[Fecal McAngry]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	For crying out loud! I'm sorry that I didn't more loudly acknowledge the technical validity of your variables. The variables do have impact. My point was that they don't have sufficient impact to over-ride the obvious conclusion.

But of course, you DON'T know that. You ASSUME that.

---------- Post added 07-04-2012 at 09:35 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by mormeguil To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Here is the main problem with most arguments against a form of centralised healthcare. They assume health is something thats mostly decided by your life habits.

Wrong.
---------- Post added 07-04-2012 at 09:38 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by mormeguil To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The reality is quite different. A large part of health problem are somewhat random.

Uh, that's what INSURANCE is ALL ABOUT. Insurance is not "prepaid health care."

TRUE insurance makes exactly that assumption--that "random" events are a large part of life. Of course, randomness tends to even out and be statistically predictable over large numbers of people over very long time frames.

[mormeguil]

	Uh, that's what INSURANCE is ALL ABOUT. Insurance is not "prepaid health care." TRUE insurance makes exactly that assumption--that "random" events are a large part of life. Of course, randomness tends to even out and be statistically predictable over large numbers of people over very long time frames.

This only remains truth if the insurance is applied in the same manner and at the same cost over a large amount of people. The current insurance plan are usually divided in way that will result with the most profit for insurance compagny instead of applying the cost and benefits in a way that will favor the user. This remove the "equalizing" factor insurance might have.

The best way at that point is to simply have centralised healthcare run by the governement.

[Doggzilla]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Think of "my hard earned money" as "food on my table" or "gas in my car" and it will start to make sense.

But at the same time, its cheaper per person. Every single socialist nation that outranks us, which is almost all of them, pays vastly less than we do. We are tied with Cuba, who spends $180 a year per person covered, compared to almost $14,000 per covered American.

How would you like $3-10k more food on your table, or gas in your tank? Would be nice, wouldn't it? A dozen socialist nations have higher per capita income, and most have higher take home pay. Canada absolutely blows us out of the water.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by Fecal McAngry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But of course, you DON'T know that. You ASSUME that.

If you're asking whether I can prove anything objectively let me save you some time. I can't.

But just the same, someone wake me when the average person in this country has an understanding of exactly how insurance companies make their money, and why it's absolutely their primary goal to facilitate ever increasing costs associated with the risks for which they provide coverage.

If you don't understand the truth of this situation you're never going to recognize the truth of the bigger picture, and you'll always be persuaded by the statistics presented by the better salesperson.

[Eridal]

	Originally Posted by Doggzilla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How would you like $3-10k more food on your table, or gas in your tank? Would be nice, wouldn't it? A dozen socialist nations have higher per capita income, and most have higher take home pay. Canada absolutely blows us out of the water.

Check your facts again as we rank in the three most used standards well above 12 in GDP (PPP) per capita, the lowest we go is 9th. Canada who you mention specifically is not above us in any of the three charts and is in fact several places lower. The only way your statement could be even close to true is if you were looking at GDP (NOMINAL) per capita which is problematic to say the least if we're talking about purchasing power of individuals which is what your statement suggests.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Autumnleaf]

Originally Posted by Doggzilla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But at the same time, its cheaper per person. Every single socialist nation that outranks us, which is almost all of them, pays vastly less than we do. We are tied with Cuba, who spends $180 a year per person covered, compared to almost $14,000 per covered American. How would you like $3-10k more food on your table, or gas in your tank? Would be nice, wouldn't it? A dozen socialist nations have higher per capita income, and most have higher take home pay. Canada absolutely blows us out of the water.

Where does it come from? Its easy to say, 'Gimme more money.' Are we going to implement age barriers to received heart bypass surgery and dialysis treatment? Spell out the price and see if people will willingly pay it.

[Doggzilla]

So what you are saying is that its only ok to take other people's money when you are taking from the young to give a person an average extra month of life for an average of over $500,000? The US spends 18% of its GDP on medical treatment, which means spending somewhere around 8 years of your life saving up for the last few months.

Also, bypass and dialysis are cheap. If you prioritize them by cost, you can treat thousands of people for diabetes and prevent tens of millions in future medical costs by reducing availability of abusrd procedures to people who cannot possibly survive. For instance, my own father has received well over $500,000 for the treatment of his heart failure. The vast majority of his treatment was uncalled for, and the treatment of his pain and the pills that kept him alive cost about $50 a month. The other money was doctors raping the system. They charged $50,000 for a few days which consisted of him sitting in bed and getting a 30 second visit from the doctor every morning. I couldnt even talk to the doctors, I had to be there at 5am if I wanted to talk, because they would leave the building immediately after. Its totally bullshit. Nothing like this exists in socialist nations.

[Paul Siraisi]

I love how the solution to all those poor, poor uninsured is to tax them.

[Autumnleaf]

	Originally Posted by Doggzilla To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So what you are saying is that its only ok to take other people's money when you are taking from the young to give a person an average extra month of life for an average of over $500,000? The US spends 18% of its GDP on medical treatment, which means spending somewhere around 8 years of your life saving up for the last few months.

You are absolutely right about this. The problem is, who is going to convince old people that they need to die with dignity when the time comes?

Also, bypass and dialysis are cheap. If you prioritize them by cost, you can treat thousands of people for diabetes and prevent tens of millions in future medical costs by reducing availability of abusrd procedures to people who cannot possibly survive. For instance, my own father has received well over $500,000 for the treatment of his heart failure. The vast majority of his treatment was uncalled for, and the treatment of his pain and the pills that kept him alive cost about $50 a month. The other money was doctors raping the system. They charged $50,000 for a few days which consisted of him sitting in bed and getting a 30 second visit from the doctor every morning. I couldnt even talk to the doctors, I had to be there at 5am if I wanted to talk, because they would leave the building immediately after. Its totally bullshit. Nothing like this exists in socialist nations.

You must make a big more than I do because last I heard dialysis cost over $50,000 per year. That might relatively be cheap but it seems like a lot to me.

Doctors do sometimes rape the system, or they pay 'specialists' who know how to bill the system to get paid as much as possible. I think the answer is putting doctors on a fair salary in a one payer system. Again though, you have convince the public and the medical community that that is a good idea. Picking off the leeches with business degrees would be nice too but one thing at a time.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Paul Siraisi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I love how the solution to all those poor, poor uninsured is to tax them.

So convenient to leave out "provide affordable insurance" out of that equation.

[reginoid]

canadians generally do not mind spending about half their paychecks for health care.

[Wapiti]

Yes, lets provide affordable insurance by taxing those who can't afford it.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, lets provide affordable insurance by taxing those who can't afford it.

At least the bill, y'know, provides insurance. To people who can't get it any other way. All this concern you're showing for them! (Except for the fact that they can't get any health care at all, of course. That reality is irrelevant.)

Possible you care more about potentially preserving the (nearly totally theoretical) option of not buying health care for yourself without paying a dime in extra taxes than you do about the fact that 30 million people are totally uninsured, and have no access to health care? Yep, it's possible.

[nacht]

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, lets provide affordable insurance by taxing those who can't afford it.

More "Let's provide affordable insurance for those who can't afford it by taxing those who can afford it but don't want it."

[Wapiti]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	At least the bill, y'know, provides insurance. To people who can't get it any other way. All this concern you're showing for them! (Except for the fact that they can't get any health care at all, of course. That reality is irrelevant.)

Oh yes, the bill provides insurance and those who oppose the bill have no concern, no compassion, those fuckers. Why don't you just throw in racist as well for opposing something Obama is for? It's bad legislation, pure and simple. I'm not against affordable health care.

	Possible you care more about potentially preserving the (nearly totally theoretical) option of not buying health care for yourself without paying a dime in extra taxes than you do about the fact that 30 million people are totally uninsured, and have no access to health care? Yep, it's possible.

Just as possible, you make up shit about what other people think and care about, throw in a "you don't care about those without" line and in the end, the reason those 30 million are totally uninsured is still not addressed.

---------- Post added 07-10-2012 at 09:57 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by nacht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	More "Let's provide affordable insurance for those who can't afford it by taxing those who can afford it but don't want it."

More "Let's provide affordable insurance for those who can't afford it by taxing those who can afford it but don't want to and create a new class of people who can afford it but won't because it's cheaper to pay the tax penalty and completely ignore the fact that those who truly can't afford it and want it are now tax evaders and and and....

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just as possible, you make up shit about what other people think and care about, throw in a "you don't care about those without" line and in the end, the reason those 30 million are totally uninsured is still not addressed.

We've had a similar system in Massachusetts for awhile now and one problem is simply the bureaucracy surrounding it. Much like the annual filing of taxes, compliance is put upon the person. I have heard of locals who were uninsured and were forced to seek treatment for some emergency; although they were seen and treated, hospitals were legally obliged to start up the insurance procedure right there. So in order to pursue referrals or follow ups for needed treatment and medication they were required to first provide an array of documentation including birth certificates, certain proofs of state residency and income and so on, and they did not always have these items in order. The result of which was non-pursuit of the insurance and therefore an ending of treatment and the persistence of medical problems.

I'm concerned that this approach already presents a barrier for certain vulnerable groups, particularly the mentally ill and the working poor. And now we have penalties on top of that.

[Arcanist]

I just read that Texas won't be bothering to implement Obamacare. Good for them!

As much I despise Rick Perry, this I find admirable. Let's hope he sticks to his guns.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh yes, the bill provides insurance and those who oppose the bill have no concern, no compassion, those fuckers. Why don't you just throw in racist as well for opposing something Obama is for? It's bad legislation, pure and simple. I'm not against affordable health care.

I couldn't care less about Obama, please. And of course, you're not against "affordable health care"; who could be against that? You're just against the things that can make it possible, and don't provide any realistic alternatives. People who complain endlessly and don't provide any alternatives? Those fuckers. Absolutely.

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just as possible, you make up shit about what other people think and care about, throw in a "you don't care about those without" line and in the end, the reason those 30 million are totally uninsured is still not addressed.

No, it's not "not addressed." Speaking of making shit up.

	Originally Posted by Wapiti To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	More "Let's provide affordable insurance for those who can't afford it by taxing those who can afford it but don't want to and create a new class of people who can afford it but won't because it's cheaper to pay the tax penalty and completely ignore the fact that those who truly can't afford it and want it are now tax evaders and and and....

Give me a break. Opponents of this law really have started making shit up, and this post is generally reflective of the level of quality that goes into their analysis. Do you really believe anyone who can afford health care would now choose to pay the tax instead? Anyone who wouldn't simply refuse to have health care in the first place, for whatever the reason? Are you planning on dropping out of your health care coverage now that there's a penalty for doing so?

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

We've had a similar system in Massachusetts for awhile now and one problem is simply the bureaucracy surrounding it. Much like the annual filing of taxes, compliance is put upon the person. I have heard of locals who were uninsured and were forced to seek treatment for some emergency; although they were seen and treated, hospitals were legally obliged to start up the insurance procedure right there. So in order to pursue referrals or follow ups for needed treatment and medication they were required to first provide an array of documentation including birth certificates, certain proofs of state residency and income and so on, and they did not always have these items in order. The result of which was non-pursuit of the insurance and therefore an ending of treatment and the persistence of medical problems.

Explain to me how any of this is worse than the barriers to health care the uninsured currently face. Right now, they would have emergency care and receive no follow-up at all.

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm concerned that this approach already presents a barrier for certain vulnerable groups, particularly the mentally ill and the working poor. And now we have penalties on top of that.

Anyone who is too poor to afford health insurance would qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. Again, I've yet to see any barriers presented that in any way trump not having health insurance in the first place.

And doesn't it seem like just a minute ago the big complaint was how some people (the working poor, seniors, mentally ill) didn't pay taxes at all? To call some who pretend to care about their tax burden now concern trolls would be putting it mildly.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Explain to me how any of this is worse than the barriers to health care the uninsured currently face. Right now, they would have emergency care and receive no follow-up at all.

Same plus fines. Uninsured person getting incomplete treatment vs uninsured person getting incomplete treatment and fines.

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, I've yet to see any barriers presented that in any way trump not having health insurance in the first place.

What?

[Autumnleaf]

	Originally Posted by reginoid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	canadians generally do not mind spending about half their paychecks for health care.

I think quaaludes are still legal in Canada and they are covered under Canada's national health plan. Maybe if Obama brings those back to the US his plan will be more acceptable once Americans get a taste.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Same plus fines. Uninsured person getting incomplete treatment vs uninsured person getting incomplete treatment and fines.

The "fine" is a tax penalty (or whatever you want to call it), enforced without proof of insurance once a year. Again, those who can't afford insurance have the Earned Income Tax Credit, so they're not paying anything. Those who can and choose not to have it can pay the tax.

And in exchange for that, 30 million people who didn't have any access to health care, now have access to health care.

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What?

You had said:

	Originally Posted by stasis
	I'm concerned that this approach already presents a barrier for certain vulnerable groups.

I said in response that while I'm sure there are barriers, they're not worse than having no access to health care at all. I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue otherwise.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Those who can and choose not to have it can pay the tax.

Suffering through a chronic medical condition because of an inability to assemble zie papers in proper stamped triplicate is not much of a choice, and that is the vulnerable group I'm talking about. These are people who are currently uninsured not because they would not wish to be, but because of an inability to deal with the bureaucracy of the mechanism of insurance. To my knowledge this intersects the mentally ill, the working poor, and probably the type of elderly person who has resigned themselves to living off of cat food and peanut butter. Requiring healthcare by force of the law does not help these people get the treatment they need. Being hit with a fine for flunking that requirement does not help these people get the treatment they need. Or, at least, it hasn't here.

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I said in response that while I'm sure there are barriers, they're not worse than having no access to health care at all. I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue otherwise.

It's an easy argument. Lacking needed healthcare is lacking needed healthcare. Lacking needed healthcare while being fined is worse than lacking needed healthcare. Your "access" does not treat agoraphobia. In order to improve the lot of people without healthcare you have to actually provide them with the healthcare. My concern here, based upon what I've observed locally, is that this means of... stimulating... healthcare has some serious problems in the sense that it fails to provide some of these groups with healthcare while further saddling them with fines.

[INTJRyan]

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Suffering through a chronic medical condition because of an inability to assemble zie papers in proper stamped triplicate is not much of a choice, and that is the vulnerable group I'm talking about. These are people who are currently uninsured not because they do not wish to be, but because of an inability to deal with the bureaucracy of the mechanism of insurance. To my knowledge this intersects the mentally ill, the working poor, and probably the type of elderly person who has resigned themselves to living off of cat food and peanut butter. Being hit with a fine does not help these people get the treatment they need.

If they are competent enough to be fined (that is what you stated you are worried about, fines on top of the bureaucracy), they are competent enough to fill out some forms, or ask for help in doing so. Let's say there was a toll free number to call for help, or hell someone comes to your house to fill out the forms for you free of charge, would that assuage you of your concerns, or is there something deeper at play here than sudden concern for the cat food eating elderly? That a few people fall through the cracks (as they always will) is a terrible argument for maintaining the status quo.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If they are competent enough to be fined (that is what you stated you are worried about, fines on top of the bureaucracy), they are competent enough to fill out some forms, or ask for help in doing so.

I'm not talking about filling out some forms. I'm talking about the need to assemble and supply an array of validating documentation in a particular format and that there are groups of people who are less able to do so than you and larkin casually presume. These are birth certificates, series of W2 documents, particular bills from within a certain time-frame and so forth. You must realize that there are gainfully employed people who periodically or habitually fail to file their taxes or who do not have drivers licenses or avoid entering into complicated contracts simply because of an inability to deal consistently and well with red tape. I find it insidious on the subject of healthcare in particular because the inability itself can arise from a treatable condition. The single mother who is just too exhausted at the end of the day because of the way her unmanaged diabetes compounds her other responsibilities. The dyslexic manual laborer. The minimally employed twenty-something with an attention deficit. The depressed, socially isolated elderly retiree who cannot find the wherewithal to order copies of these documents. So on, so forth.

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let's say there was a toll free number to call for help, or hell someone comes to your house to fill out the forms for you free of charge, would that assuage you of your concerns, or is there something deeper at play here than sudden concern for the cat food eating elderly?

Conspiracy theorist. What would assuage me is a social program that provided the service rather than saddling the person with compliance. A health agency needs to confer with the IRS to determine income instead of requiring financial documentation from the person. A health agency needs to run name and social security number to determine citizenship rather than requiring birth documentation from the person. Public health programs themselves need to shoulder the administrative task of providing health coverage, rather than exporting that task to the people and then fining them to try to make them perform the task.

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That a few people fall through the cracks (as they always will) is a terrible argument for maintaining the status quo.

I think expanding dysfunctional and oppressive public institutions is usually worse than not doing so where the only ethical mandate for the institution in the first place is the increasing of liberties. This is not about pleasing everyone but addressing a problem that appears to have arisen in practice.

[larkin]

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Suffering through a chronic medical condition because of an inability to assemble zie papers in proper stamped triplicate is not much of a choice, and that is the vulnerable group I'm talking about. These are people who are currently uninsured not because they would not wish to be, but because of an inability to deal with the bureaucracy of the mechanism of insurance. To my knowledge this intersects the mentally ill, the working poor, and probably the type of elderly person who has resigned themselves to living off of cat food and peanut butter. Requiring healthcare by force of the law does not help these people get the treatment they need. Being hit with a fine for flunking that requirement does not help these people get the treatment they need. Or, at least, it hasn't here.

Mentally ill and working poor receive the Earned Income Tax Credit. Stop asserting they will be "fined" for not having health care; they won't.

I worked with outpatients at St. Elizabeth's. There are mechanisms in place to help the mentally ill or even those with simply limited functioning deal with the challenges of care. All services - health care and case management - were inadequate, then and now; I'm assuming they'll continue to be. A public option accessible primarily to those who aren't limited in their mental functioning doesn't change that. Unfortunate but not suprising.

These cases simply do not make up the bulk of the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, and are certainly no excuse for continuing to ignore them.

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's an easy argument. Lacking needed healthcare is lacking needed healthcare. Lacking needed healthcare while being fined is worse than lacking needed healthcare.

Actually, your argument is the easy one. More of the same in perpetuity.

Yes, the law doesn't magically fix the mental illness issues of people who can't deal with the difficulties of seeking care, period. So, fuck providing health care. And let's convince people of that by repeatedly and falsely asserting the poor will be "fined," an argument that doesn't even approach being plausible. They don't pay taxes.

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What would assuage me is a social program that provided the service rather than saddling the person with compliance.

Right. But then, there's that dreaded bureaucracy - I assume if the law created such a top-heavy system you would nod your head at the substantial increase in government workers to deal with the relatively small number of people who don't like to fill out forms, and bravely argue in its favor when the hordes potentially rightfully complain about government waste? Yeah, I totally see you standing on that front line. But what about the minimally employed twenty-something with ADHD, you'll say.

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A health agency needs to confer with the IRS to determine income instead of requiring financial documentation from the person. A health agency needs to run name and social security number to determine citizenship rather than requiring birth documentation from the person. Public health programs themselves need to shoulder the administrative task of providing health coverage, rather than exporting that task to the people and then fining them to try to make them perform the task.

The tax isn't for not performing the task, it's for expecting others to pay for your own catastrophic care. That's what you're expecting without insurance, since most people without insurance would easily go bankrupt in the face of a major accident.

And for the last time - people who already don't pay taxes for a variety of reasons won't be taxed. Unsurprisingly, no matter how often you assert otherwise.