riddler 0
Recommended Posts
pirana 0
The sliding scale is for the term charges (premiums) not the charge for each individual service.
I know that any kind of ability-to-pay based pricing is going to come off as a redistribution-of-wealth policy and will cause resistance. But the redistribution of wealth train left the station a long time ago and is not coming back (at least not until after the Apocolypse). If it were more palatable as a tax differential, then it could be worked that way.
We are headed for guarantee issue, no doubt about it. There will be some compromises in order to make it affordable overall, and to make it an acceptable program to the majority. There are going to have to be credits or sliding scale premiums because even if we reduce the cost of care by say a quarter overnight, there will still be a significant chunk of the population priced out of coverage.
Think of it in the same vein as the reduced lunch price programs. People with little or no money do not get shut out of lunch, but are allowed to pay less.
You do not want to deny the children a meal do you?
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteI did not misrepresent your argument.
Yes, you did.
I used your analogy to frame my rebuttal - if you consider that a 'strawman', then that's YOUR opinion.
QuoteQuoteAnd how are people NOT going to be forced to use the 'public option' once they've undercut everyone else?
I think the term option adequately explains how people will not be forced away from their private insurers. OTOH, if those private insurers can't offer competitive prices, then people will have the option of using a public system.
Right NOW, it's an "option" - what is it when it's the only game in town?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kbordson 8
QuoteThe sliding scale is for the term charges (premiums) not the charge for each individual service.
I know that any kind of ability-to-pay based pricing is going to come off as a redistribution-of-wealth policy and will cause resistance. But the redistribution of wealth train left the station a long time ago and is not coming back (at least not until after the Apocolypse). If it were more palatable as a tax differential, then it could be worked that way.
We are headed for guarantee issue, no doubt about it. There will be some compromises in order to make it affordable overall, and to make it an acceptable program to the majority. There are going to have to be credits or sliding scale premiums because even if we reduce the cost of care by say a quarter overnight, there will still be a significant chunk of the population priced out of coverage.
Think of it in the same vein as the reduced lunch price programs. People with little or no money do not get shut out of lunch, but are allowed to pay less.
You do not want to deny the children a meal do you?
AGAIN The Government as ALREADY limited that option for those who take medicare. You are NOT ALLOWED to charge less than you charge to medicare. They call that Fraud.
Now... some facilities DO have a sliding scale. They don't take medicare patients. And you have to bring in a pay slip or proof of income for that sliding scale.
pirana 0
QuoteQuoteWhen everybody wants a free ride, or more accurately when enough of the population wants to ride far enough below cost that the system is not sustainable; then at some point you have to look at the total cost versus continuing to burden the few that can pay.
I do not see the desire to have a public option as equivalent to desiring a free ride.
Good point, I'm overlapping topics.
My contention is that a government plan, unless they decide to play by all the same rules as commercial carriers, will not be just another competitor, but a heavily subsidized program - as are all government run programs today.
The only need for it is if they present it as a bare bones plan that would only appeal to people who can not afford decent coverage. If they offer a product that is similar to the commercials, but subsidize it so that it is cheaper, then they are not really competing but pricing the commercials out of business via taxpayer subsidy.
My assumption is that everyone will want at least a decent package of basic coverage; and that many of those will not be able to pay for it. They will expect it at a reduced price (reduced from the true cost to provide it) and so will be asking for a reduced price or free ride. If that population is large enough, then the system becomes unsustainable.
So redistribution of the burden will only get us so far. Reduction in total cost must also be part of the plan.
Bottom line is that I'd rather see sliding scale premiums that make real coverage affordable for everyone than throwing everyone with low income into substandard care plans; or worse yet subsidizing a government plan that "competes" with commercial carriers.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
mnealtx 0
well said, pirana
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
pirana 0
QuoteThere is a monumental amount of government regulation for healthcare providers already. It hasn't worked thus far to drive down costs to reasonable levels, and I doubt that adding more will do the trick. The government option is more drastic, and I think it would achieve more marked results.
The regulation in place today is a haphazard pile of shit. Very little of it has to do with keeping costs down, it mostly has to do with granting favored status and imposing additional costs on behalf of special interests.
We need there to be overall less of it, but put in place at the federal level (today most of it is still at the state level). You would not believe how some of it has gotten in. MN has a law to cover wigs for patients that have a certian specific type of cancer that was inserted by a single legislator to appease a single constituent. That kind of crap has been piled in for the last 30 years. It is a fucking mess. There are rules and exceptions galore that are mostly in place because of influential individuals, mandates for treatments that are proven ineffective, preferential treatment of political subdivisions, etc.
What we have has more to do with politics and the sleazy fuckwads we keep putting in office than health care or financing of it for the communal good.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
nerdgirl 0
QuoteQuoteSome believe personal responsibility doesn't stop with themselves.
If that is a justification for the continued privatization of healthcare, I'm curious if you think the people in nearly every other industrialized nation are irresponsible?So does that mean all the other countries have people that don't want to take responsibility for themselves?
No, not in my opinion.
Again, imo, health care -- which is not the same as health insurance reform or medical malpractice reform or a whole bunch of other issues -- is not a right. I'm open to arguments to the contrary.
It is, however, a state responsibility, e.g., "promote the general welfare," and a pragmatic necessity of 21st Century globalized economy.
Most of what is being discussed for possible legislation is health insurance reform, which as you probably know the current status quo/system is largely an unexpected by-product of historical circumstances during and immediately after WWII.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Ron 7
QuoteWhat I'm saying is that you can't compare socialized medicine to a Samsung, and the US medical system to an iPhone
Sure you can. One is free, but not as good as the one you have to pay for.
QuoteBut it doesn't mean the government is going to require us all to get Razrs
The Govt *IS* requiring you to get AT LEAST a Razor... Or they will fine you.
QuoteIf you believe these are valid arguments, then you should have zero problem with a government option.
Wrong... Social Security is not an Option, and it is run like crap. Me paying for Medicare and Medicaid is not an option either. Me paying for Amtrak is also not an option... All are run like crap.
QuoteAfter all, it will eventually fail due to it's own bureaucracy and then people will buy the better, private insurance, correct?
Name one Govt social program that was put into place, proven to not work, and was eliminated.
History has shown that the Govt does not do a good job of running these programs... That taxpayers are always left on the hook to pay for these program, and even then the Govt just passes the debt along to the next generation.
Go ahead, I see you have not answered any of my questions, so I will ask again:
1. Name a Govt program that works well.
2. Name a Govt program that stays within its budget.
3. Name any govt run healthcare program that does not have budget issues.
4. Let's say you had a company and you currently pay 5k a year to have each of your employees covered by your healthcare plan. The Govt imposes a "fine" if you don't cover your employees of 3k a year.
Are you still going to provide healthcare?
5. Name one Govt social program that was put into place, proven to not work, and was eliminated.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
jcd11235 0
QuoteAgain, imo, health care … is not a right. I'm open to arguments to the contrary.
A good friend of mine, whose opinion I tend to greatly respect, has the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights sitting prominently on her bookshelf.
I would argue that Article 25, paragraph 1 of that document implies a right to health care.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
While the UN's General Assembly lacks the legal authority of the UNSC, I believe it still supports the assertion that health care is a right.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteAgain, imo, health care … is not a right. I'm open to arguments to the contrary.
A good friend of mine, whose opinion I tend to greatly respect, has the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights sitting prominently on her bookshelf.
I would argue that Article 25, paragraph 1 of that document implies a right to health care.Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
While the UN's General Assembly lacks the legal authority of the UNSC, I believe it still supports the assertion that health care is a right.
Great - who are you planning on enslaving to provide those "rights"?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jcd11235 0
QuoteGreat - who are you planning on enslaving to provide those "rights"?
No one. It isn't necessary. That would also be a violation of Article 4, which I also support.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
pirana 0
QuoteQuoteAgain, imo, health care … is not a right. I'm open to arguments to the contrary.
A good friend of mine, whose opinion I tend to greatly respect, has the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights sitting prominently on her bookshelf.
I would argue that Article 25, paragraph 1 of that document implies a right to health care.Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
While the UN's General Assembly lacks the legal authority of the UNSC, I believe it still supports the assertion that health care is a right.
Nice sentiment, but certain vague terms leave it open to interpretation and subject to supporting multiple contradicting agendas.
For instance:
". . . necessary social services . . ." and ". . . beyond his control."
Kind of like those that seem to think the phrase ". . . Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" means the government should coddle and nuture from cradle to grave.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
Ion01 1
Awesome, so lets go right ahead and set up a system like in the UK (which obamacare is modelled after) where a patient in the hospital is so thirsty they drink water from a nearby plant or 4,000 women give birth in hallways because there isn't enough room or someones spleen supposedly removed spleen bursts.......Its so great we must make sure everyone has access to such a great healthcare system!
What I'm saying is that you can't compare socialized medicine to a Samsung, and the US medical system to an iPhone. I'm also saying that not everyone can afford an iPhone, that's why the Samsungs of the world are there. But it doesn't mean the government is going to require us all to get Razrs - it means there is an OPTION to get cheaper cell phones if you can't afford the more expensive model.
If you believe these are valid arguments, then you should have zero problem with a government option. After all, it will eventually fail due to it's own bureaucracy and then people will buy the better, private insurance, correct?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites