Author Topic: Obamacare/Trumpcare  (Read 14190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #75 on: March 14, 2017, 11:52:01 AM »

Offline hpantazo

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16282
  • Tommy Points: 2406
B) This is a terrible analogy.  Driving is a privilege, not guaranteed to you, that comes with stipulations.  I have a right to live without you or anyone else telling me what to buy.

You have a right to live, but do you have a right to life saving healthcare if you can't afford it? That's what is really at the center of this.

No.

Ideally, the exceptionally wealthy would be more philanthropic and provide for those who go without.  But they're not.  Also, ideally, the only people not buying insurance would be those that can afford health care without it.  But that is obviously not true, I went for 5-6 in my early 20's with no insurance.

But, taxpayers get stuck with the bill because of laws and oaths that force practitioners to treat everyone, even those that can't pay.  It's a weird mess of varying standards.

Practically, you can't have forced care without forced economic means of payment (insurance/single payer) for a number of reasons that in theory should not exist.  I'm fine with practitioners choosing to not treat people based on ability to pay, I realize that sounds cold hearted, but no one should have to perform any service for someone who can't pay.  I would have accepted my fate had something happened to me.

But I'm also fine with a single payer system that isn't going to over burden people with outrageous taxes.  I'm just extremely skeptical about how that will end up.  The US government has a long history of wasting tax dollars in ridiculous amounts.

Its easy for you to say that now, but I am sure you would not have accepted your fate if you were in a serious car accident at that time and the hospitals decided not to treat you and let you die. Just saying, this is what it comes down to in the end. People don't let people die, and someone pays the financial costs in the end.

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #76 on: March 14, 2017, 11:55:47 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9437
  • Tommy Points: 1047
B) This is a terrible analogy.  Driving is a privilege, not guaranteed to you, that comes with stipulations.  I have a right to live without you or anyone else telling me what to buy.

You have a right to live, but do you have a right to life saving healthcare if you can't afford it? That's what is really at the center of this.

No.

Ideally, the exceptionally wealthy would be more philanthropic and provide for those who go without.  But they're not.  Also, ideally, the only people not buying insurance would be those that can afford health care without it.  But that is obviously not true, I went for 5-6 in my early 20's with no insurance.

But, taxpayers get stuck with the bill because of laws and oaths that force practitioners to treat everyone, even those that can't pay.  It's a weird mess of varying standards.

Practically, you can't have forced care without forced economic means of payment (insurance/single payer) for a number of reasons that in theory should not exist.  I'm fine with practitioners choosing to not treat people based on ability to pay, I realize that sounds cold hearted, but no one should have to perform any service for someone who can't pay.  I would have accepted my fate had something happened to me.

But I'm also fine with a single payer system that isn't going to over burden people with outrageous taxes.  I'm just extremely skeptical about how that will end up.  The US government has a long history of wasting tax dollars in ridiculous amounts.

Its easy for you to say that now, but I am sure you would not have accepted your fate if you were in a serious car accident at that time and the hospitals decided not to treat you and let you die. Just saying, this is what it comes down to in the end. People don't let people die, and someone pays the financial costs in the end.

Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #77 on: March 14, 2017, 12:06:35 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41431
  • Tommy Points: 2294
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
B) This is a terrible analogy.  Driving is a privilege, not guaranteed to you, that comes with stipulations.  I have a right to live without you or anyone else telling me what to buy.

You have a right to live, but do you have a right to life saving healthcare if you can't afford it? That's what is really at the center of this.

No.

Ideally, the exceptionally wealthy would be more philanthropic and provide for those who go without.  But they're not.  Also, ideally, the only people not buying insurance would be those that can afford health care without it.  But that is obviously not true, I went for 5-6 in my early 20's with no insurance.

But, taxpayers get stuck with the bill because of laws and oaths that force practitioners to treat everyone, even those that can't pay.  It's a weird mess of varying standards.

Practically, you can't have forced care without forced economic means of payment (insurance/single payer) for a number of reasons that in theory should not exist.  I'm fine with practitioners choosing to not treat people based on ability to pay, I realize that sounds cold hearted, but no one should have to perform any service for someone who can't pay.  I would have accepted my fate had something happened to me.

But I'm also fine with a single payer system that isn't going to over burden people with outrageous taxes.  I'm just extremely skeptical about how that will end up.  The US government has a long history of wasting tax dollars in ridiculous amounts.

I actually agree with a lot of this. Although we disagree on the main point (I do believe the state should account for the basic healthcare of its citizens), the idea that a person can just not obtain healthcare but then still receive treatment that will ultimately be the burden of the taxpayer seems so counterintuitive. Why not head that off at the pass? We need to decide; either we're a country that lets those people die, or plan for some contingency where they can still receive coverage without bankrupting themselves or the state.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #78 on: March 14, 2017, 12:17:44 PM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1157
  • Tommy Points: 124
B) This is a terrible analogy.  Driving is a privilege, not guaranteed to you, that comes with stipulations.  I have a right to live without you or anyone else telling me what to buy.

You have a right to live, but do you have a right to life saving healthcare if you can't afford it? That's what is really at the center of this.

No.

Ideally, the exceptionally wealthy would be more philanthropic and provide for those who go without.  But they're not.  Also, ideally, the only people not buying insurance would be those that can afford health care without it.  But that is obviously not true, I went for 5-6 in my early 20's with no insurance.

But, taxpayers get stuck with the bill because of laws and oaths that force practitioners to treat everyone, even those that can't pay.  It's a weird mess of varying standards.

Practically, you can't have forced care without forced economic means of payment (insurance/single payer) for a number of reasons that in theory should not exist.  I'm fine with practitioners choosing to not treat people based on ability to pay, I realize that sounds cold hearted, but no one should have to perform any service for someone who can't pay.  I would have accepted my fate had something happened to me.

But I'm also fine with a single payer system that isn't going to over burden people with outrageous taxes.  I'm just extremely skeptical about how that will end up.  The US government has a long history of wasting tax dollars in ridiculous amounts.

I actually agree with a lot of this. Although we disagree on the main point (I do believe the state should account for the basic healthcare of its citizens), the idea that a person can just not obtain healthcare but then still receive treatment that will ultimately be the burden of the taxpayer seems so counterintuitive. Why not head that off at the pass? We need to decide; either we're a country that lets those people die, or plan for some contingency where they can still receive coverage without bankrupting themselves or the state.

As part of the analysis in making this decision, we need to consider how much of the cost of health care is related to utilizing insurance so widely. I'm convinced costs would decrease without insurance. Government is highly inefficient, but I'd rather see government ensure care than have insurance dictate care and government make insurance doubly inefficient and expensive by "regulating" a third party. I hate bureaucracy, but a single payer system would streamline the current system. That's not a testament to government management. It's just really how bad the current system is.

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #79 on: March 14, 2017, 01:00:48 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3580
  • Tommy Points: 276
We need the mandate.  It is not infringing on anyone's civil liberties to say you have to have insurance

Point of contention:  it is absolutely an infringement on my civil liberties to mandate I purchase a good or service from a private entity.  That is an inarguable matter.

If you get hit by a car and are paralyzed for life requiring years of intensive care, who is going to pay?  The answer is that unless you are left to die, you will become a taxpayer burden or an insurance buyer burden, thus significantly infringing on my liberties.  Sorry, but in this case i have no sympathy for your liberties.  You want it both ways, free to not buy insurance you don't need today and free to be kept alive if something happens.

If you can demonstrate the financial ability to self insure, fine, knock yourself out but I am guessing you are not one of the 0.5% who actually have enough money for that.  The irony is that anyone with that much money would never put it at risk in that way, they would always have insurance.

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #80 on: March 14, 2017, 01:53:05 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30840
  • Tommy Points: 5153
Let's also not get into the fact that physicians have to treat every person not only because they took an oath but because it is in the best interest of the public welfare. What happens when poor people, who have highly communicable diseases, that can't pay for medical service gets turned away because they can't pay? The disease spreads and a massive epidemic can occur. The idea of just letting people who can't pay for service suffer puts everyone at risk of dying.

So if everyone must be serviced then everyone has to pay and in our system if everyone has to pay, then financially it makes sense that everyone pay for the insurance so that the doctors and hospitals do get paid.

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #81 on: March 14, 2017, 01:58:48 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16282
  • Tommy Points: 2406
B) This is a terrible analogy.  Driving is a privilege, not guaranteed to you, that comes with stipulations.  I have a right to live without you or anyone else telling me what to buy.

You have a right to live, but do you have a right to life saving healthcare if you can't afford it? That's what is really at the center of this.

No.

Ideally, the exceptionally wealthy would be more philanthropic and provide for those who go without.  But they're not.  Also, ideally, the only people not buying insurance would be those that can afford health care without it.  But that is obviously not true, I went for 5-6 in my early 20's with no insurance.

But, taxpayers get stuck with the bill because of laws and oaths that force practitioners to treat everyone, even those that can't pay.  It's a weird mess of varying standards.

Practically, you can't have forced care without forced economic means of payment (insurance/single payer) for a number of reasons that in theory should not exist.  I'm fine with practitioners choosing to not treat people based on ability to pay, I realize that sounds cold hearted, but no one should have to perform any service for someone who can't pay.  I would have accepted my fate had something happened to me.

But I'm also fine with a single payer system that isn't going to over burden people with outrageous taxes.  I'm just extremely skeptical about how that will end up.  The US government has a long history of wasting tax dollars in ridiculous amounts.

Its easy for you to say that now, but I am sure you would not have accepted your fate if you were in a serious car accident at that time and the hospitals decided not to treat you and let you die. Just saying, this is what it comes down to in the end. People don't let people die, and someone pays the financial costs in the end.

Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I respectfully disagree. What are you implying? That you would have accepted your fate to die in that case, or that our society does not end up to pay for people who are uninsured but get care in such situations anyway?

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #82 on: March 14, 2017, 02:00:53 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16282
  • Tommy Points: 2406
We need the mandate.  It is not infringing on anyone's civil liberties to say you have to have insurance

Point of contention:  it is absolutely an infringement on my civil liberties to mandate I purchase a good or service from a private entity.  That is an inarguable matter.

If you get hit by a car and are paralyzed for life requiring years of intensive care, who is going to pay?  The answer is that unless you are left to die, you will become a taxpayer burden or an insurance buyer burden, thus significantly infringing on my liberties.  Sorry, but in this case i have no sympathy for your liberties.  You want it both ways, free to not buy insurance you don't need today and free to be kept alive if something happens.

If you can demonstrate the financial ability to self insure, fine, knock yourself out but I am guessing you are not one of the 0.5% who actually have enough money for that.  The irony is that anyone with that much money would never put it at risk in that way, they would always have insurance.

This summarizes the main point of this argument very well, TP.

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #83 on: March 14, 2017, 02:06:34 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16282
  • Tommy Points: 2406
Let's also not get into the fact that physicians have to treat every person not only because they took an oath but because it is in the best interest of the public welfare. What happens when poor people, who have highly communicable diseases, that can't pay for medical service gets turned away because they can't pay? The disease spreads and a massive epidemic can occur. The idea of just letting people who can't pay for service suffer puts everyone at risk of dying.

So if everyone must be serviced then everyone has to pay and in our system if everyone has to pay, then financially it makes sense that everyone pay for the insurance so that the doctors and hospitals do get paid.

I agree with this in large part. The problem with this that causes the much larger issue of health care costs though is that doctors and hospitals and insurance companies and drug companies get compensated far more than they should. Of course, considering the amount of training and the importance of their work, they should be compensated very well. The thing is though, in the US, this has turned into one of the largest, if not the largest for profit industries, which in some ways also biases medical care and preventative care towards recommendations and treatment options that are more profitable than other options that would be more beneficial to someone's health.

For example, it benefits doctors and drug companies much more financially to have a stream of clients  that need surgeries and long term medications than it does to have the cheaper screenings and very cheap preventative care options that would prevent such conditions but greatly reduce surgeries and medications. 

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #84 on: March 14, 2017, 02:23:09 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33045
  • Tommy Points: -27977
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I wish the government could be trusted to handle things in an efficient manner. State-run hospitals, staffed by doctors who received free tuition to med school in return for a certain number of years service, could in theory solve a lot of problems. Unfortunately, there is no realistic way that wouldn't turn into a boondoggle. I feel the same way about single-payer.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #85 on: March 14, 2017, 02:33:50 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9437
  • Tommy Points: 1047
B) This is a terrible analogy.  Driving is a privilege, not guaranteed to you, that comes with stipulations.  I have a right to live without you or anyone else telling me what to buy.

You have a right to live, but do you have a right to life saving healthcare if you can't afford it? That's what is really at the center of this.

No.

Ideally, the exceptionally wealthy would be more philanthropic and provide for those who go without.  But they're not.  Also, ideally, the only people not buying insurance would be those that can afford health care without it.  But that is obviously not true, I went for 5-6 in my early 20's with no insurance.

But, taxpayers get stuck with the bill because of laws and oaths that force practitioners to treat everyone, even those that can't pay.  It's a weird mess of varying standards.

Practically, you can't have forced care without forced economic means of payment (insurance/single payer) for a number of reasons that in theory should not exist.  I'm fine with practitioners choosing to not treat people based on ability to pay, I realize that sounds cold hearted, but no one should have to perform any service for someone who can't pay.  I would have accepted my fate had something happened to me.

But I'm also fine with a single payer system that isn't going to over burden people with outrageous taxes.  I'm just extremely skeptical about how that will end up.  The US government has a long history of wasting tax dollars in ridiculous amounts.

Its easy for you to say that now, but I am sure you would not have accepted your fate if you were in a serious car accident at that time and the hospitals decided not to treat you and let you die. Just saying, this is what it comes down to in the end. People don't let people die, and someone pays the financial costs in the end.

Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I respectfully disagree. What are you implying? That you would have accepted your fate to die in that case, or that our society does not end up to pay for people who are uninsured but get care in such situations anyway?

The fact you still can't get it, clearly show ls you have no clue what you are talking about.

I would have accepted my fate to die. If people make the conscious choose to put themselves in such a position, then they should accept that.

I'm not afraid of death. I don't live my life concerned with when I meet my maker.

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #86 on: March 14, 2017, 02:36:14 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9437
  • Tommy Points: 1047
We need the mandate.  It is not infringing on anyone's civil liberties to say you have to have insurance

Point of contention:  it is absolutely an infringement on my civil liberties to mandate I purchase a good or service from a private entity.  That is an inarguable matter.

If you get hit by a car and are paralyzed for life requiring years of intensive care, who is going to pay?  The answer is that unless you are left to die, you will become a taxpayer burden or an insurance buyer burden, thus significantly infringing on my liberties.  Sorry, but in this case i have no sympathy for your liberties.  You want it both ways, free to not buy insurance you don't need today and free to be kept alive if something happens.

If you can demonstrate the financial ability to self insure, fine, knock yourself out but I am guessing you are not one of the 0.5% who actually have enough money for that.  The irony is that anyone with that much money would never put it at risk in that way, they would always have insurance.

See my other posts. Clearly you aren't getting what I am saying. I don't want to both ways, I recognize it has to be one or the other.

And that's fine if you don't have sympathy for my liberties. Your opinion doesn't matter to me anyway.

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #87 on: March 14, 2017, 02:41:47 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16321
  • Tommy Points: 1155
I wish the government could be trusted to handle things in an efficient manner. State-run hospitals, staffed by doctors who received free tuition to med school in return for a certain number of years service, could in theory solve a lot of problems. Unfortunately, there is no realistic way that wouldn't turn into a boondoggle. I feel the same way about single-payer.
I'm more confident that this thing can be run by the states under a federal mandate than I am in the federal government running it. I may have voiced my concerns about scale before ;)
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #88 on: March 14, 2017, 02:47:11 PM »

Offline feckless

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 928
  • Tommy Points: 73
I wish the government could be trusted to handle things in an efficient manner. State-run hospitals, staffed by doctors who received free tuition to med school in return for a certain number of years service, could in theory solve a lot of problems. Unfortunately, there is no realistic way that wouldn't turn into a boondoggle. I feel the same way about single-payer.

I never understood this argument the government runs our military and intelligence.  Yes there are some problems, mistakes and inefficiencies--but it works for the most part. Do we contract out the navy --make the navy for profit?   What is different about a state run health care?  Also my understanding is that government VA hospitals are generally strong facilities.
Days up and down they come, like rain on a conga drum, forget most, remember some, don't turn none away.   Townes Van Zandt

Re: Obamacare/Trumpcare
« Reply #89 on: March 14, 2017, 03:03:58 PM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3851
  • Tommy Points: 697
I wish the government could be trusted to handle things in an efficient manner. State-run hospitals, staffed by doctors who received free tuition to med school in return for a certain number of years service, could in theory solve a lot of problems. Unfortunately, there is no realistic way that wouldn't turn into a boondoggle. I feel the same way about single-payer.

I never understood this argument the government runs our military and intelligence.  Yes there are some problems, mistakes and inefficiencies--but it works for the most part. Do we contract out the navy --make the navy for profit?   What is different about a state run health care?  Also my understanding is that government VA hospitals are generally strong facilities.


I think it is mostly optics as well as who benefits from the inefficiencies. Optics are mostly affected by scale; with a system as big as medicaid/medicare there is going to be some waste and fraud. But, as a percentage of the budget, if you just look at dollars paid in and dollars paid for care, medicare/medicaid is superior (ie, more efficient per dollar care) than any private company. So there are more visible cases of exploiting medicaid, but the system as a whole is more efficient.

Then there is the differing standards. We often expect perfection from public services, then when not perfect, punt it to a private option, which is often worse, but tolerable because we "expect" more imperfection/inefficiency from for profit enterprises. Happens all the time, hence the "perfection is the enemy of good" saying.

Then there is the who benefits, which is highly cultural; given that more money put into medicare comes out as patient care, where is the "inefficient" private sector money (ie money paid in but not paid out for patient care) going? Mainly to insane bonuses and salaries out of proportion to the "public good" value of providing coverage for medical care. But as a culture, a large segment tends to glorify if not just tolerate such situations. Whereas the inefficiencies of medicare/medicaid, such that they are, tend to benefit in tiny ways several various poor people, which a large segment of the population can't stomach.