Health Care Thread

iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
bleedat_sl said:
This President and this legislation will go down as total flops. His legacy will be tarnished by this failed and totally ill conceived piece of garbage.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure he will, and this legislation may or may not, but the reality is still that he was the better of two options.

This is honestly not looking like a great century for America so far.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,890
138,042
Erronius_sl said:
1) Why is it half-assed and retarded? Because you say it is?
2) We have a number of laws where we pay for other people, the PPACA isn't alone in that.
3) It seems to me that a lot of people "don't want it" more because of politics than anything to do with the actual law itself.
Click to expand...
1.) because it does nothing to control costs of service/product while it collectivizes the burden. It forces the young to pay for the old even though the old are richer and use more services than the young(the old vote more though so). also for example a medical device excise tax would only be passed on to the consumer.
2.) yeah except it wasn't sold that way, now you can say "well it's like these other taxes" but we all know how it was sold before the supreme court decision, and that does matter.
3.) your hunch is unfortunately for you wrong, polling going back decades disagrees with you, there's a reason hillary couldn't get it done in the 90's or ted kennedy couldn't get it done in the 70's.

But that's an eternal debate more and less, and when you consider that the GOP was up to its elbows trying to craft a health bill like this for decades it sounds a bit disingenuous to NOW come back and make this kind of complaint when before the Dems picked it up and tried to run with it the GOP was actually moving in this direction anyways.
Click to expand...
politics aside as the world globalizes the economy we increasingly have to compete with countries that have no health insurance requirement of employers and it dramatically lowers their production costs, i've said it since the beginning, more or less the ideal solution is probably along the lines of single payer, control the costs and get rid of the business contribution that would be a real "compromise" that would probably make everyone happy in the end more or less.

As we learned with social security and medicare if you can imprint on people that they are paying into a system for their own benefit and not somebody elses the Jacksonian/libertarian wing can accept it eventually as well.

this law in it's current form can't be the final step because it's 1/2 ass.
 
Kreugen

Kreugen

Vyemm Raider
6,599
793
If it does nothing to control the costs then Hospitals are all fucking lying when they claim they charge $40 for a Tylenol because of uninsured people.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,890
138,042
they probably are lying/misleading/overemphasizing

http://www.aha.org/content/00-10/10costofcaring.pdf

the increase in labor costs is the most important single driver of spending growth for hospitals, accounting for about 35 percent of overall growth and more than half of the growth in the costs of purchased goods and services.

Hospitals face continuing shortages of registered nurses, pharmacists, medical technicians and other clinical workers. High vacancy rates for registered and licensed practical nurses are largely a result of a declining number of students seeking careers in nursing and competition with non-hospital employers. Continued workforce shortages during a period of rising service demand likely will put further cost pressure on hospitals.

Rising demand for care accounted for about 34 percent of the overall growth in spending on hospital care between
2004 and 2008. Demand is rising because the population is growing and each person, on average, is using more hospital services. These trends reflect underlying changes in the demographics and health status of America's population. Our aging population is driving some of the increase-as people age they use more health services. Between 2000 and 2050, the population aged 65 and older is expected to grow from 12 percent to 21 percent, as the "baby boomer" population ages and life expectancy continues to rise. At the same time, the population is getting sicker. More and more people today are suffering from chronic diseases than ever before, driven by lifestyle factors, such as obesity. But rising volumes also reflect advances in medicine. Each year ill and injured patients have more options to meet their needs-new diagnostic techniques, procedures and treatment regimens. These advances lead to longer and better lives but add to the number of hospital services provided and drive up spending.
Click to expand...
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
45,948
96,818
Erronius_sl said:
Interestingly enough, we still don't know why or how the legislation itself is a failure or a flop. I've been waiting for someone to go into details as to why, but as of now we've seen nothing besides broad sweeping statements and vague predictions of doom and gloom.

What I find sad is that people are using the website as proof that the PPACA itself is worthless when the state of the website has nothing to do with the realities within the PPACA itself. Maybe it is good legislation and maybe it isn't, but if you;'re going to malign the legislation then actually be critical of the legislation itself and don't try to associate one with the other as though they are inseparable.

But who am I kidding, go ahead and confirm your biases, LOL.
Click to expand...
Probably because it does absolutely zero to lower costs? The only thing that can be remotely considered cost lowering is the millions of previously uninsured becoming insured, but that works both ways. Theres going to be a hell of a lot of very unhealthy/sick people who didnt have insurance before having insurance now.

Dont worry though your man Obama promised you would be able to keep your health insurance and that doctor you like. This abortion hasnt even gone into full swing and already its fucked over millions of people. Just keep being the ignorant dumb sheep you are and keep praising how awesome Obama is and how he fixed everything.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,890
138,042
millions more people using the same service structure has to raise costs, more demand with the same supply raises the market price.

this is while obamacare indirectly encourages a lot of current health care professionals to retire because of all the new regulations which would constrain the supply ONTOP of increasing demand, atleast use some lube obamacare.
 
A

Algiz

N00b
506
0
Big Phoenix_sl said:
Probably because it does absolutely zero to lower costs? The only thing that can be remotely considered cost lowering is the millions of previously uninsured becoming insured, but that works both ways. Theres going to be a hell of a lot of very unhealthy/sick people who didnt have insurance before having insurance now.
Click to expand...
I would absolutely love to see the "Don't impose regulations on the free market" circle jerk that would happen if any law attempted to somehow control costs. It would be glorious.
 
A

Algiz

N00b
506
0
fanaskin_sl said:
millions more people using the same service structure has to raise costs, more demand with the same supply raises the market price.

this is while obamacare indirectly encourages a lot of current health care professionals to retire because of all the new regulations which would constrain the supply ONTOP of increasing demand, atleast use some lube obamacare.
Click to expand...
At least the lube will now be covered by your insurance, even though your butthurt is a preexisting condition.
 
BoldW

BoldW

Molten Core Raider
2,081
25
YouGov 1.jpg

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...bamacare-obama
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,890
138,042
probably still prefer not to be micromanaged by some bureaucrat but what part of "compromise" didn't you get? small business would trade that regulation for decoupling the cost of insurance from employment.

democrats often call republicans "angry" however there is more than one democrat in the world that is an angry dispossessed man and has a familiar punching bag.
 
L

Lenardo

Vyemm Raider
3,603
2,501
ACCORDING TO hhs director sebelius officially through nov 2nd

106,185 people have signed up for new health insurance via exchanges

27 thousand through the federal exchange.

however....

that counts how many people have SELECTED a plan, not how many PURCHASED said plan. number could be -and probably is- lower.


the goal was 500 thousand signed up through nov 2nd...ie first month

the good news is supposedly the site can handle 15k+ per hr now.
 
Royal

Royal

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
15,077
10,643
fanaskin_sl said:
probably still prefer not to be micromanaged by some bureaucrat but what part of "compromise" didn't you get? small business would trade that regulation for decoupling the cost of insurance from employment.
Click to expand...
The cost wouldn't necessarily be decoupled from employment. It depends on how it is ultimately paid for.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,890
138,042
it needs to be and that's a natural bargaining chip to compromise for a single payer system. it's not that hard to demonize insurance companies even to conservatives.
 
1

1987

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
3,475
7,866
fanaskin_sl said:
it needs to be and that's a natural bargaining chip to compromise for a single payer system. it's not that hard to demonize insurance companies even to conservatives.
Click to expand...
This statement should make it blatantly obvious that conservatives and republicans have absolutely no idea why they are against Obamacare, and that they have nothing to offer in exchange.

In an effort to explain why he is against Obamacare, particularly because the young and healthy subsidize the poor and unhealthy. Fanaskin has decided to support single-payer health coverage.

So you oppose Obamacare because it is socialism, and would therefore prefer a single payer system?

Fucking incredible.
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
45,948
96,818
Algiz_sl said:
I would absolutely love to see the "Don't impose regulations on the free market" circle jerk that would happen if any law attempted to somehow control costs. It would be glorious.
Click to expand...
What free market? The healthcare industry hasnt been anything resembling a free market for 40+ years now. Half of this country is on some form of government run/paid healthcare.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,890
138,042
1987_sl said:
This statement should make it blatantly obvious that conservatives and republicans have absolutely no idea why they are against Obamacare, and that they have nothing to offer in exchange.

In an effort to explain why he is against Obamacare, particularly because the young and healthy subsidize the poor and unhealthy. Fanaskin has decided to support single-payer health coverage.

So you oppose Obamacare because it is socialism, and would therefore prefer a single payer system?

Fucking incredible.
Click to expand...
Practically None of the progressives actually try to understand the people you are arguing with for the most part, you think they are all racists or bible thumpers or whatever answer suits your preconceived notions. I'm not in favor of people forcing you to do things I'm explaining how to sell a progressive program with a compromise to get something out of it to the people that would resent it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.