Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2018 9:59 AM
260 online now:
jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (5 members, 255 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,583 Year: 10,406/29,783 Month: 1,070/1,583 Week: 88/451 Day: 20/68 Hour: 5/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   WHY MANDATES ARE MANDATORY
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3162
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 16 of 58 (825638)
12-16-2017 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2017 2:59 PM


I agree that everyone ought to have access to healthcare, but we already have that because hospitals don't turn people away. It's just not affordable.

Well, one way to make healthcare affordable would be to make medical insurance affordable. Given how insurance works, how would we accomplish that goal?

We could pass arbitrary laws and regulations that limit the premiums that insurance companies could charge while completely ignoring the economics of insurance. That would result in the insurance companies leaving the market for more lucrative things to insure, such that then nobody could get medical insurance. That wouldn't work.

What would work would be to work with the economics of insurance.
Provide medical insurance companies with a large enough population paying premiums and you can bring everybody's premiums down -- that is after all the most basic idea behind insurance to begin with.

So then, how to do that? We could require everybody to have medical insurance, but then you are adamantly opposed to that idea. OK, so then what's the solution? How do you propose that we enlarge the insurance base enough to bring everybody's premiums down to a sane level?

Here's a wild thought: a Mormon solution. The Mormons had chosen Boy Scouts of America, Inc, as the youth program for their boys. As of around 1990 (it may have changed a bit in the meantime) every single Mormon boy was enrolled in BSA from the earliest age until they aged out at 18. No exceptions. Every single boy was to make Eagle by age 14 at which point he went into the church's sports programs -- even though he was no longer active in Scouting, he was still automatically enrolled in BSA. To my knowledge, it was the Mormon Church that paid every boy's enrollment fee of $7 per year. One of the unfortunate side-effects was that the Mormon Church enjoyed great influence in dictating BSA policy, especially in BSA's religious discrimination actions in the 90's.

So, one possible solution would be for the government to automatically enroll every citizen in medical insurance and to pay for those who couldn't afford it. Of course, that would require the use of tax money, which I'm rather certain you would object to.

So, do you have any better suggestions? Workable suggestions? Ones which do not involve just letting them die lingering deaths?

... because hospitals don't turn people away.

In another message, I already discussed that as have others in this topic. It does not work! And it also contributes greatly to our insanely high cost of medical care. And it completely fails to provide the kind of medical care (preventative and follow-up) that people actually need.

I think that's a systemic problem and not something that needs a federal government solution.

Yes, it is indeed a systematic problem. So how do we solve it?

It was created by the free market, so the free market cannot offer a solution.

Local and state governments can try to do something, but their resources are limited and what would result would be a patchwork. It is a fact of modern life that people move about the country, usually trying to follow where the jobs are, so there will be many cases of someone moving from a place with coverage to a new place without coverage, which is no kind of solution.

In the face of such a patchwork (such as Percy's COBRA story in Message 13), there has to be something to coordinate everything. Since you rule out the federal government, what do you suggest should step in in its place?

The other night I met a girl who's engaged to someone in Northern Ireland. When she was laid off and extremely worried about medical insurance and not being able to afford it, he couldn't understand why she'd be so worried. When he discovered how much more he could earn here, he was ready to move until he learned about the absolutely insane housing and health-care costs here that would eat up all his extra earnings in an instant. On the radio I heard of a couple moving from the USA to the UK and their medical insurance costs went from $500 a month (it was a few thousand dollars per month before he went onto Medicare) to a little over $200 per year. As for the level of care and having to wait? The girl's Irish fiancé's father or uncle was diagnosed with cancer; the very next day he was on chemo-therapy.

So then just what is the solution? We need a solution. You do not like the ones offered so far. So what do you suggest as an alternative. Remember, it must be both workable and not something which has already been proven to not work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Rrhain, posted 12-16-2017 9:49 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2017 10:47 AM dwise1 has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


(2)
Message 17 of 58 (825665)
12-16-2017 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by dwise1
12-16-2017 4:36 PM


dwise1 writes:

quote:
As for the level of care and having to wait? The girl's Irish fiancé's father or uncle was diagnosed with cancer; the very next day he was on chemo-therapy.

This is one of those silly things that keeps coming up with regard to systems like Canada: "You have to wait to see your doctor!"

Well, yeah. You have to wait to see your doctor here in the US, too. It's known as "triage" and every single medical provider does it. There are only so many hours in the day and only so many patients a doctor can see. Thus, you need to make an appointment.

And like all triage, if your specific medical need at this moment is more urgent, you'll get bumped up. Even in the ER, the person having a heart attack is going to be seen before the person who needs a few stitches. Surely those who complain "You have to wait to see your doctor!" aren't saying that because the rich guy who needs stitches was here first, he should be seen before the poor guy whose leg was just cut off, are they?

Even here in the US, we make decisions about timing. Need surgery? Well, it depends upon what kind of surgery it is and how pressing the need is. Again, there's only so many hours in the day, so many operations that can be performed in any given period, and certain operations are more urgent than others. If your condition is such that you need it now, you'll be operated on first. If your condition can wait a bit (which means the doctors who actually know if your condition can wait have determined that it can), then you're going to be scheduled after. Yeah, it means you'll have to put up with your condition for more time than you might personally want, but the person who was diagnosed with the same thing before you was here first and you're both going to have to wait for the guy who needs the OR *right*now*.

I sorta understand why people make this claim, though: A combination of privilege and fear. Part of it is that they think they get to have complete control over their treatment. To take a superficial example, "I want to have my surgery done by the end of the month so I'll be recovered enough to do X in three months." OK...that's nice, but your convenience isn't the only thing we have to take into consideration. Nobody in the medical industry is going to withhold your treatment out of some malicious intent to stop you from doing what you want to do.

The other is fear that something will happen between the time the decision to have the treatment is made and the time that treatment is carried out. That is, indeed, a risk. But once again, that happens no matter what. Triage requires that we determine the risk of increasing that period. Many people don't understand the risk involved in delaying treatment. We very often think that if we are sick, we are going to have the worst outcome unless we do something right now, even though that isn't true. Even if doctors try to explain that to us, it's hard to overcome the sense of dread knowing that you are ill and won't be able to start curing it right away.

But again, our current system already forces us to wait. The only difference is how you wish to pay for that wait. There's good, cheap, and fast. Pick two. People are scared that if they don't pick fast, it can't be good.

But as the rest of the world has shown us, our decision to choose fast doesn't mean we get good...the use spends twice as much on healthcare and yet our outcomes are worse. We got fast and OK. I'd rather have good and cheap.

And for everybody who complains about "mandates," well, exactly how does one expect to pay for healthcare? Everybody needs it so everybody is on the hook for paying for it.

Are we having the same semantic argument? Are these people who are so upset over a "mandate" willing to have that coverage paid through "taxes"? It reminds me of this Tom Tomorrow cartoon:

Anybody who is against the "mandate" and then starts demanding a "solution that works" is simply being a fool.

You are going to need healthcare.
It needs to be paid for.
Congratulations: You are "mandated" to contribute.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 4:36 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 58 (825685)
12-17-2017 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
12-16-2017 10:07 AM


Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant potentially lethal diseases, like lupus, the disease mentioned in the article.

About where you said that you didn't get from the article that death could have happened, recall that the writer only obtained healthcare by getting married.

That was their choice. They also could have chosen to not get married, obtain the healthcare, and then get the bill and deal with the financial ramifications. My best friend went through medical bankrupcy, it's not that big of a deal. No insurance does not equal death, it means you're gonna have bad credit.

Your point isn't apparent to me, but I just looked up newborn CHD.

The CHD, itself, is beside the point. I've been talking with this new friend that works in a hospital with infants and respiration. The stories about how these babies are treated, and how much money is spent on them, only for them to die anyways, is... well I dunno what it is. Or what my point is. You said that people can run through their life savings treating a serious disease and then they die. That was in response to me saying that people do have access to heathcare (even when they don't have insurance), but it's just not affordable.

So yeah, not having insurance doesn't mean that you'll die, it means that you'll be broke financially.

But proper treatment is dependent upon insurance.

But it's not. You can get proper treatment without insurance. It's just too expensive and will break you financially.

But getting back to my original point, people with serious diseases but without insurance will live only as long as their money holds out.

Or they go into debt.

But don't we want a country where everyone has the best chance of being healthy and productive, rather than one where we perpetuate a subclass in sickly poverty that exists only because they can't afford healthcare?

Sure, and I definately helped my best friend a lot when he was going through bankrupcy. But that doesn't mean I want government dictating that to and forcing that upon me.

By "entities" you mean doctor's offices, hospitals and insurance companies? Given the size of the country and the number of states with different laws, they still need a federal legal framework.

Why does it have to be federal? That's the last group I'd want in charge of this.

Here's an example of the problem with letting things work themselves out. When I retired I was eligible for COBRA, which means I could stay under my employer's health care plan for 18 months as long as I paid the premiums myself. But there are numerous COBRA exceptions, and I fell under one of them. If you live in or move to a state where the insurance provider does not do business, you get no COBRA benefits. Since I worked in Massachusetts (where the insurance company does do business) but lived in New Hampshire (where the insurance company does not do business), I was out of luck.

It is situations like this (and there are scores of different kinds of situations that can leave people without health insurance) that require a federal legal framework.

You didn't have any other options? Couldn't you have purchased another insurance?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 12-16-2017 10:07 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 10:35 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19526
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 19 of 58 (825689)
12-17-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by dwise1
12-16-2017 4:36 PM


Well, one way to make healthcare affordable would be to make medical insurance affordable. Given how insurance works, how would we accomplish that goal?

We could pass arbitrary laws and regulations that limit the premiums that insurance companies could charge while completely ignoring the economics of insurance. That would result in the insurance companies leaving the market for more lucrative things to insure, such that then nobody could get medical insurance. That wouldn't work.

Make them non-profit services. If the greedy investors want profits they can invest elsewhere. Then the insurance company can focus on providing care.

Nobody should make a profit off pain, suffering and disease.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 4:36 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 12-17-2017 1:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3162
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 20 of 58 (825721)
12-17-2017 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
12-17-2017 10:47 AM


Make them non-profit services.

Or have them operate under a government contract, which I think would be far easier than to dictate that they become non-profits. My statement referred to letting free market forces operate and determine what would happen. Requiring them to become non-profits would require strong government intervention in the form of new laws.

As a military retiree I have medical benefits under TriCare and, since I turned 65, under Medicare and TriCare combined (Medicare is my primary, TriCare my secondary/supplemental and my pharmaceuticals plan) Documentation I've received has at times named regular insurance companies as managing the plans.

In addition, for a wide range of public services we have government contractors, so having some insurance companies operate as government contractors either in whole or in part would not be far-fetched. Of course, with those contracts would come a lot of regulating which would cause an epidemic of leg injuries due to GOPista knee-jerk reactions.

But if we just leave everything up to the laissez-faire free market, as soon as being in the medical insurance market is no longer profitable, companies will leave that market. Evidence of this can be seen in the companies leaving or threatening to leave the ACA exchanges because Trump kept threatening to not pay his bills (which has always been his primary business practice) -- I lost track; has Trump actually stopped paying those subsidies?

Nobody should make a profit off pain, suffering and disease.

No, they shouldn't. But capitalism unchecked cares absolutely nothing for what's right or wrong, but only whether they can squeeze out the maximum amount of profit.

How could anybody actually work to profit from misery? Except for the obvious sociopaths who rise to the top, the normals working for them will continue to do their job since their bosses have the responsibility. Netflix still has Experimenter, an independent bio-flic about Stanley Milgram and his infamous 1961 experiments in which normal people were willing to administer lethal electrical shocks to another person so long as the experimenter assume all responsibility. Watch for the elephant in the room.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2017 10:47 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17432
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 21 of 58 (825826)
12-18-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
12-17-2017 10:16 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:

That was their choice. They also could have chosen to not get married, obtain the healthcare, and then get the bill and deal with the financial ramifications. My best friend went through medical bankrupcy, it's not that big of a deal. No insurance does not equal death, it means you're gonna have bad credit.

That's your solution? Those who can't afford insurance go bankrupt?

The healthcare industry does still have to somehow pay for the bills not paid by those who go bankrupt under your preferred system, so that raises prices for us all.

No insurance can equal death. If you're a woman, try delaying having that lump in your breast checked out because you can't afford a doctor, X-Rays, radiologist, etc. If by the time it's checked out it's spread too far, that's death. Same with many other diseases. Delay means death. Regular checkups mean problems are detected early. The statistics seem to indicate that the ACA is saving approximately 20,000 lives per year. Here's a webpage of testimonials to the ACA:

Here’s Evidence Obamacare Saved People’s Lives

And we shouldn't focus just on saving lives but on improvements in quality of life through better health.

Here's a link about saving lives: Fact check: Has Obamacare helped save 50,000 lives? Why yes, it has

The stories about how these babies [CHD newborns] are treated, and how much money is spent on them, only for them to die anyways...

You've been misinformed. Of course some die, but the vast majority live. Perhaps your friend works in the "terminal" section of the ward.

So yeah, not having insurance doesn't mean that you'll die, it means that you'll be broke financially.
...
But it's not. You can get proper treatment without insurance. It's just too expensive and will break you financially.
...
Or they go into debt.

Well, if that's the kind of society you wish to live in, where friends and neighbors go broke when they can't afford healthcare, then all I can say is that it feels like you're putting your political philosophy ahead of the well being of your fellow man.

Sure, and I definately helped my best friend a lot when he was going through bankrupcy. But that doesn't mean I want government dictating that to and forcing that upon me.
...
Why does it have to be federal? That's the last group I'd want in charge of this.

Just because you have an aversion to government solutions doesn't mean you should have an aversion to any solution or not be open to reasonable compromise.

You didn't have any other options? Couldn't you have purchased another insurance?

Yes, of course there are other options, but that "preexisting condition" thing comes up unless you take advantage of one of the ACA plans, which didn't exist at the time. COBRA exists so that after losing their jobs people can keep their healthcare plan and network and care for preexisting conditions for a period while they adjust and make plans for some alternative, except that in reality COBRA exceptions mean it isn't really available for everyone everywhere, which is a fault only the federal government can fix.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2017 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-18-2017 10:49 AM Percy has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 58 (825829)
12-18-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
12-18-2017 10:35 AM


That's your solution? Those who can't afford insurance go bankrupt?

That's not a solution, that's an issue. But the issue is not "no insurance = death".

No insurance can equal death. If you're a woman, try delaying having that lump in your breast checked out because you can't afford a doctor, X-Rays, radiologist, etc.

There's still the alternative to death in the form of getting the treatments that you cannot afford.

You've been misinformed. Of course some die, but the vast majority live. Perhaps your friend works in the "terminal" section of the ward.

I'm not talking about just CHD. They work in the NICU.

Well, if that's the kind of society you wish to live in,

I don't wish it, but it is what it is.

Just because you have an aversion to government solutions doesn't mean you should have an aversion to any solution or not be open to reasonable compromise.

Sure, I'm open, bring it on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 10:35 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 12-18-2017 11:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 10:49 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3162
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 23 of 58 (825848)
12-18-2017 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
12-18-2017 10:49 AM


Percy writes:

Well, if that's the kind of society you wish to live in,

I don't wish it, but it is what it is.

Well if you don't want it to be that way, then why keep it that way? Why insist on keeping it that way when anybody tries to change it for the better?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-18-2017 10:49 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17432
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 24 of 58 (825891)
12-18-2017 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
12-18-2017 10:49 AM


New Cat’s Eye writes:

That's not a solution, that's an issue. But the issue is not "no insurance = death".

Well, I’m glad you see it as an issue. “No insurance” doesn’t equal death, but it’s correlated with death.

There's still the alternative to death in the form of getting the treatments that you cannot afford.

It is not uncommon that what appears to be a minor health issue that will improve on its own is actually a potentially life threatening issue until you visit the doctor you can't afford. It’s the old familiar scenario where delay causes little problems to become big problems, and healthcare affordability plays a large role in delay.

I'm not talking about just CHD. They work in the NICU.

I was just speculating about where you got your misinformation about newborn CHD. Regardless of where your misinformation came from, you gave a very strong misimpression about the mortality rate of newborn CHD.

I don't wish it, but it is what it is.

Bobby Kennedy said, “There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” It doesn’t have to be, “It is what it is.” Problems too big and requiring too much coordination and cooperation for numerous independent organizations like doctors, hospitals and insurance companies across many states is where national governments should step in.

Sure, I'm open, bring it on.

The single payer system proposed by Trump.

—Percy

Edited by Percy, : Improve clarity of second, third and fourth paragraphs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-18-2017 10:49 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-19-2017 10:44 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 58 (825912)
12-19-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
12-18-2017 10:49 PM


I was just speculating about where you got your misinformation about newborn CHD. Regardless of where your misinformation came from, you gave a very strong misimpression about the mortality rate of newborn CHD.

That was a mistake. The article you linked to was talking about congestive heart failure and my mind went to CHD because I was recently talking about that in RL. I got confused. But the disease, itself, was beside the point - and it wasn't really much of a point anyways.

I wasn't trying to imply that CHD was particularly deadly - I was just contrasting your point that people spend their life savings treating a disease and then they die. People also spend shit-tons of money trying to save babies that will never make it. Hell, people spend shit tons of money on healthcare for their pets. Spending lots of money on health is a thing, yes. And sometimes they die anyways, sure. That's all I was saying.

Problems too big and requiring too much coordination and cooperation for numerous independent organizations like doctors, hospitals and insurance companies across many states is where national governments should step in.

As a last resort, imho. But I don't want the feds in charge of my healthcare, or anywhere near it really. They suck.

The single payer system proposed by Trump.

I'm not familiar with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 10:49 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 1:25 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 30 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2017 7:49 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10745
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 26 of 58 (825935)
12-19-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by New Cat's Eye
12-19-2017 10:44 AM


NCE writes:

People also spend shit-tons of money trying to save babies that will never make it. Hell, people spend shit tons of money on healthcare for their pets. Spending lots of money on health is a thing, yes. And sometimes they die anyways, sure. That's all I was saying.

I hear ya. Not enough money? Dogs die, people die. That's just how it is. Just keep your hands off my healthcare.

Percy writes:

Problems too big and requiring too much coordination and cooperation for numerous independent organizations like doctors, hospitals and insurance companies across many states is where national governments should step in.

NCE writes:

As a last resort, imho. But I don't want the feds in charge of my healthcare, or anywhere near it really. They suck.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-19-2017 10:44 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-19-2017 2:01 PM NoNukes has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 58 (825937)
12-19-2017 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NoNukes
12-19-2017 1:25 PM


What is it that you think you are doing?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 1:25 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 2:37 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10745
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 28 of 58 (825940)
12-19-2017 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
12-19-2017 2:01 PM


What is it that you think you are doing?

I would think what I am doing is rather obvious.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-19-2017 2:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-19-2017 2:45 PM NoNukes has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 58 (825941)
12-19-2017 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NoNukes
12-19-2017 2:37 PM


Being retarded?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 2:37 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2017 8:53 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


(5)
Message 30 of 58 (825954)
12-19-2017 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by New Cat's Eye
12-19-2017 10:44 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:

quote:
That's all I was saying.

If all you were saying is that sometimes people die, then what was the point of you saying it? We all know that. The doctors know that.

Don't you think that we should look to the people involved in a medical decision to make the decision?

See, this is the whole "death panel" argument, dressed up pretty. Let us not pretend for one moment that you aren't pulling the libertarian monstrosity: "I got mine. Screw you." You simply refuse to recognize the reality that you are not the island you think you are. You did not pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you did not get where you are "without any help." So for you to complain about other people's healthcare being paid for by you, you show the monstrosity that is libertarianism.

You want to be on that death panel, deciding who lives and who dies based solely on whether or not it affects your pocketbook, completely oblivious to how much your own actions have plucked from others'.

Now, we need to have a conversation about what we're going to spend money on. If we are going to have a national health service (the British NHS is one of the best healthcare systems in the world, by the way), then we need to have a standard as to what will be paid for and what won't. There is only so much money in the world and treatment can be expensive. We went through this all before with Faith. Should the government pay for Opdivo? It's a treatment for lung cancer. And it does seem to have a benefit in that those who were put on Opdivo lived longer than those who weren't.

By about three months (more accurately, half the patients were dead three months earlier for those on chemotherapy with docetaxel than those taking Opdivo, and all that was within a year of treatment...lung cancer is a bitch.)

Should we pay for that? At what cost? And this doesn't even get into experimental drugs.

Insurance companies do this sort of butcher's bill calculus all the time. It's why people very often hate their insurance company: They are in a life-threatening situation and the insurance refuses to pay for treatment they think could be life-saving.

Why should your life be based upon the lottery of what insurance was available to you at the time? We still need to have this conversation. We still need to do the calculus to determine what we'll pay for and what we won't.

But shouldn't everybody get to benefit from that?

Only government can do that.

quote:
But I don't want the feds in charge of my healthcare, or anywhere near it really. They suck.

I see.

So you'll ignore reality to suit your political agenda. Not surprising.

You've been shown that the feds actually do large-scale projects better than private corporations. And that includes healthcare. Around the world, government-regulated healthcare provides better care for less money than the US does. But because you see the word "government" in it, you automatically assume it's horrendous regardless of any facts to the contrary.

We've been through this before. Medicare, for example, is not "government" healthcare. It's an insurance system that pays for 80% of certain costs.

That's why there's a thriving private market for Medicare co-insurance that will cover the 20% that Medicare doesn't cover. And because it's such a large insurance pool, it has the ability to drive prices down. Under Medicare, there is a schedule for which a doctor will be paid for a certain procedure. They may charge the non-Medicare person $X for a certain procedure, but Medicare will only pay $Y, of which you as the person covered by Medicare are only on the hook for 20% of Y, not X.

Imagine if everybody were on Medicare, like it was originally intended to be. That's the power of a single-payer system. Something that no private "solution" can ever achieve. Note that there is still a place for private entities to play a part in the governmental solution...co-insurance does exist...but private entities are simply incapable of solving a national problem that affects the entire population.

Only government can do that.

That's why we have government.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-19-2017 10:44 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2017 10:25 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018