mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 5, 2014 13:05:17 GMT -5
Even Israel has universal healthcare, all citizens are required to belong to 1 of 4 different organizations. They have some of the best healthcare in the world, low infant mortality rate. Wonder how much of it we are paying for since we send billions in aid to them. Also a low UE rate but then we also spend a ton of money on military aid for them. Maybe if our country gets poor enough some country will help us pay for good healthcare. Oh but their doctors only average $5k to $6k of income per month. S'okay, pat. They don't usually have much, if any, student loan debt. Their higher education is either fully paid by the army, or heavily subsidized by the government.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 5, 2014 13:07:47 GMT -5
OK, access was a poor choice of words. Of course what was meant was practical ability for all to utilize our health care system. Cost is often prohibitive, as is the proclivity to purchase coverage until needed. We have a system meant for access for all which is not used for all, and not paid for by all.
My basic question stands- Should all Americans have access to health care?
Not all Americans do. Over 30 million don't. Many million more have access to limited care. Others have access to care that disappears soon after they really need it. It is beyond dysfunctional- it is stupid.
I also disagree that it is stupid to not limit care. That is the basis of the unethical standard of insurance care we have- parsing and limiting care by condition and group. That is one way in which they avoid paying for much basic care. We've been over this before. All should pay so all will benefit.
Then my answer would have to be, All American's have access to healthcare, all American's do not have access to quality Health Insurance. bingo. this argument has been, and always will be, about insurance- no matter what Paul or anyone else says. and it is a REALLY SIMPLE PROBLEM. there is no need to resort to free market services arguments- all of that will sort itself out in the traditional way once everyone has insurance. as we have discussed many times before there are a lot of different "special situation" insurances. for example, i have to have a rider on my policy for flying an airplane (high risk) for my life insurance policy. i would never expect that to be of interest to 320 million Americans. ditto for my product liability insurance- it is a very limited market. but basic things- like auto, home owners, basic life insurance, and health insurance, there is such a broad market for that there is a compelling argument for socializing them. and that is, in fact, what most countries have done. it is hard to see that from inside the prism of American politics. we are so used to grappling with crappy private insurance that most of us can't even fathom what it might be like to not have that. but i am not really making a case for that- simply for the IDEA that this is about insurance for a need that is essentially universal.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 7, 2014 17:18:59 GMT -5
deminmaine - the problem is that government cannot change the fundamentals of supply and demand. You cannot force someone to provide a product or service more cheaply 'just because', and you can't force people to buy a product or service they do not want. Oh, you can do it for a time- but sooner or later you discover why the Berlin Wall was built to keep people IN, not out of their wonderful Utopia. Access to 'coverage' is not the same as access to care. The reason the ACA is in a death spiral is that it has made a promise that can NEVER be delivered upon. Your entire premise is false. We are talking about healthcare here, not access to cable TV. This is a basic need of all people. Now I know you will harken back to 1776 when cleansing was done with leaches, but really, a couple of centuries have passed since then.
Again, Should all Americans have access to health care? A clear majority of us believe so. We as a people CAN afford to do so, it is just a matter of choice.
Fallujah just fell to al Qaida. How'd that whole Iraq thing work again? How many hundreds of billions did we waste on death and destruction when we had a stable country there before? Money that could have been spent on, wait for it- healthcare for Americans That is our tax money!!! How much are we spending in the Afghan? How much to keep Ramsduhl open, and to rebuild our base in Okinawa? Do the Japanese not have the capability of defending themselves?
On the revenue side- repeal the Bush tax cuts. Redirect the money being spent on Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, private insurance, out of pocket, etc., into one system. It is not even as difficult as you opponents make it out to be. It is imminently achievable in practical terms.
The difficulty is in the politics. People who are ideologically opposed to the idea of equal healthcare for all put up not just reasonable arguments, but any canard and scare tactic to oppose reasonable moves to provide access to all. Just be honest and say you oppose it? Not politically expedient. So distort, obfuscate and lie. Re: conservative talk radio. Same talking points!
It is not a utopia at all. It is a basic goal of civilized society in the modern era.
I am only ideologically opposed to it because it doesn't work. My 'ideology' is predisposed to opposing illogical, nonsensical, completely unworkable ideas. In truth, the opposite is true- proponents of universal healthcare are driven purely by ideology- they ignore the math, they ignore economic realities, and the insert "wishes" in their place. We all "wish" everyone had access to the best healthcare in the world. But as the old saying goes, you can wish in one hand and shit in the other, and guess which hand fills up first? What really upsets the left is that some people are very wealthy and they can afford the best care available- experimental treatments, better maintenance plans, healthier diets, personal trainers and all the rest of it. They can fly to the Mayo clinic, they have access to treatments few others in the world have- while others have no access to healthcare at all, or very low quality care. The rich seem to have the ability to buy more life while others suffer and die. But the statist, the proponents of central planning never ask themselves how it is that in spite of the fact that there is a wide gap between the rich and the poor in terms of healthcare, even the poor in America have better care than anywhere else in the world. Proponents of ridiculously unworkable, proven failures like "universal healthcare" are ideologically married to the promises of politicians, and do not live in the real world where results matter- and where they're dismal. Nothing about the ACA, or for that matter "universal healthcare" which is just a fancy name for one-size-fits-all government run and rationed healthcare, is a reasonable move to provide access to all. You need to be honest and admit that you're OK with subjecting everyone to mediocre minimums because you're upset that some people can afford better than others. Be honest and say that as long as everyone gets the mediocre minimum that you don't care if the wealthy and the middle class don't have access to the better care they've grown used to. Admit that it makes you a little bit happy inside to think that some wealthy jerk is going to wait in something akin to a Soviet-style bread line in a building whose signage indicates it's a healthcare facility but it's really just filled with bureaucrats and quasi-bureaucrats who confront those seeking care with 50 pages of bullshit about whether or not he owns a gun? I mean if you're really interested in honesty and exposing ideological agendas- let's do it. As for me- the market works. This is inarguable. The only argument the liberals are making is that healthcare is special and somehow is magically not subject to the same laws of economics as say- the cable & internet services, produce, or flat screen TV's. It's ALL about supply and demand. The argument is that people would like healthcare, or if you prefer- desperately "need" healthcare, and that they can't afford it. Therefore, since healthcare is so essential, we must (in the case of universal healthcare) take money from some people- the rich- and use it to make sure the poor are afforded healthcare. This increase in demand will not cause the price to rise, allegedly, because the government as the sole purchaser of healthcare will, um, "negotiate" the prices (in reality, it's price fixing all dressed up with free market Sam's Club and Costco lingo- though we'll never turn to Wal-Mart or any other free market entity for solutions...). More people seeking a product or service- more demand, necessarily drives up price. All the more so when there's government subsidies available (or really any third party payer). Price draws more (and better) products and services into the market in a free market. With government price fixing schemes- prices don't function properly and supply dries up as demand grows. The answer to the failed idea that government can subsidize a service, and fix the prices is....rationing. Rationing, and compulsion-- sooner or later the government will find ways to order doctors around, bully pharmaceutical firms, and otherwise try and fix the mess that will only get bigger. And while they're all fucking around- we'll do what people in socialist countries always do- we'll leave, or we'll die on the waiting list.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 7, 2014 21:29:49 GMT -5
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 7, 2014 21:40:41 GMT -5
The GOP- Pro Life (unless you have cancer, heart disease, etc., and your insurance policy denied you or you couldn't get one at all- in that case you are too expensive and expendable- no one should dare take their money by gunpoint, yada, yada, yada- poor planning, yada yada, bad decisions, yada yada, find a private charity, yada yada, good luck, yada yada,- I'm not sick my family is fine so eat shit, yada yada) BUT-euthanasia should be illegal- so when you insurer denies your treatable cancer you get to rot in a bed in pain till death- but no weed either- only PHARMA approved medications- which you won't get either since your dumb ass is broke.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 10:16:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 22:53:55 GMT -5
EVT1 , you keep talking about "the math" that proves universal care is the best solution. Please show me that math. Not the math that universal care can fix some of the problems, but rather the math that universal care is superior. Somehow I doubt you have the slightest clue what the math or logic points to. The insinuation is that universal care is better than free markets when it comes to healthcare. But in general, we do not even have anything remotely similar to a free market. So you cannot possibly know that universal care is better. In many cases, we have something that somewhat resembles a monopoly. Monopolies cause high prices. Free markets cause lower prices. In a country where freedom is so highly valued, we should give the free market option a try first. We have a system where the sentence, "Don't worry, insurance will pay for it," is uttered over and over. With that mentality, we're guaranteed to have rediculously high prices.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 7, 2014 23:18:24 GMT -5
EVT1 , you keep talking about "the math" that proves universal care is the best solution. Please show me that math. Not the math that universal care can fix some of the problems, but rather the math that universal care is superior. Somehow I doubt you have the slightest clue what the math or logic points to. The insinuation is that universal care is better than free markets when it comes to healthcare. But in general, we do not even have anything remotely similar to a free market. So you cannot possibly know that universal care is better. In many cases, we have something that somewhat resembles a monopoly. Monopolies cause high prices. Free markets cause lower prices. In a country where freedom is so highly valued, we should give the free market option a try first. We have a system where the sentence, "Don't worry, insurance will pay for it," is uttered over and over. With that mentality, we're guaranteed to have rediculously high prices. I was just about to toss a corollary into it- as in how Canadian doctors defend against malpractice. But never mind that- the costs per capita area easily available- we pay about double, and get less. That is irrefutable. But you are correct- we have nothing close to a free market- and no other modern country does either- but we have the worst of both worlds. I think this is an impossible bridge to gap- because I have yet to talk to anyone on the right that thinks health care is anything more than a privilege. So to start- for a free market we have to get rid of EMTALA- passed when Lord Reagan was in charge, get rid of Tricare for the military, get rid of Medicare for the old, and get rid of Medicaid for the poor. Quite a tall order. How are you going to do it? How do you ensure a 911 call isn't (as another poster says) taking money by gunpoint from you and giving it to some undesirable? What I think- IMO- is that the right is so freaking pissed off at their fictional welfare queen that politicians created decades ago, that they are backed into a corner.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 10:16:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 23:21:45 GMT -5
I think your view of what "the right" believes has come from your own imagination. But that distracts from your claim that the math and logic for universal healthcare is clear. I want to see the math.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 7, 2014 23:38:04 GMT -5
I think your view of what "the right" believes has come from your own imagination. But that distracts from your claim that the math and logic for universal healthcare is clear. I want to see the math. There is no math needed- it is hard cold numbers. Only question I have is at what point logic and numbers broke down.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 10:16:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 23:46:06 GMT -5
I think your view of what "the right" believes has come from your own imagination. But that distracts from your claim that the math and logic for universal healthcare is clear. I want to see the math. There is no math needed- it is hard cold numbers. Only question I have is at what point logic and numbers broke down. Fine then show me the "cold hard numbers" that prove that universal care is better than a system that more closely approaches a properly regulated free market.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 7, 2014 23:57:27 GMT -5
Everywhere. Health care is not and will never be a free market option.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 10:16:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 0:11:00 GMT -5
You could just say that you don't really know the "cold hard numbers", and you just were bluffing....
I don't think anyone truly knows the "cold hard numbers".
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 8, 2014 9:56:18 GMT -5
I am only ideologically opposed to it because it doesn't work. My 'ideology' is predisposed to opposing illogical, nonsensical, completely unworkable ideas. Of course it works. It is done around the world. Only we have are collective heads up our arse's on this. a) It doesn't work- it has never worked, it is in fact a dismal failure everywhere it's ever been tried. b) "All the other kids are doing it" is not really an argument. In truth, the opposite is true- proponents of universal healthcare are driven purely by ideology- they ignore the math, they ignore economic realities, and the insert "wishes" in their place. We all "wish" everyone had access to the best healthcare in the world. But as the old saying goes, you can wish in one hand and shit in the other, and guess which hand fills up first? What really upsets the left is that some people are very wealthy and they can afford the best care available- experimental treatments, better maintenance plans, healthier diets, personal trainers and all the rest of it. They can fly to the Mayo clinic, they have access to treatments few others in the world have- while others have no access to healthcare at all, or very low quality care. The rich seem to have the ability to buy more life while others suffer and die. Well, if you lump everyone in with "the left"- I have no wish at all to impinge on anyone's healthcare. You have my motivations all mixed up. Especially since I and DW are some of the fortunate ones that can fly out and access whatever care we wish. a) Key difference between liberals and conservatives- conservatives could really give a shit what your motivations are, we care about results. So, while I'm happy that you're motivations are not what many who share your viewpoints are, we still need results- and the ACA nor "universal healthcare" can deliver. But the statist, the proponents of central planning never ask themselves how it is that in spite of the fact that there is a wide gap between the rich and the poor in terms of healthcare, even the poor in America have better care than anywhere else in the world. Proponents of ridiculously unworkable, proven failures like "universal healthcare" are ideologically married to the promises of politicians, and do not live in the real world where results matter- and where they're dismal. The poor most certainly do NOT have access to care nearly as well as they do in the rest of the developed world. We lag way behind most of the world in so many ways it's pathetic. Life expectancy, infant mortality and in between, we are behind the curve.
a) We've been over this before, but it bears repeating- the primary reason our system is screwed up is because the government got into the act with wage and price controls during and after WWII. The result was companies offering healthcare to heads of households at that time as a substitute for higher wages which they could not legally offer. This is where wages and "benefits" came from. Prior to that, you got paid, and you went and bought what you needed- including medical care. The result has been problematic for two key reasons- 1) We developed a two-tiered health care system where either you're employed and you have "benefits" or you're not, and you don't; and 2) Third party payer- where the individuals consuming the medical products and services are not concerned about the price, but instead are only concerned about abstractions like "co-pays" which have little or nothing to do with the quality of care, or the costs. This has greatly distorted the healthcare market. b) I would like to see some data on how the poor in America fare compared to the rest of the world's poor if the claim is they aren't better off here than anywhere else? Nothing about the ACA, or for that matter "universal healthcare" which is just a fancy name for one-size-fits-all government run and rationed healthcare, is a reasonable move to provide access to all. You need to be honest and admit that you're OK with subjecting everyone to mediocre minimums because you're upset that some people can afford better than others. Be honest and say that as long as everyone gets the mediocre minimum that you don't care if the wealthy and the middle class don't have access to the better care they've grown used to. Admit that it makes you a little bit happy inside to think that some wealthy jerk is going to wait in something akin to a Soviet-style bread line in a building whose signage indicates it's a healthcare facility but it's really just filled with bureaucrats and quasi-bureaucrats who confront those seeking care with 50 pages of bullshit about whether or not he owns a gun? I mean if you're really interested in honesty and exposing ideological agendas- let's do it. Honestly? Give us a two tier system like the UK has. Adequate care for all, and you and I can still fly off to the Mayo Clinic.
a) We have a two tiered system now. The UK, it is important to note currently 'tolerates' the two tier system. It is, in fact, illegal- and they could shut it down any time they like. They tolerate it currently- and this is important, so please read and digest it- because the US hasn't yet completely fucked ourselves like the rest of the world and too many people were coming to the US from the UK and especially Canada (ever been to a hospital in Buffalo, NY? Finding an American is like finding an English speaking person in Miami- hell, even the doctors are refugees). As for me- the market works. This is inarguable. The only argument the liberals are making is that healthcare is special and somehow is magically not subject to the same laws of economics as say- the cable & internet services, produce, or flat screen TV's. It most certainly is not "inarguable", The market works where it works. Any EC101 class will tell you there are exceptions to the "market works". Electricity grids are one. The interstate system is another ( ) And healthcare is one more.
There are a lot of myths taught in "classes", but there are actually ZERO examples of market failure. If I ask you to give me the top three free market failures, you will invariably provide me with examples that include highly regulated industries, crony capitalism, and outright fascism. It's ALL about supply and demand. The argument is that people would like healthcare, or if you prefer- desperately "need" healthcare, and that they can't afford it. Therefore, since healthcare is so essential, we must (in the case of universal healthcare) take money from some people- the rich- and use it to make sure the poor are afforded healthcare. This increase in demand will not cause the price to rise, allegedly, because the government as the sole purchaser of healthcare will, um, "negotiate" the prices (in reality, it's price fixing all dressed up with free market Sam's Club and Costco lingo- though we'll never turn to Wal-Mart or any other free market entity for solutions...). More people seeking a product or service- more demand, necessarily drives up price. All the more so when there's government subsidies available (or really any third party payer). Price draws more (and better) products and services into the market in a free market. With government price fixing schemes- prices don't function properly and supply dries up as demand grows. The answer to the failed idea that government can subsidize a service, and fix the prices is....rationing. Rationing, and compulsion-- sooner or later the government will find ways to order doctors around, bully pharmaceutical firms, and otherwise try and fix the mess that will only get bigger. And while they're all fucking around- we'll do what people in socialist countries always do- we'll leave, or we'll die on the waiting list. Paul if you want to leave because everyone gets what the majority is in favor of, go right ahead. I elect to stay, thanks.
The old, "if you don't like it, leave" is also not an argument. I like my Constitution. I aim to keep it. If you don't like it- properly amend it, or YOU can leave.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 8, 2014 11:52:45 GMT -5
The old, "if you don't like it, leave" is also not an argument. I like my Constitution. I aim to keep it. If you don't like it- properly amend it, or YOU can leave. in case you were referring to me, that is not the only option. i try very hard to state that you are ALSO welcome to work within the system for change. that is the greatest achievement of the constitution: that we don't have to settle for black people being 3/5ths of a man, and voting rights being the exclusive providence of white guys. we can fix those things, and many many others. it is a shame that the greatest blessing of the constitution is not appreciated by people like you and other constitutionalists. you seem to think that Moses brought down the constitution from the mountain, along with the 10 commandments.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 18, 2014 11:03:41 GMT -5
Everywhere. Health care is not and will never be a free market option. Health care is too critical to do it any other way. Government has already illustrated via the failed VA, Medicare, and Medicaid programs that it cannot be trusted with something so essential to our longevity and quality of life.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2014 11:18:05 GMT -5
Everywhere. Health care is not and will never be a free market option. Health care is too critical to do it any other way. Government has already illustrated via the failed VA, Medicare, and Medicaid programs that it cannot be trusted with something so essential to our longevity and quality of life. i haven't heard anything about the ACA in the MSM for almost a month.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,228
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 18, 2014 11:43:12 GMT -5
My co-workers just got medical insurance identification cards from the private insurance company which no longer covers them. Total waste of money and clear sign of incompetence. Would be big news if it had been government doing it.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 18, 2014 11:44:02 GMT -5
How has Medicare, etc. failed exactly? Seems to be working just fine- sure it could use some improvement like anything else but it works.
And for that matter- governments across the world have illustrated exactly how well and cost effective single payer and other universal schemes backed by them work. All are cheaper and provide better access than ours. And don't even talk about longevity and quality of life- that's another area this country fails at in comparison (unless you are very wealthy of course). 'Government' has not failed it all, OUR government has failed.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 18, 2014 20:59:51 GMT -5
Tell me again just how is this going to work ?? mediamaps.esri.com/2013-aca-enrollment/As of Dec 31, 3013 percent of enrolled receiving financial aid. 26 States 80-100% 13 States 70-79% 4 States 60-69% 1 State 20% 4 States No Report
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 19, 2014 10:47:24 GMT -5
It is going to blow up and end in single payer The only question is whether states are going to beat the federal government to it- I think they will. One state will do it and the rest will fall like dominos- except for the south of course. They will cling to the right to die via health insurance along with denying gays marriage equality until they are dragged kicking and screaming into the present. And just when they get over the black president there will be a woman president
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 19, 2014 12:39:08 GMT -5
It is going to blow up and end in single payer if you are watching carefully (i have no doubt you are), that is actually the elephant in the room: it is already doing that. The only question is whether states are going to beat the federal government to it- I think they will. One state will do it and the rest will fall like dominos- except for the south of course. They will cling to the right to die via health insurance along with denying gays marriage equality until they are dragged kicking and screaming into the present. And just when they get over the black president there will be a woman president health care will become the new Jim Crow. my kids and grandkids will have to fight that battle.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 19, 2014 17:21:55 GMT -5
It really leaves the democrats no options- if it fails, like it probably will, that is all they can argue for, they can say they tried leaving insurance companies in the mix and it didn't work. What I would love to see is the GOP plan offered at that time.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 20, 2014 12:55:27 GMT -5
Health care is too critical to do it any other way. Government has already illustrated via the failed VA, Medicare, and Medicaid programs that it cannot be trusted with something so essential to our longevity and quality of life. i haven't heard anything about the ACA in the MSM for almost a month. There are new stories every day. It's still crashing. The latest is the regime talking about "cost restructuring" - read: we lied about the costs initially, the model doesn't work, and now it's just a big bloated welfare program.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 20, 2014 13:42:16 GMT -5
i haven't heard anything about the ACA in the MSM for almost a month. There are new stories every day. It's still crashing. The latest is the regime talking about "cost restructuring" - read: we lied about the costs initially, the model doesn't work, and now it's just a big bloated welfare program. i would have thought that you'd post them, Paul. you usually do. well, that's a relief. i thought everything was going well.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 20, 2014 18:18:13 GMT -5
All the ACA really is, is the Heritage Foundation plan instituted by Romney is Mass. It will need tweaking just as the Bush drug plan did. Some remember that cost twice as mush as stated, got off to a very slow start, and came under serious fire. It now works fine.
Somebody had to do something about the 47 million uninsured (number provided by conservative Mike Medved) and costs that were double the rest of the industrialized world, so Obama did. In the previous administration they were too busy started two stupid wars that will cost trillions, doubling the national debt, and crashing the economy to give a shiite about healthcae reform
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 20, 2014 19:07:25 GMT -5
He did something about the 47 million uninsured. I have yet to see any evidence or a reasonable explanation of how the ACA will reduce the costs of care (if not by reducing the quality of care). You still have insurers as middle men, plentiful incentives for doctors/hospitals to run as many diagnostics as possible. You have none of the protections, limitations, or priority safeguards built into genuine universal healthcare systems. You also have one of the unhealthiest adult populations in the developed world. Why you think that insuring a previously uninsurable 47 million people would magically un-double your per capita costs is a question for the ages.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 21, 2014 1:45:32 GMT -5
Why you think that insuring a previously uninsurable 47 million people would magically un-double your per capita costs is a question for the ages.
Don't recall specifically saying that, but now that you bring it up wouldn't a wider pool of insureds decrease costs over time? Does your insurance company only insure you? And I also didnt use the term "uninsurables" which creates a nice spin.
He did something about the 47 million uninsured.
I read recently that so far 8 million that did not have insurance now do, so the answer would be yes. And can I assume you are aware of the provisions for those with pre-existing conditions or are you just against the law without understanding it's stated intentions?
You still have insurers as middle men, plentiful incentives for doctors/hospitals to run as many diagnostics as possible.
Do you really think Obama could have sold Universal healthcare? I wish he had tried but baby steps are more in order considering the wacko right that thinks he's destroying America with socialism when all he's trying to do is make us more like the other industrialized nations that do fine.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 21, 2014 12:35:41 GMT -5
If you want universal healthcare, wait until a definitive majority of Americans want universal healthcare and bring it in toto, legitimately.
The US federal Democrats didn't do this. Why? Because nowhere near a majority of Americans want universal healthcare. That is your culture. That is your capitalist system of values.
Instead, the Democrats brought in a messy, disastrous (I suspect) halfway measure because they knew perfectly well that Americans wouldn't accept them bringing universal healthcare in legitimately through the front door. Republicans are obstructing and wailing that the whole charade is a Trojan horse that will lead to a single-payer system, which is not a farfetched theory. They want to make sure that if/when the ACA collapses, it does so on the capitalist side (which also happens to be the side favoured by more Americans).
Even with a universal healthcare system, you're dreaming if you think everything would be peachy. Firstly, although I staunchly support universal healthcare here in Canada, it's not all peaches and cream. Those incredible wait times and limited access to specialists the Republicans keep ranting about are very real problems here. When our (Canada's) politicians want fast quality care, they go to the US to get it.
Secondly, costs are higher in the US for many reasons besides your privatized system. Your doctors are diagnostic-happy, your population is overweight and unhealthy, you have a greater number of poor, and two thirds of your federal programs are so bloated and unmanageable that they're either bankrupt or deeply in debt. Why you have faith that a universal healthcare program will be the exception, I don't know. I hope it's more than just a sense of monkey-see monkey-do with other nations, completely ignoring the very real differences between us.
Thirdly, industrialized nations with universal healthcare are far from "do[ing] fine". Healthcare costs are exploding everywhere. Europe is melting down, drowning in debt and raising punitive taxes. Healthcare is almost 60% of Canada's federal budget and growing by the year. Uncle Sam isn't the only one struggling with healthcare.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 21, 2014 13:09:18 GMT -5
If you want universal healthcare, wait until a definitive majority of Americans want universal healthcare and bring it in toto, legitimately. a majority has wanted this for decades. over 60%. you know that, right?
But they clearly indicate growing confidence in the government’s ability to manage health care. Half of those questioned said they thought government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in polls conducted in 2007. Nearly 60 percent said Washington would have more success in holding down costs, up from 47 percent.
Sixty-four percent said they thought the federal government should guarantee coverage, a figure that has stayed steady all decade. Nearly 6 in 10 said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to make sure that all were insured, with 4 in 10 willing to pay as much as $500 more a year.
www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=0
this number has been very stable for a long long time. however, this question has not been surveyed since the ACA was put in place, ttbomk. it would probably be hard to survey now, given the amount of confusion about what the law actually does.
The US federal Democrats didn't do this. Why? Because nowhere near a majority of Americans want universal healthcare. false. it is because what the Democrats brought was RomneyCare, which is not universal coverage. again, in approximately equal number, the 60% that disapprove of the law are divided approximately equally. 30% want the law EXPANDED so that it provides universal coverage, and 30% want the law REPEALED. those are OPPOSITE positions, but are often lumped together as if they were one group.That is your culture. That is your capitalist system of values. you seem to know surprisingly little about our values.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 21, 2014 15:18:02 GMT -5
If you want universal healthcare, wait until a definitive majority of Americans want universal healthcare and bring it in toto, legitimately. a majority has wanted this for decades. over 60%. you know that, right?
But they clearly indicate growing confidence in the government’s ability to manage health care. Half of those questioned said they thought government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in polls conducted in 2007. Nearly 60 percent said Washington would have more success in holding down costs, up from 47 percent.
Sixty-four percent said they thought the federal government should guarantee coverage, a figure that has stayed steady all decade. Nearly 6 in 10 said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to make sure that all were insured, with 4 in 10 willing to pay as much as $500 more a year.
www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=0
this number has been very stable for a long long time. however, this question has not been surveyed since the ACA was put in place, ttbomk. it would probably be hard to survey now, given the amount of confusion about what the law actually does.
The US federal Democrats didn't do this. Why? Because nowhere near a majority of Americans want universal healthcare. false. it is because what the Democrats brought was RomneyCare, which is not universal coverage. again, in approximately equal number, the 60% that disapprove of the law are divided approximately equally. 30% want the law EXPANDED so that it provides universal coverage, and 30% want the law REPEALED. those are OPPOSITE positions, but are often lumped together as if they were one group.That is your culture. That is your capitalist system of values. you seem to know surprisingly little about our values. I don't know where you're pulling your "60% support single-payer" figure from. I did a search on polls. The most recent one I could find was from 2012, where 40% of Americans supported a single-payer system, and 44% opposed it. When Canada went through the costs and convulsions of overhauling our system in the 1960's, 70% of the public supported it. I'm telling you that you're going to need a heck of a lot better than 40% for, 44% against to do it in the US. Moreover, you're missing my point about the ACA. I agree with you that the ACA isn't universal healthcare. I'm saying that it's an ill-conceived half measure brought in because the Democrats knew perfectly well that they didn't have anywhere near the level of support they needed to bring in universal healthcare (what you call "single-payer"), and so they fudged the whole thing to look enough like single-payer and enough like the existing system to placate voters and keep the insurance companies happy. As far as I'm concerned, you guys are still 30% short popular-support-wise of where every other nation was when they bore the pain of overhauling their systems and gutting their insurance industries. That is a cultural difference. You don't agree with me, try sticking your head out of California and asking your countrymen what they think for once.
|
|