Author Topic: ACA  (Read 34086 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: ACA
« Reply #175 on: November 13, 2013, 01:17:44 PM »
But the problem is, A LOT of your posts in the thread have been overly defensive, if not outright baiting and personal attacks.  I've been watching and deciding whether to issue a warning, and the ONLY reason I have no so far is that those who are debating you have kept cool heads in their responses.  But it needs to stop.  You make some good points, but that is lost in the tone of your posts.  Keep it above board or you will not be allowed to continue posting in P/R.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: ACA
« Reply #176 on: November 13, 2013, 05:06:36 PM »
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/how-government-interference-got-started.html


http://docs4patientcare.org/_blog/Resources/post/A_Brief_History_of_the_Result_of_Government_Intervention_in_Healthcare/


Just to get you started.

Some stuff worth considering in the 2nd one, the first one though is nothing but a bunch of theory and unrealistic proposals.

The 2nd one, though, makes a lot of ad hoc fallacies, as you are when using said information. Saying that costs have risen since the inception of Medicare is nice and all, but correlation does not equal causation, and there are countless other factors to be considered there. One is just technology in general. So much of what we get and expect today when we visit an ER wasn't around 50 years ago.

And neither deals with the problem of the uninsured causing price increases for the insured. It sorta goes into how insurance could be a problem in and of itself, but it only sorta hints at that, because of course a free-market ideology couldn't say health insurance is the problem, seeing as insurance underpins a lot of libertarian thoughts on governance.

"more" and "less" government is a reduction of the complexity of the problem into a one-dimensional analysis. Some areas of government need to go, some governmental health policies need to go. That statement does not come close to implying that less government is the solution. Or that "more" government wouldn't work better.

Ugh... I could throw every piece of evidence at you but it wouldn't matter. Your mind is already made up and you have no interest in actually learning some facts and I can understand that.  I'm stubborn too sometimes.  However, I can play your game take every little bit of psychobabble you just sent in my direction and reverse it on you and claim every bit of evidence you sent MY way proves nothing either. 

And as far as the first one goes, yes they are proposals.  However if you actually took the time to research the proposals you might actually be enlightened.  That's asking too much though, I get it.  Keep believing more government is good.  It's your downfall, not mine.   :smiley:

*edit*

Took out some stuff I realized wasn't really helpful for the discussion.

Yes, how close minded of me to.... accept some of your positions? Maybe I didn't make it clear enough: the medical doctors page brings up some valid, good points.


« Last Edit: November 13, 2013, 07:26:41 PM by Scheavo »

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18869
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #177 on: November 19, 2013, 10:22:17 PM »
Why Healthcare.gov Sucks? Because They Hired Political Cronies, Not Internet Native Companies To Build It

Quote
The Sunlight Foundation (link above) figured out the list of contractors who worked on the site, and noted that the big ones not only are well-known DC power-player insiders, but they're also big on the lobbying and political contributions side of things. You've got companies like... Booz Allen Hamilton, famous for promoting cyberwar hype and employing Ed Snowden. There's defense contracting giant Northrup Grumman. Then there's SAIC -- which I can't believe can still get government business. This is the same firm that famously was given a $380 million contract to revamp the FBI system, on which it went $220 million over budget, and then saw the entire system scrapped after it (literally) brought some users to tears, and the FBI realized it was useless in fighting terrorism. SAIC is also the company that NYC Mayor Bloomberg demanded return $600 million after a city computer project (budgeted at $68 million) actually cost $740 million. SAIC has a long list of similar spectacular failures on government IT projects.

I still maintain that most of the commotion is from the regular players who want to rail about anything that goes wrong on Obama's watch. Still, this is pretty silly. As much as I disagree with the big picture of Libertarianism, the government really does demonstrate time and time again how much it sucks, allowing it's proponents to continue supporting their otherwise shaky arguments. Annoying. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: ACA
« Reply #178 on: November 20, 2013, 03:20:10 PM »
THIS goverment constantly shows how much THIS government sucks, yes. I don't know anyone who would disagree with that statement.

What's being overlooked in all the media hype, is how you can still sign up without the website, and have it be a fairly easy, straight forward process. Call a number. Make an appointment. Hell, you don't even have to leave your damn house if you don't want to. It's bizarre to me that a website, which is one of many options for signing up for health care on the exchanges, is supposed to symbolize the entire ACA. Hell, it shouldn't even symbolize the health exchanges.

I really, really, really do hate our media.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15885
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: ACA
« Reply #179 on: November 20, 2013, 04:08:30 PM »
It shows how our government is incompetent.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19225
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #180 on: November 20, 2013, 04:32:20 PM »
THIS goverment constantly shows how much THIS government sucks, yes. I don't know anyone who would disagree with that statement.

What's being overlooked in all the media hype, is how you can still sign up without the website, and have it be a fairly easy, straight forward process. Call a number. Make an appointment. Hell, you don't even have to leave your damn house if you don't want to. It's bizarre to me that a website, which is one of many options for signing up for health care on the exchanges, is supposed to symbolize the entire ACA. Hell, it shouldn't even symbolize the health exchanges.

I really, really, really do hate our media.

They can't say that on TV. Obama wouldn't look as bad.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: ACA
« Reply #181 on: December 01, 2013, 07:18:26 PM »
When asked what he was thankful for this year, my dad said the ACA. For him and my mom, the premiums are now over $600 less a month, with a $500 deductible instead of $6000, no lifetime cap and a low co-pay to see a doctor. In other words, he and my mom no longer have to worry that they'll get sick and go bankrupt. They can afford to see a doctor more often and get the care they need for lingering issues.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18869
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #182 on: December 01, 2013, 07:53:11 PM »
When asked what he was thankful for this year, my dad said the ACA. For him and my mom, the premiums are now over $600 less a month, with a $500 deductible instead of $6000, no lifetime cap and a low co-pay to see a doctor. In other words, he and my mom no longer have to worry that they'll get sick and go bankrupt. They can afford to see a doctor more often and get the care they need for lingering issues.
I'm hip. Of course I'm on LBJCare rather than Obamacare, but getting away from from the unregulated bloodsuckers is saving my about $400/month (and God damn is that huge fore me) and my deductible is now $1,100 vs $4,500.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18869
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #183 on: October 21, 2014, 11:17:44 AM »
Since the topic of healthcare is now on two different threads it seems sensible to revive this one. Since one of the subjects was number of uninsured people before and after, I'll update my previous post on the matter:

I'm hip. Of course I'm on LBJCare rather than Obamacare, but getting away from from the unregulated bloodsuckers is saving me about $400/month (and God damn is that huge fore me) and my deductible is now $1,100 vs $4,500.
Well, after one year that changed as well. While Medicare is cast in stone and must never change, the private side of my insurance (a supplement to cover the 20% medicare doesn't cover) has doubled because, well, why the fuck not? Once again I would be priced completely out of coverage. Thankfully this came up right before the open-enrollment period for Obamacare, so it looks like I'll be among the ranks of people who will be insured due to ACA that otherwise wouldn't be. Despite being a hardworking and productive contributor to society, I just couldn't afford to be insured were it not for two different government programs.


And something I'll point out to Stadler is that healthcare in this country was completely fucked long before Obamacare. We've discussed quite a bit the various things that screw everything up (personally I blame the doctors), but the bottom line is that it has pretty much always been a really, really bad joke. I'm not very happy with Obamacare (generally opposed, in fact), but there's no way I blame it for the disaster that it healthcare in this country.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4949
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: ACA
« Reply #184 on: October 21, 2014, 12:20:17 PM »
...personally I blame the doctors....

Can you elaborate on this, EB?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18869
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #185 on: October 21, 2014, 12:43:28 PM »
While I realize there are stupidly high costs to becoming a doctor (getting worse every day), it seems like a great deal of the people getting into medicine are doing it for the paycheck they expect to receive. That's why there aren't enough internists to cover huge swaths of America. Why get a job dealing with sick people when you can get rich installing titties and repairing soccer soccer injuries? Too much greed all the way around. There are plenty of good doctors out there, who do it to help people, but overall I think they're the cause of a great deal of the ridiculous costs of medicine in this country.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4949
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: ACA
« Reply #186 on: October 21, 2014, 12:52:12 PM »
I don't see the correlation though. If someone wants to be a plastic surgeon for the paycheck, and someone wants to pay (electively) for the implants, how is that affecting the overall cost of medicine? And don't most people pursue a profession due to the incentives and benefits, like the paycheck?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18869
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #187 on: October 21, 2014, 01:31:05 PM »
I don't see the correlation though. If someone wants to be a plastic surgeon for the paycheck, and someone wants to pay (electively) for the implants, how is that affecting the overall cost of medicine? And don't most people pursue a profession due to the incentives and benefits, like the paycheck?
This is a valid point, and I'm not dumping the whole thing on doctors, but there are some trickle down effects. With an imbalance of general practitioners you create something of a seller's market. You also raise the payscale for doctors across the board. A big part of the problem is that there aren't a whole lot of doctors willing to drive Hyundais so they can treat actual sick people (my doctor does). This certainly effects the cost of overall healthcare. And while tit installation was probably not a good example for the reason you just gave, people do need to see cardiologists, urologists and orthopedists and insurance does pay for that. Those are your top three fields with an average salary of a half million/yr. 

And just to point out, I was serious about my anti-doctor quip, but also meant it somewhat facetiously. They're just one of many problems, but they tend to always get the rap as the good guys. That's just not always the case and tend to bug me a bit.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9482
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #188 on: October 21, 2014, 02:21:12 PM »

And something I'll point out to Stadler is that healthcare in this country was completely fucked long before Obamacare. We've discussed quite a bit the various things that screw everything up (personally I blame the doctors), but the bottom line is that it has pretty much always been a really, really bad joke. I'm not very happy with Obamacare (generally opposed, in fact), but there's no way I blame it for the disaster that it healthcare in this country.

I have no doubt about that, and no argument with it.  But certainly there are no easy solutions, and no quick fixes.   I think that is what bugs me most about the ACA.  It was sold as a cure-all; we're going to insure the nation!  We're going to lower the cost to the consumer (what you are talking about, el Barto)!  We're going to lower the over-all cost of healthcare!

I'm happy for you (truly) but I'm sure you're smart enough to see the quasi-Ponzi scheme when you see it.   You're paying less, but if the underlying costs haven't gone down, where's the money coming from?   

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4949
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: ACA
« Reply #189 on: October 21, 2014, 02:29:56 PM »
I usually don't see doctors get labeled as the good guys. I could see the frustration there. I do know many of the older ones are choosing to retire early rather than deal with the new restrictions and such (ok, merely anecdotal, from my mom who works in health care). But some of the resistance on their end is unnecessary, as her doc's office is annoyed by the mandate to move from paper to digital, when really it is beneficial int he long run and they are jusbeing old ladies who don't want to change their ways.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3256
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: ACA
« Reply #190 on: October 21, 2014, 03:47:42 PM »

And something I'll point out to Stadler is that healthcare in this country was completely fucked long before Obamacare. We've discussed quite a bit the various things that screw everything up (personally I blame the doctors), but the bottom line is that it has pretty much always been a really, really bad joke. I'm not very happy with Obamacare (generally opposed, in fact), but there's no way I blame it for the disaster that it healthcare in this country.

I have no doubt about that, and no argument with it.  But certainly there are no easy solutions, and no quick fixes.   I think that is what bugs me most about the ACA.  It was sold as a cure-all; we're going to insure the nation!  We're going to lower the cost to the consumer (what you are talking about, el Barto)!  We're going to lower the over-all cost of healthcare!

I'm happy for you (truly) but I'm sure you're smart enough to see the quasi-Ponzi scheme when you see it.   You're paying less, but if the underlying costs haven't gone down, where's the money coming from?   

If you, and any half intelligent person, knew it couldnt be a cure all, why are you mad at it for not being a cure all?
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18869
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #191 on: October 21, 2014, 05:08:07 PM »

And something I'll point out to Stadler is that healthcare in this country was completely fucked long before Obamacare. We've discussed quite a bit the various things that screw everything up (personally I blame the doctors), but the bottom line is that it has pretty much always been a really, really bad joke. I'm not very happy with Obamacare (generally opposed, in fact), but there's no way I blame it for the disaster that it healthcare in this country.

I have no doubt about that, and no argument with it.  But certainly there are no easy solutions, and no quick fixes.   I think that is what bugs me most about the ACA.  It was sold as a cure-all; we're going to insure the nation!  We're going to lower the cost to the consumer (what you are talking about, el Barto)!  We're going to lower the over-all cost of healthcare!

I'm happy for you (truly) but I'm sure you're smart enough to see the quasi-Ponzi scheme when you see it.   You're paying less, but if the underlying costs haven't gone down, where's the money coming from?   
I agree with all of that. As for who pays for it we all do, and I don't have any problem with that either (easy for me to say, I know). Truth is that taking care of the sick and needy should be part of the deal here. My only problem is that we're so bad at it and so spiteful about having to try. I consider this whole mess a cultural issue, in that the idea of having to help each other has become so hateful to a good sized chunk of the population (who don't even have the balls to admit it) that we can't really tackle the overall problem. Any attempt to do so has to be completely neutered and become even more wasteful.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4949
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: ACA
« Reply #192 on: October 21, 2014, 05:28:40 PM »
I will readily admit I am reluctant to pay for the care of people who don't take care of themselves. If your illness is caused by behavior, then you should pay for it. Alternatively, yes we need to collectively take care of everyone in our society appropriately. Of course there is no definitive line between the two, so that makes this moot.

…the idea of having to help each other has become so hateful to a good sized chunk of the population…

Bigger point here that shouldn’t be overlooked. I think some of it can be attributed to greed, while some can be viewed from people who are barely getting by on their own that the thought of helping others stretches their budget past the breaking point. Are they living beyond their means, made some mistakes, got unlucky or screwed along the way? Who knows. I do wish a lot of people would take care of themselves better, financially, physically, emotionally, spiritually.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18869
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #193 on: October 21, 2014, 05:29:55 PM »
I usually don't see doctors get labeled as the good guys. I could see the frustration there.
I see it. I remember about 10 years ago when Texas wanted to help out the insurance companies at the expense of the lawyers in the form of malpractice reform, the catchphrase for the whole affair was "save your family doctor, not some sleazy trial lawyer. Vote Yes on prop 666," or whatever it was. Complete with stock photos of friendly, Wilford Brimley looking doctors receiving pies from June Cleaver and reading medical books in front of their fireplaces.

I also remember my boss praying for it since it'd undoubtedly lower his insurance rates. Guess how that worked out?  "Of course they'll pass the savings along to us!"  :rollin

Remember one of the vital selling points for Obamacare was "you'll still be able to see your family doctor." When it comes to all of the problems with healtchare in this country, doctors are probably the only group to stay above the fray.

Quote
I do know many of the older ones are choosing to retire early rather than deal with the new restrictions and such (ok, merely anecdotal, from my mom who works in health care). But some of the resistance on their end is unnecessary, as her doc's office is annoyed by the mandate to move from paper to digital, when really it is beneficial int he long run and they are jusbeing old ladies who don't want to change their ways.
And I actually see a lot of older doctors trying to give back. I saw the best nephrologist in Dallas for many years because getting stinking rich is no longer his motivation (though I doubt it ever was). He's an old farmer who drives into town every day to deal with kidney patients because he wants to help people. Same thing with the doctor in charge of my post-transplant care. Nice old guy who, like most of the people there, isn't getting rich by any means.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18869
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #194 on: October 21, 2014, 05:39:18 PM »
I will readily admit I am reluctant to pay for the care of people who don't take care of themselves. If your illness is caused by behavior, then you should pay for it. Alternatively, yes we need to collectively take care of everyone in our society appropriately. Of course there is no definitive line between the two, so that makes this moot.

…the idea of having to help each other has become so hateful to a good sized chunk of the population…

Bigger point here that shouldn’t be overlooked. I think some of it can be attributed to greed, while some can be viewed from people who are barely getting by on their own that the thought of helping others stretches their budget past the breaking point. Are they living beyond their means, made some mistakes, got unlucky or screwed along the way? Who knows. I do wish a lot of people would take care of themselves better, financially, physically, emotionally, spiritually.
A lot of it can also be attributed to resistance to change. We are an arrogant people, and as is the case with many things we don't like to admit failure by changing tack.

While I agree that it sucks to have to take care of people who are lazy, careless or just assholes, the fact is that there are always going to be careless people, lazy people and assholes. At some point you need to cut to the chase and decide that you're either going to let them die or come up with a plan for taking care of everybody. Fighting it tooth and nail is simply counterproductive. I read that the cheapest way to deal with homelessness is usually just to build houses for them. It would actually be a more cost-effective use of the tax dollars we already pay. Makes a lot of sense but spite will prevent that from ever happening. If given the choice I suspect a whole lot of Americans would rather pay more in taxes than provide free houses to the homeless just on general principle. I suspect healthcare is very similar in that regard, both with the cure and the resistance to it.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9482
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #195 on: October 21, 2014, 10:10:39 PM »
If you, and any half intelligent person, knew it couldnt be a cure all, why are you mad at it for not being a cure all?

??  Not sure I follow; there are many intelligent people that DO think it is a cure-all.  And I hate on it because it could be so much better, and with less hassle and less cost. 

There are three imperatives as I see it regarding healthcare:  1) get the maximum amount of people covered as possible; 2) reduce the costs of healthcare in this country (NOT premiums; the actual cost of the services themselves) and 3) make or incentivize people to be healthier. This law does none of those things, except in the most isolated of instances. 

I agree with all of that. As for who pays for it we all do, and I don't have any problem with that either (easy for me to say, I know). Truth is that taking care of the sick and needy should be part of the deal here. My only problem is that we're so bad at it and so spiteful about having to try. I consider this whole mess a cultural issue, in that the idea of having to help each other has become so hateful to a good sized chunk of the population (who don't even have the balls to admit it) that we can't really tackle the overall problem. Any attempt to do so has to be completely neutered and become even more wasteful.

Well, I agree with that.  I know I come off sometimes as one who wouldn't want to help those that might need it, but that isn't it at all.  it's the idea of going with whatever we come up with.  I get it; Congress is a nightmare at this point and guys like Ted Cruz are banging us back to the dark ages faster than a Jordan/John unison run.  But we put a man on the f-ing moon.  We've decoded the human genome.  Certainly we can figure out a way of incentivizing wellness over triage.  Certainly we can figure out a way of incentivizing pharmaceuticals to emphasize cancer treatments as much as Viagra/Cialis.  I don't want "perfect" or "every man for him/herself".  I just want a modicum of smarts. 


While I agree that it sucks to have to take care of people who are lazy, careless or just assholes, the fact is that there are always going to be careless people, lazy people and assholes. At some point you need to cut to the chase and decide that you're either going to let them die or come up with a plan for taking care of everybody. Fighting it tooth and nail is simply counterproductive. I read that the cheapest way to deal with homelessness is usually just to build houses for them. It would actually be a more cost-effective use of the tax dollars we already pay. Makes a lot of sense but spite will prevent that from ever happening. If given the choice I suspect a whole lot of Americans would rather pay more in taxes than provide free houses to the homeless just on general principle. I suspect healthcare is very similar in that regard, both with the cure and the resistance to it.

I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I'm not sure it's entirely the full picture.  I know full well that we have to err on the side of caring for a few "lazy assholes" to effect the change we want, but it's got to be done in service to the big picture, not because someone's got a guilty conscience, or a sick uncle who is, by all accounts, a lazy asshole.   I would be against "free houses for the homeless" not because I'm spiteful, or on principle.  I would be against it because what are we doing to prevent them from being homeless in the future?  We're talking a lot about obvious things like greed and carelessness (which are factors, but not, in my view, the predominant factors) but not about the most important thing:  how do we break out of the reactive, knee-jerk, "close the barn door after the horse has left" mentality of many of our social programs? 
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 08:41:29 AM by Stadler »

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18869
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #196 on: October 21, 2014, 10:40:57 PM »
But isn't the big picture that we're already paying for Lazy Uncle John the Asshole's medical treatment anyway? Paying for him to make sure we don't overlook the needy is only part of it. Paying for it outright instead of behind the scenes is another.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3948
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: ACA
« Reply #197 on: October 21, 2014, 11:31:50 PM »
I think part of the big problem with this debate is that people without insurance (and thus, those most liable to benefit from the ACA) are getting labelled as 'lazy assholes.' While there are plenty of lazy assholes out there in the world, some of them eke by on their limited amounts of money and others are trust fund douchebags, the fact is not having insurance doesn't make you one. Not all jobs have insurance policies for their employees. Are the waiters of the country just supposed to just go out and brave the unsubsidised health care market?

I think the only way to cover all 3 of Stadler's requirements for health care reform are to just... well, jettison the free market solution completely or at least regulate it to such a degree that it's not really free anymore. I have no problem with that solution at all considering how shitty the free market has handled health care in this country, but I know others might not be so quick to agree.

Also, keep in mind healthcare costs will probably continue to increase as the baby boomer generation starts to get to that age where 'falling asleep during Matlock marathon' and 'pooping oneself' become their main choices of evening entertainment. :)

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9482
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #198 on: October 22, 2014, 08:42:18 AM »
But isn't the big picture that we're already paying for Lazy Uncle John the Asshole's medical treatment anyway? Paying for him to make sure we don't overlook the needy is only part of it. Paying for it outright instead of behind the scenes is another.

I'm sorry, bud.  I honestly don't follow that. 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: ACA
« Reply #199 on: October 22, 2014, 08:51:00 AM »
If someone shows up sick and/or dying in the ER, and they can't afford the treatment, what should be done Stadler? Give them care, or don't? Simple choice and question.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9482
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #200 on: October 22, 2014, 09:01:43 AM »
I think part of the big problem with this debate is that people without insurance (and thus, those most liable to benefit from the ACA) are getting labelled as 'lazy assholes.' While there are plenty of lazy assholes out there in the world, some of them eke by on their limited amounts of money and others are trust fund douchebags, the fact is not having insurance doesn't make you one. Not all jobs have insurance policies for their employees. Are the waiters of the country just supposed to just go out and brave the unsubsidised health care market?

But to me, "lazy assholes" isn't measured by "having insurance" or "not having insurance".  Prior to ACA, whether someone was insured or not fell into (basically) two buckets:  1) didn't have a job (or access to healthcare insurance) and couldn't afford it on their own; 2) had a job (or access to healthcare insurance) and through conscious choice opted not to participate.  Neither of those are "lazy assholes" by definition.  A good portion of number 1 SHOULD be subsidized, and all of number 2 SHOULD be able to opt out (with the caveat that they accept the consequences of that opting out).  I didn't coin the term, and wouldn't use it outside of this specific conversation, but my underlying premise is that people participate at the level they can in order to sow the benefits that they need.  If the "can" is zero, then so be it.   I'm fine with that.    But I was on another board, and there was a guy who was taking unemployment, and would presumably be able to avail himself of the subsidized healthcare.  He had a job opportunity and decided that, and I am not making this up or exaggerating, because he would have to shave his beard, he was going to stay on the dole.   C'mon man.   Now, whether this is one person or a 1,000,000, I don't know, but it's an example of where I am headed with this. 

And remember, this is only one aspect of the problem.  The big problem for me is in the reduction of costs; not as measured by what the insured pays, but by what the actual services costs.   That Obama cut a deal before the ACA was ever passed that essentially guaranteed profit levels for the pharmaceuticals told me all I needed to know about the sincerity of government to work on driving out costs.

Quote
I think the only way to cover all 3 of Stadler's requirements for health care reform are to just... well, jettison the free market solution completely or at least regulate it to such a degree that it's not really free anymore. I have no problem with that solution at all considering how shitty the free market has handled health care in this country, but I know others might not be so quick to agree.

Except, no.   Part of the free market's inability to actually be successful here is based on the highly regulated nature of the healthcare industry even before the ACA came into play.  Just the simple fact that it was regulated on a State basis rather than a Federal one was a HUGE barrier to allowing the free market to work effectively.   The aforementioned disconnect between the regulations and the intent (i.e. the intent was to promote wellness but the regulatory framework promoted waiting, a reactionary response).   If there was a specific issue that needed addressing (dropping coverages, for example) then address that, I have no beef, but no system - capitalism, communism, socialism - is going to work when it is implemented half-assed. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9482
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #201 on: October 22, 2014, 09:05:38 AM »
If someone shows up sick and/or dying in the ER, and they can't afford the treatment, what should be done Stadler? Give them care, or don't? Simple choice and question.

With the understanding that it isn't NEARLY as simple as you propose, in the limited case of the choice, you treat them (and that treatment can be subsidized in part or in full by the government, if need be). 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: ACA
« Reply #202 on: October 22, 2014, 09:37:27 AM »
Okay. Well instead of subsidizing the emergency care for that person, and only that emergency care, we should subsidize preventative care. That's cheaper. Plus, it means a healthier, and more productive, society.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18869
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #203 on: October 22, 2014, 09:44:19 AM »
Okay. Well instead of subsidizing the emergency care for that person, and only that emergency care, we should subsidize preventative care. That's cheaper. Plus, it means a healthier, and more productive, society.
And answers your (Stadler's) question about Lazy Uncle Whateverwe'recalllinghim. We're already paying to take care of him anyway.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18869
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #204 on: October 22, 2014, 09:52:35 AM »
Except, no.   Part of the free market's inability to actually be successful here is based on the highly regulated nature of the healthcare industry even before the ACA came into play.  Just the simple fact that it was regulated on a State basis rather than a Federal one was a HUGE barrier to allowing the free market to work effectively.   The aforementioned disconnect between the regulations and the intent (i.e. the intent was to promote wellness but the regulatory framework promoted waiting, a reactionary response).   If there was a specific issue that needed addressing (dropping coverages, for example) then address that, I have no beef, but no system - capitalism, communism, socialism - is going to work when it is implemented half-assed.
Hear, hear. However, do you honestly think that a completely free-market system for healthcare would really work for everybody, including the poor? Seems to me like under the capitalist model there will always be specific issues that need addressing, including dropped coverages. If you keep having to address them then aren't you actually half-assing your capitalist model? Wouldn't those more than likely already be dealt with under the socialist model? I tend to make assumptions on people's beliefs based on what they're arguing, so I'll just ask your opinion on single-payer type systems rather than assuming. Wouldn't that be something where we actually could go all in?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19225
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #205 on: October 22, 2014, 10:08:34 AM »
I'm 100% in favor of a single-payer system.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: ACA
« Reply #206 on: October 22, 2014, 10:18:47 AM »
I'm 100% in favor of a single-payer system.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4949
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: ACA
« Reply #207 on: October 22, 2014, 10:31:23 AM »
A lot of it can also be attributed to resistance to change. We are an arrogant people, and as is the case with many things we don't like to admit failure by changing tack.

It’s the American way.

It would actually be a more cost-effective use of the tax dollars we already pay. Makes a lot of sense but spite will prevent that from ever happening. If given the choice I suspect a whole lot of Americans would rather pay more in taxes than provide free houses to the homeless just on general principle. I suspect healthcare is very similar in that regard, both with the cure and the resistance to it.

I’d say I agree, but the guy in me who worked hard my whole life, saved where I could, did not make superfluous purchases, and did everything I could to purchase my house, says screw that.

If someone shows up sick and/or dying in the ER, and they can't afford the treatment, what should be done Stadler? Give them care, or don't? Simple choice and question.

Give them the care they require, then put them on a payment plan. :)
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18869
  • Bad Craziness
Re: ACA
« Reply #208 on: October 22, 2014, 10:58:12 AM »
It would actually be a more cost-effective use of the tax dollars we already pay. Makes a lot of sense but spite will prevent that from ever happening. If given the choice I suspect a whole lot of Americans would rather pay more in taxes than provide free houses to the homeless just on general principle. I suspect healthcare is very similar in that regard, both with the cure and the resistance to it.

I’d say I agree, but the guy in me who worked hard my whole life, saved where I could, did not make superfluous purchases, and did everything I could to purchase my house, says screw that.
Yeah, I definitely get that, and to a certain extent I agree. The problem is an inability to move past that is going to be devastating to this country long term. See any of my previous ravings about the post-scarcity world we will never allow to happen.

Quote
Give them the care they require, then put them on a payment plan. :)
Yup, that's the way it works now. My brother fell and broke his back. The repaired him, despite his protestations and promises that he'd never repay them, then sent him a bill for half a million dollars. The man's a waiter. Is there anybody that actually thinks the chances of him paying it are any number greater than zero? Same thing with Pedro still dripping the Rio Grande all over the waiting room at Parkland. Or Shitbag from Liberia, for that matter.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9482
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACA
« Reply #209 on: October 22, 2014, 03:10:36 PM »
Okay. Well instead of subsidizing the emergency care for that person, and only that emergency care, we should subsidize preventative care. That's cheaper. Plus, it means a healthier, and more productive, society.

Which is exactly what I'm espousing, and why I have such a problem with the ACA and why I'm bitching about the FSA.  Those things aren't calibrated to do that.  A healthy population benefits EVERYONE.