Health Care Thread

I think that this VA healthcare scandal, which is nothing at all new, (40 years ago my grandfather opted for private healthcare because he could see the endless waiting lists and people dying even then) aptly demonstrates the future for the ACA. It is only as affordable as the value of a human life is, which I suppose is pretty damn low these days when you take into account the push for the Trans Pacific Partnership and all of the other corruption going on with barely a whimper of opposition or coverage.

It will be just one more government bureaucracy to join the illustrious ranks of organizations like the FDA. A regulating body that declared the Gulf's seafood safe to eat just weeks after the BP oil spill and the dumping of 1.84 million gallons of toxic chemical dispersants. Chemicals known for decades to facilitate the absorption of oil into the body and as a result is 52 times more harmful than crude oil alone. The effects of which have been well documented and acknowledged (weakly by the EPA) and can be readily seen in Gulf communities and sea life in the region.

Things look pretty damn grim as far as the public good goes.

Adebisi_sl said:

Obviously the free market would've done the right thing and shut down all gulf seafood operations.

Click to expand...

Obviously not but at least they wouldn't have had a government organization to lend their BS legitimacy either.

A) The VA isn't indicative of anything - and the primary problem with the VA is regional - if you're in the North-East parts it's actually quite good, because there's so many VA hospitals to get to within a short jaunt with a rather low number of veterans. The problem is with the flyover states and such where there's literally a 300-400 mile run to get to a VA hospital to make use of your benefits, so then people since they're grabbing a plane to use their benefits anyhow, shop around for the best one for the treatment they need and bog that one down with extra people that aren't projected to make use of it.

[Additionally last time I checked the cost per patient on the VA isn't too far off from Medicare - which FYI is more than likely to be the model for any universal system - in fact it's the model almost every universal system out there based themselves upon (Canada and UK I know for 100% sure were)]

B) You mean the USDA and Game and Wildlife agency (forgetting the proper name) - FDA doesn't get involved in such matters. The only time they get involved in anything is agriculture based - and generating involuntary recalls for other agencies - but the only recalls they can call themselves are agriculture and pharmaceutical related. (And on the latter, they've got a time limit on things - if it's been on the market too long, they can't force an involuntary recall [i.e. percocet])

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure there's an absorption time issue anyhow - ecosystems for surviving fish likely don't change overnight - I know lead impact from leaded gasoline didn't start showing up in fish at noticeable levels for something like 15 years after it was noticeable in concentration in the water - I can't imagine oil which is easier for fish to avoid is going to be quicker.

Not to mention, no food you eat is remotely sterile anyhow. So assuming you understand the tolerances better than those that do it for a living is Chemtrails territory nonsense.

Vaclav_sl said:

A)

B) You mean the USDA and Game and Wildlife agency (forgetting the proper name) - FDA doesn't get involved in such matters. The only time they get involved in anything is agriculture based...

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure there's an absorption time issue anyhow - ecosystems for surviving fish likely don't change overnight - I know lead impact from leaded gasoline didn't start showing up in fish at noticeable levels for something like 15 years after it was noticeable in concentration in the water - I can't imagine oil which is easier for fish to avoid is going to be quicker.

Not to mention, no food you eat is remotely sterile anyhow. So assuming you understand the tolerances better than those that do it for a living is Chemtrails territory nonsense.

Click to expand...

As to point B: "FDA operates a mandatory safety program for all fish and fishery products under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act, the Public Health Service Act, and related regulations. The FDA program includes research, inspection, compliance, enforcement, outreach, and the development of regulations and guidance"
Seafood Guidance Documents & Regulatory Information

Also :"FDA is supporting Louisiana in this reopening as it is clear that all the proper protocol and methods were indeed followed."
FDA Statement on the Reopening of Some La. State Waters to Commercial Fishing
They gave their support and added another layer of legitimacy toward forgetting that anything long lasting and dangerous had occurred and so they bear responsibility.

Yes you are correct that it takes time for the effects to be seen and that is why four years later we are seeing the deformities in local sea life and all of the respiratory, organ damage, skin ailments and neurological effects that are popping up among gulf residents. It is not so much the fish but the polluted water cycle that is the immediate danger to human populations; look up the impacts of Corexit usage. But that said, blind fish and shrimp with oil/Corexit imbedded in their gills, under their scales and in their flesh four years after the clean up hardly sounds like healthy eating to me.

The above and all else relating to public health is a matter of trusting those in power to do their jobs and look after the common good and with recent precedents I have a hard time doing that.

And who does the evaluations for them - give you a hint who... unless things have drastically changed since 2008 when my father retired that is something that is "outsourced" to the USDA and US Fish and Wildlife - that the only thing that the FDA does is have an O-4 or so rubber stamp the results and hand it off to the press release folks.

[It's similar to how Medicare fraud isn't actually handled by Medicare even though the letters and everything come on Medicare headed papers (a trivia thing I just learned recently with the wife's overlap between car insurance and Medicare from my car accident causing me to have to talk with them - State Farm wants to pay for stuff that wasn't accident related, so it's causing a weird mess)]

With what we've seen (whatever fact sources you use), should you trust the government? Probably not. But that's not government's fault. It's cause of all those pesky, self serving, narrow minded, short term goal orientated bags of meat that are in it. What are those called again? Oh yeh, humans.

You *may* be able to trust your family to do you right more often than they do you wrong.
You *may* be able to trust your immediate neighbors to not randomly burn your shit down.

But that's about all.

You can rail about this, arm and armor yourself against this, get all uppity about it, et all. Or you can just get on with life.

Obamacare, the gift that keeps on givin:

"The pressures stemming from an aging population, rising health care costs, and an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance would cause spending for some of the largest federal programs to increase relative to GDP," the report stated.

"Federal spending for Social Security and the government's major health care programs - Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act - would rise sharply, to a total of 14 percent of GDP by 2039, twice the 7 percent average seen over the past 40 years." "That boost in spending is expected to occur because of the aging of the population, growth in per capita spending on health care, and an expansion of federal health care programs."

Click to expand...

Oh my god that chart is going up

Can someone PLEASE explain to me the entire forecasted american healthcare industry relative to personal purchasing power in the next 30 years in 2 paragraphs? I thirst for knowledge.

that was very therapeutic.

Hey Merlin - you actually read your quote right? Because the ACA didn't touch ANY FEDERAL PROGRAMS in any substantial way"That boost in spending is expected to occur because of the aging of the population, growth in per capita spending on health care, and an expansion of federal health care programs."

There might be some small little bits that overlap, but the majority is moot when it comes to it.

Vaclav_sl said:

Hey Merlin - you actually read your quote right? Because the ACA didn't touch ANY FEDERAL PROGRAMS in any substantial way"That boost in spending is expected to occur because of the aging of the population, growth in per capita spending on health care, and an expansion of federal health care programs."

There might be some small little bits that overlap, but the majority is moot when it comes to it.

Click to expand...

Obamacare, recall, was sold with a specific set of political promises: The new regime, advocates insisted, would reduce the deficit, cover the needy, and reduce total health spending - all while lowering the premiums of those who were already insured.

Click to expand...

So the fact its doing none of these things is fine with you?

What you cited doesn't state that remotely - it could be reducing the deficit with part that it did not effect while other stuff increases it.

Look at it like a personal budget, you can "save" some of your budget by spending $100 less in groceries while you end up spending more total in the longrun because you end up spending more in other categories. And the important part of that graph you provided for your argument is the BLUE LINE TO RED LINE which is the actual "deficit" figure, which is pretty much projected as flat (although all the recent figures on that line that have been actualized have been going slightly down).

The part that the top part of the graph that rises alarmingly is TOTAL DEBT which although related to a DEFICIT is not the same thing remotely. (Deficit is how far the red line is from the blue)

And considering how many things have been nudged to either reduce costs or to increase revenue that has been monkeywrenched, the loss being as narrow as it is seems pretty much accurate. Again, to use another hypothetical analogy - if I say "I'm going to play my best when I play hockey on tonight" and during the day I twist the hell out of my ankle, it's going to impair my results - most sane people would look at that hampering and expect slightly lessened results.

Additionally - the ACA is a TWENTY YEAR PLAN that we're still not at full implementation of since the full rollout is around the 10 year mark - so quoting results of the program so early are going to have some precision issues. Which again, since the deficit has been narrowing and is projected in that to only get fractionally wider, doesn't seem to be an issue - just 0.1% better than that projection a year and it's a positive growth map. (and margin of error is a very real thing - CBO usually quotes theirs in full % figures, so 0.1% better doesn't sound implausible at all)

I realize this is all various forms of math discussion, but it's simple stuff to understand for most folks. Of course the biggest key thing is understanding DEBT (big scary line) vs. DEFICIT (difference between the two colored lines) - and you know what's actually fueling most of that big scary line? Interest. Until we get the deficit into a surplus the total debt will continue to climb no matter what we do, even if we have perfectly matched revenue and spending. (AKA zero deficit)

EDIT: Note I'm R/G colorblind, don't bitch too bad if the revenue line is green instead of red.

I think you also misunderstand what "reduce the deficit" means, Merlin.

If federal healthcare spending is projected to go up by $100bn per year, and after Obamacare was passed it goes up $50bn per year, that is deficit reduction. Not an increase of $50bn per year.

Merlin doesnt even English.

So our anthem group plan at work (for all of 9 people) jumped pretty big. That is, until we looked at it and it's because they helpfully "suggested" a much higher tier than what we had before. They pull the same shit all the time, but thanks Obama. It'll be interesting to compare what we wind up with.

Even the old one was twice as expensive as a similar individual plan, though. As near as I can tell, they pay nearly twice the premium for a few dollars off their copays.

Even the CBO gave up Vaclav. The law is so convoluted no one can figure it out.

Congressional budget scorekeepers said they can no longer measure the fiscal impact of many provisions of ObamaCare because the task is impossible.

In a little-noticed footnote from April, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said it will continue to assess the effects of the law's exchange subsidies and the Medicaid expansion, while not tracking others.

Read more:CBO throws in the towel on scoring ObamaCare | TheHill

Click to expand...