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

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

and my point is that the government intervenes in the hunger issue to prevent hunger, and the health care issue to prevent denial of emergency health service.

Apples and oranges. jczeroman's grocery store analogy was on point, and the "food stamps" counter doesn't undermine it. There is a difference between the government helping individuals to be able to obtain a necessary service or product, and forcing private entities to provide said product or service without guarantee of payment. You wouldn't require a McDonald's to provide a starving man a hamburger even if he did say that he would gladly pay for it on Tuesday, so I'm not sure exactly why the same principle does not apply to emergency rooms. Nobody's going to complain about the result, but you have to admit it's inconsistent.

the health care bill will actually lessen the burden on ERs encountering uninsured individuals, so you should be super happy they will less often be faced with this great libertarian moral dilemma.

Gee whiz, it only took the government 25 years to (kinda) fund the mandate it forced on hospitals with EMTALA. Aren't they great?

Don't get me wrong. I like that hospitals aren't allowed to let people die in their parking lots, but let's not pretend that 25 years of forcing ERs to take in and eat the cost of every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a bad head cold and no insurance has been all good. How many areas, particularly rural and small towns, are now underserved because the local emergency clinic or the only ER in a 50 mile radius has shut down? Did that really maximize the number of people treated who needed it and the quality of their care? I think it's doubtful. I'm not sure the treatment wasn't worse than the disease here...but that's to be expected with government, isn't it?

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Corganist

but let's not pretend that 25 years of forcing ERs to take in and eat the cost of every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a bad head cold and no insurance has been all good.

You just made the case why every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a bad head cold should be mandated to have health insurance.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Debaser

You just made the case why every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a bad head cold should be mandated to have health insurance.

Why don't we just mandate them to go the regular doctor's office and leave the ER for the real emergencies? There has got to be a lot of more specific solutions to the problem than "insurance for all!"

[Future Boy]

If that bastard Clinton had just passed the Repubs plan in '94 we'd have single payer by now. Cause the hardest part is getting the foot in the door and establishing everyones right to buy insurance. Way to go asshole.

[Order 66]

don't you just get some marginal income tax increase if you don't have insurance? Its intellectually dishonest to make it out like they're FORCING U 2 BUY FROM A PRIVATE ENTITY OMG and just leave it at that

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Why don't we just mandate them to go the regular doctor's office and leave the ER for the real emergencies? There has got to be a lot of more specific solutions to the problem than "insurance for all!"

People without insurance simply don't go to the regular doctor's office because they are scared of the cost, thus minor things fester into major things until they finally can't ignore it anymore and go to the ER. There have been studies about this.

What more specific solution is better than just making sure everybody is covered, which both helps the unpaid ER visits and also encourages regular doctor visits as well? Seems like a logical, elegant solution.

[ryan patrick]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Apples and oranges. jczeroman's grocery store analogy was on point, and the "food stamps" counter doesn't undermine it. There is a difference between the government helping individuals to be able to obtain a necessary service or product, and forcing private entities to provide said product or service without guarantee of payment.

i was arguing a kind of tangential point, that government food stamp service obviates the need for grocery stores to just give people food, and an equivalent system is not in place for emergency health services. a single payer system would eliminate the need for a mandate to provide care, which seems like a more reasonable thing to agitate for than overturning the mandate.

however i think his analogy demonstrates a shortcoming of libertarian thought. all service providers are NOT the same. saying a hospital is like a grocery is just silly.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Debaser

People without insurance simply don't go to the regular doctor's office because they are scared of the cost, thus minor things fester into major things until they finally can't ignore it anymore and go to the ER. There have been studies about this.

But the ER costs more than a regular doctor's visit. Substantially more. So if fear of cost is really the culprit, it would appear that people are in desperate need of education on it, whether it be merely informing them that doctor visits aren't as expensive as they think (perhaps by requiring providers to be more upfront about the cost of a visit, letting the consumers know the prices so they can shop around based on them), or even just educating them on what kind of conditions need medical attention and won't get better on their own before they "fester."

Regardless, the fact remains that estimates are that up to half of all ER visits are completely unnecessary. Granted, a lot of that could be people with insurance who just can't be bothered to schedule a doctor's appointment...but you have to believe that uninsured people make up a big part of that as well. I just don't think you can bank on the idea that all or even most uninsured people who wander into an ER really need emergency care.

What more specific solution is better than just making sure everybody is covered, which both helps the unpaid ER visits and also encourages regular doctor visits as well? Seems like a logical, elegant solution.

I think one solution is to make it even more cost-prohibitive to go to the ER. By that, I don't mean raise costs so much as I mean give the hospitals more power to pursue people who skip out on the bill or waste their time with non-emergency care (even if, hell, maybe especially if, they have insurance). Let them tighten up just what it means to have an emergency (broken limbs, active labor, spurting blood...yes. feeling a little fluish on the weekend and don't want to wait or take a sick day during the week to see a doctor...no.) and then strictly hold to it. You don't have a real emergency, not only do you not get care, but you get charged substantially (i.e., more than a regular doctor visit) for the time it took to determine you didn't have an emergency. And make said charges subject to tax liens and non-dischargable in bankruptcy while you're at it (the providers really got nothing out having EMTALA forced on them, little things like this would have made it a lot more palatable I think). Suddenly, that doctor visit seems like a much better idea. Of course, if you do have an actual emergency, none of this applies.

Now all that may sound harsh, but I would think it'd accomplish a lot of the same goals as the coverage mandate and would even have added benefits. If people are discouraged from going to the ER with the sniffles or a skinned knee or other minor things in no danger of "festering" into something worse, that means ERs are less crowded from dealing with non-emergency cases, and thus run more smoothly...which should translate into lower costs for the people who do use it. Similarly, more people go to the doctor to avoid the ER, and thus the docs get more paying business (people will stiff a hospital, but they generally won't stiff their doctor unless they can't help it), which should translate into less cost there too. So not only are the problems of unpaid ER visits and encouraging regular doctor visits at least mitigated substantially, but there would be cost reduction and efficiency increases...whereas the individual coverage mandate really just reinforces the same behaviors that caused a lot of the inefficiency and cost raises in the first place. More people with insurance does not necessarily mean that more people will go to the doctor before the ER. It just means that when they do go to the ER for whatever reason, the ER gets paid.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

i was arguing a kind of tangential point, that government food stamp service obviates the need for grocery stores to just give people food, and an equivalent system is not in place for emergency health services. a single payer system would eliminate the need for a mandate to provide care, which seems like a more reasonable thing to agitate for than overturning the mandate.

I'm reminded of the old adage "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Universal coverage and/or single payer healthcare are really sweeping and huge solutions to what are fairly small and particular problems in comparison. If you want some kind of health care equivalent of food stamps for the uninsured to pay for emergency care, that's one thing. Then the comparison would hold to some degree. But enacting single payer or universal coverage is like dropping an atom bomb on a neighborhood just to kill the mosquitoes. Sure, it'll do what you want, but there'll be a lot of collateral damage.

[redbreegull]

I would like to inform you all that you can now buy a shirt from barackobama.com which reads "Health Reform is a BFD"

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

and my point is that the government intervenes in the hunger issue to prevent hunger, and the health care issue to prevent denial of emergency health service. the health care bill will actually lessen the burden on ERs encountering uninsured individuals, so you should be super happy they will less often be faced with this great libertarian moral dilemma.

actually I'm pretty sure your model is still that poor people should just die though.

Annoying. You are still acting under the premise that freedom to deny means total denial - which is absolutely ludicrous. It doesn't happen for any other good or service.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Annoying. You are still acting under the premise that freedom to deny means total denial - which is absolutely ludicrous. It doesn't happen for any other good or service.

In what other service or good providing system are entities presented with the choice of losing a ton of money by providing their service like in this situation? and in what other service industry can a denial of care (even just denial of care to some!) result in death?

the problem with conservatism/libertarianism that i see in this debate is that practicality is given no priority. the world apparently exists in a realm where all that matters is principle.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I would like to inform you all that you can now buy a shirt from barackobama.com which reads "Health Reform is a BFD"

that's a bit childish and a bad political move

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

But enacting single payer or universal coverage is like dropping an atom bomb on a neighborhood just to kill the mosquitoes. Sure, it'll do what you want, but there'll be a lot of collateral damage.

lay that out for us. everyone always says this but i'm curious as to what Armageddon-bringing disasters would actually happen.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

In what other service or good providing system are entities presented with the choice of losing a ton of money by providing their service like in this situation? and in what other service industry can a denial of care (even just denial of care to some!) result in death?

Food, water, housing, clothing...

And you are confusing "health insurance" with "all medical treatment options." It's an obscenely narrow dichotomy.

Originally Posted by Eulogy

the problem with conservatism/libertarianism that i see in this debate is that practicality is given no priority. the world apparently exists in a realm where all that matters is principle.

I can't speak for anyone else. But what matters to me is that as many people as possible have the highest quality care as possible. This bill does not move us towards that. A single-payer system, definitely does not move us towards that.

[Order 66]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

lay that out for us. everyone always says this but i'm curious as to what Armageddon-bringing disasters would actually happen.

Dude. Imagine waking up one morning but instead of the US you found yourself in France. FRANCE. we could very well find ourselves in that kind of dystopia

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

that's a bit childish and a bad political move

who gives a shit, it's fucking apparel.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

who gives a shit, it's fucking apparel.

how many did you order

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Order 66

don't you just get some marginal income tax increase if you don't have insurance? Its intellectually dishonest to make it out like they're FORCING U 2 BUY FROM A PRIVATE ENTITY OMG and just leave it at that

I think you mean a fairly significant fine, not a tax increase. Of course it's a fine meted out by the IRS which is now growing by 30% in order to handle all of this new business

[jumanji]

HEALTH PACK REFORM DIVIDES NATION

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

the White House never fought for the public option. never.

Transcript: President Barack Obama, Part 1 - 60 Minutes - CBS News

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, partly because I couldn't get the kind of cooperation from Republicans that I had hoped for. We thought that if we shaped a bill that wasn't that different from bills that had previously been introduced by Republicans -- including a Republican governor in Massachusetts who's now running for President -- that, you know, we would be able to find some common ground there. And we just couldn't.

--
This clear enough yet?

[Trotskilicious]

UNITYPONY!

[Order 66]

so basically he didn't want to waste time on a bill that'd be DOA

[Future Boy]

...and using reconciliation to pass anything was impossible and would make things worse. Remember that one?

btw, two points:

1 - that excuse works if he tried and gave up. He didnt seriously try at all.

2 - admitting that he sold it out, which has been reported clearly by now, would not diminish the accomplishment. To somehow try and give him props for it, "oh he dodged that bullet, what a guy!" thats some high grade fanboyism right there.

Maybe you're right though. I mean, who would want to waste time fighting for the best possible bill? Lets just cave from the start and give the Republicans something to vote for. We wouldn't want things to drag out for months and ultimately have to pass things down party lines. Why not, it had already worked perfectly on the stimulus.

Yeah, that makes a whole lot more sense.

[EyesOfAJackal]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

Transcript: President Barack Obama, Part 1 - 60 Minutes - CBS News

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, partly because I couldn't get the kind of cooperation from Republicans that I had hoped for. We thought that if we shaped a bill that wasn't that different from bills that had previously been introduced by Republicans -- including a Republican governor in Massachusetts who's now running for President -- that, you know, we would be able to find some common ground there. And we just couldn't.

--
This clear enough yet?

Originally Posted by Order 66

so basically he didn't want to waste time on a bill that'd be DOA

The White House didn't publicly fight PERIOD at first because it was hoping there would be some idealistic, pleasant exchange of ideas in Congress, but without more forceful leadership it floundered after a while.

It didn't fight specifically for the public option for one simple reason- Lieberman, the last vote they needed, refused to vote for a public option (even though he had entertained the idea in the past). Perhaps the Republican thing he said is true too, but I know from a practical standpoint, it wouldn't have moved forward in the Senate without Lieberman. And there were a lot of liberals really pissed about it. Kucinich almost stopped supporting the bill because he thought it didn't go far enough anymore, but Rahm strong-armed him back on board

[Future Boy]

"The goal of the Obama White House is to come up with a health-care plan that can attract bipartisan support. The president has told visitors that he would rather have 70 votes in the Senate for a bill that gives him 85 percent of what he wants rather than a 100 percent satisfactory bill that passes 52 to 48. "

That was in June. You'd think Obama wouldve done Pelosi and Reid a favor, phoned them up and said, "You know guys, this just aint going to happen, lets save some time and have a cookout instead."

[Nimrod's Son]

How about the fact that the bill which was supposed to reduce spending is instead now practically unilaterally guaranteed to drastically increase government spending?

[Trotskilicious]

i dunno is any of it even in effect before 2050

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

How about the fact that the bill which was supposed to reduce spending

incorrect, the bill is suppose to be debt neutral, with potential to slightly reduce debt over a period of 10 years

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

is instead now practically unilaterally guaranteed to drastically increase government spending?

Since your premise is wrong, your counter is nonsensical. But to give you the benefit of the doubt and change spending to debt, then you need to give substantial credit to the republicans for their main goal in repealing health care is to first unravel all the cost savings in the bill (i.e., repeal medicare cuts and mandates) to guarantee that it explodes the debt.

[Future Boy]

sneaky devils