RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law?

RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/7/2012 1:58:38 PM)
quote: o, if insurance paid for everyone (including those who currently don't pay), how would that reduce aggregate costs? Indirectly. It spreads that aggregate cost over a larger pool, and encourages preventative care, lowering expensive crisis care costs, and hence, lower aggregate costs.

tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/7/2012 2:14:23 PM)
quote: What difference does it make if the value of B is added into the value of A when the insurance company is going to be paying it out anyway? Because it spreads the cost out among those extra who will be paying into the system. But you are looking at this from just one dimension. You also have to look at what will happen when people are insured and their care becomes affordable. I do not think a source is required to assume that people with affordable insurance are much more likely to seek out medical treatments, and earlier, than those with no insurance. This, in itself, is a cost saving measure in numerous ways. Do I need to point out how?

SoftBonds -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/7/2012 6:13:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: [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 Oh bullshit. Which definitely shows you have no clue about the system or why its costing so much. $700 billion -- What we waste on health care every year Here's the math: Our current healthcare spending is approximately $2.1 trillion (that's up from $1.3 trillion noninflation adjusted in 2000). We waste an estimated one-third – or about $700 billion – on unnecessary procedures, unnecessary visits to the doctor, overpriced pharmaceuticals, bloated insurance companies, and the most inefficient paper billing systems imaginable. One of the links I gave you was related to the computerizing of medical files. Imagine just how much that will cut in repetitive testing, which wastes money. Your theories are based upon a business model of how to cut costs for most businesses. That doesnt work in health care. How will computerized medical files lower the cost of each individual service? Tell me that. Tell me how reducing aggregate costs will result in reducing the cost of each service individually. OK DS, (and other conservatives), I know you probably don't have an accounting degree like I do, and that cost accounting is a difficult concept even for the professionals, but as a tutor I will take a shot at it. Lets start with direct costs and indirect costs. If I want to make a car, I will need a certain number of production workers, a set amount of steel, rubber, plastic. Probably major portions of that can be purchased pre-molded and formed as parts from other companies, etc. These are "direct costs." I also will need an insurance policy for my PPE, personnel, etc. I will need to pay for managers, I will need to pay for advertising, marketing. I will probably have start up costs creating a dealer network. All of these costs (and many others) are related to the costs of making a car, but it is hard for me to show that "have you driven a ford lately," sold a certain number of Tauruses or what portion of Lee Iacocca's salary should be charged to each Plymouth Reliant sold. What do we accountants do with these costs? We lump them together and call them "indirect costs," and then charge them to all products using one of a large set of arcane formulas. Now, any time you sell on credit (or provide medical care to the uninsured poor), you run the risk of not being paid. This isn't a problem for most businesses, as there is a pretty reliable percentage that varies from business to business of bad debts. Clearly, if we knew which customers wouldn't pay, we wouldn't loan to them, but at least since we know about how much, we can just charge everyone more to cover the deadbeats. If I am raising prices 10% because I have a 10% deadbeat rate, and I find a way to cut my rate to 5% (and all my competitors will use the same method), guess what will happen to my prices? So yes, if everyone is insured, hospitals will lower the price per procedure-they will no longer charge me more to pay for the guy who can't pay. But lets go back to those indirect costs. You see, I used to be a billing clerk at a hospital. Then I got promoted to a financial analyst (which was a fancy name for assistant to one of the finance managers). What did I do for him? Well, among other things, I helped format and correct the giant excel spreadsheet of doom we used for the budget. I got to see what we paid for doctors, nurses, and janitors. I also got to see what we paid for billing clerks. It was startling (though maybe it shouldn't have been, given the size of the offices and the number of people in the cubicles). Now clearly, a billing clerk is not putting any hours into an X-ray, or a delivery, or a shot of chemotherapy drugs, or any other medical procedure, but they still get paid somehow... Can you guess how? Yep, billing clerks are indirect costs, a huge portion of them in a hospital or doctor's office. So if you think that cutting that indirect cost won't cut the cost of the underlying service, I can understand that, you don't have an accounting degree. But you see, I do, so I do know it will cut the cost.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/8/2012 7:30:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: What difference does it make if the value of B is added into the value of A when the insurance company is going to be paying it out anyway? Because it spreads the cost out among those extra who will be paying into the system. But you are looking at this from just one dimension. You also have to look at what will happen when people are insured and their care becomes affordable. I do not think a source is required to assume that people with affordable insurance are much more likely to seek out medical treatments, and earlier, than those with no insurance. This, in itself, is a cost saving measure in numerous ways. Do I need to point out how? The cost of care isn't becoming more affordable. This is exactly what I'm trying to show you. The cost of care isn't going to change for the individual. The costs are simply being shifted onto others. That's it. That's all Obamacare actually does. What needs to happen is the cost of individual services needs to go down so that people can afford to pay for the services themselves. Return insurance to what insurance is really supposed to be for, protection against catastrophic loss. Forcing insurance onto the backs of everyone (or those who "can afford" to pay) plays right into the insurance game. We've already agreed that the insurance companies are a big part of the rampant medical costs, and that another huge reason is that the politicians and insurance companies are bff's. Obamacare doesn't change that. Obamacare actually forces more people onto the insurance con and continues it ad infinitum. That isn't going to work.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/8/2012 7:36:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds OK DS, (and other conservatives), I know you probably don't have an accounting degree like I do, and that cost accounting is a difficult concept even for the professionals, but as a tutor I will take a shot at it. Lets start with direct costs and indirect costs. If I want to make a car, I will need a certain number of production workers, a set amount of steel, rubber, plastic. Probably major portions of that can be purchased pre-molded and formed as parts from other companies, etc. These are "direct costs." I also will need an insurance policy for my PPE, personnel, etc. I will need to pay for managers, I will need to pay for advertising, marketing. I will probably have start up costs creating a dealer network. All of these costs (and many others) are related to the costs of making a car, but it is hard for me to show that "have you driven a ford lately," sold a certain number of Tauruses or what portion of Lee Iacocca's salary should be charged to each Plymouth Reliant sold. What do we accountants do with these costs? We lump them together and call them "indirect costs," and then charge them to all products using one of a large set of arcane formulas. Now, any time you sell on credit (or provide medical care to the uninsured poor), you run the risk of not being paid. This isn't a problem for most businesses, as there is a pretty reliable percentage that varies from business to business of bad debts. Clearly, if we knew which customers wouldn't pay, we wouldn't loan to them, but at least since we know about how much, we can just charge everyone more to cover the deadbeats. If I am raising prices 10% because I have a 10% deadbeat rate, and I find a way to cut my rate to 5% (and all my competitors will use the same method), guess what will happen to my prices? So yes, if everyone is insured, hospitals will lower the price per procedure-they will no longer charge me more to pay for the guy who can't pay. But lets go back to those indirect costs. You see, I used to be a billing clerk at a hospital. Then I got promoted to a financial analyst (which was a fancy name for assistant to one of the finance managers). What did I do for him? Well, among other things, I helped format and correct the giant excel spreadsheet of doom we used for the budget. I got to see what we paid for doctors, nurses, and janitors. I also got to see what we paid for billing clerks. It was startling (though maybe it shouldn't have been, given the size of the offices and the number of people in the cubicles). Now clearly, a billing clerk is not putting any hours into an X-ray, or a delivery, or a shot of chemotherapy drugs, or any other medical procedure, but they still get paid somehow... Can you guess how? Yep, billing clerks are indirect costs, a huge portion of them in a hospital or doctor's office. So if you think that cutting that indirect cost won't cut the cost of the underlying service, I can understand that, you don't have an accounting degree. But you see, I do, so I do know it will cut the cost. Thanks for the patronizing, but you didn't actually show how digital medical records will help. Unless you simply forgot (not intended to be snarky, on this statement) to say that electronic medical records would reduce the number of billing clerks, you haven't shown how e-records will help. What will be the indirect cost of not being able to write off massive amounts of "bad debt?" You seem to have forgotten that part.

tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/8/2012 8:44:54 PM)
quote: The cost of care isn't becoming more affordable. This is exactly what I'm trying to show you. The cost of care isn't going to change for the individual. The costs are simply being shifted onto others. That's it. That's all Obamacare actually does. What needs to happen is the cost of individual services needs to go down so that people can afford to pay for the services themselves. Return insurance to what insurance is really supposed to be for, protection against catastrophic loss. Forcing insurance onto the backs of everyone (or those who "can afford" to pay) plays right into the insurance game. We've already agreed that the insurance companies are a big part of the rampant medical costs, and that another huge reason is that the politicians and insurance companies are bff's. Obamacare doesn't change that. Obamacare actually forces more people onto the insurance con and continues it ad infinitum. That isn't going to work. Because the system isnt fully implemented. Did you expect overnight results? Reduce administrative costs, prevent repetitive testing, reduce the levels of illnesses and begin preventative care. All those, and more, will bring down costs. Yes, the individual costs need to go down. Got a solution for that that will make it through Congress? because you can bet your last dollar businesses and insurance companies wont implement that on their own. Does it force more people? Initially yes. Then everyone is covered. Suddenly overbilling/duplicate billing becomes much harder. Insurance companies will not be able to hold on to those silly base line policies that they offer to low income workers which pay out a max benefit of 1000 (as I recall). What you have seen from main stream media is the effects on the public. What you havent seen is the effects on insurance companies, hospitals, billing companies, ect ect ect. This has more effects than you realize. I really wish you would read the law.

SoftBonds -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/8/2012 9:15:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds OK DS, (and other conservatives), I know you probably don't have an accounting degree like I do, and that cost accounting is a difficult concept even for the professionals, but as a tutor I will take a shot at it. Lets start with direct costs and indirect costs. If I want to make a car, I will need a certain number of production workers, a set amount of steel, rubber, plastic. Probably major portions of that can be purchased pre-molded and formed as parts from other companies, etc. These are "direct costs." I also will need an insurance policy for my PPE, personnel, etc. I will need to pay for managers, I will need to pay for advertising, marketing. I will probably have start up costs creating a dealer network. All of these costs (and many others) are related to the costs of making a car, but it is hard for me to show that "have you driven a ford lately," sold a certain number of Tauruses or what portion of Lee Iacocca's salary should be charged to each Plymouth Reliant sold. What do we accountants do with these costs? We lump them together and call them "indirect costs," and then charge them to all products using one of a large set of arcane formulas. Now, any time you sell on credit (or provide medical care to the uninsured poor), you run the risk of not being paid. This isn't a problem for most businesses, as there is a pretty reliable percentage that varies from business to business of bad debts. Clearly, if we knew which customers wouldn't pay, we wouldn't loan to them, but at least since we know about how much, we can just charge everyone more to cover the deadbeats. If I am raising prices 10% because I have a 10% deadbeat rate, and I find a way to cut my rate to 5% (and all my competitors will use the same method), guess what will happen to my prices? So yes, if everyone is insured, hospitals will lower the price per procedure-they will no longer charge me more to pay for the guy who can't pay. But lets go back to those indirect costs. You see, I used to be a billing clerk at a hospital. Then I got promoted to a financial analyst (which was a fancy name for assistant to one of the finance managers). What did I do for him? Well, among other things, I helped format and correct the giant excel spreadsheet of doom we used for the budget. I got to see what we paid for doctors, nurses, and janitors. I also got to see what we paid for billing clerks. It was startling (though maybe it shouldn't have been, given the size of the offices and the number of people in the cubicles). Now clearly, a billing clerk is not putting any hours into an X-ray, or a delivery, or a shot of chemotherapy drugs, or any other medical procedure, but they still get paid somehow... Can you guess how? Yep, billing clerks are indirect costs, a huge portion of them in a hospital or doctor's office. So if you think that cutting that indirect cost won't cut the cost of the underlying service, I can understand that, you don't have an accounting degree. But you see, I do, so I do know it will cut the cost. Thanks for the patronizing, but you didn't actually show how digital medical records will help. Unless you simply forgot (not intended to be snarky, on this statement) to say that electronic medical records would reduce the number of billing clerks, you haven't shown how e-records will help. What will be the indirect cost of not being able to write off massive amounts of "bad debt?" You seem to have forgotten that part. Digital medical records will reduce the time required to transfer records. A common claim form will reduce the number of billing clerks. As for writing off bad debt, losing money to save money on taxes is a loser's game. Now, lets ask another question, how much has the "free market," in health insurance twisted the relationship between cost of services and what hospitals charge for services? There is a reason for a $60 aspirin, and it isn't the aspirin, or even the nurse's time, or even indirect costs. We need to start thinking about "Obamacare strikes back," or something. Some way of tying the charge for medical services to the cost the hospital pays, while making sure that both Medicare and the Health Insurance companies pay that much... Negotiated price breaks are not working for anyone. Frankly, we may need to regulate both Health Insurance and Hospitals the way we regulate Electric Companies and Life Insurance companies... If we can get the charge for services to be a flat percentage over the cost, then what you pay for medical services (before insurance) would reflect the actual costs to the hospital, and we wouldn't have economic spaghetti. Then you might see the costs go down to reasonable. Ever hear of a "confusopoly?" That is a business model based on making the customer unable to choose between options by making everything so complex no one can unravel it. That is also the US health care system. It is going to take several swipes of a comb through the spaghetti to get a system that makes sense, and probably each swipe will repeal big chunks of the previous reform. Ultimately, we will hopefully have either a system like Austria, with private health insurance companies that are regulated to make sure they are actually providing care, or a single payer system, medicare for all, with a private health insurance system for "supplemental care." The latter would let the rich continue to have "the best health care system in the world," while giving the rest of us a much better system, without spending thousands of dollars per person per year on paperwork and bureaucracy...

Musicmystery -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/8/2012 9:59:55 PM)
quote: What needs to happen is the cost of individual services needs to go down so that people can afford to pay for the services themselves. Again, Sparky, what's your plan for that? If wishes were rainbows. Or unicorns.

Musicmystery -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/8/2012 10:02:09 PM)
quote: The costs are simply being shifted onto others. That's it. Actually, spread out. That's what insurance is! But more than that, preventative care helps lower cost but minimizing emergency crisis care and costly emergency room visits. I've heard you like the idea of lowering costs.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 8:20:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Because the system isnt fully implemented. Did you expect overnight results? Reduce administrative costs, prevent repetitive testing, reduce the levels of illnesses and begin preventative care. All those, and more, will bring down costs. I disagree. Aggregate costs will drop, but that won't make anything more affordable for the individual. What it will probably do is make health insurance more affordable, but that is still not addressing the real issue. quote: Yes, the individual costs need to go down. Got a solution for that that will make it through Congress? because you can bet your last dollar businesses and insurance companies wont implement that on their own. Why wouldn't insurance companies want to lower the cost of individual procedures? quote: Does it force more people? Initially yes. Then everyone is covered. Suddenly overbilling/duplicate billing becomes much harder. Insurance companies will not be able to hold on to those silly base line policies that they offer to low income workers which pay out a max benefit of 1000 (as I recall). Isn't the entire insurance game rife with overbilling? How would forcing more people onto insurance rolls lower overbilling? The way I see it, it would be impossible for providers to overbill if no one was on insurance at all. quote: What you have seen from main stream media is the effects on the public. The MSM that is in bed with the Democrats? quote: What you havent seen is the effects on insurance companies, hospitals, billing companies, ect ect ect. This has more effects than you realize. I really wish you would read the law. I know you do. And I know why you do. You know that if I were to undertake that venture, I'd be out of this for long enough period of time that it would be a dead thread. The only reason you see only the good in the law is because you support the law and want government to do more. I understand the end goals. I want everyone to be able to afford health care. I don't want everyone to be able to afford insurance and still have care costs that are outrageous. That is the true problem.

Musicmystery -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 8:56:00 AM)
quote: but that won't make anything more affordable for the individual. What it will probably do is make health insurance more affordable, but that is still not addressing the real issue. And still we wait for your plan, Sparky.

tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 11:19:04 AM)
quote: I disagree. Aggregate costs will drop, but that won't make anything more affordable for the individual. What it will probably do is make health insurance more affordable, but that is still not addressing the real issue. Ah, I see what you are missing. Reducing costs means hospitals will run on a larger margin. Many are still linked to insurance companies. They are about to take a big hit with this law in terms of having to increase service while being limited in what they can charge. Competition, at that point, comes into play. quote: Why wouldn't insurance companies want to lower the cost of individual procedures? No, they are well known for increasing co pays and premiums instead of lowering costs. My insurance just informed me that next month they are reducing the number of prescriptions they will fill to 6 a month. I take 7 pills, then there are my diabetic supplies, strips, syringes, insulin (two types) lancets.... They have started a service to provide for the supplies from in house. However, for medication, I have 9 prescriptions to be filled monthly. Now I have to decide what I can afford to pay for, out of pocket, on 200 a month. Its the same will all services. Charge the same amount, or more, and reduce services while increasing co pays. quote: Isn't the entire insurance game rife with overbilling? How would forcing more people onto insurance rolls lower overbilling? The way I see it, it would be impossible for providers to overbill if no one was on insurance at all. Computerizing everything, as opposed to written submissions, curbs that ability. My Dr now sends prescriptions directly to the pharmacy I use. This will happen with all medical supplies. A friend got a bill from her delivery. They charged her insurance company for 25 pacifiers. The insurance company didnt blink an eye at first, then came back on her to pay the overcharge... one she didnt owe because her newborn was never given a pacifier per her instructions. Overbilling can be a simple clerical error, or massive fraud. Another form is when you have two policies, and both are billed for the same item. One is supposed to be primary, one secondary, but ignoring that at billing time means an overpayment can be possible. quote: The MSM that is in bed with the Democrats? LOL... yeah, you would like to believe they are strictly in bed with the Democrats. How many print papers are in bed with the Republicans? When I say MSM, I mean all media. quote: I know you do. And I know why you do. You know that if I were to undertake that venture, I'd be out of this for long enough period of time that it would be a dead thread. The only reason you see only the good in the law is because you support the law and want government to do more. I understand the end goals. I want everyone to be able to afford health care. I don't want everyone to be able to afford insurance and still have care costs that are outrageous. That is the true problem. And your answer is to wait and let the market do its job. It wont. Ever. Its had decades to clean up its act while poeple get sicker and die from the lack of health care. I understand you wont want to actually have to work to learn what is in this bill. Yet you constantly demanding answers to things the rest of us who have taken the time to read it actually know is rather tedious. I am not here to spoon feed you the law. Do your own homework. Maybe then I can take you more seriously.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 11:56:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I disagree. Aggregate costs will drop, but that won't make anything more affordable for the individual. What it will probably do is make health insurance more affordable, but that is still not addressing the real issue. Ah, I see what you are missing. Reducing costs means hospitals will run on a larger margin. Many are still linked to insurance companies. They are about to take a big hit with this law in terms of having to increase service while being limited in what they can charge. Competition, at that point, comes into play. So, there are price caps? When has that worked? quote: quote: Why wouldn't insurance companies want to lower the cost of individual procedures? No, they are well known for increasing co pays and premiums instead of lowering costs. My insurance just informed me that next month they are reducing the number of prescriptions they will fill to 6 a month. I take 7 pills, then there are my diabetic supplies, strips, syringes, insulin (two types) lancets.... They have started a service to provide for the supplies from in house. However, for medication, I have 9 prescriptions to be filled monthly. Now I have to decide what I can afford to pay for, out of pocket, on 200 a month. Its the same will all services. Charge the same amount, or more, and reduce services while increasing co pays. Holy fuck, you still have no fucking clue what I'm trying to discuss with you. What would the problem be if the cost of a care procedure cost less? How would that not be welcome by an insurance company? The amount they are being billed for is less. They have to pay less out. Their cost of doing business is less. quote: quote: Isn't the entire insurance game rife with overbilling? How would forcing more people onto insurance rolls lower overbilling? The way I see it, it would be impossible for providers to overbill if no one was on insurance at all. Computerizing everything, as opposed to written submissions, curbs that ability. My Dr now sends prescriptions directly to the pharmacy I use. This will happen with all medical supplies. A friend got a bill from her delivery. They charged her insurance company for 25 pacifiers. The insurance company didnt blink an eye at first, then came back on her to pay the overcharge... one she didnt owe because her newborn was never given a pacifier per her instructions. Overbilling can be a simple clerical error, or massive fraud. Another form is when you have two policies, and both are billed for the same item. One is supposed to be primary, one secondary, but ignoring that at billing time means an overpayment can be possible. And, that can't happen with digital records? Seriously? Ask Sony, Mastercard or Visa how sweet it is to have a massive digital database. quote: quote: The MSM that is in bed with the Democrats? LOL... yeah, you would like to believe they are strictly in bed with the Democrats. How many print papers are in bed with the Republicans? When I say MSM, I mean all media. You are wrongly assuming I read the newspaper. When I did, it was quite the liberal rag. quote: quote: I know you do. And I know why you do. You know that if I were to undertake that venture, I'd be out of this for long enough period of time that it would be a dead thread. The only reason you see only the good in the law is because you support the law and want government to do more. I understand the end goals. I want everyone to be able to afford health care. I don't want everyone to be able to afford insurance and still have care costs that are outrageous. That is the true problem. And your answer is to wait and let the market do its job. It wont. Ever. Its had decades to clean up its act while poeple get sicker and die from the lack of health care. The Market has yet to be allowed to work without government meddling. Understand that there are needs for some regulations, but anything beyond that is meddling. Cut out the Government meddling and prices will drop. quote: I understand you wont want to actually have to work to learn what is in this bill. Yet you constantly demanding answers to things the rest of us who have taken the time to read it actually know is rather tedious. I am not here to spoon feed you the law. Do your own homework. Maybe then I can take you more seriously. So, you can't or won't even back up your own allegations. Nice.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 12:01:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: but that won't make anything more affordable for the individual. What it will probably do is make health insurance more affordable, but that is still not addressing the real issue. And still we wait for your plan, Sparky. Remove Government from the equation almost completely. For now, let the Fed's run Medicare and offer insurance to their employees (which includes current and former military). Let companies decide how much coverage they want to offer their employees. Let people shop for coverage. Separate the caregivers from the carepayers (no more insurance companies owning the hospitals, etc.). Allow more accrediting bodies outside the AMA. Reduce the criteria required for being a physician. Cap malpractice awards for typical cases (gross negligence deserves higher payouts than run-of-the-mill fuckups). Over the next 10 years, turn Medicare into a voucher program, allowing seniors to buy their own insurance and choose where their care is given.

Musicmystery -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 12:07:48 PM)
Your first two sentences are contradictory. The next two we have now. Why would this suddenly NOW increase costs? Reducing physician criteria--that's absurd. And not the problem. Your solution for decreasing cost is to decrease the quality of the care. No thanks. I like my doctor to know what he's doing. Swapping out medicare isn't going to reduce costs--medicare costs are already artificially low. I agree with you about malpractice.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 12:14:33 PM)
If we weren't already 15 trillion in debt they could have passed universal health care, although technically, that would have been unconstitutional as well. The reason it's a bad idea for the government to run anything is because once they have control over it, they can charge whatever they want. Why do you think we used to pay $500 for a toilet seat or a hammer. The only reason we still don't is because they got some bad publicity on it. They do this with everything they control.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 12:28:06 PM)
The problems with Obamacare are so numerous, that we have no choice but to repeal it, and start over. I don't think a single democrat even read the entire bill. That's why I support Romney. He realizes it is a bureaucratic nightmare but he also realizes that unless the GOP does something about this problem, democrats will be right back in charge in 4 yrs. The latest idea I've heard from republicans is a community based health care plan where each community raises the sales tax to fund a community health insurance plan or a city income tax is passed where it doesn't matter how much you make, you pay 10%. Unlike federal taxes where there are so many loopholes, 47% of all households don't even pay a dime. This plan models the Japanese plan, in which large employers still provide their employees healthcare insurance, but the people who fall through the cracks are still covered in their community. Bottom line is this. We simply can't afford Obamacare or Universal healthcare unless we find a constitutional way to make everyone pay, and we control costs. Paying for viagra and birth control as paid benefits is not controlling costs. In the old days, if it wasn't medically necessary such as an injury, disease, sickness or car accident, it wasn't covered. Now, they even want to cover Autism. Sorry, but we already have special ed teachers that can be taught these supposedly special techniques to work with autistic kids. We can't afford private schools for them any more than we can afford to pay for charter schools for Christians.

mnottertail -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 12:45:18 PM)
OIh, republicans are gonna tax and spend instead of borrowing and spend? Thats a departure from their historical record.

Moonhead -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 1:00:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Reduce the criteria required for being a physician. Cap malpractice awards for typical cases (gross negligence deserves higher payouts than run-of-the-mill fuckups). Capping malpractice awards will make no difference if you're releasing untrained medical staff into the wild to accumulate as many malpractice suits as they possibly can. (If you want to lose money getting sued, quantity beats quality any day. Just ask Private Eye...)

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 1:22:07 PM)
quote: The greeks have an affordable health care law too? Dont believe so. Which means this thread is about Americans, and all questions are related to Americans and their health care system. I am not aware of any rule of debate that says a thread about Americans cannot point to non-Americans as an example of any point. This whole side issue is becoming silly anyway. quote: Many things are probable but not possible... which is nothing more than fantasy. I’m going to presume that you meant that the other way around. The point for me is that, on any issue, you first have to look at what is possible, and probable, and what is not. Formulating policy upon the impossible or even improbable is, I agree, a fantasy… that was my point. quote: I am arguing against your misperceptions. Each party has a platform. Doesnt matter where your ideas come from, or how you came about them. If what you are saying spouts the party line, then people will associate you with that party. Sorry Charlie, you are simply butt hurt. I am beginning to think that we are two brick walls, banging into each other. I was arguing against your misperceptions. Namely, that when you lump someone into a particular group based upon very little information or minor similarities, then you are likely to proceed from a false perception of that person. People do this all the time, it is quite human and natural (it springs from our need to categorize and label everything) and I claim no immunity from it myself. I was simply informing you that, in this case, you presumption was wrong. quote: Then you are in fact admitting you are trying to derail this thread that is about the American system. I’m not trying to derail anything. I just don’t see any need to exclude the rest of the world. People in other threads about health care have pointed to other nation's systems as examples that we should follow or avoid… were they trying to derail the thread? quote: Everyone doesnt chip in now. But we have massive waste, massive fraud, massive miscommunications and medical errors... many of which this law addresses. Wherever there has been large sums of wealth at stake there has been massive waste, fraud and miscommunications and errors are a part of life. You say the law addresses that but does it address it successfully? Intent versus outcome again. But that is not even my main concern. My concern is the sacrifice of process to (perceived) outcome. People desire a certain outcome and because they presume their motives, and the subsequent outcome, to be moral then anything or anyone who stands in the way is morally suspect at best, morally corrupt at worse (and or intellectually lacking). They are presumed to be… cue the ominous music… one of them. This has the unfortunate effect of hardening hearts and shutting down debate. So let me see if I can explain where I am coming from more thoroughly. My opposition to the individual mandate has nothing to do with whether or not health insurance is a good thing or not. It has nothing to do with whether the individual mandate would work or not. It has to do with the extent of government power and our willingness to adhere to the rule book… i.e. the Constitution and our willingness to abide by it and accept the results when the rules prohibit methods we want to use in seeking the desired outcome. This does not preclude the possibility that the desired outcomes may be achievable through other, Constitutional, means… but too many people never get that far in their thinking since they are to busy being offended that someone dared to question in the first place. The precedent that the individual mandate sets is very dangerous. You approve of it now because you believe that it will have a outcome you desire. But what happens when Congress starts demanding you buy things that you don’t approve of? Since you have already accepted the precedent, how can you argue against their authority to do so? quote: Your words, not mine, below. Okay, fair enough. quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Criticism And this has what to do with what I am arguing? quote: I call em as I see em. You want to sit on that fence and bitch about everyone. "NO" isnt just the party of the republicans. Paul has a great track record of voting no too. Since he is the poster boy for the independents, my response makes perfect sense. And in my case you saw it wrong. I have merely been informing you of that. quote: You dont have to give me shit. I have been posting long enough that everyone knows when I think someone is racist, I will say so. What is wrong with giving someone the benefit of the doubt? It is merely an acknowledgement that one does not have all the information and thus may have come to the wrong conclusion. I admitted that in this case and am simply asking for the same respect in return. quote: Try looking white among a family of men that are very distinctly native american and living in the back woods areas of the south. I didnt live through "looks" I got verbal and physical abuse. So, no, I dont throw around the accusation of "racist" easily. I know what it looks like, I know how it feels, and I know damn well when I see it and will point it out every damn time. Now you are starting to piss me the fuck off. It has not been my intention to piss you off. I have been the victim of abuse too and would not want to dredge up that kind of pain for anyone. I am sorry that you had to endure what you did. I understand how such experiences can color one’s perceptions. As I said I accept that it was not your intention to suggest that I was a racist. I ask for the same understanding in return and accept that being opposed to the individual mandate does not mean that I am a republican or support their agenda (HA!) or that I am a follower of Ayn Rand (I never even read her, in fact) or any other negative thing that you associate with people who oppose health care reform.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02