Reply With Quote
I haven't actually read it yet.
It was telling in that DMC's lack of a response made it clear he was wholly unqualified to debate healthcare policy, so that was fun.
I haven't actually read it yet.
Worth a read, tbh.
I edited my response because Nono's post covers too many facets of the discussion to effectively debate. The crux though is that Obamacare didn't work, and the free market system didn't work because companies are greedy profit driven trolls. It doesn't provide an alternative to either, and since funding is indeed the main hurdle (face it, we could make our own medical plan if funding wasn't an issue) you're left with the fact that a plan has to be sustainable. It might not cover everyone. Not all auto insurance companies will cover everyone. It depends on the risks.
I do think people should be held responsible for self induced health issues caused by smoking, drug abuse, alcohol, obesity and such. There has to be accountability, we have to be the 1st line of responsibility for our own health and not just as a personal mission statement. It needs to be federally mandated that these issues can make you ineligible for healthcare coverage.
Insurance should not cover lifestyle changes, like sex changes. It should only cover physical issues, not emotional ones. Sure emotional problems can lead to physical issues but we have to get our heads above water on physical health before we can get so ambitious as to think we can fix all with one swoop of the pen.
Last edited by DMC; 11-12-2016 at 10:09 PM.
It's now established that DMC is wholly unqualified to debate healthcare policy ,tbh.
I figured you just didn't feel like reading a wall of text, which is fine...
That was actually the short version of some of these same discussions we had back in the Barrycare days, tbh, it's just a much more complex topic than a lot of people give it credit for... I mean, if we really start talking about funding, we also can't obviate that the US is largely indirectly subsidizing healthcare around the world. IMO, the biggest hurdle about healthcare reform in the US is that it questions certain dogmas, and it touches certain topics like compassion, welfare, freedom, not to mention the size of lobbies, etc.
It took a free market champion like Reagan, at perhaps his highest popularity level, to eradicate "patient dumping"... and yet, since then, almost 55% of emergency care visits go uncompensated.
There's no easy answers to this problem, but there's certainly models out there that at least are much more efficient than the US when it comes to cost of care with similar outcomes, and are worth examining and discussing. It's a shame that the conversation a lot of times end up being reduced to "socialism!" or "welfare!" and the like...
so u teling there are more white biggots then normal white folks in america?
didnt count blacks cause it look like they didnt went out to vote since there was no black candidate
scary mean libs ruin everything
It gets reduced to that because that's eventually the outcome. How many times can you collect for the same fee? We pay federal income tax which, in great part, is diverted to people in parts of the world who pay in nothing. Then we pay medicare, which seems to not really be working very well but we are charged just the same. Then we pay in social security which won't be around for us when we retire, so we are donating to a large ponzi scheme with no payout for us. Now this moral dilemma which always seems to be the prodigal child returning with their hand out for more support money, at age 40, because they still haven't decided what they want to do with their life and somehow that's the working man's responsibility to fund.I figured you just didn't feel like reading a wall of text, which is fine...
That was actually the short version of some of these same discussions we had back in the Barrycare days, tbh, it's just a much more complex topic than a lot of people give it credit for... I mean, if we really start talking about funding, we also can't obviate that the US is largely indirectly subsidizing healthcare around the world. IMO, the biggest hurdle about healthcare reform in the US is that it questions certain dogmas, and it touches certain topics like compassion, welfare, freedom, not to mention the size of lobbies, etc.
It took a free market champion like Reagan, at perhaps his highest popularity level, to eradicate "patient dumping"... and yet, since then, almost 55% of emergency care visits go uncompensated.
There's no easy answers to this problem, but there's certainly models out there that at least are much more efficient than the US when it comes to cost of care with similar outcomes, and are worth examining and discussing. It's a shame that the conversation a lot of times end up being reduced to "socialism!" or "welfare!" and the like...
We're sick of rewarding laziness and dragging the fat bas s along. Sure it comes down to socialism and welfare. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is fine, if you're Paul.
The moral dilemma is often for those who aren't paying anything. Those being robbed see it pretty clear, keep your ing hands out of my wallet, get a job, leave us alone.
Nowt he poor are poor because they are lazy. Have to love shoebox one size fits all thinking.
tee, hee. Though it does cut down on the consternation, Fuzzy.
Lol look at these protesters
These 9 libcucks vs 1 average Trump supporter who you got?
"the poor" lol
You said poor, I said lazy. You made the connection. Why is that?
But that really isn't the outcome, is it? That's one pretty big, lazy generalization, and I think that's where philosophically this kind of conversations go into dogma, instead of actually quantifying and addressing the actual problems.
It's like zero-tolerance policies, painting everything black and white, while we all are fully aware there's a lot of gray in between. As Thread summed up, it's a shortcut to avoid consternation. We all know it's intellectually lazy, and that complex problems oftentimes require complex solutions, attention to detail, sacrifices from different parties, etc.
There's many ways you can get to age 40 and come looking for a handout. Some might be bore out of the laziness you describe, but some might not. About half the bankruptcies in this country before Barrycare (I don't have numbers right now to see if that has changed at all, so don't take that as defending the law) were healthcare related. It's easy and lazy to say 'hurr, durr, they all made poor health choices', but there's plenty of instances where we all know that's not the case at all. The healthiest, hardest working person can have an accident, have a temporary setback and need a modi of help to get back on his feet. It's obviously much more challenging to take a deeper look, see how we can prevent the 'moochers' and foster help for those that need the help, but it's undeniable that's the correct solution versus blanket statements like 'no more handouts!'. IMO, that's an oversight problem, not a welfare problem.
It's actually somewhat ironic. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people in America want to have a good job and succeed. But a lot of them feel the system in rigged against them, and that's exactly those feelings that Trump ran and won on. He didn't even had to pull the 'welfare queens' card, or the typical class warfare card. The pushback on globalization appears to be fairly universal at this point. And that brings us to the other side of the coin: the frustration is palpable and understandable too. How many times politicos are going to promise nirvana, tell us we need to tighten our belts and sacrifice here or there, that panacea is right around the corner, only to take a big dump on us. But none of these problems will be resolved with soundbites or moral/economic pla udes. They'll be solved with good information, a plan or vision of what the solution should look like, conviction... the sort of stuff people don't see in politicos anymore, and I believe it's a big reason why the 'outsider' sentiment grew.
I actually hope Trump does well, and has some people with the required balls. It's a bit disconcerting, tbh, seeing career politicos like Newt around him and I know he's going to have a of a fight from Congress, etc if he really intends to pull off what he campaigned on... much like the pushback he had from his own party in the run up to his actual presidency. But we're in uncharted waters, so I think he deserves a chance.
Last edited by ElNono; 11-13-2016 at 07:28 PM. Reason: typo
^^^
D M C
If the argument was as simple as "hurr durr durr they made poor health choices" then sure, but it's not. You have to add "so I am financially responsible for the repercussions". This is the fundamental argument against socialism. It's why socialism does not work. We aren't talking about sharing a power supply with devices that all require a specific amount of voltage and current. We're talking about a system that allows people to simply ride along for free, and not just a few people. The free riders are the problem, not the providers. So the proposal is almost always to increase spending to cover the increase in free riders. That means people who don't ride for free have to divvy up more money for the same or less service.
I'm well aware that not every case is a fat lazy bas . Some are elderly or even children with pre-existing conditions. That's fine, because the accountability rule would allow them to coast right by. The smokers, drug addicts, bums... obese s.. those people would be left to fend for themselves. Sorry, but there's no right to free healthcare. There's no right to force others to absorb your self destructive life style.
I'd probably hurt some feelings, but I would let drug addicts die. I would let morbidly obese people die. I would execute everyone on death row. I would execute anyone with a life sentence for a capital offense. If it was a drug offense, I would simply examine their case and determine if they can be released. If not, I'd execute them. Sounds extreme but we are spending too much money to feel good about ourselves.
I'll have a Coke
Your argument is largely a non-issue, because that's not where the bulk of our healthcare dollars are spent on. Most drug addicts and morbidly obese people don't get to be 60 or 70 years old. That's really a problem that's largely taking care of itself. Here's a chart from Forbes on our per-capita spending by age from 2012 (most recent I could find):
(Article here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro...thcare-charts/)
Our cost problem really is tied to age and the fact that on a market with restrained compe ion and desperate people, prices are adjusted to what the market will bear. That is as free market as it comes: you seek the highest margin and the best return on investment. Your most valuable assets are those protected by patents that prevent compe ion, are popular enough where you can maximize the margin and if you can turn your customer into a renter, then all the better. Note I find nothing wrong with that, from a financial/economic aspect. Under that model there really is no incentive to spend R&D money on actual cures. If I'm a shareholder of any of these providers, the focus should be on rent-seeking, patentable goods that can be marketed to reach the pinnacle of popularity
But it's undeniable there's competing aspect here, that has to do with the human side. And that's where this (depending who you ask) gets muddy. Some people will argue: what's the cost in human lives of this system? Some people will respond that the alternative is socialism. And I don't think that's true. Most healthcare systems in the world are not full blown socialism (where doctors are government employees, hospitals are government run, etc). The dichotomy that there's either free market or socialism and nothing in between is not real (IMO anyways).
You brought a good point too, that's brought often: there's no right to free healthcare (at least in the US and with some exceptions, I suppose, like eligible veterans). Some will argue that under the free market there's no right to healthcare at all, you either can afford it or not. That's kinda where we were until hospitals were forced to take in patients in emergency rooms.
I mention it's a good point, because I also think it's another worthwhile discussion we ought to have. Would citizens be better served if they didn't have to stress or worry about healthcare costs, and can conduct their lives with that monkey off their backs (and especially in the US at this time, that's a pretty heavy monkey). Notice I'm not advocating for it, I'm merely bringing it up. I'd like to perhaps see hard numbers compared to other nations on that. One of the counter-arguments, rightly so, is the one you bring up: what do we do with the abusers of a potential system like that, and I think it's a valid point of discussion too. If you do turn it into a privilege, do you penalize those that don't behave, much like we do with bad drivers? Food for thought, and another tangent on this discussion.
In sum, I feel there are much more questions than answers on this whole dilemma. And I don't hear the people in charge of potentially shaping it asking or talking about those questions. There's the one zingers and silver bullets... "HSAs!", "state lines!", "single-payer!", "socialism!", "free-market!". Maybe people don't really feel like taking a deep look at it. Some people probably just want a solution that works for them or their pockets.
When Barrycare gets reformed, there will be winners and losers, no doubt about it. I just hope they throw the citizens a bone. Barrycare or what was before it largely did not, IMO.
Last edited by ElNono; 11-14-2016 at 03:19 AM. Reason: some additional thoughts
makers and takers imo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
