The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[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.

 

[Rover]

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?

Ummm....isn't 'single payer' one entity (as in the gubmint) is paying all the health care bills, whereas giving everybody a block grant to buy insurance makes it a 300 million payer system, approx the total population of the united states? Therefore, your argument makes absolutely no sense?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Ummm....isn't 'single payer' one entity (as in the gubmint) is paying all the health care bills, whereas giving everybody a block grant to buy insurance makes it a 300 million payer system, approx the total population of the united states? Therefore, your argument makes absolutely no sense?

I didn't get it either. I'm sure he'll explain it to us.

 

[Rover]

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

I didn't get it either. I'm sure he'll explain it to us.

As I've said before, I hope he's getting paid by the Romney campaign to make such a fool out of himself on a regular basis.

 

[FreshFish]

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

Ummm....isn't 'single payer' one entity (as in the gubmint) is paying all the health care bills, whereas giving everybody a block grant to buy insurance makes it a 300 million payer system, approx the total population of the united states? Therefore, your argument makes absolutely no sense?

The government is paying the premiums which pay for the care. that's a single payer.

Your proposal that "the government" pay directly makes even less sense. Where does that money come from?

The taxpayer, right?

So there is about a 125 million payer system now anyway, no matter how you channel the money.

I suppose you really do believe that government "starts" with money? Have you ever stopped to think where the "government's money" comes from in the first place?

some of us prefer accountability. the government treats all providers the same. that's stupid. there should be an incentive to seek out quality and value. right now, terrible service or quality service get paid the same. that is irresponsible.

 

[Rover]

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

The government is paying the premiums which pay for the care. that's a single payer.

Your proposal that "the government" pay directly makes even less sense. Where does that money come from?

The taxpayer, right?

So there is about a 125 million payer system now anyway, no matter how you channel the money.

I suppose you really do believe that government "starts" with money? Have you ever stopped to think where the "government's money" comes from in the first place?

some of us prefer accountability. the government treats all providers the same. that's stupid. there should be an incentive to seek out quality and value. right now, terrible service or quality service get paid the same. that is irresponsible.

Heh heh heh, I appreciate your effort and enthusiasm, but you're starting to sound like Sarah Palin.

If you prefer accountability, then why do you support a budget where people over 55 pay nothing towards solving the country's fiscal problems????

 

[Kepler]

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

This is great, apparently for the next three months we're going to hear about how the Republicans favor single-payer and want to save Medicare. This is going to be as much fun as when Dubya rolled out his plan to "save" Social Security.

What's next? "We Republicans actually favor gay rights by opposing marriage equality..."

 

[FreshFish]

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

Individual accounts for Social Security are a terrible idea. It would blow the pricing to smithereens. Right now, early deaths balance long lives. If you give everyone an individual account, you lose that balance and the pricing increases enormously.

Investment diversification for the Social Security Trust fund is a great idea. Having 100% of the fund "invested" in US Gov't bonds is such a blatant and pernicious conflict of interest, if anyone in the private sector tried to do that, they'd all be in jail. I'd like to see the Social Security Trust fund invested in a portfolio of US-government owned income-producing assets: timberland harvesting righgts, ranch land grazing rights, oil and gas extraction royalties, broadband spectrum leases, and the like.

This kind of investment portfolio would help take the pressure off the fund since these kinds of assets generally produce recurring revenues that would no longer be a direct drain on the annual budget.



What is really very sad indeed is how few people in government know the difference between a balance sheet and an income statement.

What is even sadder than that, many people in government actually take pride in the fact that they don't know it.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

This is great, apparently for the next three months we're going to hear about how the Republicans favor single-payer and want to save Medicare. This is going to be as much fun as when Dubya rolled out his plan to "save" Social Security.

What's next? "We Republicans actually favor gay rights by opposing marriage equality..."

You are interested in maintaining high benefit levels from programs as long as possible until they collapse. Fiscal conservatives want to find ways to put these programs on a long term sustainable trajectory. Don't worry, your liberal media will go to great lengths to make sure everyone knows that Ryan is out to destroy all that is good in America.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

The government is paying the premiums which pay for the care. that's a single payer.

Your proposal that "the government" pay directly makes even less sense. Where does that money come from?

The taxpayer, right?

So there is about a 125 million payer system now anyway, no matter how you channel the money.

I suppose you really do believe that government "starts" with money? Have you ever stopped to think where the "government's money" comes from in the first place?

some of us prefer accountability. the government treats all providers the same. that's stupid. there should be an incentive to seek out quality and value. right now, terrible service or quality service get paid the same. that is irresponsible.

Good thing the government isn't entirely like a union. They'd give all the care to the old people and say to kill the children. Oh, wait...

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Individual accounts for Social Security are a terrible idea. It would blow the pricing to smithereens. Right now, early deaths balance long lives. If you give everyone an individual account, you lose that balance and the pricing increases enormously.

Investment diversification for the Social Security Trust fund is a great idea. Having 100% of the fund "invested" in US Gov't bonds is such a blatant and pernicious conflict of interest, if anyone in the private sector tried to do that, they'd all be in jail. I'd like to see the Social Security Trust fund invested in a portfolio of US-government owned income-producing assets: timberland harvesting righgts, ranch land grazing rights, oil and gas extraction royalties, broadband spectrum leases, and the like.

This kind of investment portfolio would help take the pressure off the fund since these kinds of assets generally produce recurring revenues that would no longer be a direct drain on the annual budget.



What is really very sad indeed is how few people in government know the difference between a balance sheet and an income statement.

What is even sadder than that, many people in government actually take pride in the fact that they don't know it.

It really doesn't matter to anyone who is younger than the Baby Boomers what happens with Social Security, as it will be drained dry by the Boomers as they retire and vote at the booth to ensure their benefits take precedence over the country's future. Of course the same could be said for Medicare and other government programs that are on unsustainable trajectories. I just wish people would at least be honest that they are pillaging our nation's and their children's future.