Health Care

[The Prowler]

i realize you're limited to caveman type but please tell us why he's wrong. 

he is dead on.

Wrong.

[GH2001]

Wrong.

Healthcare insurance as we know it today hasn't even existed for most of our country's existence. The issue is costs. People used to be able to go into a doctors office without it. In a perfect world we shouldn't need comprehensive bumper to bumper health insurance. But we do now. Because? Costs.

[Snaggletiger]

Healthcare insurance as we know it today hasn't even existed for most of our country's existence. The issue is costs. People used to be able to go into a doctors office without it. In a perfect world we shouldn't need comprehensive bumper to bumper health insurance. But we do now. Because? Costs.

Wrong.


I have no idea why.  It just seemed like a fun game.

[Kaos]

You make decent arguments when not being obtuse. Unfortunately that's what you are being with this topic. You have to see how this legislation is a major problem in general. I'm not saying healthcare isn't an issue. This just isn't the way to do it. It's robin hood. I'll ask point blank - do you think that is the way this should work?

Why did wes run away? 

I want him to answer this one simple question.

Specifically, is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's medical insurance because I made better choices than they did? 

My parents worked hard to support four kids and still found a way to save enough money to go back to school.  My dad was working two jobs and going to college at night when I was three or four. My mom didn't start college until I was 16.  And she ended up being a dean of a college.   But we didn't have that much growing up.  I had to wear Bargain Town Buddys instead of Nikes because that's what we could afford.  I fucked around and drank my way out of college when I had a chance to go.  By the time I decided to go back my brother and sister were in college and my dad couldn't help like he wanted.  I had to pay my own way. 

I worked for everything I have.  I worked long hours, I worked shit jobs, I worked when I wanted to be home with my daughters.  I've probably done more jobs than any three of you combined.  Until the last five or six years, I've never had fewer than two jobs at a single time.  And I always made sure I had insurance.

So please tell me why the FUCK I should pay higher insurance premiums -- mine have more than doubled since Obama took office -- so some assjack can get it for free?   If it's my "moral obligation" then take it from what's given to the church.  It shouldn't be my legal responsibility.  I didn't take those bums to raise. 

[Snaggletiger]

Why did wes run away? 

I want him to answer this one simple question.

Specifically, is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's medical insurance because I made better choices than they did? 

My parents worked hard to support four kids and still found a way to save enough money to go back to school.  My dad was working two jobs and going to college at night when I was three or four. My mom didn't start college until I was 16.  And she ended up being a dean of a college.   But we didn't have that much growing up.  I had to wear Bargain Town Buddys instead of Nikes because that's what we could afford.  I fucked around and drank my way out of college when I had a chance to go.  By the time I decided to go back my brother and sister were in college and my dad couldn't help like he wanted.  I had to pay my own way. 

I worked for everything I have.  I worked long hours, I worked shit jobs, I worked when I wanted to be home with my daughters.  I've probably done more jobs than any three of you combined.  Until the last five or six years, I've never had fewer than two jobs at a single time.  And I always made sure I had insurance.

So please tell me why the FUCK I should pay higher insurance premiums -- mine have more than doubled since Obama took office -- so some assjack can get it for free?   If it's my "moral obligation" then take it from what's given to the church.  It shouldn't be my legal responsibility.  I didn't take those bums to raise.

The answer lies in one simple phrase.

WWBD

What Would Bernie Do?

[The Prowler]

Why did wes run away? 

I want him to answer this one simple question.

Specifically, is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's medical insurance because I made better choices than they did? 

My parents worked hard to support four kids and still found a way to save enough money to go back to school.  My dad was working two jobs and going to college at night when I was three or four. My mom didn't start college until I was 16.  And she ended up being a dean of a college.   But we didn't have that much growing up.  I had to wear Bargain Town Buddys instead of Nikes because that's what we could afford.  I fucked around and drank my way out of college when I had a chance to go.  By the time I decided to go back my brother and sister were in college and my dad couldn't help like he wanted.  I had to pay my own way. 

I worked for everything I have.  I worked long hours, I worked shit jobs, I worked when I wanted to be home with my daughters.  I've probably done more jobs than any three of you combined.  Until the last five or six years, I've never had fewer than two jobs at a single time.  And I always made sure I had insurance.

So please tell me why the FUCK I should pay higher insurance premiums -- mine have more than doubled since Obama took office -- so some assjack can get it for free?   If it's my "moral obligation" then take it from what's given to the church.  It shouldn't be my legal responsibility.  I didn't take those bums to raise.

Wrong.

[wesfau2]

There's not one single motherfucking soul in this country who did not have access to life saving measures. 

I dont know what glass bubble world you live in but you should really get out more. Spend some time in the ghetto.

I owned a furniture store for almost a decade that catered to the "less than" class. I walked in that world every day.  They could not be turned away if they took their kid to the emergency room with the sniffles. Which happened hundreds of thousand times a day. Bill? What bill.  As Ethel Lee Johnson told me in reference to the stack of medical bills related to her seven children and three grandchildren (none of whom had or had ever had a job) "all you got to do is send 'em a dollar a month. They can't do shit about it"

Instead she spent the government disability (down in her back) checks, her welfare money and her kids 'crazy checks' with me... buying big screen TVs, stereos, VCRs, dining room sets, bed room sets, glass and brass etarges, lamps, freezers and other shit.

So don't even try to tell me people couldn't get care. There's a difference between being uninsured and being denied care.

You're conflating two concepts: health insurance coverage and access to healthcare.  Since we were talking about the first in this thread, this quote is exceedingly wrong:

Before the shit show that was "Obamacare" there was no healthcare crisis.  Nobody was doing without. 

Millions were uninsured and "went without", using our ERs as primary care facilities (which, thanks to EMTALA, they could do).  THAT was our healthcare crisis.  Rather than having access to routine preventative care, every sniffle and sneeze presented to the ER where they were federally mandated to be seen and stabilized before anyone was allowed to inquire as to their ability to pay.

The rest of your post is information I'm familiar with: my first job out of law school was as counsel for the largest ER physicians' group in GA.  I helped with their hospital and managed care contracting, but the bulk of my job was supervising a team of 15 collectors and a skip-tracer trying to track down all the real people behind the fake names given at the metro-ATL emergency rooms.  On a  good month, our collections success rate was around 3%.

THAT was our healthcare crisis, because those uncollected bills were passed along to other, paying patients (more often those patients' insurance) in the form of higher average billing to absorb those costs.

I totally agree with GH that costs are the main problem and the bulk of the blame for the that component should rightfully be laid at the insurer's feet. 

The ACA was not a panacea, and I don't believe it was intended to be.  That said, it got coverage for millions who did not previously have access.  Those millions COULD get routine, preventative care and forestall major medical calamities that would wreck not only their household finances permanently, but would, in the aggregate, continue to pull our healthcare system deeper into a morass populated by two camps: those who pay and those who don't.  The ACA at least moved people towards having everyone's skin in the game and, on a long enough timeline (long enough for the health of the previously uninsured to hit a status quo of relative "good health") the risk-pooling would have stabilized the premiums. 

The short-term effects for many people were painful and, since all politics are local, the ACA got a bad rap.  It's not a perfect plan, but there are the beginnings of some very helpful reforms built in.  It should be tweaked, but a "repeal/replace" course of action only creates more cost and confusion in the short-term and loses sight of the long term goals contained therein.

Now to GH's question: what do I want?  I want single-payer for everyone (with an opt-out provision: if you can afford private care/insurance, then go for it).  Every single citizen of the United States (and visitors on valid visas/permits) should have free access to health care.  If we are the greatest country in the world, we must lead by example and take care of the least of our own.  There is more than enough fat in the current health system as well as the rest of the fed budget to accomplish this. 

As for this:

pecifically, is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's medical insurance because I made better choices than they did? 

It's a garbage argument.  Poverty for most isn't a choice.

[Saniflush]

So employers, like our esteemed captains of industry here on the X, are disincentivized from providing employee coverage.

Any employer who is not actively trying to get the best coverage they can for their employees will not be around long enough in the market to make a difference and I can then hire their good personnel.

[wesfau2]

Any employer who is not actively trying to get the best coverage they can for their employees will not be around long enough in the market to make a difference and I can then hire their good personnel.

Certainly one component of it.

[Kaos]

You're conflating two concepts: health insurance coverage and access to healthcare.  Since we were talking about the first in this thread, this quote is exceedingly wrong:

Millions were uninsured and "went without", using our ERs as primary care facilities (which, thanks to EMTALA, they could do).  THAT was our healthcare crisis.  Rather than having access to routine preventative care, every sniffle and sneeze presented to the ER where they were federally mandated to be seen and stabilized before anyone was allowed to inquire as to their ability to pay.

Not a crisis.  Nobody should be guaranteed "preventative care."   Get a job.

Leave the government out of the insurance business completely.   Before the government got involved and "fixed" things, local doctors took care of local patients.  It didn't cost $80 for a Tylenol. 

The rest of your post is information I'm familiar with: my first job out of law school was as counsel for the largest ER physicians' group in GA.  I helped with their hospital and managed care contracting, but the bulk of my job was supervising a team of 15 collectors and a skip-tracer trying to track down all the real people behind the fake names given at the metro-ATL emergency rooms.  On a  good month, our collections success rate was around 3%.

THAT was our healthcare crisis, because those uncollected bills were passed along to other, paying patients (more often those patients' insurance) in the form of higher average billing to absorb those costs.

I totally agree with GH that costs are the main problem and the bulk of the blame for the that component should rightfully be laid at the insurer's feet. 

Costs are the main problem.  They are a problem because the government got involved more than anything.  The insurers didn't create the problem, it was foisted on them by an ever-encroaching government.

The ACA was not a panacea, and I don't believe it was intended to be.  That said, it got coverage for millions who did not previously have access. Those millions COULD get routine, preventative care and forestall major medical calamities that would wreck not only their household finances permanently, but would, in the aggregate, continue to pull our healthcare system deeper into a morass populated by two camps: those who pay and those who don't.  The ACA at least moved people towards having everyone's skin in the game and, on a long enough timeline (long enough for the health of the previously uninsured to hit a status quo of relative "good health") the risk-pooling would have stabilized the premiums. 

The short-term effects for many people were painful and, since all politics are local, the ACA got a bad rap.  It's not a perfect plan, but there are the beginnings of some very helpful reforms built in.  It should be tweaked, but a "repeal/replace" course of action only creates more cost and confusion in the short-term and loses sight of the long term goals contained therein.

Disagree completely.  Many of the "millions of insured" already had other coverage but were forced to give it up and get on the dole because a) their employer could no longer afford to provide coverage for them, or b) their employer's rates grew so high as to be unaffordable (which is where many of my employees are at this point) or c) their insurance company fled the state because it couldn't absorb the massive costs jammed down their throats by the Obamacare nonsense.

You're deluding yourself if you think these "millions of insured" are availing themselves of "preventative care."  You're fooling yourself if you think the long-term risk pool was ever going to stabilize.  You don't understand how it works if you seriously believe "everyone would have skin in the game."  When you're forcibly taking more from one to give to another that's not equalizing the field, that's robbery.  As an employer and as a taxpayer I am being robbed by this governmental bullshit. 

My employees have doubled (and in some cases tripled) insurance rates, higher deductibles, more restrictive coverages and less flexibility.  There's no way to spin that as a positive. 

Now to GH's question: what do I want?  I want single-payer for everyone (with an opt-out provision: if you can afford private care/insurance, then go for it).  Every single citizen of the United States (and visitors on valid visas/permits) should have free access to health care.  If we are the greatest country in the world, we must lead by example and take care of the least of our own.  There is more than enough fat in the current health system as well as the rest of the fed budget to accomplish this. 


As for this:

It's a garbage argument.  Poverty for most isn't a choice.

Bullshit. 

There is no "free" healthcare.   

Poverty in this country?  Given the opportunities that are out there to take advantage of?  Yep.  It's a choice. 

What you want is raw socialism.  It's the exact opposite of what this country should be. 

All your "free healthcare" horse manure is going to do is discourage people from going through the grueling, expensive grind required to become doctors because they're going to see their earnings capped and their ability to excel limited.  It's going to dilute the quality of care for everyone.  It doesn't work, it won't work and continuing down that road will make things worse for all.

Regardless of what you think, nothing is free.  Somebody pays.

[wesfau2]

Poverty in this country?  Given the opportunities that are out there to take advantage of?  Yep.  It's a choice. 

Ultimately, this is the root of the issue.  Fundamentally, you either agree that the playing field is equal for all participants at birth or you do not.

I do not.

[Saniflush]

Ultimately, this is the root of the issue.  Fundamentally, you either agree that the playing field is equal for all participants at birth or you do not.

I do not.

Well that's cause the head nurse walked up and said 'leave this one alone' when you were born.

[wesfau2]

Well that's cause the head nurse walked up and said 'leave this one alone' when you were born.

She could tell right away...

[Kaos]

And while I'm at it...

The "healthcare crisis" is manufactured bullshit anyway.

We are, as a country, overmedicated.  You don't NEED to go to the fucking doctor because you've got a cold.  Or a stomach virus.  Or every time you fart. 

I used to fight this in my own home. My ex-wife, now a nurse, would run to the doctor with the kids if they sneezed and come home with antibiotics for what was basically a three-day cold.  There's no need for that. Why did she do it? Because we only had to pay $15 for the co-pay (which is now $55, thanks to Obama) and the prescriptions were $10.  Then the doctor bills insurance for $150 and the pharmacy bills insurance for another $80.  Because they can.

If we'd had to pay the doctor $100 for the visit and another $50 for the prescription because that was the cost?   We, the collective we, might not run screaming to the doctor for every twitch and hiccup. 

If we HAVE to have insurance, it should be catastrophic only.  Anything else should be on you.  And not free. And not subsidized.

[wesfau2]

The "healthcare crisis" is manufactured bullshit anyway.

Obviously I disagree wholeheartedly.

We are, as a country, overmedicated. 

On this, however, I agree with you.

[AUJarhead]

Ultimately, this is the root of the issue.  Fundamentally, you either agree that the playing field is equal for all participants at birth or you do not.

I do not.

Serious question, Wes.  Why do you think that? 

[Kaos]

Ultimately, this is the root of the issue.  Fundamentally, you either agree that the playing field is equal for all participants at birth or you do not.

I do not.

Of course the playing field isn't equal.  Some people will have more than others.  That's the basis of a free market economy. 

Socialism -- the "equal playing field" of which you speak -- doesn't work comrade wes. 

You do not have to be poor in this country.  There are plenty of opportunities regardless of your starting point.  That's all we're promised.  Opportunity. 

You're looking for level outcomes.  That's not going to happen.  Nor should it. 

[wesfau2]

Serious question, Wes.  Why do you think that?

Because it's demonstrably true.

Of course the playing field isn't equal.  Some people will have more than others.  That's the basis of a free market economy. 
...

You're looking for level outcomes.  That's not going to happen.  Nor should it. 

Not level outcomes, just a baseline standard of living that meets the basic needs of the citizenry.  The outcome is always up to the participant.

Is asking Bama to abide by the NCAA rules (level playing field) and compete the same as demanding that AU be awarded as many NCs (mythical and non) as Bama?

[Kaos]

Because it's demonstrably true.

Not level outcomes, just a baseline standard of living that meets the basic needs of the citizenry.  The outcome is always up to the participant.

Is asking Bama to abide by the NCAA rules (level playing field) and compete the same as demanding that AU be awarded as many NCs (mythical and non) as Bama?

Oranges and kiwis. 

The 'standard baseline' is already substantially better than any country in the world -- including those stupid enough to try to provide 'free' healthcare.  Every basic need was being met and moreso.  Everyone in this country -- including those here illegally -- had access to health care BEFORE this ridiculous law was passed.

There was no crisis.  There was no need for governmental intrusion.  It was better left alone. 

We can't go back to that now because the rats have gotten a taste of the free cheese and they're turning others who were used to taking care of their own business (paying for doctors and scrips when necessary) into cheese-seeking rats. 

It's a crisis fully created by the government.  It was intended to give Hillary Clinton a "legacy"  (remember, she was the one pushing this whole thing when Billy was in office and she had her name attached to it then).  The Islamic Socialist in Chief saw it as a way to create his own legacy and further destroy the country so he glommed onto it. 

The whole thing should be repealed, removed and returned to the free market system. It should be left to the states. The federal government should stay completely out of it. 

I believe in the free market.  Competition keeps costs down and levels of service high.  Without it?  You've got what you've got now.  Runaway costs, reduced service and a minimal level of quality.  The entire situation is exponentially worse than it was before Hillary and Obama started meddling. 

[wesfau2]

Oranges and kiwis. 

The 'standard baseline' is already substantially better than any country in the world -- including those stupid enough to try to provide 'free' healthcare.  Every basic need was being met and moreso.  Everyone in this country -- including those here illegally -- had access to health care BEFORE this ridiculous law was passed.

There was no crisis.  There was no need for governmental intrusion.  It was better left alone. 

We can't go back to that now because the rats have gotten a taste of the free cheese and they're turning others who were used to taking care of their own business (paying for doctors and scrips when necessary) into cheese-seeking rats. 

It's a crisis fully created by the government.  It was intended to give Hillary Clinton a "legacy"  (remember, she was the one pushing this whole thing when Billy was in office and she had her name attached to it then).  The Islamic Socialist in Chief saw it as a way to create his own legacy and further destroy the country so he glommed onto it. 

The whole thing should be repealed, removed and returned to the free market system. It should be left to the states. The federal government should stay completely out of it. 

I believe in the free market.  Competition keeps costs down and levels of service high.  Without it?  You've got what you've got now.  Runaway costs, reduced service and a minimal level of quality.  The entire situation is exponentially worse than it was before Hillary and Obama started meddling.

I guess it goes without saying that I disagree with every word of this.

Healthcare delivery doesn't lend itself to free-market concepts.  And it shouldn't.

At some point the fiction that any market is "free" or unadulteratedly capitalist has to be sloughed off.  We are, as a society, beyond that fable.