|
On October 16 2013 01:25 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 01:18 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On October 16 2013 00:52 Nick Drake wrote:On October 15 2013 22:51 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 15 2013 22:33 mcc wrote:On October 15 2013 22:07 Belisarius wrote:On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote:
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all. This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit. The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80. Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive. If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die. I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward. It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically. Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money. Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph: ![[image loading]](http://ipatient.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/cost12.png) Something is very wrong with US healthcare. You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics. The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy. The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care. Mystery solved. Nah. It is mostly because people are overweight here. Has nothing to do with immigrants. You would be surprised how lowering your weight to a healthy bmi of around 20 will prolong your life against the number one killer, Heart disease. Japan is so high up because they have a mostly vegetarian, with the exception of fish, diet. Poor or rich, if you put shitty food into your body you get shitty results. People live longer based on diets. Safe drinking water is probably the largest factor as well, which is why lots of countries without it have the weird high death rates of children/adolescents but long life spans of people pass the age of 30 (their immune systems are adapted to the bacteria and pathogens found in the unsafe water.) bmi is an outmoded irrelevant index for a non white northern European male populous. First off not every race stories subcutaneous fat in the same amounts nor does every race store fat in the same locations. It's fat above the waste that gives around the liver and heart that causes the most problems, which is why Blacks and Pacific islanders can have more fat and not share the same risks, and south eastern asian's have a higher risk with less body fat%. Waist Hip ratio is an accepted form of measurement for risk.
What you said. Pear shaped not apple.
|
Hit quote instead of edit. Sorry.
|
On October 16 2013 01:08 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 00:57 KwarK wrote:On October 16 2013 00:52 Nick Drake wrote:On October 15 2013 22:51 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 15 2013 22:33 mcc wrote:On October 15 2013 22:07 Belisarius wrote:On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote:
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all. This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit. The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80. Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive. If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die. I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward. It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically. Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money. Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph: Something is very wrong with US healthcare. You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics. The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy. The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care. Mystery solved. If we accept that as explaining the whole situation it still amounts to "there is a lot of money being spent on healthcare and a lot of people aren't getting any and are dying young". It's still a problem. Well global poverty will always be a problem. The point is you can't take those numbers and think it says anything about the US system. Japan does not share a 3,000 km border with a third world country, for instance. People look at that graph and think "wow Japan really has good health care policy" instead of "wow a small island nation with a different culture lives differently." But these country comparisons are ALWAYS idiotic. People only use them because they love confirmation bias.
Well Japan has about 130 million inhabitants and is the worlds 4th largest economy , that's not exactly what i would call a 'small island nation'. But sure, Japan is not exactly easily comparable to the US, at least not in every aspect.
But the euro-zone kind of is. 330 Million people living there, GDP slightly above the US. And culturally and demographically pretty diverse.
And even if you take the euro-zone as a whole, healthcare is still way more affordable and more accessible compared to the US. You can't just blame the high US healthcare prices on the high GDP.
|
On October 16 2013 01:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 00:54 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2013 00:47 mainerd wrote:On October 16 2013 00:41 Kaitlin wrote:On October 16 2013 00:22 mainerd wrote:On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote:
Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them. That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions. Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check". The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines. In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then. Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions.
They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
|
On October 16 2013 01:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 01:22 Gorsameth wrote:On October 16 2013 00:54 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2013 00:47 mainerd wrote:On October 16 2013 00:41 Kaitlin wrote:On October 16 2013 00:22 mainerd wrote:On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote:
Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them. That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions. Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check". The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines. In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then. Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions. They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all.
Do you even read what im replying to?
In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation?
The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on.
The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread.
The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before.
You said
In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that.
So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
|
On October 16 2013 01:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 01:39 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2013 01:22 Gorsameth wrote:On October 16 2013 00:54 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2013 00:47 mainerd wrote:On October 16 2013 00:41 Kaitlin wrote:On October 16 2013 00:22 mainerd wrote:On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote:
Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them. That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions. Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check". The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines. In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then. Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions. They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all. Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before. You said Show nested quote +In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing.
the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered.
You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
|
On October 14 2013 05:27 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 05:19 Nick Drake wrote:On October 14 2013 05:04 farvacola wrote:Because that operation involves the GOVERNMENT, and nothing could be more scary, right?  Bureaucratic rationing is always scarier than economic rationing. And the reason US health care has been so shitty is not because of the horrible free market, but because the normal price mechanisms have been completely eliminated through legislation, and dozens of barriers to entry into the market have been erected in the name of safety and keeping certain people rich. There is no reason we couldn't have a working market model with limited subsidies in place to take care of the poor. Step one would be eliminating the employer insurance which simply creates yet another middle man between the consumer and the actual price of care. Subsidizing the poor, especially through mandated emergency care, actually is a huge part of the cost problem. The only real market solution would require that we allow the poor to die, which--let's face it--they probably deserved anyway, or else they wouldn't be poor now, would they?
he not banned for say that ? or get something ?
|
Was just watching Fox for a few minutes, they were speaking to a Republican Congressman from Texas who said that if we default on the 17th it is because Obama ordered the Treasury to do so, and he should/would be impeached for doing so.
The plan finally reveals itself? (just kidding)
|
On October 16 2013 02:32 quebecman77 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 05:27 HunterX11 wrote:On October 14 2013 05:19 Nick Drake wrote:On October 14 2013 05:04 farvacola wrote:Because that operation involves the GOVERNMENT, and nothing could be more scary, right? Bureaucratic rationing is always scarier than economic rationing. And the reason US health care has been so shitty is not because of the horrible free market, but because the normal price mechanisms have been completely eliminated through legislation, and dozens of barriers to entry into the market have been erected in the name of safety and keeping certain people rich. There is no reason we couldn't have a working market model with limited subsidies in place to take care of the poor. Step one would be eliminating the employer insurance which simply creates yet another middle man between the consumer and the actual price of care. Subsidizing the poor, especially through mandated emergency care, actually is a huge part of the cost problem. The only real market solution would require that we allow the poor to die, which--let's face it--they probably deserved anyway, or else they wouldn't be poor now, would they? he not banned for say that ? or get something ?
its called sarcasm and its a play on the argument that people are poor because they want to be, anyone can be rich if only they tried harder used by some of the more radical members of society.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 16 2013 02:32 quebecman77 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 05:27 HunterX11 wrote:On October 14 2013 05:19 Nick Drake wrote:On October 14 2013 05:04 farvacola wrote:Because that operation involves the GOVERNMENT, and nothing could be more scary, right? Bureaucratic rationing is always scarier than economic rationing. And the reason US health care has been so shitty is not because of the horrible free market, but because the normal price mechanisms have been completely eliminated through legislation, and dozens of barriers to entry into the market have been erected in the name of safety and keeping certain people rich. There is no reason we couldn't have a working market model with limited subsidies in place to take care of the poor. Step one would be eliminating the employer insurance which simply creates yet another middle man between the consumer and the actual price of care. Subsidizing the poor, especially through mandated emergency care, actually is a huge part of the cost problem. The only real market solution would require that we allow the poor to die, which--let's face it--they probably deserved anyway, or else they wouldn't be poor now, would they? he not banned for say that ? or get something ?
He's being facetious, not serious.
|
On October 16 2013 00:52 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 22:51 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 15 2013 22:33 mcc wrote:On October 15 2013 22:07 Belisarius wrote:On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote:
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all. This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit. The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80. Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive. If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die. I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward. It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically. Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money. Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph: Something is very wrong with US healthcare. You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics. The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy. The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care. Mystery solved.
You can't just mindlessly state things without even proper reasoning and expect to be taken seriously. US does not take more immigrants than all other countries in the world and I doubt they take most poor immigrants also (relative numbers of course). Please provide evidence for that claim.
US does not have highest PER CAPITA GDP in the world and the important statistics are per capita. Again your arguments is flat out wrong.
|
On October 16 2013 02:39 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 02:32 quebecman77 wrote:On October 14 2013 05:27 HunterX11 wrote:On October 14 2013 05:19 Nick Drake wrote:On October 14 2013 05:04 farvacola wrote:Because that operation involves the GOVERNMENT, and nothing could be more scary, right? Bureaucratic rationing is always scarier than economic rationing. And the reason US health care has been so shitty is not because of the horrible free market, but because the normal price mechanisms have been completely eliminated through legislation, and dozens of barriers to entry into the market have been erected in the name of safety and keeping certain people rich. There is no reason we couldn't have a working market model with limited subsidies in place to take care of the poor. Step one would be eliminating the employer insurance which simply creates yet another middle man between the consumer and the actual price of care. Subsidizing the poor, especially through mandated emergency care, actually is a huge part of the cost problem. The only real market solution would require that we allow the poor to die, which--let's face it--they probably deserved anyway, or else they wouldn't be poor now, would they? he not banned for say that ? or get something ? He's being facetious, not serious.
It's gotten hard to tell after the years of right wing extremism in politics.
|
On October 16 2013 02:39 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 00:52 Nick Drake wrote:On October 15 2013 22:51 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 15 2013 22:33 mcc wrote:On October 15 2013 22:07 Belisarius wrote:On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote:
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all. This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit. The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80. Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive. If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die. I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward. It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically. Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money. Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph: Something is very wrong with US healthcare. You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics. The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy. The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care. Mystery solved. You can't just mindlessly state things without even proper reasoning and expect to be taken seriously. US does not take more immigrants than all other countries in the world and I doubt they take most poor immigrants also (relative numbers of course). Please provide evidence for that claim. US does not have highest PER CAPITA GDP in the world and the important statistics are per capita. Again your arguments is flat out wrong.
Per capita is not the relevant statistic here for the very reasons I already cited. You have to follow my arguments before you can call them wrong.
|
On October 16 2013 02:44 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 02:39 Whitewing wrote:On October 16 2013 02:32 quebecman77 wrote:On October 14 2013 05:27 HunterX11 wrote:On October 14 2013 05:19 Nick Drake wrote:On October 14 2013 05:04 farvacola wrote:Because that operation involves the GOVERNMENT, and nothing could be more scary, right? Bureaucratic rationing is always scarier than economic rationing. And the reason US health care has been so shitty is not because of the horrible free market, but because the normal price mechanisms have been completely eliminated through legislation, and dozens of barriers to entry into the market have been erected in the name of safety and keeping certain people rich. There is no reason we couldn't have a working market model with limited subsidies in place to take care of the poor. Step one would be eliminating the employer insurance which simply creates yet another middle man between the consumer and the actual price of care. Subsidizing the poor, especially through mandated emergency care, actually is a huge part of the cost problem. The only real market solution would require that we allow the poor to die, which--let's face it--they probably deserved anyway, or else they wouldn't be poor now, would they? he not banned for say that ? or get something ? He's being facetious, not serious. It's gotten hard to tell after the years of right wing extremism in politics.
It wasn't hard at all to tell there. Only a Romanian would miss that. Quit being an ass.
|
So now there is talk that if the House passes something tonight the Speaker and Majority leader will leave DC, to pressure the Senate into giving in to their bill.
|
On October 16 2013 02:46 Nick Drake wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 02:39 mcc wrote:On October 16 2013 00:52 Nick Drake wrote:On October 15 2013 22:51 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 15 2013 22:33 mcc wrote:On October 15 2013 22:07 Belisarius wrote:On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote:
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.
The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all. This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit. The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80. Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive. If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die. I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward. It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically. Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money. Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph: Something is very wrong with US healthcare. You can't just mindlessly take spending and life expectancy and throw them together while ignoring things like demographics. The United States has large income disparity, partly because we take in more poor immigrants than any other country in the world. That explains the life expectancy. The United States also has 23% of the world's GDP. There is a lot of wealth in the country. That explains the high spending on health care. Mystery solved. You can't just mindlessly state things without even proper reasoning and expect to be taken seriously. US does not take more immigrants than all other countries in the world and I doubt they take most poor immigrants also (relative numbers of course). Please provide evidence for that claim. US does not have highest PER CAPITA GDP in the world and the important statistics are per capita. Again your arguments is flat out wrong. Per capita is not the relevant statistic here for the very reasons I already cited. You have to follow my arguments before you can call them wrong.
Your arguments are empty. The graph shows PER CAPITA spending on healthcare and you counter with absolute GDP ? Plus your argument did not show in any way how absolute size of GDP translates into high PER CAPITA spending ? Do you even understand the difference ?
EDIT: You still did not provide any evidence for your immigration claim.
|
On October 16 2013 02:50 Saryph wrote:
So now there is talk that if the House passes something tonight the Speaker and Majority leader will leave DC, to pressure the Senate into giving in to their bill.
Source?
|
On October 16 2013 02:20 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 01:58 Gorsameth wrote:On October 16 2013 01:39 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2013 01:22 Gorsameth wrote:On October 16 2013 00:54 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2013 00:47 mainerd wrote:On October 16 2013 00:41 Kaitlin wrote:On October 16 2013 00:22 mainerd wrote:On October 15 2013 23:36 Sermokala wrote:
Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year
If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.
Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them. That's very cynical. The democrats would end the shut down in a heartbeat if they could bring a clean bill to the house floor, which the republicans have blocked through rule changes. It would probably have enough votes to pass. Just because the poll numbers are reflecting increasing dissatisfaction with the republicans, it doesn't mean the democrats wouldn't put an end to this if they could. They can't, not without unreasonable concessions. Just to be clear. A "Clean Bill" is just another way of saying "Blank Check". The politics of it aside, if it has the votes and it would end the shut down, but republicans won't allow a vote on it through rule changes, how do we end up at democrats want the shutdown to continue? It would end if house dems weren't reduced to just watching from the sidelines. In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. they could keep it going for 3 days or so at a time like what the democrats did with jimmy carter back in the day but they want more long term then that so it'll go out of the media cycle and look back for the republicans again when nothing gets done between now and then. Except even that short term CR wasn't offered by the Republicans without concessions. The Democrats have repeatedly said they would be willing to negotiate if the government was opened. Its the Republicans that are not willing to open the government even for a very limited time without concessions. They said that they'd be willing to "negotiate" after republicans give up anything that they were negotiating with. the same thing that democrats said when regean and bush raised taxes after democrats said that theyed lower spending. Democrats saying that they'll "negotiate after" means nothing at all. Do you even read what im replying to? In the past there have been short CR to keep the government open. This time there hasn't been. Have the Republicans offered short clean CR which would give time for actual negotiation? The Republicans wouldn't give up anything, the looming shutdown/dept ceiling is still there. its just a few days away but no one is being effected at this moment. The Democrats don't give up anything nor do they win anything, It just gives a neutral ground to talk on. The problem is however the Republicans have no interest in talking, that's why they declined all negotiation for months prior to the shutdown as has been said many times before in this thread. The Republicans dont want to negotiate based on a looming shutdown, They want to pull the trigger and then have the Democrats beg them to stop it and there keeping there foot down for the first time in a long while for reasons also mentioned many times before. You said In the past when the government shutdown a short term (3 days or a couple weeks) CR was adopted to keep the govt running while negotiations kept on running. Democrats have said they don't want that. So show me where the Republicans have offered a short term clean CR to open the government and allow negotiations to continue. because I have already shown you the Democrats are willing. the democrats don't want a short term CR they want a long term one so that they can "negotiate" afterwords when the republicans have given away their posision. What you said has nothing to do about how long the CR that democrats have offered. You're making general statements without any facts that are strewn to your bias in this situation. for someone to respond to you they have to know what you're trying to actualy say other then what side your on.
Why the hell should negotiations over anything have anything to do with shutting down the government? I mean, has the Overton Window shifted so drastically over the last couple weeks that holding the operation of the government (not to mention defaulting on debt) hostage is a valid political strategy? You're talking as if the shutdown folks have ANYTHING legitimate to justify negotiating over. Let alone the fact that they planned this nonsense from the get-go, as seen from the deliberate "rule change" that essentially changes the nature of legislature from the House.
|
On October 16 2013 02:50 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 02:50 Saryph wrote:
So now there is talk that if the House passes something tonight the Speaker and Majority leader will leave DC, to pressure the Senate into giving in to their bill. Source?
Source
Source 2
Combine that with Republican Congressmen going on national television to threaten to impeach Obama if we default...well it's concerning to me, to say the least. I understand political brinkmanship, but are we shifting the line of what is acceptable? And where is that line going to end up landing?
|
On October 16 2013 02:50 Saryph wrote:
So now there is talk that if the House passes something tonight the Speaker and Majority leader will leave DC, to pressure the Senate into giving in to their bill.
Pointless and easily backfired into there face.
"Look the Republicans don't want to avoid a default. There making it impossible to pass a debt ceiling bill even if we came to a deal"
Obama has long since made plans for what to do when the default happens. The country will keep running, the debt will still be payed. Nothing is going to happen other then the Republicans looking even more stupid then they already do for not threatening but actually killing the hostage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
