The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Death is cost-effective?

4:05 (sorry, there's no clip of just that one line)

[joecct]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Death is cost-effective?

Sometimes it is. Why are there assisted suicide laws?

[Handyman]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Because "Life is Sacred".

[unofan]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The solution to this part of the "problem" in healthcare cost is not to restrict access (which PPACA does), it should be to shift responsibility for choice: right now people don't see the price effects of their choices; make the costs visible and let people make their own choices within their own budget.

Which is all well and good until someone makes a bad choice or is otherwise injured through no fault of their own.

Such a system only works if you're willing to let people die in the streets if they can't afford health care or make poor choices. Which if that's the kind of society you want, fine. But I don't think either the medical community or the majority of society would agree with that viewpoint.

And to cut off your next response, relying on "charity" to cover the above situations is not a rational solution.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Which is all well and good until someone makes a bad choice or is otherwise injured through no fault of their own.

Such a system only works if you're willing to let people die in the streets if they can't afford health care or make poor choices. Which if that's the kind of society you want, fine. But I don't think either the medical community or the majority of society would agree with that viewpoint.

And to cut off your next response, relying on "charity" to cover the above situations is not a rational solution.

So you're not only rewarding bad choices with health care, you're practically encouraging bad choices.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Which is all well and good until someone makes a bad choice or is otherwise injured through no fault of their own.

Such a system only works if you're willing to let people die in the streets if they can't afford health care or make poor choices. Which if that's the kind of society you want, fine. But I don't think either the medical community or the majority of society would agree with that viewpoint.

And to cut off your next response, relying on "charity" to cover the above situations is not a rational solution.

wow, you sure jump to extremes quickly! and you inserted all sorts of stuff into your reply that was never suggested in the original as well.

I thought if people were injured through no fault of their own they would sue the person responsible for the injury, no?

are you saying that having people paying attention to cost won't reduce overall healthcare outlays? what's your solution?

easy to lob grenades when you're always hiding.

[joecct]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Which is all well and good until someone makes a bad choice or is otherwise injured through no fault of their own.

Such a system only works if you're willing to let people die in the streets if they can't afford health care or make poor choices. Which if that's the kind of society you want, fine. But I don't think either the medical community or the majority of society would agree with that viewpoint.

And to cut off your next response, relying on "charity" to cover the above situations is not a rational solution.

Fire the lawyers?

[unofan]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

are you saying that having people paying attention to cost won't reduce overall healthcare outlays?

No, it will surely reduce overall outlays. As I said, if you're willing to let people die in the streets, then that is a perfectly rational system for rationing healthcare. It's cold hearted as hell, but intellectually consistent.

The problem is not everyone will plan their choices perfectly, some will gamble (and lose), and still others will be stricken by unforseeable or untimely events. So what do we do as a society with those who choose poorly?

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

No, it will surely reduce overall outlays. As I said, if you're willing to let people die in the streets, then that is a perfectly rational system for rationing healthcare. It's cold hearted as hell, but intellectually consistent.

The problem is not everyone will plan their choices perfectly, some will gamble (and lose), and still others will be stricken by unforseeable or untimely events. So what do we do as a society with those who choose poorly?

Your post makes no sense. I'm at a loss on how to respond. You are inventing all sorts of hypotheticals out of nowhere.


I said offering people a range of health insurance options makes much better sense than restricting everyone to a very narrow range; and it makes a great deal of sense for the people who are using health care services to be aware of the costs involved, and to give them a financial incentive to use the health care system more judiciously (for example, if people audit their hospital bills and find errors, they get to keep 15% of the errors they catch).

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Your post makes no sense. I'm at a loss on how to respond. You are inventing all sorts of hypotheticals out of nowhere.


I said offering people a range of health insurance options makes much better sense than restricting everyone to a very narrow range; and it makes a great deal of sense for the people who are using health care services to be aware of the costs involved, and to give them a financial incentive to use the health care system more judiciously (for example, if people audit their hospital bills and find errors, they get to keep 15% of the errors they catch).

You'll have to explain to me why every other advanced economy in the world provides health care to its citizens. If your method were the best method then everyone would be copying the US.

[LynahFan]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

No, it will surely reduce overall outlays. As I said, if you're willing to let people die in the streets, then that is a perfectly rational system for rationing healthcare. It's cold hearted as hell, but intellectually consistent.

The problem is not everyone will plan their choices perfectly, some will gamble (and lose), and still others will be stricken by unforseeable or untimely events. So what do we do as a society with those who choose poorly?

The way things are set up (even with, and maybe especially with, Obamacare), there *is* no losing gamble. We should either eliminate the gamble entirely (single payer with mandatory taxes) or stop covering the gambling losses outright.

[Rover]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I appreciate all the knuckledragger logic about how people just get hip and knee replacements on a whim instead of grinding life out on pain pills for the next 30 years in order for Republicans to pass more tax cuts for the rich (ie The Ryan Budget) but let me ask you something. For all of you people claming we should do this, have YOU ever forgone a more expensive procedure that insurance was covering even if it meant you staying in pain longer than you would have had you gotten the recommended medical care? Because if you're just talking the talk, and not walking the walk, I nominate you for the Newt Gingrich Profile in Hypocrisy Award.

[unofan]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The way things are set up (even with, and maybe especially with, Obamacare), there *is* no losing gamble. We should either eliminate the gamble entirely (single payer with mandatory taxes) or stop covering the gambling losses outright.

Which is why i'm all for single payer, because there's no reason for an advanced society with our resources to choose the latter.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Which is why i'm all for single payer, because there's no reason for an advanced society with our resources to choose the latter.

You do realize that Ryan's premium support model for Medicare is single-payer, right?

It works exactly the same way as the Federal government employees' health plan: the goverment gives everyone $xx,xxx and then they choose the plan they like.

If you are so much in favor of single payer, why do you oppose the only serious single payer plan out there?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

You do realize that Ryan's premium support model for Medicare is single-payer, right?

It works exactly the same way as the Federal government employees' health plan: the goverment gives everyone $xx,xxx and then they choose the plan they like.

If you are so much in favor of single payer, why do you oppose the only serious single payer plan out there?

The same reason Obummer hated the global war on terror until 2009: it doesn't have a (D) next to it.