Universal Healthcare is Wonderful and Will Ensure Better Health care for everyone

[Debaser]

MUST READ (warning: long article):
How American Health Care Killed My Father - The Atlantic (September 2009)
What's really wrong with the health care system. I find very little to disagree with and it has a ton of ammo for the pro free marketers. Colin, you need to read this, it would sharpen your arguments to an even finer degree. Ever, you need to read this, it would hopefully stop you from trying to shove your square shaped arguments into circle shaped problems, equipping you with arguments that actually resemble, um, reality.



this has definitely shifted my thinking on things

- current reform proposals are nowhere near enough.
- even if the far left got everything it wanted in reforms, the system would still have potentially fatal flaws
- this is not to say that i don't still support dem reform, band-aids on a flawed system is better than nothing, and hopefully creates more political will to enact real reform. besides, what you hear from the republican law makers is still ignorant utter nonsense.

well i guess my practical positions haven't changed, but what has changed is where the blame goes for our current nightmare system and what my ideal health care system would look like.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by beef curtains

Health savings accounts are only practical if you have lots of SAVINGS to put in up front. Most people who can't afford a $600 a month premium probably don't have $3000 either to have a HSA set up.

"oh boo hoo, fuck t****.... right? that's all i'm getting out of nimrod and red scarlet these days.

HSAs would be practical if we could get the whole country to shift over at once and if the consumer actually had access to figure out what the real costs are.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Debaser

- this is not to say that i don't still support dem reform, band-aids on a flawed system is better than nothing, and hopefully creates more political will to enact real reform. besides, what you hear from the republican law makers is still ignorant utter nonsense.

Once you start an entitlement program, it never goes away. No matter how awful it is, the government will ensure it keeps going. If, say, a single payer system is enacted, there's no going back, and no real reform will ever be possible

[Debaser]

single payer system is much more preferable than the current system.

Too bad nobody in washington is proposing a single payer system.

[Future Boy]

More like too bad its received no support from Dem leadership. There's a bill, and I believe it might even be getting a floor vote. It wont come close to passing though.

Originally Posted by Debaser

- this is not to say that i don't still support dem reform, band-aids on a flawed system is better than nothing, and hopefully creates more political will to enact real reform.

That's true, but if all it is is band-aids

-Dems really are a bunch of spineless political idiots.
-Should not be, on any level-by anyone, celebrated as anything more than steps toward reform.
-Dems really are a bunch of spineless political idiots.

Originally Posted by Debaser

besides, what you hear from the republican law makers is still ignorant utter nonsense.

The more they're blamed the more clout they're being given. We've managed to make them relevant again.

[Tchocky]

Debaser,

I read that article, and while I think (among other things the author mentioned) getting rid of the middleman in health care (be it government or insurance companies) and making care providers more accountable would in the end save Americans a lot more than they might realize, the author's proposed solution (a problem which he even hints at) is still too reliant on the concept that people can make sound medical decisions by themselves, without a comprehensive safety net. We may be overpaying for health care right now, but IMO comprehensive insurance still beats people potentially paying for procedures and treatments out of their own pockets in situations where treatments are a crapshoot.

Also, his idea of using credit to help abet the costs of potentially being forced to overdraw on one's personal HSA seems silly to me.

[Debaser]

I won't argue. The concept that people can make sound judgements of the financial value of their medical treatments definitely seems unrealistic at the moment. Although it would be nice if otherwise.

[J.H.]

Well, if we have universal health care we're going to have to deny treatment to someone. That's a basic fact. So let's refuse treatment for elderly people with dementia or Alzheimer's as well as retards and the handicapped. That's a much more humane solution. (Handicapped people are like fish, they don't have feelings ...)

Originally Posted by White House health-care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel

"Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)

QALY is not a usable measure - no rational person finds it so - because there is no scientific way to measure the Q. (i.e., for those of you feeling lost, it is impossible to make inter-personal comparisons of utility. If you still don't understand: there is no method for identifying whether a 70 year old will enjoy the next five years more than a twenty year old might enjoy the next fifty. QALY assumes that every person values every year the same, which is such an impossibly retarded assertion that it would be put to death by this health plan.)

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by J.H.

Well, if we have universal health care we're going to have to deny treatment to someone. That's a basic fact. So let's refuse treatment for elderly people with dementia or Alzheimer's as well as retards and the handicapped. That's a much more humane solution. (Handicapped people are like fish, they don't have feelings ...)



QALY is not a usable measure - no rational person finds it so - because there is no scientific way to measure the Q. (i.e., for those of you feeling lost, it is impossible to make inter-personal comparisons of utility. If you still don't understand: there is no method for identifying whether a 70 year old will enjoy the next five years more than a twenty year old might enjoy the next fifty. QALY assumes that every person values every year the same, which is such an impossibly retarded assertion that it would be put to death by this health plan.)

Who's troll are you again

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Debaser

MUST READ (warning: long article):
How American Health Care Killed My Father - The Atlantic (September 2009)

I really didn't get anything out of this article because I couldn't get around the fact that the author appeared to be exploiting his father's death so as to claim some kind of credibility to spout his idea on the reform of the health care system as a whole. I spent the whole time trying to figure out how his proposals were supposed to prevent people from getting hospital borne illnesses. To me, the whole thing screamed "Hey, I've had a bad experience with the American health care system, so now my views against it are justified!"

[J.H.]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

Who's troll are you again

You especially should be concerned, because as a retard you're dangerously close to being denied treatment. This is the position advocated by the White House Health-care Advisor. This is a fact. Read his work if you don't believe it, the source is there.

It's also a fact that inter-personal comparisons of utility cannot be made. But I wouldn't expect you to know anything about any of that.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by J.H.

You especially should be concerned, because as a retard you're dangerously close to being denied treatment. This is the position advocated by the White House Health-care Advisor. This is a fact. Read his work if you don't believe it, the source is there.

It's also a fact that inter-personal comparisons of utility cannot be made. But I wouldn't expect you to know anything about any of that.

I asked you a question you dumb bitch

[redbreegull]

Also, thanks for reiterating your post by copying and pasting it into a rep comment. You really got your point across.

[J.H.]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

Also, thanks for reiterating your post by copying and pasting it into a rep comment. You really got your point across.

Being you're the type that can't put 2 and 2 together, I thought I'd better make it super clear.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by J.H.

Being you're the type that can't put 2 and 2 together, I thought I'd better make it super clear.

You're a fucking mess, pull yourself together.

[J.H.]

I'll go through it again but slower this time, for your benefit.

Originally Posted by Milton Friedman

Enactment of Medicare and Medicaid provided a direct subsidy for medical care. The cost grew much more rapidly than originally estimated—as the cost of any handout invariably does. Legislation cannot repeal the nonlegislated law of demand and supply: the lower the price, the greater the quantity demanded; at a zero price, the quantity demanded becomes infinite. Some method of rationing must be substituted for price, which invariably means administrative rationing.

A look at the data is instructive. The effect of tax exemption and the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid on rising medical costs from 1946 to now is clear. According to my estimates, the two together accounted for nearly 60 percent of the total increase in cost. Tax exemption alone accounted for one-third of the increase in cost; Medicare and Medicaid, one-quarter.

Now consider a different breakdown of the cost of medical care: between the part paid directly by the government and the part paid privately. Government’s share went from an eighth of the total in 1919 to a quarter in 1965 to nearly half in 1997. The rise in the government’s share has been accompanied by centralization of spending—away from state and local governments to the federal government. We are headed toward completely socialized medicine and are already halfway there, if, in addition to direct costs, we ******* indirect tax subsidies.

In other words, partly-socialized medicine results in rapidly rising prices which results in totally socialized medicine. Factually, the impetus for universal health care is subsidized medicine. (Seems like a well-balanced approach!) This must lead to rationing. Combine that with these statements from the White House Health-care Adviser:

Originally Posted by White House Health-care Adviser

Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."

and, again:

Originally Posted by White House Health-care Adviser

"Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)

Now, coherently if possible, what conclusions do you draw from these? Why are my conclusions invalid? Additionally, why should a non-pareto efficient solution be accepted in health care (the last place where it should occur, due the importance of health care on our lives)?

[Future Boy]

So, odds Obama sells us out, again, and signals the Blue dogs have won tonight? I say 75%. The only thing that can save the public option now is a veto threat, and I dont see it coming. The same mealy mouthed "I support it, but it doesnt have to be included" bullshit. Make it 85%, I'd love to be surprised though.

[Order 66]

no, to my understanding whole point of tonight is to put an end to all that - whether there is or isn't a public option or a trigger, he'll lay out what will be done.

my theory is that he planned to cram a public option through this whole time. he was just putting up a front.

[Order 66]

and there's still life in the public option. there's the trigger (which is kinda sorta a bad idea because it stretches this shit out longer) and there's reconciliation

[Future Boy]

Trigger is garbage. Thats officially worse than no plan at all. I dont see how we could have a truly meaningful trigger, but no watered down public option. Trigger is designed to give cover to Libs for abandoning the PO, not blue dogs for being against it. So we have nothing starting til '13, and then 5-10yrs after that maybe a trigger goes into effect. ugh

Originally Posted by Order 66

my theory is that he planned to cram a public option through this whole time. he was just putting up a front.

This is funny. What I enjoy most about all these "What Obama really wants/is doing" is how in order for it to make sense he'd have to be a political idiot or dangerously naive/stupid. For example here, if he "planned" to cram a public option through, secretly obviously, he is too stupid to realize how signaling to the bluedogs that hes willing to drop it fucks that all up.

Like I said, funny stuff.

[Ugly]

Originally Posted by J.H.

Well, if we have universal health care we're going to have to deny treatment to someone. That's a basic fact. So let's refuse treatment for elderly people with dementia or Alzheimer's as well as retards and the handicapped. That's a much more humane solution. (Handicapped people are like fish, they don't have feelings ...)

Interesting logical leap there. Is any of that based in that thing we call reality?

[beef curtains]

Originally Posted by Ugly

Interesting logical leap there. Is any of that based in that thing we call reality?

Republicans can see into the future!!! They know exactly who will get coverage, and they know exactly how it will affect the private insurance industry.

If only Democrats had crystal balls too

[Eulogy]

Don't you guys ever wonder why there are no old people in France?

[Eulogy]

why is there always so much goddamn applause at these things

[Eulogy]

this one seems better than the last one so far

[Future Boy]

Yeah. That was a good explanation of the need for the public option. Couldve done without diminishing its importance. Like that hes addressing seniors fears. If this had been the last speech he might not have had to give this one.

Whats that paper those guys are waving around, I missed the start of this thing.

[Future Boy]

Biden looks like he needs a nap.

[Fattening Ass]

+1

[Fattening Ass]

+1 for obama using ted kennedy

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

Yeah. That was a good explanation of the need for the public option. Couldve done without diminishing its importance. Like that hes addressing seniors fears. If this had been the last speech he might not have had to give this one.

Whats that paper those guys are waving around, I missed the start of this thing.

i agree with you, but i was scared he wouldn't mention it at all.

and i have no idea what they're waving around.