|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on". I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway. let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition. your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?
I don't think that's what people here are saying.
|
xDaunt, do you know how the three legged stool works and why the individual mandate is necessary? It's how the system gets funded. It's a separate issue from the really obvious fucking fact which you seem to think is some sort of amazing argument that resources are limited and that choices have to be made.
|
On November 17 2017 08:06 ticklishmusic wrote:
xDaunt, do you know how the three legged stool works and why the individual mandate is necessary? Hint: it's a separate issue from the really obvious fucking fact which you seem to think is some sort of amazing argument that resources are limited and that choices have to be made.
If you know what the three-legged stool is, then you should know better than to make this absurd post:
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?
|
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on". I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway. let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition. your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?
No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions.
(I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans)
|
On November 17 2017 08:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:06 ticklishmusic wrote:
xDaunt, do you know how the three legged stool works and why the individual mandate is necessary? Hint: it's a separate issue from the really obvious fucking fact which you seem to think is some sort of amazing argument that resources are limited and that choices have to be made. If you know what the three-legged stool is, then you should know better than to make this absurd post: Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?
Well, it's your absurd argument.
Would Professor xDaunt kindly walk us through how rational it is to remove the individual mandate and nuke the funding mechanism for our healthcare system?
|
On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway. let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition. your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans)
And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right?
|
On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.
However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way. It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control. The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it.
I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman.
|
On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition.
your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans) And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right?
I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies.
By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is.
|
On November 17 2017 08:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we.
Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans) And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right? I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies. By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is.
So are you opposed to having a system where a basic level of coverage is provided to everyone and then individuals have the right to buy additional coverage if they choose?
|
On November 17 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.
However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way. It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control. The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it. I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman.
no, nelson was against abortion funding.
|
On November 17 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans) And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right? I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies. By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is. So are you opposed to having a system where a basic level of coverage is provided to everyone and then individuals have the right to buy additional coverage if they choose?
The first public the second private is what some folks have been saying for a long time. But that also means everyone pays according to their ability.
|
On November 17 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans) And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right? I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies. By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is. So are you opposed to having a system where a basic level of coverage is provided to everyone and then individuals have the right to buy additional coverage if they choose?
Isn't that pretty much most of Europe? They cracked this nut a while ago.
|
On November 17 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans) And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right? I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies. By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is. So are you opposed to having a system where a basic level of coverage is provided to everyone and then individuals have the right to buy additional coverage if they choose?
Yep. I would rather not have "coverage" as a concept and have subsidized health providers. More than the U.K., in other words, where private coverage is an additional option.
If we can't have that, as least the influential people in favor of any kind of market economy for healthcare, including an annual premium a la Medicare for all or opt-in additional private plans, need to stop pretending they don't accept rich people living longer than poor people to whatever degree is in place.
Of course, this solution would utterly wreck the U.S. healthcare jobs market and is obviously unpalatable to heavy lobbyists, so it will probably never happen.
|
Sometimes it feels like xdaunt only posts on TL after a few drinks. He discusses politics the same way I do when I'm drunk lol.
|
On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.
However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way. It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control. The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it. I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman. no, nelson was against abortion funding.
Maybe he was, but he was definitely leading the Democrat opposition to a public option too.
A handful of conservative Democrats, led by Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, made clear that if there was a public option, they would filibuster the final bill. And so it died.
Source
|
On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.
However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way. It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control. The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it. I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman. no, nelson was against abortion funding.
And Lieberman said he would block any vote that allowed for a public option out loud to anyone who would listen. That many was not shy about saying "fuck you" to people who wanted it.
|
On November 17 2017 08:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Sometimes it feels like xdaunt only posts on TL after a few drinks. He discusses politics the same way I do when I'm drunk lol.
The last time I did that I got banned. Though to be fair, I deserved it. Don't post drunk kids.
|
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on". I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway. let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition. your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?
xDaunt, you need to stick to your own profession because it's abundantly clear that you have a severe lack of understanding concerning healthcare. You're embarrassing yourself.
|
On November 17 2017 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions. (I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans) And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right? I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies. By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is. So are you opposed to having a system where a basic level of coverage is provided to everyone and then individuals have the right to buy additional coverage if they choose? The first public the second private is what some folks have been saying for a long time. But that also means everyone pays according to their ability.
Right, I'm one of the people that has long advocated for this kind of solution. I think that the dumbest thing that republicans have done is refuse to create this kind of system on their own terms before democrats get around to doing it. If they do it right, they can create a system that appropriate limits the public baseline coverage thereby creating something that is fundamentally the type of free market system that they purport to want so badly. But like I have pointed out numerous times, republicans and conservatives are completely ass-backwards on healthcare.
|
On November 17 2017 08:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail. On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway. let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition. your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens? Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we. Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it. See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked. Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up. You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer? What do you think a "death panel" is? A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes. Definitely not a myth, buddy. Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you? xDaunt, you need to stick to your own profession because it's abundantly clear that you have a severe lack of understanding concerning healthcare. Your embarrassing yourself.
Good luck pointing out what I've gotten wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
