Oh NO! Reagan and his really, really expensive healthcare mandate.

[CMAC]

Originally Posted by Miwingman

When NO ONE is saying they don't support public roads -- it is a straw man to bring it up.

For goodness sake. OK,

Do you support public roads?

If so, do you realize that's socialism?

If so, how much socialism is OK?

Hat is the thought process we need to through when we have teaparty folks saying "keep your government hands off my medicare".

Also, contrary to what everyone says, ACA isn't socialism or a government takeover of health care. It is some common sense, conservative solutions to a huge problem. And the mandate is a very conservative tool to prevent free riders. I find it crazy that the right doesnt want to take personal responsibility in this case, but spouts that line in most other cases.

[CMAC]

Originally Posted by MrsPeabody

Not true. My employer has some people on the group plan and others have individual policies. They track the costs and post them so people know and can pick their poison. The average cost for family plan for individual policy is $518 a month, for group its $741. Same plan, assumes employee and spouse and 2 children.

I asked HR why the difference. She said historically the group has more sick people. Individual plan is based on your specific risk, group is based on a pool of people and costs are shifted to the healthy people.

She also said the costs of both were going up and individual and group would be about the same next renewal. Thanks obama.

Why thanks Obama? He had nothing to do with your private insurances price?

[MrsPeabody]

Originally Posted by Philosopher Dan

Actually, Prof. Peabody, I don't believe Prof. Schremp implied either that no one can afford health care or that you thought that people deserved to get beat up.

In regards to the first thing, I don't recall that he said anything about it. He said that whether the number of uninsured was 15-20 million or a much greater number didn't matter, because even the smaller number was unacceptable.

In regards to the second thing, I believe Prof. Schremp made no claim whatsoever about whether or not you had a view about people getting beat up. His story was an attempt to illustrate the very real problem people who lack reasonable access to health care face when the need health care - particularly in emergency situations.

Among developed nations, this is a problem unique to us - even though we spend twice as much per person on health care as any other developed nation. In any other developed nation, the woman in our colleague's story would have been more concerned about her condition than about her ability to receive appropriate care.

I myself don't see how the story fits into some notion of how politicians operate. Nor do I see how the story, or what the story illustrates, amounts to a scam.

But perhaps you could expand upon that a bit?

I reread what schremp wrote and you are right he didn't say nobody could afford health care. My bad.

About assuming I thought it was ok for people to not have health care and bringing up the story about a girl getting beat up, why bring up the girl at all? Why not just say "some people dont have health insurance and want it but cant afford it".

Getting beat up means she was put in her situation through no fault of her own. Its to make people feel sympathetic to the girl getting beat up and then transfer that sympathy to his arguement of providing health care.

Thats what the pols do. They want some bill to pass so they link it to something that has nothing to do with bill but will give them moral high ground. The Patriot Act for example. If you oppose it then you must not be patriotic, dont you love your country, are you for those evil terrorists?

Or children, That was Pelosi's favorite. Everything was for the children even if it really wasnt, and if you oppose her bill then you must want to make children suffer.

Its all a game to shift a debate away from the real issue into territory that gives one person an advantage

[Miwingman]

Originally Posted by schremp

I respect your opinion. I think it's wrong, but I respect it.

Ok, to better understand your frame of mind, would you repeal the mandate to give people treatment regardless of ability to pay?

I'm not trying to sound like an ass, I'm just wondering.

Yes I would with explanation.

1. Low income people qualify for Medicaid and their kids qualify for SCHIPS.

2. Community hospitals that are directly funded by state and federal tax dollars should treat people regardless of their ability to pay.

3. Private hospitals would not be required to treat anyone, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't. It would be up to each private hospital to set their own policies.

And after a few news stories of some 20 year olds dying after a rock climbing accident because they had no method to pay for hospital services most likely every non-insured 20 something in the country would be signing up for health insurance.

[Miwingman]

Originally Posted by CMAC

For goodness sake. OK,

Do you support public roads?

If so, do you realize that's socialism?

If so, how much socialism is OK?

Hat is the thought process we need to through when we have teaparty folks saying "keep your government hands off my medicare".

Also, contrary to what everyone says, ACA isn't socialism or a government takeover of health care. It is some common sense, conservative solutions to a huge problem. And the mandate is a very conservative tool to prevent free riders. I find it crazy that the right doesnt want to take personal responsibility in this case, but spouts that line in most other cases.

No it is not socialism. If you have to go to extremes to make your point, you probably don't have much of a point to make.

[CMAC]

Originally Posted by Miwingman

No it is not socialism. If you have to go to extremes to make your point, you probably don't have much of a point to make.

Mr Webster defines Socialism as

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Public roads should fit within this definition.

If you would prefer, public roads are a public good. As such, they are more efficiently provided by the government. Health insurance/ healthcare could also be seen as a public good in that the free market does an inefficient, ineffective, and immoral job of providing.

So the question comes back to why should the government provide one public good, but not another?

[FliesOnly]

Originally Posted by Miwingman

2. Community hospitals that are directly funded by state and federal tax dollars should treat people regardless of their ability to pay.

Which is no different than what we have now, so those fees and expenses would still get passed on to the tax payers.

Originally Posted by Miwingman

3. Private hospitals would not be required to treat anyone, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't. It would be up to each private hospital to set their own policies.

Really? It must be nice to have wealth. Fuck the poor, I belong to a private hospital and don't have to deal with "those people" when I get ill or injured. Man, I just love republicans. You concerns and worries for those less fortunate than yourself bring a tear to my eye.

Originally Posted by Miwingman

And after a few news stories of some 20 year olds dying after a rock climbing accident because they had no method to pay for hospital services most likely every non-insured 20 something in the country would be signing up for health insurance.

And they would do this by pulling money out of the asses...I guess? Your compassion is quite moving.

[Philosopher Dan]

Originally Posted by Miwingman

Yes I would with explanation.

1. Low income people qualify for Medicaid and their kids qualify for SCHIPS.

2. Community hospitals that are directly funded by state and federal tax dollars should treat people regardless of their ability to pay.

3. Private hospitals would not be required to treat anyone, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't. It would be up to each private hospital to set their own policies.

And after a few news stories of some 20 year olds dying after a rock climbing accident because they had no method to pay for hospital services most likely every non-insured 20 something in the country would be signing up for health insurance.

Thank you for elaborating, Prof. Miwingman.

I think there are at least three things to consider here.

The first is that, in order to qualify for Medicaid, adults need to be desperately poor, not just middling poor. There is a whole group of people who do not qualify for Medicaid, but who also have no reasonable access to health insurance. The PPACA has already expanded Medicaid coverage a bit. And there is another, bigger planned expansion (assuming the law is still around in two years). But the number of people who do qualify is very low. So we still have the uninsured problem.

The second issue is the notion of a private hospital. There are, in turn, at least two problems here. The first is that, while something like health care can be administered privately, it's still a public good. A private hospital couldn't refuse black people or short people. Unlike a restaurant or hotel, though, the refusal to render service for non-payment might mean death. So the importance of the good they provide renders special obligations - even if they are private enterprises.

The second issue with the second problem is the fact that, even for private hospitals, there are significant public expenditures. They will accept Medicare and Medicaid. They will receive any number of government grants and funding from all levels. They will just also either operate for a profit or under the auspices of some other organization. But just like private universities aren't entirely private, so to private hospitals aren't entirely private in the way a hotel or a restaurant is.

The third involves the notion of scaring 20-somethings. And here again there are at least two issues to raise.

The first issue with the third thing is the following. It may be morally problematic to force people to buy insurance, because it is wrong to violate people's freedom. But it would also seem morally problematic to allow some people to die in order to frighten other people into purchasing insurance. Surely allowing some people to die, in order to deter what we think of as reckless behavior by others in a similar circumstance isn't morally superior to forcing people to buy insurance.

The second issue with the third thing is more empirical speculation. Presumably, 20-somethings don't contemplate, or at least, don't contemplate as often the dangers involved in not having health insurance. We'll leave aside the affordability issue for the moment. But assuming they don't purchase it because they would rather use the money for rock climbing gear, why would some people dying in the emergency room deter them from that pursuit? Young people often have an under-appreciation for the dangerous things they do. Yet they do them anyway. So it seems unlikely that they would be deterred in the way you suggested, anyway.

[Philosopher Dan]

Originally Posted by MrsPeabody

I reread what schremp wrote and you are right he didn't say nobody could afford health care. My bad.

About assuming I thought it was ok for people to not have health care and bringing up the story about a girl getting beat up, why bring up the girl at all? Why not just say "some people dont have health insurance and want it but cant afford it".

Getting beat up means she was put in her situation through no fault of her own. Its to make people feel sympathetic to the girl getting beat up and then transfer that sympathy to his arguement of providing health care.

Thats what the pols do. They want some bill to pass so they link it to something that has nothing to do with bill but will give them moral high ground. The Patriot Act for example. If you oppose it then you must not be patriotic, dont you love your country, are you for those evil terrorists?

Or children, That was Pelosi's favorite. Everything was for the children even if it really wasnt, and if you oppose her bill then you must want to make children suffer.

Its all a game to shift a debate away from the real issue into territory that gives one person an advantage

But what is the real territory, then?

I'm not saying that politicians don't commit all manner of informal fallacies (committing them seems like a qualifying criterion).

However, children not having access to health care does seem like a bad thing. A child with a pre-existing condition being denied access seems like a bad thing. A woman being more concerned about medical bills than your physical suffering at the hands of an abuser seems like a bad thing.

If the PPACA can or will alleviate some or all of these things, that seems like a good thing.

Is there some worse harm that the law will cause?

I know you noted that it would end up destroying the health care system. But I don't see any evidence for this. You noted costs are going up. They were already going up. Might they go up a bit more? Perhaps. Is it worth it to cover those not now covered? I would say so. You might disagree, but what is the disagreement based on? The fact that it would cost more money?

So I agree that appeals to emotion aren't necessarily the proper stuff of debate. But then, neither are slippery slopes or red herrings.

So perhaps we could get some clarity on the real issue in the overall health care debate - as you see it.

[MrsPeabody]

Originally Posted by Philosopher Dan

But what is the real territory, then?

I'm not saying that politicians don't commit all manner of informal fallacies (committing them seems like a qualifying criterion).

However, children not having access to health care does seem like a bad thing. A child with a pre-existing condition being denied access seems like a bad thing. A woman being more concerned about medical bills than your physical suffering at the hands of an abuser seems like a bad thing.

If the PPACA can or will alleviate some or all of these things, that seems like a good thing.

Is there some worse harm that the law will cause?

I know you noted that it would end up destroying the health care system. But I don't see any evidence for this. You noted costs are going up. They were already going up. Might they go up a bit more? Perhaps. Is it worth it to cover those not now covered? I would say so. You might disagree, but what is the disagreement based on? The fact that it would cost more money?

So I agree that appeals to emotion aren't necessarily the proper stuff of debate. But then, neither are slippery slopes or red herrings.

So perhaps we could get some clarity on the real issue in the overall health care debate - as you see it.

For health care the issue is not insurance its the cost of health care itself. Insurance costs reflect health care costs. People complain that with single payor then we save the admin fees of the insurance companies but group plans are in the 7-12% admin fee area. 12% is nothing in terms of the increases in the cost of health care. So we go to single payor and cut 12% off the top. It doesn't do anything to change the rate of increase of health care.

I also hear that more prevention will help by catching illness early. Sounds reasonable but I'm seeing studies now that say its not going to save money. The problem is that everyone gets the preventative tests, thats a lot of tests and a lot of little expenses add up to a big expense. Most of these tests will be negative but a few will catch an illness early, the early treatment saves money, but the savings is outweighed by the huge costs of all those preventative tests.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-if-prevention-doesnt-save-money/2011/12/11/gIQAM60OnO_blog.html
http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/segment/3175/Research--Preventive-Care-Not-Cost-Effective

Theres the exchanges that are going to be swamped and hugely underfunded. Theres the raiding of medicare to pay for obamacare. Its again a shell game to make it look better than it is.
The reform seems to be all about insurance not health care.

Even if I'm missing something, how is this going to lower the cost of a doctor visit? Is it going to lower the cost of the doctors liability/malpractice insurance or cut frivolous lawsuits or make it easier for doctors to cut the cover-my-ass procedures? No it does nothing about the malpractice side.

All I see is a govt/insurance take over. Not sure who is driving the boat but when the govt says everyone must buy health insurance it sounds like health insurance companies are at the wheel. Thats not going to work out for us.　

[Miwingman]

Originally Posted by Philosopher Dan

Thank you for elaborating, Prof. Miwingman.

I think there are at least three things to consider here.

The first is that, in order to qualify for Medicaid, adults need to be desperately poor, not just middling poor. There is a whole group of people who do not qualify for Medicaid, but who also have no reasonable access to health insurance. The PPACA has already expanded Medicaid coverage a bit. And there is another, bigger planned expansion (assuming the law is still around in two years). But the number of people who do qualify is very low. So we still have the uninsured problem.

The second issue is the notion of a private hospital. There are, in turn, at least two problems here. The first is that, while something like health care can be administered privately, it's still a public good. A private hospital couldn't refuse black people or short people. Unlike a restaurant or hotel, though, the refusal to render service for non-payment might mean death. So the importance of the good they provide renders special obligations - even if they are private enterprises.

The second issue with the second problem is the fact that, even for private hospitals, there are significant public expenditures. They will accept Medicare and Medicaid. They will receive any number of government grants and funding from all levels. They will just also either operate for a profit or under the auspices of some other organization. But just like private universities aren't entirely private, so to private hospitals aren't entirely private in the way a hotel or a restaurant is.

The third involves the notion of scaring 20-somethings. And here again there are at least two issues to raise.

The first issue with the third thing is the following. It may be morally problematic to force people to buy insurance, because it is wrong to violate people's freedom. But it would also seem morally problematic to allow some people to die in order to frighten other people into purchasing insurance. Surely allowing some people to die, in order to deter what we think of as reckless behavior by others in a similar circumstance isn't morally superior to forcing people to buy insurance.

The second issue with the third thing is more empirical speculation. Presumably, 20-somethings don't contemplate, or at least, don't contemplate as often the dangers involved in not having health insurance. We'll leave aside the affordability issue for the moment. But assuming they don't purchase it because they would rather use the money for rock climbing gear, why would some people dying in the emergency room deter them from that pursuit? Young people often have an under-appreciation for the dangerous things they do. Yet they do them anyway. So it seems unlikely that they would be deterred in the way you suggested, anyway.

I don't really care what young people contemplate or pursue. If they don't care enough about their own health then why should I? This "helicopter" society needs to stop. It just creates dependents.

Medicaid and Medicare do not provide direct funding. It is reimbursement.

If a private hospital, as in not a direct government funded community hospital, takes government grants, etc. then they need to abid by the attached strings.

As far a non-service resulting in death -- people die every day. People with health insurance die every day. From a policy perspective this argument only serves to tug on people's heart strings. It is all emotional and irrelevant. Are you trying to save one life or provide access to healthcare for 300 million people?

[FliesOnly]

Originally Posted by Miwingman

I don't really care what young people contemplate or pursue. If they don't care enough about their own health then why should I? This "helicopter" society needs to stop. It just creates dependents.

Medicaid and Medicare do not provide direct funding. It is reimbursement.

If a private hospital, as in not a direct government funded community hospital, takes government grants, etc. then they need to abid by the attached strings.

As far a non-service resulting in death -- people die every day. People with health insurance die every day. From a policy perspective this argument only serves to tug on people's heart strings. It is all emotional and irrelevant. Are you trying to save one life or provide access to healthcare for 300 million people?

You have to be about the most morally stagnant person I've ever dealt with. Honestly, it is your attitude (and so many others like you) that is the primary factor in why I despise republicans so much(and I used to be one).

Your whole "fuck em, let me die" mentality sickens me and demonstrates what's wrong with this Country right now.

[Miwingman]

Originally Posted by FliesOnly

You have to be about the most morally stagnant person I've ever dealt with. Honestly, it is your attitude (and so many others like you) that is the primary factor in why I despise republicans so much(and I used to be one).

Your whole "fuck em, let me die" mentality sickens me and demonstrates what's wrong with this Country right now.

Actually it is more like they are purposely "fucking themselves" so who am I to stop them? I'm referring to 20 something's who Dan said would rather spend their money rock climbing then providing healthcare for themselves.

If you want to get all emotional about it go ahead.

[FliesOnly]

Originally Posted by Miwingman

Actually it is more like they are purposely "fucking themselves" so who am I to stop them? I'm referring to 20 something's who Dan said would rather spend their money rock climbing then providing healthcare for themselves.

If you want to get all emotional about it go ahead.

I'm not all emotional about it...I just think your attitude is disgusting. Compassionate Christians...ya just gotta love em.

[Lance in Manassas]

Originally Posted by Miwingman

So how much do you pay in federal income tax and how much more are you willing to pay?.

My top rate is 25% and I'm willing to go back to 28%.

If I can't get my company to add a little more to my pay then I'm not really trying.

Also, the federal government did not spend $5 trillion on wars in the last three years. Actually they spent a little over a trillion on wars since 2001 so your facts are wrong.

A Trillion dollars in unfunded wars and that by you is okay?

[Lance in Manassas]

Originally Posted by MrsPeabody

Not true. My employer has some people on the group plan and others have individual policies. They track the costs and post them so people know and can pick their poison. The average cost for family plan for individual policy is $518 a month, for group its $741. Same plan, assumes employee and spouse and 2 children.

I asked HR why the difference. She said historically the group has more sick people. Individual plan is based on your specific risk, group is based on a pool of people and costs are shifted to the healthy people.

She also said the costs of both were going up and individual and group would be about the same next renewal. Thanks obama.

You're kind of confused by what an individual plan is.

If your company negotiated it, it's going to be cheaper than you trying to get it yourself.

Try asking your health insurance company what the premium under COBRA would be if you quit your job and wanted to keep your health insurance.

[Lance in Manassas]

Originally Posted by MrsPeabody

About assuming I thought it was ok for people to not have health care and bringing up the story about a girl getting beat up, why bring up the girl at all?

Well, because antedotes are useful. You feel sympathy.

Then you check the empirical facts.

We spend twice as much as most advanced industrialized countries per person on health care.

We are 37th in outcomes.

We average two years of life per person lost to avoidable medical errors.

Our favorite health insurance is Medicare, a socialized health insurance.

Our favorite health system is Veterans Care, which is totally socialistic.

The uninsured end up costing the responsible Americans about a $1000 a year.

And it's a CONSERVATIVE idea to have individuals be held responsible for getting their own health insurance.

[Lance in Manassas]

Originally Posted by Miwingman

Yes I would with explanation.

1. Low income people qualify for Medicaid ...

Not true.

Maybe that's what you WANT, which means you support the expansion of Medicaid under the PP ACA (Obama Cares).

But right now many states only provide Medicaid to children and seniors. Some states provide Medicaid to Parents. Few if any provide Medicaid to indigent (poor) Adults.

[Lance in Manassas]

Originally Posted by MrsPeabody

For health care the issue is not insurance its the cost of health care itself. Insurance costs reflect health care costs. People complain that with single payor then we save the admin fees of the insurance companies but group plans are in the 7-12% admin fee area. 12% is nothing in terms of the increases in the cost of health care. So we go to single payor and cut 12% off the top. It doesn't do anything to change the rate of increase of health care.

If you are ready to reform the costs of HEALTH CARE, and not HEALTH INSURANCE, then I suggest you vote liberal/progressive democrats into office. Because it is not going to happen by voting in Republicans or Blue Dogs.

[BubnTX]

[QUOTE
And after a few news stories of some 20 year olds dying after a rock climbing accident because they had no method to pay for hospital services most likely every non-insured 20 something in the country would be signing up for health insurance.[/quote]

Holy crap dude. If you cant see the moral problem of letting a healthy person die due to an accident because they dont have the ability to pay a bill, then you have bigger problems the than we thought.

But i guess what is the right and christian thing do do never can compete with a bs talking point.