infrastructure?? is it infrastructure to provide some 400+ pound slug a roll-around so he can get his fat ass down to MacDonald's to eat more of the food that is killing him? is it infrastructure to pay for his chosen lifestyle? the one that is killing him and causing him to need medicine?
Quote from: fomenter on August 14, 2009, 12:32:13 AM
but is all medical infrastructure?? is it infrastructure to provide some 400+ pound slug a roll-around so he can get his fat ass down to MacDonald's to eat more of the food that is killing him? is it infrastructure to pay for his chosen lifestyle? the one that is killing him and causing him to need medicine?
in the UK they would come further down any transplant lists ect for smoking drinking and that, until they remedy the situation.
All medical is infrastructure here, tho, altho there are some restrictions when you did it to yourself
Quote from: fomenter on August 14, 2009, 12:19:38 AM
the health care we have is less than perfect
government already is got its fingers in the system we have
government fucks things up consistently
adding more government to a health care system that is already in trouble is going to help ?
i have visions of this creating a healthcare system that ends up being random parts sewn together like something from a Nanking experiment. bad insurance policy welded to government agencies sewn to existing government medical programs kept running on a taxation life support system..
maybe goverment can do a good :lulz: job of it :roll: this time :x
Which is why the government health plan should be completely separate from the private sector. A public option, if you will. The government not only
can run a competent and effective health care system, it already
does. It's a matter of expanding public coverage in a way that preserves that competence.
Quote from: fomenter on August 14, 2009, 12:32:13 AM
but is all medical infrastructure?? is it infrastructure to provide some 400+ pound slug a roll-around so he can get his fat ass down to MacDonald's to eat more of the food that is killing him? is it infrastructure to pay for his chosen lifestyle? the one that is killing him and causing him to need medicine?
God, I hope not. :lulz:
you are far more optimistic than me if you think obama's heath care isn't going to be some insurance/government/medical industry mutant hybrid that eats taxpayers... but dont let my curmudgeony cynicism spoil the surprise for you..
Quote from: fomenter on August 14, 2009, 01:00:31 AM
you are far more optimistic than me if you think obama's heath care isn't going to be some insurance/government/medical industry mutant hybrid that eats taxpayers... but dont let my curmudgeony cynicism spoil the surprise for you..
My
only primary worry about this is that with all the lobbyists everywhere, any "reform" will just end up lining the pockets of Big Pharma. Effective monopoly is one thing, monopoly with gov't backing is entirely another.
Quote from: GA on August 14, 2009, 01:11:10 AM
Quote from: fomenter on August 14, 2009, 01:00:31 AM
you are far more optimistic than me if you think obama's heath care isn't going to be some insurance/government/medical industry mutant hybrid that eats taxpayers... but dont let my curmudgeony cynicism spoil the surprise for you..
My only primary worry about this is that with all the lobbyists everywhere, any "reform" will just end up lining the pockets of Big Pharma. Effective monopoly is one thing, monopoly with gov't backing is entirely another.
i am sure you have nothing to worry about, when was the last time the lobbyists that fund campaigns got their way when it came time to legislate? nothing at all to worry about.. nothing at all :lulz:
Quote from: fomenter on August 14, 2009, 01:00:31 AM
you are far more optimistic than me if you think obama's heath care isn't going to be some insurance/government/medical industry mutant hybrid that eats taxpayers... but dont let my curmudgeony cynicism spoil the surprise for you..
Now
that's a legitimate concern.
Still, I say let it go through. New decade coming up; need new things to bitch about.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 13, 2009, 11:31:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 13, 2009, 03:52:36 PM
The total cost of treatment was probably close to a million dollars, without health insurance.
what?
I have to say, with my healthcare I'm always surprised how much it actually costs, because I hardly ever get a bill, but sometimes I see it on my insurance reports.
But a million? Wow.
afaik, insurance companies rate the value of a human life at something like 100k-200k or so. (yes of course they do the fight club thing, you bet health insurance companies have a price on a human life)
lymphoma. His treatments were fucking INTENSE. Basically, his entire lymph system was at risk, plus his marrow was compromised. So, yeah.
Also singer, it was an elipsis attack, but i liked your post.
So, Alphancecand I share a nasty secret: just cuz you excaped one variation of fucked up death, doesn't mean another ain't waitin round the corner...
We CANT in this house celebrate the life continuancy of my husband because he may at any point succumb to leukemia. And it is breaking my heart to simply type that out. Because having beat the odds once, the chances of surviving that. I'll leave it there shall I?
Another thought I had last night, but was unable to post.
While I would tend to agree an opt-in service is more philosophically to my liking, there is an inherent free rider problem with that which does have its own problems.
Example: assume the system is opt-in, and 65% of Americans decide to plump for this affordable/free at point of treatment/whatever Universal Healthcare, and 35% do not. Even though those 35% are not part of the system, they still benefit from it. In the case of many infections and minor diseases, that most people can quickly and easily get treatment will arrest their development - reducing the likelihood of it spreading through the population and of an individual, covered by the Universal System or not, catching it. The improved productivity alluded to would bring economic benefits to the country as a whole, perhaps leading to decreases in taxes and more jobs, more investment and so on.
In that sense, health does become a public good. And the only way I can see to deal with this, is either to allow the freeloaders to carry on the way they are (which is highly unfair to everyone who is paying for the system - why should they pay their way and others not) or to include them in the system, because of the intangiable, not immediate benefits the system will provide them as well.
Quote from: LMNO on August 14, 2009, 03:20:26 AM
Also singer, it was an elipsis attack, but i liked your post.
you say that like stylistic annoyance isn't a necessary part of the PD oeuvre?
Quote from: singer on August 14, 2009, 11:52:39 AM
Quote from: LMNO on August 14, 2009, 03:20:26 AM
Also singer, it was an elipsis attack, but i liked your post.
you say that like stylistic annoyance isn't a necessary part of the PD oeuvre?
Moar semicolons; fewer ellipses.
Quote from: LMNO on August 10, 2009, 05:12:17 PM
You'd think so.
The fear seems to be that, if the gvt plan is too cheap, employers will stop offering healthcare, and people will naturally choose the cheap gvt plan, putting the more expensive insurance companies out of business, and creating a gvt monopoly of health care.
Of course, these are the same people who claim that the gvt is too ineffecient to run anything correctly or cheaply, so there's a bit of disconnect there.
Schroedinger's Bureaucrat.