Liar, liar pants on fire

[320Bob]

I don't understand the argument that if we let all Americans have access to health care that it will affect what we (the lucky few) already have. Somethings I can see the conservative point about cost and such but letting citizens of our own country die just because they can't afford health care is barbaric at best.

The haves will be affected by the have nots due to limited supply compared to demand. With a limited number of doctors health care will have to be rationed like it is in the rest of the world that have universal heathcare. Pack, if you need a kidney now you most likely will get one before you die. Under Obamacare the waiting list would be much longer and you would likely die before you get one.

I believe Emergency Rooms are required to accept acute care patients without regard to their ability to pay. So how do those that can't afford healthcare die if this is the case? Also how many die that are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid? Without data, I would guess not a whole lot but I could be wrong.

 

[JediJD]

That is NOT true. People in the US do not die because of "insufficient care", they die because they cannot afford care or their insurance companies "death panel" decides they are cutting into the profits a bit too much.

We do not lack for ability, competence or technology in our heath care system as the other countries you mention, we only lack the compassion to make it available to everyone.

I hate to flame on, but Pack...are you serious or is this some kind of hallucinatory excercise? How many fewer people will die because you add an additional layer of government (answer...you will kill MORE people not less because you reduce the available resources by adding layers of inefficiency that doesn't translate directly to the provision of medical services)? How compassionate was your last visit to Social Security or the TSA? You act like insurance and government are the only answers, and they aren't.

 

[VTSeaRay]

And this doesn't even touch on the constitutional aspects of this stupid law forcing all americans to purchase healthcare.

 

[comsnark]

The haves will be affected by the have nots due to limited supply compared to demand. With a limited number of doctors health care will have to be rationed like it is in the rest of the world that have universal heathcare. Pack, if you need a kidney now you most likely will get one before you die. Under Obamacare the waiting list would be much longer and you would likely die before you get one.

320Bob;

I think you are touching on an interesting point -> so is your argument that if everyone gets insurance, then those who currently have insurance will suffer?

Therefore, having more people getting insurance is a bad thing?

I believe Emergency Rooms are required to accept acute care patients without regard to their ability to pay. So how do those that can't afford healthcare die if this is the case?

First off, no one dies for lack of health care in the US, period. If a person is in need of treatment, they get the care.

"Health care" goes beyond "emergency care". I thought much of the point of getting people insurance was to move more people from the "emergency care" options to "routine care". Which results in lower costs and better health.

Unless. . .we don't have the capacity to provide routine care for more people. . in which case providing more people access to routine care is a bad thing?

 

[comsnark]

And this doesn't even touch on the constitutional aspects of this stupid law forcing all americans to purchase healthcare.

We have had a few discussions on this one.


I think the conclusion was. . .

. .you can link car insurance to cars, because you have the choice not to drive.

. . you can link TSA groping to flying, because you have the choice not to fly.

. . you can get taxed again and again and again on property because you have the choice to not own property. :huh:

. . but you can't link health insurance to health care because everyone requires health care.

- - - - -

There are no easy answers.

 

[rondds]

Let me give you citizens of Utopia and Sherwood Forest an example. The government mandated that ins companies insure people with previous conditions and "children" up to age 26. Do you have any idea what a burden this places on insurance companies? Obviously you don't. But take a look at your next premium renewal and you'll get the idea.

If you're a careless and dangerous driver, it's hard to get insurance right? If you do get it, you're going to pay dearly. In that case, YOU, not every insured individual, pays for the increased risk to the insurance company. If you want to add your teenaged kid to your auto insurance policy,you pay for the increased risk. This President want's EVERYONE to pay for this new patient pool and he has placed this burden on the rest of us by mandating Marxism.

 

[320Bob]

320Bob;

I think you are touching on an interesting point -> so is your argument that if everyone gets insurance, then those who currently have insurance will suffer?

Therefore, having more people getting insurance is a bad thing?...

Giving everyone insurance who doesn't have it now (that will be subsidized by those of us that have it currently) increases demand for healthcare. Why? It drives the out of pocket cost down but does not increase the supply. With government/insurance companies controlling prices, the most probable outcome is rationing of limited healthcare resources. Also, this will force younger healthier people to buy insurance to offset the insurance costs of older less healthy people. These younger healthy people (not elgible for a company plan) would normally opt out of buying insurance because their out-of-pocket healthcare costs would be less than the insurance premiums. That is why mandated insurance is a bad thing it dictates that one group subsidizes another.

 

[comsnark]

I've got plenty of pre-existing conditions... and none have ever been turned down when I switch insurance companies because I was previously insured. The insurance companies generally don't cover "pre-existing" when you come to them with NO INSURANCE and then want "insurance" to cover something you had no coverage for... Why would anyone get insurance if you don't have to have it until you "get sick"?

The government mandated that ins companies insure people with previous conditions and "children" up to age 26. Do you have any idea what a burden this places on insurance companies? Obviously you don't. But take a look at your next premium renewal and you'll get the idea.

An interesting contrast in these two posts, is it not? So is covering pre-existing conditions a big deal or not?

Now, I am pulling a quote from Bob in another thread;

Covering pre-existing conditions is a much more debatable issue because it is economics on one side versus doing the right thing on the other. If covering pre-exisiting conditions would mean a 5% increase in everyone's premium, that is not an unreasonable social cost in my mind. However if it means a 20% premium increase, that is not. The cost of this provision was not publically discussed that I was aware of when it should have been.

I think this is the crux of the argument: What is the cost of covering preconditions? I actually did some research after Gary's post the other day. I came up with this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existing_condition

For these debates, it is a good (short) read. The gist is that "group plans" and "individual plans" work under different rules regarding pre-existing conditions. And answers vary state-to-state. Sometimes you can't exclude pre-existing conditions. Sometimes you can. So what is the cost of insuring everyone? I have no idea.

But. .I can see why one would want to set a national policy on this. Now, what I understand is the "cost" straightening this out is the need to ensure everyone is "paying into the system". In otherwords. . everyone is in the group plan, spreading the "risk" among not just those who recognize the risk, but EVERYONE.

Giving everyone insurance who doesn't have it now (that will be subsidized by those of us that have it currently) increases demand for healthcare. Why? It drives the out of pocket cost down but does not increase the supply. With government/insurance companies controlling prices, the most probable outcome is rationing of limited healthcare resources. Also, this will force younger healthier people to buy insurance to offset the insurance costs of older less healthy people. These younger healthy people (not elgible for a company plan) would normally opt out of buying insurance because their out-of-pocket healthcare costs would be less than the insurance premiums. That is why mandated insurance is a bad thing it dictates that one group subsidizes another.

A very smart response.

I think your are making two distinct points.

1) RISK. Isn't the point of insurance the spreading of risk? The insurance company manages the risk, sets rates and payments, all with a profit incentive. In this model, the lucky ones are ALWAYS subsidizing the unlucky ones. I think your objection is that you are forcing people who think they will be lucky into the game against their will.

That is a basic society question, isn't it?

If there are not enough healthy people willing to buy insurance. .. then market answer is that medical insurance becomes unaffordable and the insurance market disappears. The other possible answer is start dropping people off of insurance who cost the plans too much money. . .

I think your other unvoiced (or did you state it outright?) objection is subsidizing insurance for those who can't afford it. That is a whole other CAN OF WORMS.

2) SUPPLY: The issue that we really don't have enough "medical services" to satisfy demand if everyone has insurance is another fundamental issue.

Your basic argument here is "Look, 'Medical Services' are limited. We can't help everyone -> so those who can't afford medical insurance will do without it".

This runs exactly counter to the arguments presented in the posts above that state "everyone gets care".

----

Oops. Break is over. . .back to the grind. I would like to explore both points above further. . .later. . .

 

[Tonka Boater]

This is so frustrating to me because it IS simple. The most efficient delivery system of goods and services is direct. The more intermediaries you add, the less efficient the product.

This is an over-simplification and not always true. I sell iPhone apps as a hobby and I am happy to let Apple be the intermediary and take 30%. If I sold my apps directly it would not be the most efficient model because I can't single-handedly manage the financial transactions and support required. In my case, having an intermediary IS the more efficient model.

First off, no one dies for lack of health care in the US, period. If a person is in need of treatment, they get the care.

You are technically correct but people without insurance don't get the best care -- they get the minimum required care and often die as a result. If I didn't have insurance I would have died from my cancer because I would have been given the minimum treatment required -- which is about 2 years less than what I actually received for treatment. I have pretty good insurance that paid $50k to collect my stem cells in the event I relapse. An uninsured person wouldn't get that.

That is NOT true. People in the US do not die because of "insufficient care", they die because they cannot afford care or their insurance companies "death panel" decides they are cutting into the profits a bit too much.

We do not lack for ability, competence or technology in our heath care system as the other countries you mention, we only lack the compassion to make it available to everyone.

How many of you actually work in health care or, more specifically, in the the health insurance area? I consult to major health insurance providers and I can say this -- the whole system is a LOT more complicated than any of you have expressed. I don't profess to have the solution but I can say that none of you are right. It's also not as inherently evil as you might think.

 

[wish2fish]

That is NOT true. People in the US do not die because of "insufficient care", they die because they cannot afford care or their insurance companies "death panel" decides they are cutting into the profits a bit too much.

We do not lack for ability, competence or technology in our heath care system as the other countries you mention, we only lack the compassion to make it available to everyone.

can you give and example of something you know was rejected by "death panel"? Insurance companies generally pay for accepted treatments for disease.

I thought Sarah Palin was the only one who talked about death panels. :huh:

 

[AKBASSKING]

I think the conclusion was. . .

. .you can link car insurance to cars, because you have the choice not to drive.

Insurance for your car is a STATE issue not a federal issue. The simple fact is the federal government receives its rights and powers to govern due to the States, not the other way around. Doubt my statement? Take a read of the federalist papers…..

Not everyone has a car.

Do you want a good example of how it is NOT supposed to work? Look at the VA. This is federal government run a muck. Get rid of the HMOs.

Obamacare will get overturned and maybe then we can begin good common sense reform without tramping on States and individual rights.

Don't like it? Get a slip in Canada or England and become a citizen there and renounce your American citizenship. (I tried to attach it to boating, really I tried...)

 

[Pack66Dad]

ok, I have heard all these arguments ad infinitum and to be honest I think they are all rubbish. I want to know which of you if hard times befall you and your child fell ill would feel the same comfort of your callous conservative values?

The fact is we pay more per capita for health care than any place else on earth and we have some of the worst overall results.
">

 

[comsnark]

You are technically correct but people without insurance don't get the best care -- they get the minimum required care and often die as a result. If I didn't have insurance I would have died from my cancer because I would have been given the minimum treatment required -- which is about 2 years less than what I actually received for treatment. I have pretty good insurance that paid $50k to collect my stem cells in the event I relapse. An uninsured person wouldn't get that.

+1.

Tonka said it much better than I was capable of saying it.

 

[comsnark]

Insurance for your car is a STATE issue not a federal issue. The simple fact is the federal government receives its rights and powers to govern due to the States, not the other way around. Doubt my statement? Take a read of the federalist papers…..

Hmmm. I think a fellow named Lincoln took a different approach to state vs federal rights. That may be a more recent precedent.

Do you want a good example of how it is NOT supposed to work? Look at the VA. This is federal government run a muck. Get rid of the HMOs.

Obamacare will get overturned and maybe then we can begin good common sense reform without tramping on States and individual rights.

Isn't the HMO an example of free market forces in action?

I do not dispute your dislike for HMO's: But my understanding is that they are not government programs; merely government certified.

Mind you, I think the only portion of "obamacare" under legal question is the insurance mandate. Other aspects, if my understanding is correct, like the pre-existing condition rules, are not really being challenged. ??

 

[Woody]

Where do we stop? To insure the best health of the population with the least cost shouldn’t the use of insurance be mandated, annual physicals, flu shots, etc. For the best results should we outlaw the happy meals instead of just remove the toy? How about a cholesterol tax, yours is high so you’re fined for every point over, it’s only fair because you’re likely to require more care at some point. Heck maybe in the future we’ll be trading cholesterol credits. :lol:

Seriously, what % of these 30mil people are truly going to change the way they view their own health? Will those legs that we see hanging out of the dumpster all of a sudden realize an annual check up is a must do? Years ago I worked at a place that had very good dental coverage and a lot of employees still had a nasty looking smile.

 

[rondds]

we have some of the worst overall results.

You are so delusional it's almost laughable. Go send some money in to support Frontline and their leftist agenda. While you're at it, quit your job, give your boat to the poor, donate all your worldly possessions and join the Peace Corp. I am dropping out of this debate. For the realists out there, here's the source of the information in that bogus graphic above. Pay close attention to the mission statements of the foundations that support this organization.

FRONTLINE

 

[Tonka Boater]

For the record, I would just like to indemnify myself and say that I don't agree with one side or the other. I am conservative politically and personally but I softened a bit on the healthcare aspect when it became personal -- not only for me, but for some health things for my kids.

Health care is a complicated machine and, again, none of you are right. It makes for some heated conversation on these cold winter days but if it was this easy our elected officials and health care providers would simply tune into CSR for the answers.

 

[Pack66Dad]

You are so delusional it's almost laughable. Go send some money in to support Frontline and their leftist agenda. While you're at it, quit your job, give your boat to the poor, donate all your worldly possessions and join the Peace Corp. I am dropping out of this debate. For the realists out there, here's the source of the information in that bogus graphic above. Pay close attention to the mission statements of the foundations that support this organization.

FRONTLINE

Funny, I'm not flailing away with irrational statements and hyperbole. I present facts and you attack me and try to discredit the source without proof, just because they don't line up with your preconceived ideas........ and I'm delusional?

 

[JediJD]

No Pack, it isn't a debate when you copy the inaccurate work of others, present it as an unassailable fact and can't or won't support it. The Frontline chart you are presenting isn't apples and apples, but there's no point in arguing it.

 

[JediJD]

This is an over-simplification and not always true. I sell iPhone apps as a hobby and I am happy to let Apple be the intermediary and take 30%. If I sold my apps directly it would not be the most efficient model because I can't single-handedly manage the financial transactions and support required. In my case, having an intermediary IS the more efficient model.

You have adopted the most efficient model for you by providing direct services to the people who want your product. You have found though that having a sales channel is a better use of your limited resources. Can I make your distribution channel better if I give the power of pricing, servicing, delivering and contracting to a third party...with no skin in the game?