Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Originally posted by unofan View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by unofan View Post
    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).

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by unofan View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X