dayman Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) Yeah...I was making the point that they're not the same thing, yet you're now treating them as not the same thing while you've been arguing forever that they are the same thing in the ACA. So which is it? Are they different, and the claim that the ACA addresses health care costs is complete bull ****? Or are they the same, and the ACA addresses health care costs because it makes insurance more affordable? You can be wrong now, or wrong before. Your choice. As Bird said they are basically the same in a system where insurance is the means by which everybody has access to care, and where most people cannot afford care without it. And in any event, the claim that the ACA doesn't attempt to address healthcare costs shows that you don't really have a strong understanding of the ACA, or the historical impact Medicare had on costs. Edited July 19, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 As Bird said they are basically the same in a system where insurance is the means by which everybody has access to care, and where most people cannot afford care without it. And in any event, the claim that the ACA doesn't attempt to address healthcare costs shows that you don't really have a strong understanding of the ACA, or the historical impact Medicare had on costs. It may "attempt" to address healthcare costs, but it was a half-assed attempt that falls woefully short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) It may "attempt" to address healthcare costs, but it was a half-assed attempt that falls woefully short. Did you tell that to your right wing brethren when they were chanting about death panels to oppose reform during the ACA's creation? And in any event the fight to bring down costs is a system-wide shift that will take about 10 years and the ACA addresses medicare/caid's role in that shift there isn't much more it can do. Edited July 19, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 You are seriously naive if you think costs will decrease under Obamacare. Or seriously deluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) Did you tell that to your right wing brethren when they were chanting about death panels to oppose reform during the ACA's creation? And in any event the fight to bring down costs is a system-wide shift that will take about 10 years and the ACA addresses medicare/caid's role in that shift there isn't much more it can do. Says the left wing obamabot who claims Obama somehow will be the champion of the blue collar folks LOL Sure there is, and I've gone over it a million times, and I'm not gonna re litigate it again. Well before you got here, I went over in great detail in how this bill fails to address costs effectively, just because you fawn over Obama and state that it will take 10 years to effectively take hold, doesn't make it so. So spare me your bullsh*t, and rather than spout off talking points come back to me when you are ready to come back with substance. You are seriously naive if you think costs will decrease under Obamacare. Or seriously deluded. He doesn't think, he parrots. Edited July 19, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Says the left wing obamabot who claims Obama somehow will be the champion of the blue collar folks LOL Sure there is, and I've gone over it a million times, and I'm not gonna re litigate it again. Well before you got here, I went over in great detail in how this bill fails to address costs effectively, just because you fawn over Obama and state that it will take 10 years to effectively take hold, doesn't make it so. So spare me your bullsh*t, and rather than spout off talking points come back to me when you are ready to come back with substance. He doesn't think, he parrots. the bill is less than the left wanted and more towards sigle payor than the right wanted. it was the best he could do in my view. he bid 3 no trump and made the contract. good for game but not match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Says the left wing obamabot who claims Obama somehow will be the champion of the blue collar folks LOL Sure there is, and I've gone over it a million times, and I'm not gonna re litigate it again. Well before you got here, I went over in great detail in how this bill fails to address costs effectively, just because you fawn over Obama and state that it will take 10 years to effectively take hold, doesn't make it so. So spare me your bullsh*t, and rather than spout off talking points come back to me when you are ready to come back with substance. LOL my God you are a terrible poster. I certainly don't care if you think I'm an Obamabot or if you don't understand/agree on the timing of shifting the pay-structure as a means to reduce costs w/ Medicare leading the way...but to still not understand what was said in the other topic regarding campaign messaging puts you in total retard territory. You are basically a big ball of emotional idiocy. I still love you though so don't worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 LOL my God you are a terrible poster. I certainly don't care if you think I'm an Obamabot or if you don't understand/agree on the timing of shifting the pay-structure as a means to reduce costs w/ Medicare leading the way...but to still not understand what was said in the other topic regarding campaign messaging puts you in total retard territory. You are basically a big ball of emotional idiocy. I still love you though so don't worry. Shifting the pay structure...to whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 the bill is less than the left wanted and more towards sigle payor than the right wanted. it was the best he could do in my view. he bid 3 no trump and made the contract. good for game but not match. Sorry, but when you do things, you don't do things half way, you either go for it in it's totality or you go a different route. This half-ass solution will do nothing to drive down premiums, by most independent studies, premiums will rise even higher than if this bill hadn't of existed. The ones who will get hurt the most by this bill will be the young, they will end up subsidizing the cost of health insurance for all the ill. The individual market is gonna turn into a cluster !@#$ and you are gonna see all these limited indemnity benefit plans become non existent. Sure, they aren't the greatest of plans, but these plans help people who are on a budget, and now they will be deemed insufficient by government standards and many people will be forced to subsidize folks with pre existing medical conditions through very expensive full major medical plans. LOL my God you are a terrible poster. I certainly don't care if you think I'm an Obamabot or if you don't understand/agree on the timing of shifting the pay-structure as a means to reduce costs w/ Medicare leading the way...but to still not understand what was said in the other topic regarding campaign messaging puts you in total retard territory. You are basically a big ball of emotional idiocy. I still love you though so don't worry. Says the obamabot who believes Obama is the champion of the blue collar folks. Try again skippy LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Sorry, but when you do things, you don't do things half way, you either go for it in it's totality or you go a different route. This half-ass solution will do nothing to drive down premiums, by most independent studies, premiums will rise even higher than if this bill hadn't of existed. The ones who will get hurt the most by this bill will be the young, they will end up subsidizing the cost of health insurance for all the ill. The individual market is gonna turn into a cluster !@#$ and you are gonna see all these limited indemnity benefit plans become non existent. Sure, they aren't the greatest of plans, but these plans help people who are on a budget, and now they will be deemed insufficient by government standards and many people will be forced to subsidize folks with pre existing medical conditions through very expensive full major medical plans. i don't think he or other like minded pols saw an alternative route. they kicked the tires on most alternatives with disappointing results. it was this or the status quo which clinton unfortunately chose in the same situation. and he risked his reelection for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) i don't think he or other like minded pols saw an alternative route. they kicked the tires on most alternatives with disappointing results. it was this or the status quo which clinton unfortunately chose in the same situation. and he risked his reelection for it. I agree, him and "like minded pols" didn't see an alternative route, because they were obsessed with achieving universal healthcare, despite the fact that we can't properly fiscally maintain the existing entitlement programs that are on the books as it is, So rather than look to reform the entitlements, in which we so desperately need, he went with the holy grail of Universal Health Care, with a half-baked solution that will do nothing to achieve lower health care costs. Without a doubt this law will end up exploding the federal budget, and will cause even greater stress on state governments. The argument is "well, state governments don't have to pay anything into it for another three years, then they still only have to kick in 10% of the cost" Well, I don't know if they've been paying attention, state governments have been cutting back and left-leaning states, raising taxes. So even though 10% doesn't sound like a large number as it is, where will they get the money from to achieve this? I mean they are already cutting back on teachers, firemen and police officers. What this means is that will place an additional burden on state level government, so in short, on a state level this will mean more job cuts and higher taxes. Then of course there is the fiscal federal situation. The ACA is now expected to cost the Federal government 2.8 trillion dollars from 2014-2024, so how we gonna pay for it? We have a weak economy, so lets say you eliminate the bush tax cuts for over the 250k income folks and tax an additional 2.8 trillion to pay for this bill, you don't think that has a dampening affect on the economy. You don't think that for many small business owners, who aspiring to grow, specifically restaurants, placing an additional burden to mandate health care coverage or pay fees will affect their bottom line or for that matter, job growth? You don't think that higher premiums for younger individuals is not gonna place an additional strain on their budget by mandating coverage on expensive full major medical plans? You don't believe that with the explosion of medicaid benificiaries that this won't cause overcrowding and rationing of care to a certain degree? The number one issue with healthcare today are the exploding costs. What he should of done is worked on a bill to reduce the cost of care, which in turn would of increased coverage, not universal coverage, but none the less additional coverage. Health care costs are squeezing folks and businesses, it's like a tape worm. Rather than focus on the economic part of the equation, he decided to break the budget, hurt business, and go for broke with universal health care coverage. Edited July 19, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) I agree, him and "like minded pols" didn't see an alternative route, because they were obsessed with achieving universal healthcare, despite the fact that we can't properly fiscally maintain the existing entitlement programs that are on the books as it is, So rather than look to reform the entitlements, in which we so desperately need, he went with the holy grail of Universal Health Care, with a half-baked solution that will do nothing to achieve lower health care costs. Without a doubt this law will end up exploding the federal budget, and will cause even greater stress on state governments. The argument is "well, state governments don't have to pay anything into it for another three years, then they still only have to kick in 10% of the cost" Well, I don't know if they've been paying attention, state governments have been cutting back and left-leaning states, raising taxes. So even though 10% doesn't sound like a large number as it is, where will they get the money from to achieve this? I mean they are already cutting back on teachers, firemen and police officers. What this means is that will place an additional burden on state level government, so in short, on a state level this will mean more job cuts and higher taxes. Then of course there is the fiscal federal situation. The ACA is now expected to cost the Federal government 2.8 trillion dollars from 2014-2024, so how we gonna pay for it? We have a weak economy, so lets say you eliminate the bush tax cuts for over the 250k income folks and tax an additional 2.8 trillion to pay for this bill, you don't think that has a dampening affect on the economy. You don't think that for many small business owners, who aspiring to grow, specifically restaurants, placing an additional burden to mandate health care coverage or pay fees will affect their bottom line or for that matter, job growth? You don't think that higher premiums for younger individuals is not gonna place an additional strain on their budget by mandating coverage on expensive full major medical plans? You don't believe that with the explosion of medicaid benificiaries that this won't cause overcrowding and rationing of care to a certain degree? The number one issue with healthcare today are the exploding costs. What he should of done is worked on a bill to reduce the cost of care, which in turn would of increased coverage, not universal coverage, but none the less additional coverage. Health care costs are squeezing folks and businesses, it's like a tape worm. Rather than focus on the economic part of the equation, he decided to break the budget, hurt business, and go for broke with universal health care coverage. The savings will be seen by squeezing-out another 1-2% from providers and from the ER's being empty because now everyone will have insurance, all medical problems will be cured at the PCP's office and no "freeloaders" will pass their costs onto the rest of us. And from rainbows farting-out unicorns. Edited July 19, 2012 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 the savings will come from rationing. (interesting that rationing and rational have the same root) it's gotta happen one way or another, in any system. we can't have this high of a percentage of gdp going to healthcare. with the aca in place it should be an easier transition. it would be much easier under single payor. the expert panel setting "guidelines" will happen. hell, coverage of procedures and tests are already dictated by "expert" panels on private insurance boards. i'd rather those decisions be made by people under the supervision of elected officials than stockholders. this has been discussed for decades, yet obama was the only one with the political gonads to pull it off or at least get it started. the thing i find most interesting is the lack of evidence that all the bells and whistles that so many demand as patients have any positive effect on the overall heathcare of populations. in fact, the data suggests the converse. perhaps less is really more in regards to societal outcomes in healthcare. one immediate consequence of less providers for more pts will be less doctor shopping. less "i'm going to dr x cuz he'll order that test and you won't". patients dictating testing and therapy is costing big money. if we move from customer and business owner back to patient and doctor, we will see substantial savings. and despite the naysayeys, malpractice reform would also save billions in defensive medicine costs. the economics will force these changes sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 the savings will come from rationing. (interesting that rationing and rational have the same root) it's gotta happen one way or another, in any system. we can't have this high of a percentage of gdp going to healthcare. with the aca in place it should be an easier transition. it would be much easier under single payor. the expert panel setting "guidelines" will happen. hell, coverage of procedures and tests are already dictated by "expert" panels on private insurance boards. i'd rather those decisions be made by people under the supervision of elected officials than stockholders. this has been discussed for decades, yet obama was the only one with the political gonads to pull it off or at least get it started. the thing i find most interesting is the lack of evidence that all the bells and whistles that so many demand as patients have any positive effect on the overall heathcare of populations. in fact, the data suggests the converse. perhaps less is really more in regards to societal outcomes in healthcare. Perhaps not. one immediate consequence of less providers for more pts will be less doctor shopping. less "i'm going to dr x cuz he'll order that test and you won't". patients dictating testing and therapy is costing big money. if we move from customer and business owner back to patient and doctor, we will see substantial savings. and despite the naysayeys, malpractice reform would also save billions in defensive medicine costs. the economics will force these changes sooner rather than later. Or they'll go to the ER. Which will defeat what was purported to be a means of cost savings. Like I said, ER visits won't decrease, while you're spending trillions to cover those who will probably get rationed care anyway. Oh, and this could be a major CF: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/experts-argue-obamacare-mistake-could-doom-key-part-212811734.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 the savings will come from rationing. (interesting that rationing and rational have the same root) it's gotta happen one way or another, in any system. we can't have this high of a percentage of gdp going to healthcare. with the aca in place it should be an easier transition. it would be much easier under single payor. the expert panel setting "guidelines" will happen. hell, coverage of procedures and tests are already dictated by "expert" panels on private insurance boards. i'd rather those decisions be made by people under the supervision of elected officials than stockholders. this has been discussed for decades, yet obama was the only one with the political gonads to pull it off or at least get it started. the thing i find most interesting is the lack of evidence that all the bells and whistles that so many demand as patients have any positive effect on the overall heathcare of populations. in fact, the data suggests the converse. perhaps less is really more in regards to societal outcomes in healthcare. one immediate consequence of less providers for more pts will be less doctor shopping. less "i'm going to dr x cuz he'll order that test and you won't". patients dictating testing and therapy is costing big money. if we move from customer and business owner back to patient and doctor, we will see substantial savings. and despite the naysayeys, malpractice reform would also save billions in defensive medicine costs. the economics will force these changes sooner rather than later. Even if I were to concede your price control argument, which I don't, that still doesn't address all the other points that I brought up. Oh, and I'm sure people would be real happy with quality of care going down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Even if I were to concede your price control argument, which I don't, that still doesn't address all the other points that I brought up. Oh, and I'm sure people would be real happy with quality of care going down. Come now! Rationing of care will lead to better outcomes, happier and healthier patients, and cost savings that will payoff that $15T debt. The economy will recover and be better than ever, oir enemies will become our friends and our friends will become our lovers, and then aliens will land and give us the technology for cold fusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Did you tell that to your right wing brethren when they were chanting about death panels to oppose reform during the ACA's creation? And in any event the fight to bring down costs is a system-wide shift that will take about 10 years and the ACA addresses medicare/caid's role in that shift there isn't much more it can do. 10 years? It's hardly worth it if it's going to take that long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 the savings will come from rationing. (interesting that rationing and rational have the same root) it's gotta happen one way or another, in any system. we can't have this high of a percentage of gdp going to healthcare. with the aca in place it should be an easier transition. it would be much easier under single payor. the expert panel setting "guidelines" will happen. hell, coverage of procedures and tests are already dictated by "expert" panels on private insurance boards. i'd rather those decisions be made by people under the supervision of elected officials than stockholders. this has been discussed for decades, yet obama was the only one with the political gonads to pull it off or at least get it started. the thing i find most interesting is the lack of evidence that all the bells and whistles that so many demand as patients have any positive effect on the overall heathcare of populations. in fact, the data suggests the converse. perhaps less is really more in regards to societal outcomes in healthcare. one immediate consequence of less providers for more pts will be less doctor shopping. less "i'm going to dr x cuz he'll order that test and you won't". patients dictating testing and therapy is costing big money. if we move from customer and business owner back to patient and doctor, we will see substantial savings. and despite the naysayeys, malpractice reform would also save billions in defensive medicine costs. the economics will force these changes sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) the response is hardly surprising. it's only rationing when services are withheld from you or yours. it's not rationing when they are, as now, withheld only from the un or underinsured and the critic is not included in this group. there will always be a tiered system with those who can afford more, getting more.. i think it better that the lowest tier has basic care. others disagree. the current system and it's costs are unsustainable even with the willful rationing of the uninsured. what is the alternative to rationing of the insured to attain sustainability? as stated previously, it already happens by men behind curtains at private insurance companies. why the outrage at transparency? doc, do ypu suppose no one has died in the us as a result of those decisions? Edited July 20, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 10 years? It's hardly worth it if it's going to take that long. Look just be to clear here, the shift in payment procedures is still experimental and what I'm saying is the ACA includes Medicare in the game to a substantial degree. The gov't (being such a large spender in the messy public-private hybrid we've had and will continue to have) is one of the primary parties people blame for the explosion of costs. What Medicare does, how Medicare pays, the providers structure around the private payers eventually follow. So in that manner, provisions in the ACA for new Medicare payment schemes look to lead the way (on the large scale necessary) to spur along the change. The change itself is organic. The ACA did not invent this, nor would this have not occurred without it. The ACA responded to the need for it and got on board with the push towards it. 10 years..IDK..that's a number I've heard kicked around. The point is to move substantially away from the fee-for-service oriented healthcare system (read: high costs) we have now is not overnight. It will take time. It will take time to bring down costs. And there are things the ACA brings along that will aid that effort. So when I say 10 years I'm not saying 10 years for the ACA to work. I'm saying 10 years for our system to really be departed from the current pay structures that contribute substantially the explosion of costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts