|
DesideriScuri -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/6/2012 12:34:33 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:
I happen to believe the Citizens of the US will be better taken care of by a less corrupt government. How you expect a corrupt government to take care of the Citizens and then be less corrupt, I don't know.
Its called priorities. People take precedence over trying to change a policy and waiting for that change to happen. We have waited long enough. Something has to give.
And by giving in to more corrupted government power, we become even less likely to be able to root out the corruption in the future.
quote:
quote:
Not the point at all, tazzy. If I'm required to have a specific coverage level at a minimum, I'm not really in control of my insurance needs, now am I? And, you know I'm right, without even having to read 2700 pages.
The only way you get the exact level you want now is to buy your own policy. And, if you have your own policy, the health care law doesnt affect you at all. So, no, you arent right.
Except there are minimums I have to have. And that means...I don't get to choose to pay for just what I want.
quote:
quote:
As long as it takes. It will take longer if we let it go longer. It has been said that the best time to plant an oak tree is 20 years ago; the second best time is right now.
Want in one hand, shit in the other. Which gets full first?
Depends on what you ate the previous couple days.
quote:
quote:
The suffering will never end if we don't have an honest government.
So lets just allow people to suffer completely until you get the form of government you believe we should have. Not my style, so, no, I dont agree.
Who is suffering completely?
quote:
quote:
And I don't think you should have to pay an increased premium based on covering prostate cancer.
And women during their child bearing years pay a higher premium.
Why shouldn't they (or whoever is paying for their coverage)? Before you start blasting away, guys should also have a higher premium unless they take the steps to prevent their being able to impregnate a woman.
quote:
quote:
No one is telling me what is in it. No one. You won't even answer as to whether or not you're assuming PPACA will reduce costs. How great can it be if you won't even claim that assumption?
ROFL
So either you are lying, or you are talking out yoru ass. Which is it? Because you are so damn sure you know what you are talking about.
If I'm being told what's in it by those in power, how is it I know nothing of the "virtues" of PPACA? And, once again, you have not committed to claim that you assume PPACA will reduce costs, or not.
quote:
quote:
Payouts have dropped because they are shifting costs onto the patient. The payouts have not dropped because care costs have lowered. At least try to keep up.
No shit. Payouts, that which is paid out to health care for policy holders have been dropping, meaning insurance companies are keeping more money and offering less.
Do try and think.
First of all, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about half the time. I make the claim that when the cost of care drops, insurance premiums will drop because the payouts will drop. You continued to argue that I was wrong because there was no way insurance companies were going to drop premiums, and even if they did, there was no way that care costs would decline. While your statement was dead on accurate, that wasn't what I was saying. In yet another attempt to clearly show you wtf I'm saying - because you apparently can't follow basic logic - I tell you that when insurance company payouts drop, premiums will drop. You, taking each sentence as an entire argument unto itself, "inform" me that payouts are dropping and premiums are rising. Then, when I show you how your "decreased payouts" differed from my "decreased payouts" you respond, "No shit." You next sentence re-stated your rebuttal to my statement (even though it didn't rebut my actual statement), showing me that you are incapable of following along.
Then, you have the nads to patronize me? Holy shit are you one piece of work. I'm not talking about a Renoir or other masterpiece, either.
quote:
I will try one more time to explain it to you.
This oughta be good. I hope you get a clue soon.
quote:
Once upon a time, people were showing up at ER's across this great land with critical emergencies. IF they showed up at a small hospital, or a private one, they were immediately sent to a community/county hospital or huge medical center. If you were not white and able to pay, or had insurance, you were shipped off.
As a result, this created the patient dumping law. Preventing hospitals of any kind with an ER from transferring unstable patients anywhere as they had in the past.
That has caused a rise in health care costs across this country. The fines each hospital has to pay, the lawsuits they have to defend and eventually pay out, all that is transferred onto the patients who can pay.
Did the cost of care rise because the patients who were no longer legally allowed to be turned away were black? Asian? Latino? Uneducated? Or, could it have possibly been that the only reasons costs were shifted was because these patients were not able to pay (through insurance or otherwise)? A black person that isn't capable of paying for care or doesn't have insurance simply because he or she is black. A person who didn't graduate HS isn't incapable of paying for care (thru direct payment or insurance) because they are uneducated. These things have nothing to do with the cost of care rising. The cost of care rose from that law because hospitals had to treat emergency cases regardless of their ability to pay. If a black man went to the ER and was able to pay (regardless of mode), that would not make costs rise.
Did you get that this time?
quote:
quote:
Does a physical therapist know all the details about the law? No. The physical therapist will know most of the details, if not all the details, of the law that pertain to physical therapy. Does the Hospital Law Director know the ins and outs of kinesiology and the various therapy regimens? Didn't think so.
I know some pretty savvy PT's who are up to date on the basics of most laws that may affect them. Since many do train in hospitals where they may be required to treat someone who has no insurance, this law is a biggie. Saying you dont know is sort of funny.
The bolded statement also implies that you know other PT's who aren't up to date on the basics of most laws that affect them. And, here is the key. You restated my claim, italicized above.
quote:
quote:
Like I said, tazzy, if a no-raw-milk State has one outbreak and a raw-milk State has two, there's your twice as many outbreaks. What are the whole numbers? Hiding behind stats is ridiculous. At least be honest and discuss using valid numbers. How many people die from smoking and/or smoking-caused diseases? And, yet, smoking isn't illegal. Cigarette sales qualify as interstate commerce and yet, it isn't banned.
Not hiding behind stats. What happens if it becomes perfectly legal everywhere? Corporations get involved. The cleanliness level goes to pot.
How does milk get contaminated?
Milk contamination may occur from:
Cow feces coming into direct contact with the milk
Infection of the cow's udder (mastitis)
Cow diseases (e.g., bovine tuberculosis)
Bacteria that live on the skin of cows
Environment (e.g., feces, dirt, processing equipment)
Insects, rodents, and other animal vectors
Humans, for example, by cross-contamination from soiled clothing and boots
Among dairy product-associated outbreaks reported to CDC between 1973 and 2009 in which the investigators reported whether the product was pasteurized or raw, 82% were due to raw milk or cheese. From 1998 through 2009, 93 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC. These resulted in 1,837 illnesses, 195 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths. Most of these illnesses were caused by Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, or Salmonella. It is important to note that a substantial proportion of the raw milk-associated disease burden falls on children; among the 93 raw dairy product outbreaks from 1998 to 2009, 79% involved at least one person younger than 20 years old.
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/RawMilk/
Yay! Real numbers!! 93 outbreaks. 1,837 illnesses. 195 hospitalizations. 2 deaths. In 11 years.
How many non-raw milk outbreaks were there in that 11 year time period? That number seems to be missing. It's nice to know that 82% of all outbreaks were due to raw milk from '73 to '09, leaving out the first 25 years in the next set of numbers means you don't know how that 82% relates to those specific 11 years.
quote:
February 16, 2012|By JENNIFER FITCH |
CHAMBERSBURG, Pa. — The number of people sickened by raw milk linked to a Franklin County farm has climbed to 77, possibly making it the largest outbreak in Pennsylvania history.
Pennsylvania Department of Health officials said Thursday that the total number of cases continued to increase. The department has identified 67 cases in Pennsylvania, five in Maryland, two in New Jersey and three in West Virginia.
http://articles.herald-mail.com/2012-02-16/news/31069674_1_raw-milk-unpasteurized-milk-farm-store
77 people sickened from one outbreak, and that was the worst outbreak in PA history?
quote:
And thats a small farm. Let it go corporate and watch the complications skyrocket.
Proof?
quote:
quote:
Delivery System Reform: Doesn't cut the cost of care. Each procedure will still carry a high cost.
That should have been..
Works to eliminate unnecessary tests and procedures by providing delivery
system reform. The law creates incentives for doctors and hospitals to provide
efficient, high-quality care, by moving to payment systems that reward the value
of care, rather than the volume of care
Something we should have had all along.
And yet, this isn't going to drop the cost of the individual services at all. Aggregate, absolutely. Each service? Not at all.
quote:
quote:
Creates incentives to reduce preventable hospital re-admissions: Doesn't cut the cost of care. Makes a hospital less profitable.
Creates incentives to reduce preventable hospital re-admissions. The law limits the payments hospitals can get from Medicare or Medicaid if a patient is readmitted to the hospital for what is considered a preventable reason.
I could care less if the hospital is profitable. And that is part of what is wrong with the system. The situation which reduces readmissions would cut care costs across the board. And, hospitals would clamp down on slack doctors and shoddy work when it starts hitting their wallets.
All it does it reduce the number of services provided. It still doesn't cut down on the cost of the individual service.
quote:
quote:
Cracks down on waste, fraud and abuse: this doesn't make the cost of care less expensive.
Cracks down on waste, fraud and abuse. The law provides a number of new
tools for cracking down on waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, including a
new screening process for providers in Medicare and Medicaid, new compliance
requirements, and enhanced criminal penalties.
Again, I disagree. and I cannot think of anyone who would believe that preventing fraud would not reduce health care costs.
How will reducing fraud reduce the cost of each individual service? A health care service isn't too expensive because there is too much fraud inherent in the system. A health care service is too expensive because that individual service costs too much. Are you going to actually try to tell me that if we reduce the fraud in the Medicare system that the cost of an X-ray is going to be less?
quote:
quote:
How is it you can't see how 3 of those 4 things won't actually address the cost of care? They (hopefully) will address the aggregate cost of care, but each procedure isn't going to see a price drop. Everything is still going to be too expensive for people to buy without insurance.
Its easy to see how you dont see all 4 will. Its because you do not know the medical system at all.
It's damn easy to see you have no fucking clue what I'm saying and can't make a coherent statement that actually responds to my claims.
quote:
quote:
The Health Exchanges and the Co-Op programs (which may or may not be created) are the only ways that the actual cost of service might decline. Sure, the cost of care to a business might drop, but do you think that those without insurance now aren't buying it because businesses have to pay for inefficiencies? No. That's not their issue. Their issue is that their costs when they walk in are too high. Anything that isn't reducing costs for the individual paying for care isn't really cost reduction making health care more affordable for the Citizen.
quote:
Doesn't address the high cost of individual services.
quote:
And still nothing on cutting the cost of individual services.
Each one of those will cut the cost of providing health care. Its not me who doesnt have a valid argument. Its you who have no clue about how the medical system works.
Good God you have no idea what we've been discussing.
Look. I am going to break this down for you. Please at least try to follow.
There are only two ways to lower aggregate health care costs. Two ways only.
[1] Reduce the number of services paid for
- Reduce the number of services covered (pay for only partial knee replacements instead of full knee replacements)
- Put a limit on the number of times each service will be paid for (only pay for 8 knee surgeries total/year)
[2] Reduce the Cost of each service
- Cut reimbursement rates
- Cap the Cost of each individual service
- Lower the underlying causative factors in the raising costs
That's for aggregate cost reduction. This is what you've been talking about. This is not what I've been talking about. What I have been talking about is cost reduction to each individual. Do you think reducing the aggregate costs of health care makes health care more affordable for the individual? No, they do not. The only thing that really reduces costs for the individual, is the reduction in the cost of each service through either price controls or actually changing the underlying factors that cause the price increases. I am absolutely against price controls, so IMO, the only way you make health care affordable to the individual is by taking care of the underlying factors.
Best of luck to you, tazzy.
|
|
|
|
