The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Perfect. Now we just need Bob to dredge up some racist Margaret Sanger quotes, ignoring the fact that eugenics hasn't been a plank in the PP mission for decades, and ignoring that Sanger felt abortions should be a legal, but rare occurrence, because proper sex ed and use of contraception would prevent pregnancies in the first place. Then we'll all be happily offended together!

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Trofim Lysenko may get his way on fish oil. http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/michael-savage-big-pharma-smearing-fish-oil/

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/10/health-uninsured-rate-falls-yet-again-under-obamacare.html

Talk to me, knuckledraggers! Not looking good for you guys, although I'm sure that GOP replacement bill is right around the corner.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Was there anyone that actually said it wouldn't lower the uninsured rate? I think the biggest gripe was that it would raise costs for the majority of people.

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Was there anyone that actually said it wouldn't lower the uninsured rate? I think the biggest gripe was that it would raise costs for the majority of people.

Tons of 'em, from the Speaker of the House (The Boner) to several USCHO righties (Fishy, Flaggy, etc). People need to be held to account on this one. The idea was supposed to be that everyone was losing their policies so net uninsured would rise. Guess that one's in the trash heap now, along with it'll increase the deficit and the death panels will start offing people.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Was there anyone that actually said it wouldn't lower the uninsured rate? I think the biggest gripe was that it would raise costs for the majority of people.

Yes. Apart from death panels and communism, the next big fake out the right was using against the ACA was that it would actually force people to lose their health insurance. It never made sense, but they never make sense, they just make noise.

 

[joecct]

Yes. Apart from death panels and communism, the next big fake out the right was using against the ACA was that it would actually force people to lose their health insurance. It never made sense, but they never make sense, they just make noise.

Keep your plan?
Keep your doctor?
Lower premiums?
Lower out of pocket costs?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Tons of 'em, from the Speaker of the House (The Boner) to several USCHO righties (Fishy, Flaggy, etc). People need to be held to account on this one. The idea was supposed to be that everyone was losing their policies so net uninsured would rise. Guess that one's in the trash heap now, along with it'll increase the deficit and the death panels will start offing people.

The full argument was that people would lose their current coverage and then be forced into a different policy, one they didn't necessarily want or afford.

Furthermore, we'll see if the additionally insured people actually get the healthcare needed. It's one thing to have insurance, it's another thing to see a doctor. With the expanse of the different types of medical clinics (i.e. Minute Clinic), health care will likely be provided to everyone, but perhaps not the care they wanted or expected.

 

[unofan]

The full argument was that people would lose their current coverage and then be forced into a different policy, one they didn't necessarily want or afford.

Furthermore, we'll see if the additionally insured people actually get the healthcare needed. It's one thing to have insurance, it's another thing to see a doctor. With the expanse of the different types of medical clinics (i.e. Minute Clinic), health care will likely be provided to everyone, but perhaps not the care they wanted or expected.

Considering millions of Americans' prior health plan was "don't get sick" - I think they'll view anything else as an improvement.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Considering millions of Americans' prior health plan was "don't get sick" - I think they'll view anything else as an improvement.

Yes, they may very well. Will the people who once had easier access to their PCP be appreciative of the new dynamic?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Considering millions of Americans' prior health plan was "don't get sick" - I think they'll view anything else as an improvement.

You forgot part two of the prior plan. Die quickly.

Both are cornerstones of the GOP alternative.

 

[unofan]

Yes, they may very well. Will the people who once had easier access to their PCP be appreciative of the new dynamic?

Probably not, just as there are plenty of straight, white, Christian, males out there that see every advance in civil rights as an attack on them. Losing privilege sucks for the privileged, even when it's the right thing to do.

Put another way, having more patients wanting to see doctors isn't an unintended problem, that was kind of the point.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Probably not, just as there are plenty of straight, white, Christian, males out there that see every advance in civil rights as an attack on them. Losing privilege sucks for the privileged, even when it's the right thing to do.

Put another way, having more patients wanting to see doctors isn't an unintended problem, that was kind of the point.

There's a big difference between civil rights and affirmative action, the latter of which denies civil rights to people based upon their classification du jour.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Probably not, just as there are plenty of straight, white, Christian, males out there that see every advance in civil rights as an attack on them. Losing privilege sucks for the privileged, even when it's the right thing to do.

Put another way, having more patients wanting to see doctors isn't an unintended problem, that was kind of the point.

Yes, by way of law they created greater consumer base without having the provider space to handle the influx of new patients.

In other words, they created an outward shift of D without a commensurate outward shift in S. What are the possible results of something like that happening?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Yes, by way of law they created greater consumer base without having the provider space to handle the influx of new patients.

In other words, they created an outward shift of D without a commensurate outward shift in S. What are the possible results of something like that happening?

And because "white guilt" is trendy right now, unofan's just trying to jump on the bandwagon.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

And because "white guilt" is trendy right now, unofan's just trying to jump on the bandwagon.

I'm ignoring the social commentary on the persecuted this or that, it had no place in this discussion. It's strictly a look at the numbers. Either prices are going to shoot up or shortages will ensue, it all depends upon the market. More specifically, it all depends upon how the government manipulates the market, will it allow prices to rise or find a way to get more PCP doctors into the system? After that it's a matter waiting for everyone to throw up their hands to shout that the market for this good doesn't work anymore.

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Yes, by way of law they created greater consumer base without having the provider space to handle the influx of new patients.

In other words, they created an outward shift of D without a commensurate outward shift in S. What are the possible results of something like that happening?

So you want the gubmint to create more doctors?

How does this sound? With more patients, doctors can either 1) schedule more appointments and make more $$$, 2) asign some visits to nurse practitioners, or 3) more people can go into the profession. Either way, the conservative rule that more people having no insurance is great because it lessens the burden on doctors is pretty effin nonsensical....

 

[unofan]

Yes, by way of law they created greater consumer base without having the provider space to handle the influx of new patients.

In other words, they created an outward shift of D without a commensurate outward shift in S. What are the possible results of something like that happening?

Again, since that was the point of the law (to increase D), you're arguing the law was successful. I'm sure the president is disappointed...

There has been and always will be a shortage of medical care, because there is inherently an almost infinite demand for it. If society decides to ration it on a basis other than employment or wealth, that's not necessarily a bad thing. There are market failures after all, even though certain posters on here will never admit to such things.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

So you want the gubmint to create more doctors?

How does this sound? With more patients, doctors can either 1) schedule more appointments and make more $$$, 2) asign some visits to nurse practitioners, or 3) more people can go into the profession. Either way, the conservative rule that more people having no insurance is great because it lessens the burden on doctors is pretty effin nonsensical....

In your two-year-old's debasement of an argument, yes, the government should create more doctors. We're screwing up the healthcare market this much, may as well go Full Monty on it and start paying for the schooling of doctors who choose to become PCPs. What we're going to see is overworked professionals who will either start missing appointments or shifting the burden to underqualified people. NPs and PAs are all well and good, but the public is best served when they report up to a doctor who can oversee their work. At what point do doctors top actually being physicians and instead become supervisors for NPs and PAs?

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

In your two-year-old's debasement of an argument, yes, the government should create more doctors. We're screwing up the healthcare market this much, may as well go Full Monty on it and start paying for the schooling of doctors who choose to become PCPs. What we're going to see is overworked professionals who will either start missing appointments or shifting the burden to underqualified people. NPs and PAs are all well and good, but the public is best served when they report up to a doctor who can oversee their work. At what point do doctors top actually being physicians and instead become supervisors for NPs and PAs?

In a large way, we are paying for the school of doctors who become PCPs. However, it is repayment of loans (usually after ten years of service) and it is not guaranteed (for instance, a republican majority in house, senate and prez can easily slash the whole program with no thought to those who depended on it).

In short, we already have overworked professionals. A day in a PCP clinic is exhausting. They have to see tons of patients to make a decent living. Reimbursement is heavy on the procedure end and weak on the "talk to the actual patient" end.