|
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. |
On November 17 2017 08:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote: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.
He was just 1 of several people that made that threat though, and he wasn't even a Democrat by then.
|
Norway28561 Posts
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?
It's far fewer people when the equation is 'can we pay $5 million for each year of treatment for 80 year olds that doesn't cure you but lets you live longer' than 'you get care if you have insurance'. 'Death panels' make the best possible judgement calls to save as many people as possible based on the money allocated.
I agree that the 'you're fine with letting people die' isn't a viable argument against an insurance based model, because yes, I am also fine with certain small unfortunate subsets of the population not being covered when their treatment is extraordinarly expensive compared to the expected gain. Obviously I'd rather have the 84 year old get treatment that makes him or her live for another 2 years than that not be the case, but I'd also rather have those millions of dollars per person be used on curing a 25 year old. The thing is the idea that 'the market' can do a better job than a panel of experts at distributing these funds is a joke.
I mean, I also have the impression that you're actually not that negative towards socialized health care, so all of this comes off as a silly dance. 
|
On November 17 2017 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote: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. Show nested quote + 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
nelson eventually caved after some concessions. so did landrieu (she was my senator at the time). lieberman was the one that wouldn't budge, ultimately.
On November 17 2017 08:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:23 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote: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. He was just 1 of several people that made that threat though, and he wasn't even a Democrat by then. Yeah, that was the fault of some very silly people in CT and some silly people in the democratic party that wanted him gone. And welcome to political parties, not everyone believes the same thing. It takes time and work to make huge changes like single payer. Just be happy if we get there in your life time.
what's a little bonkers is that nelson was a democratic senator from nebraska. that was a long time ago.
|
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.
I just have little patience for people making stupid responses to my posts -- particularly when those responses have a badly misplaced air of condescension about them. There's been no shortage of those posts in the past couple pages.
|
On November 17 2017 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:23 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote: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. He was just 1 of several people that made that threat though, and he wasn't even a Democrat by then.
Yeah, that was the fault of some very silly people in CT and some silly people in the democratic party that wanted him gone. And welcome to political parties, not everyone believes the same thing. It takes time and work to make huge changes like single payer. Just be happy if we get there in your life time.
|
On November 17 2017 08:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Still hoping to hear your other ideas on addressing wealth disparities that typical conservatives don't have besides socializing healthcare.
Right now it seems like you accused other conservatives of not having something you also don't have. I've known you supported socialized healthcare for a while, I want to know what else you got.
|
On November 17 2017 08:26 Liquid`Drone 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? It's far fewer people when the equation is 'can we pay $5 million for each year of treatment for 80 year olds that doesn't cure you but lets you live longer' than 'you get care if you have insurance'. 'Death panels' make the best possible judgement calls to save as many people as possible based on the money allocated. I agree that the 'you're fine with letting people die' isn't a viable argument against an insurance based model, because yes, I am also fine with certain small unfortunate subsets of the population not being covered when their treatment is extraordinarly expensive compared to the expected gain. Obviously I'd rather have the 84 year old get treatment that makes him or her live for another 2 years than that not be the case, but I'd also rather have those millions of dollars per person be used on curing a 25 year old. The thing is the idea that 'the market' can do a better job than a panel of experts at distributing these funds is a joke. I mean, I also have the impression that you're actually not that negative towards socialized health care, so all of this comes off as a silly dance.
The one place where I disagree with you is that I don't think that this has to be an either/or proposition. If people want to spend exorbitant sums of money to extend their lifespans, I see no good reason to prohibit them from doing so.
|
On November 17 2017 08:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +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. I just have little patience for people making stupid responses to my posts -- particularly when those responses have a badly misplaced air of condescension about them. There's been no shortage of those posts in the past couple pages.
Come on. You condescend with the best of them. And health care is a serious fucking topic. Saying you want to system to fail is basically saying "I strongly hope Plansix and people like him get super fucked over for 3-5 years so we can get a better health care system."
|
On November 17 2017 08:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:23 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote: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. He was just 1 of several people that made that threat though, and he wasn't even a Democrat by then. Yeah, that was the fault of some very silly people in CT and some silly people in the democratic party that wanted him gone. And welcome to political parties, not everyone believes the same thing. It takes time and work to make huge changes like single payer. Just be happy if we get there in your life time.
Oh wait, are you trying to say the reason people blame Lieberman is because it helps cast blame away from the Democrats responsible?
|
On November 17 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Still hoping to hear your other ideas on addressing wealth disparities that typical conservatives don't have besides socializing healthcare. Right now it seems like you accused other conservatives of not having something you also don't have. I've known you supported socialized healthcare for a while, I want to know what else you got.
Healthcare is my major heresy. I'm also in favor of the estate tax. As for other big policy ideas, that gets a little tougher. What separates me from many conservatives is that I recognize gross wealth disparity as a problem that should be addressed. I haven't really decided what I would do about it yet, though.
|
|
|
On November 17 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:29 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2017 08:23 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote: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. He was just 1 of several people that made that threat though, and he wasn't even a Democrat by then. Yeah, that was the fault of some very silly people in CT and some silly people in the democratic party that wanted him gone. And welcome to political parties, not everyone believes the same thing. It takes time and work to make huge changes like single payer. Just be happy if we get there in your life time. Oh wait, are you trying to say the reason people blame Lieberman is because it helps cast blame away from the Democrats responsible?
Not really. Mostly that it was never going to happen anyways because of local state politics. Lieberman just made it super impossible for the party. But even if he was on board, the votes were never there.
|
On November 17 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:29 xDaunt wrote: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. I just have little patience for people making stupid responses to my posts -- particularly when those responses have a badly misplaced air of condescension about them. There's been no shortage of those posts in the past couple pages. Come on. You condescend with the best of them. And health care is a serious fucking topic. Saying you want to system to fail is basically saying "I strongly hope Plansix and people like him get super fucked over for 3-5 years so we can get a better health care system."
The difference between my condescension and the others' is that mine is not misplaced. =p I'm all for people challenging me and taking me on, but they better know what they are doing before jumping in the ring. Half of the people participating in this health care discussion patently have no idea what they're talking about. And some of those people have had the gall to tell me that what I am saying about healthcare economics is wrong. I'm going to give that latter subset of people shit every time.
|
would you guys say the economy in the north eastern USA is booming right now?
|
Norway28561 Posts
On November 17 2017 08:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:26 Liquid`Drone 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? It's far fewer people when the equation is 'can we pay $5 million for each year of treatment for 80 year olds that doesn't cure you but lets you live longer' than 'you get care if you have insurance'. 'Death panels' make the best possible judgement calls to save as many people as possible based on the money allocated. I agree that the 'you're fine with letting people die' isn't a viable argument against an insurance based model, because yes, I am also fine with certain small unfortunate subsets of the population not being covered when their treatment is extraordinarly expensive compared to the expected gain. Obviously I'd rather have the 84 year old get treatment that makes him or her live for another 2 years than that not be the case, but I'd also rather have those millions of dollars per person be used on curing a 25 year old. The thing is the idea that 'the market' can do a better job than a panel of experts at distributing these funds is a joke. I mean, I also have the impression that you're actually not that negative towards socialized health care, so all of this comes off as a silly dance. The one place where I disagree with you is that I don't think that this has to be an either/or proposition. If people want to spend exorbitant sums of money to extend their lifespans, I see no good reason to prohibit them from doing so.
Tbh I don't really have an issue with the option of people spending exorbitant sums of money to extend their lives. Aside from flat out charity there are probably 0 ways I am happier about the rich spending their money. There's a potential problem through it leading to the best doctors working on the least important diseases, but that overall isn't the biggest of issues either.
My main problem here is the initial discrepancy in wealth, not that the super rich want to spend it on living longer, I'd take that over private jets any day of the week.
|
On November 17 2017 08:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
would you guys say the economy in the north eastern USA is booming right now?
no, or more precisely that's too large an area to accurately apply that descriptor to. There are some parts of it that are booming, and others that are doing not so well.
|
On November 17 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:29 xDaunt wrote: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. I just have little patience for people making stupid responses to my posts -- particularly when those responses have a badly misplaced air of condescension about them. There's been no shortage of those posts in the past couple pages. Come on. You condescend with the best of them. And health care is a serious fucking topic. Saying you want to system to fail is basically saying "I strongly hope Plansix and people like him get super fucked over for 3-5 years so we can get a better health care system." The difference between my condescension and the others' is that mine is not misplaced. =p I'm all for people challenging me and taking me on, but they better know what they are doing before jumping in the ring. Half of the people participating in this health care discussion patently have no idea what they're talking about. And some of those people have had the gall to tell me that what I am saying about healthcare economics is wrong. I'm going to give that latter subset of people shit every time.
Maybe not this time around, but you have a bit of a savings bank with the regulars here. Just like I'm an avid shit poster from time to time. But some folks are right that you are a little prone to hyperbole in this discussion. Take death panels. Everyone here knows that health care will be rationed in some way. However, they object to the idea that A: the most sick will experience the rationing and B: that it will be any more rationed that it currently is.
Personally, I object to the entire image that the mythical death panel evokes, with goverment bureaucrats coldly viewing grandma's cancer case and sentencing her to hospice care with a big red stamp that says "To Expensive". That isn't how it happens in any other nation with single payer and it isn't how it will happen here.
|
On November 17 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:29 xDaunt wrote: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. I just have little patience for people making stupid responses to my posts -- particularly when those responses have a badly misplaced air of condescension about them. There's been no shortage of those posts in the past couple pages. Come on. You condescend with the best of them. And health care is a serious fucking topic. Saying you want to system to fail is basically saying "I strongly hope Plansix and people like him get super fucked over for 3-5 years so we can get a better health care system." The difference between my condescension and the others' is that mine is not misplaced. =p I'm all for people challenging me and taking me on, but they better know what they are doing before jumping in the ring. Half of the people participating in this health care discussion patently have no idea what they're talking about. And some of those people have had the gall to tell me that what I am saying about healthcare economics is wrong. I'm going to give that latter subset of people shit every time.
So why should people believe you know as much as you say you do? You can't just say "I know more than you" and expect people to believe you. You aren't convincing people your word is worth taking seriously.
|
On November 17 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 07:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 07:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 17 2017 06:32 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2017 06:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 06:18 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Are you willing to pay 10k+ monthly premiums?
Because thats what your looking at when the mandate gets removed without cutting pre-existing condition support.
Don't be absurd. No one would pay $10k monthly premiums. The system will collapse long before that point because people will just stop buying healthcare coverage. Let me explain it to you, You cancel your insurance while your healthly. You get sick, you get insurance, you cant be denied, you cancel once your healthy 100% of insured people will be sick. I'm not calling this worse then 'repeal and don't replace' for nothing. You don't need to explain anything to me. But apparently I need to explain to you that what you're describing is precisely what I intend to happen. What do you think "collapsing the system" means? What is the master plan that this action fits into so well? Getting a health care system that works. Step 1: Destroy the ACA Step 2: ? Step 3: A health care system that works. Mmmmk! Do you not get that the ACA is already a dead man walking? Congress is doing to have to act to replace it at some point. I'd just prefer it be sooner rather than later. Nope - I do not get that. Well, you have some reading to do before you continue on with this conversation.
I've worked in the industry for a couple years now and get a lot of reading material through my employer.
But yes, I'm lazy and don't read everything.. so please enlighten me?
|
On November 17 2017 08:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2017 08:32 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 08:29 xDaunt wrote: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. I just have little patience for people making stupid responses to my posts -- particularly when those responses have a badly misplaced air of condescension about them. There's been no shortage of those posts in the past couple pages. Come on. You condescend with the best of them. And health care is a serious fucking topic. Saying you want to system to fail is basically saying "I strongly hope Plansix and people like him get super fucked over for 3-5 years so we can get a better health care system." The difference between my condescension and the others' is that mine is not misplaced. =p I'm all for people challenging me and taking me on, but they better know what they are doing before jumping in the ring. Half of the people participating in this health care discussion patently have no idea what they're talking about. And some of those people have had the gall to tell me that what I am saying about healthcare economics is wrong. I'm going to give that latter subset of people shit every time. So why should people believe you know as much as you say you do? You can't just say "I know more than you" and expect people to believe you. You aren't convincing people your word is worth taking seriously.
Ah, the great paradox. Is it my burden to give the full explanation of the basics on a given subject or is it the burden of the poster to reasonably inform himself of the subject before jumping in? I don’t know what the right answer is, but I have made it clear that I have no interest in teaching the basics on every subject.
You are in Oregon, right? Go read about how your state’s Medicaid system works. You will see the health care principles that I have been espousing in action there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
