HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

ACA/Health thread part IV

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-19-2014, 09:04 PM
  #26
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,244
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
So what do we do about the people who are too poor to get preventative treatment? Wait for them to get cancer so they can jump through whatever hoops you're talking about to get free care? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to give them preventative care from the beginning than paying for their expensive cancer therapy later on?
What the hell is wrong with you? I've said repeatedly we need to address the issues of the uninsured. What part of your brain isn't functioning right that you can't accept that in this whole line of discussion the one and only issue I am addressing is the fact that cancer patients aren't just left to die if they have no insurance. Everything else is a separate discussion. If the next post from you is anything other than "oh, ok, I get your point" then you are just being a troll, because you can't possibly be that stupid

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 09:48 PM
  #27
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,357
vCash: 541
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
So what do you think we can do about the uninsured? Because you've said before that a problem with implementing universal healthcare is the limited number of doctors. It just seems to me that if you believe that, then it's not really possible to insure more people because demand wouldn't be met.

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2014, 06:40 AM
  #28
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,244
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
So what do you think we can do about the uninsured? Because you've said before that a problem with implementing universal healthcare is the limited number of doctors. It just seems to me that if you believe that, then it's not really possible to insure more people because demand wouldn't be met.
you can insure as many people as you want but there are only so many providers with a limited number of appointment slots available. so what happens? wait times to get an appointment go up, especially for specialty care


when demand outstrips supply, the providers can be more choosy about who they see, and thats why increasing medicaid coverage will help keep people from going bankrupt over medical bills, but it still won't be easy to get comprehensive care and patients will still end up coming to the ER for things they should be seeing a primary care physician for.

the ultimate solution is to increase supply, but thats going to be very expensive and take a lot of time.

unfortunately, the short term solution is going to be to churn out a whole lot of nurse practitioners, who people mistakenly equate with physicians, but unless they have spent a good bit of time with experienced physicians, they really aren't equipped to manage complex medical problems, but yet they get put right out into the workforce straight out of school, whereas physicians have to take a residency training program which is at least 3 years.

Its a very difficult problem with no easy answer.

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2014, 07:26 AM
  #29
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 9,688
vCash: 500
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...221-335j0.html

Quote:
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten slammed the proposals on Friday, saying that people should be able to get ''the health care they need, not the health care they can afford'' and said Australians did not want to go down the path of the American model.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2014, 06:34 PM
  #30
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Thanks Obama!!!


Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2014, 06:47 PM
  #31
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,182
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Thanks Obama!!!




Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 06:11 AM
  #32
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,244
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
wow… way to miss the whole point of the article, that Australia's socialized medicine system is going broke.

Quote:
''We'll either have to have a massive increase in taxes, and that means fewer jobs at the end of the day, or we're going to have to look at ways we can restructure the system to make it sustainable.''
in other words, the program you have been touting to me as the exemplary socialized medicine system, isn't going to work much longer.

the UK and Canada are facing similar problems.

now, Im not saying that the US system isn't horribly inefficient, but everyone who just says "we need single payor" like that will just solve everything, need to understand that its a basic economic principle that if something useful like health care is offered for free, people will use it, and use it a lot. So short of rationing care, any socialized system will eventually become economically unsustainable.


Last edited by PredsV82: 02-23-2014 at 06:08 AM.
PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2014, 04:05 PM
  #33
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,357
vCash: 541
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Someone who has the opinion that single payer is better is not necessarily saying that single payer will solve everything. Seems like you should now better than to make such a lazy generalization for an argument.

Our system is already unsustainable if you're poor and uninsured.

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2014, 07:13 PM
  #34
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,244
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
Someone who has the opinion that single payer is better is not necessarily saying that single payer will solve everything. Seems like you should now better than to make such a lazy generalization for an argument.

Our system is already unsustainable if you're poor and uninsured.
Ok so tell me what you make of the article Ilkka posted?

What I'm trying to point out is there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you make health care free for everyone, everyone is going to use it, and use it a lot. If you still have a fee for service model, you will eventually go broke. If you replace fee for service with fixed expenditures, then when the money runs out, no one else gets care.

The only system that will give universal coverage but will contain costs, is a system in which non emergency care is rationed, and expenditures on non emergent care are set in advance. If that's what you think will fly in the USA, we will just have to agree to disagree

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2014, 11:35 PM
  #35
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,357
vCash: 541
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Why can't there be a fusion of both systems?

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2014, 12:20 AM
  #36
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,244
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
Why can't there be a fusion of both systems?
um, because they are mutually exclusive...

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2014, 02:08 AM
  #37
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 9,688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
wow… way to miss the whole point of the article, that Australia's socialized medicine system is going broke.



in other words, the program you have been touting to me as the exemplary socialized medicine system, isn't going to work much longer.
Uh that's not what the article says at all. First of all, the current government in power is right-wing, and their scaremongering about massive tax increases and what not is similar to the scaremongering of US politicians. And it gives no specifics on "running out of money" - a phrase regularly used to describe the condition of medicare and medicaid in the US. It's not surprising that the programs may need to institute a small fee for GP visits or raise the eligibility age; these are issues that are faced by the American system - which is nearly twice as costly despite no improvement in outcomes.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2014, 08:30 AM
  #38
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,244
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
Uh that's not what the article says at all. First of all, the current government in power is right-wing, and their scaremongering about massive tax increases and what not is similar to the scaremongering of US politicians. And it gives no specifics on "running out of money" - a phrase regularly used to describe the condition of medicare and medicaid in the US. It's not surprising that the programs may need to institute a small fee for GP visits or raise the eligibility age; these are issues that are faced by the American system - which is nearly twice as costly despite no improvement in outcomes.
Even if it is an exaggeration of the state of affairs the fact that it is being proposed that something that is supposed to be free is now going to have a cost... nd then in a few years there will be more costs.. and so on...

as I said, its just nearly impossible to provide something that is as useful as health care to people at no charge without having it be utilized to the point that it becomes unsustainable.

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2014, 09:17 AM
  #39
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
as I said, its just nearly impossible to provide something that is as useful as health care to people at no charge without having it be utilized to the point that it becomes unsustainable.
Considering the single payer systems cost significantly less than the US currently pays per person *and* provide care to everyone.. I think they are *more* sustainable.

Although all social services are feeling the demographic squeeze of the boomers.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2014, 09:38 AM
  #40
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,357
vCash: 541
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
um, because they are mutually exclusive...
Really? You can't have a universal coverage augmented by optional additions?

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2014, 09:43 AM
  #41
Tim Calhoun
Troll *********
 
Tim Calhoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Mexico
Posts: 7,946
vCash: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
Quote:
Mr Hockey said he was ''ringing an early warning bell'' about the sustainability of federal funding for vital programs, saying hard work will be needed in the future just to maintain the quality of life expected by most Australians
Does Gordie Howe really have the credentials to talk about the Australian healthcare system?

Tim Calhoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2014, 10:51 AM
  #42
mullichicken25
Registered User
 
mullichicken25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post

What I'm trying to point out is there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you make health care free for everyone, everyone is going to use it, and use it a lot. care.
Preds, I follow what you're saying about the availability of quality health care after the implentation of a single payer health care system. When health care becomes available, people will use it, and the supply/demand for quality healthcare will be a very real problem we're going to have to deal with in years to come.

However, It sounds to me like you are implying continued exponential growth in terms of the percentage of the population that will seek out health care. Your implication is that once amount of people needing/wanting healthcare surpasses the industry's capacity to distribute it, the ratio can't be stabilized or reversed.

Why couldn't a program exist that incentifies growth in quality provider half of the equation? Is it purely a cost related issue?

I, for one, feel that the citizens of this coutry needs to pull their collective heads out of the sand and ackowledge the real costs of providing quality universal healthcare.

mullichicken25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2014, 10:18 PM
  #43
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,244
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mullichicken25 View Post
Preds, I follow what you're saying about the availability of quality health care after the implentation of a single payer health care system. When health care becomes available, people will use it, and the supply/demand for quality healthcare will be a very real problem we're going to have to deal with in years to come.

However, It sounds to me like you are implying continued exponential growth in terms of the percentage of the population that will seek out health care. Your implication is that once amount of people needing/wanting healthcare surpasses the industry's capacity to distribute it, the ratio can't be stabilized or reversed.

Why couldn't a program exist that incentifies growth in quality provider half of the equation? Is it purely a cost related issue?

I, for one, feel that the citizens of this coutry needs to pull their collective heads out of the sand and ackowledge the real costs of providing quality universal healthcare.
there are several barriers to increasing the supply of quality physicians.

the first is time. even if medical schools across the country increased enrollment by 10 or 20%, it would be a minimum of 7 years before any extra primary care physicians hit the market ( 4 years med school, 3 years residency) and at least 9 to 11 years before any extra surgeons and medical specialists became available(4 years med school plus 5-7 years residency)

the second is money, both in the cost associated with educating those extra physicians and paying their salaries once they are in the market.

third is quality. to increase admission to medical school by definition admission standards would be lowered and people who wouldn't otherwise have been admitted will now be. granted, many of these folks may still become fine physicians, just as some of the ones who got in with ease will nonetheless be duds.

lastly, the biggest problem with just willing ourselves to provide "universal health care" is that we have to decide, as a society, what every person has a "right" to expect. Does everyone have the right to see any specialist for any problem and have any procedure they desire? if the answer is yes, you might as well throw out the budget and just plan on spending the whole country's GDP on health care.

If the answer is less than "anything and everything" then who gets to decide what you can and can't get as a "right"? Does everyone deserve a hip replacement? Should we do organ transplants on 80 year olds? Should we only allow a certain number of a particular test or procedure in a given fiscal period?

If it was just a matter of collective will, it would have already happened...

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2014, 10:32 PM
  #44
Kurtosis
Lolla Approaching
 
Kurtosis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ravenswood
Country: United States
Posts: 10,829
vCash: 500
I don't see the problem with admitting more people and weeding out those who aren't able to cut it.

And to your first point...well you have to start some time. Putting it off because it's going to take a while is just, well, dumb.

Kurtosis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2014, 10:36 PM
  #45
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,244
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtosis View Post
I don't see the problem with admitting more people and weeding out those who aren't able to cut it.

And to your first point...well you have to start some time. Putting it off because it's going to take a while is just, well, dumb.

that wasn't the point I was making.. I wasn't saying not to do it, I was saying that we will have to figure out how to provide the needed care during the decade until the reinforcements arrive.


and I agree with you about admitting more as long as the standards for passing aren't lowered.

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2014, 11:36 AM
  #46
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,557
vCash: 500
The Obama administration has reportedly decided to extend its Obamacare 'fix' for people whose health plans were canceled last fall for an additional two years.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...nt=bufferb2931

__________________

"This is not a nick or a scratch, this is an open wound" - Doug Wilson.
Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2014, 11:38 AM
  #47
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
The Obama administration has reportedly decided to extend its Obamacare 'fix' for people whose health plans were canceled last fall for an additional two years.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...nt=bufferb2931
This is why we can't have nice things.

The people who had the kind of plans that got cancelled mostly got those plans because they were low-risk, healthy people.

The same kind of healthy people you want in the ACA insurance pools.

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2014, 11:39 AM
  #48
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post
This is why we can't have nice things.
Most plans have already been cancelled. The turnover rate on these plans was huge to begin with. There weren't many to begin with and many won't be allowed to continue by the States they were issued in.

Nice Wallpaper though.

Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2014, 02:53 PM
  #49
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,557
vCash: 500
AGAIN

Talking Points Memo ‏@TPM 7m

GOP House votes to delay Obamacare mandate, which wouldn't do much now http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/hous...ampaign=buffer

Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2014, 11:17 PM
  #50
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,244
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
Most plans have already been cancelled. The turnover rate on these plans was huge to begin with. There weren't many to begin with and many won't be allowed to continue by the States they were issued in.

Nice Wallpaper though.
Are there any numbers on how many ststes allowed the insurers to reissue the old plans, how many insurers actually did so, and how many people actually went back and re-enrolled?

I suspect, as you say, that its a very small number… and the real purpose of this is political damage control

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:05 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.