APP - The Catchall Healthcare Megathread

Fish

New member
It seems to me that this is supposed to be the "serious" forum and we're posting about essentially the same issues in a number of threads that move quickly and are hard to keep up with.

Let's make this the singular health care thread in the forum. We can continue to post new articles or links within one thread and keep an ongoing conversation.

Damo posted this in one of the other threads:

Yet you said Hillarycare was "like this". It isn't. And health care isn't "broken" it is simply expensive.

But it seems to me that it's broken because it's so expensive. It's a product that everyone needs, but not everyone has access to. The market failed here. That seems pretty clear to me.
 
It seems to me that this is supposed to be the "serious" forum and we're posting about essentially the same issues in a number of threads that move quickly and are hard to keep up with.

Let's make this the singular health care thread in the forum. We can continue to post new articles or links within one thread and keep an ongoing conversation.

Damo posted this in one of the other threads:



But it seems to me that it's broken because it's so expensive. It's a product that everyone needs, but not everyone has access to. The market failed here. That seems pretty clear to me.
Nah, your pickup isn't broken because it costs a lot to buy, it is just expensive.

We need to find out where the disconnect is. It is rising at a rate higher than any explanation can reasonably ascertain. There has to be some serious savings in there. In the interim we can create a program that will subsidize people who are in the "working poor" that need insurance. However, any government program that simply covers the cost will in effect hide this extreme cost from people without fixing the actual issue and the government program will fail too as it bankrupts the nation.

Expensive isn't the same thing as "broken", it is a problem that we can solve.
 
Nah, your pickup isn't broken because it costs a lot to buy, it is just expensive.

We need to find out where the disconnect is. It is rising at a rate higher than any explanation can reasonably ascertain. There has to be some serious savings in there. In the interim we can create a program that will subsidize people who are in the "working poor" that need insurance. However, any government program that simply covers the cost will in effect hide this extreme cost from people without fixing the actual issue and the government program will fail too as it bankrupts the nation.

Expensive isn't the same thing as "broken", it is a problem that we can solve.

That's a bad analogy, but let's expand it. We live in a society where trucks are essential to financial security and personal health, but the trucks are so expensive that the people who need trucks the most can't afford to buy them.
 
That's a bad analogy, but let's expand it. We live in a society where trucks are essential to financial security and personal health, but the trucks are so expensive that the people who need trucks the most can't afford to buy them.
Again, we need a bridge to subsidize the cost of insurance for those who are in the donut hole. The poorest are covered, then there is a group that isn't, then the rest are. We need to fill that one hole with temporary help while we find a more permanent solution.

We'll do that by attacking the costs. I've said it myriad times on the board, the costs are rising at a rate that makes no sense and matches no indicators, this shows that there are some Pentagon Toilet Seat types of savings to be found. Instead we are simply covering it up, we drop some government on it then cover it in sand, but over time it will fester up again and again causing any program to fail. We must find the root cause of the problem and solve that, not just cover it with government.

I'd like to see a more centralized regulation on the health care insurance allowing people to find better and more fitting solutions to coverage costs, I'd like to see laws that force pharma to give us the same prices that they negotiate with other nations so that our necessary drugs aren't used to subsidize lower costs elsewhere...

These are just starters, but it will give us the time to find the right solution rather than just "any" solution because "Bush didn't do it"...
 
We'll do that by attacking the costs. I've said it myriad times on the board, the costs are rising at a rate that makes no sense and matches no indicators, this shows that there are some Pentagon Toilet Seat types of savings to be found. Instead we are simply covering it up, we drop some government on it then cover it in sand, but over time it will fester up again and again causing any program to fail. We must find the root cause of the problem and solve that, not just cover it with government.

The root cause is the system itself. For profit health care is a bad system that fosters greed and stifles innovation.
 
The root cause is the system itself. For profit health care is a bad system that fosters greed and stifles innovation.
Whether that is true, dropping it in the government box and covering it with somebody else's money doesn't solve anything. There are some bad things about for profit benefits, but there are also good things, innovation and technology is one. One of the listed problems with French health care is the lack of new technologies and spending in new areas of medicine.

Our health care is very good, it is the coverage that is the issue. I don't want to stifle the urge to try to save every low birth weight child and counting it as a live birth that works to our disadvantage in average life expectancy and infant mortality for instance. I believe that such efforts will bring a time that women can choose between ex utero incubation and "natural" incubation giving real choice in childbirth not the false choice of death only.
 
Whether that is true, dropping it in the government box and covering it with somebody else's money doesn't solve anything. There are some bad things about for profit benefits, but there are also good things, innovation and technology is one. One of the listed problems with French health care is the lack of new technologies and spending in new areas of medicine.

Innovation that is not available to everyone is a pretty shitty innovation, especially when we're talking about things that save lives.
 
Innovation that is not available to everyone is a pretty shitty innovation, especially when we're talking about things that save lives.
Hence we work to make it available quickly with interim subsidies while we work on the root cause rather than removing all that is good and grabbing at any plan because "Bush didn't do it" which is the current argument I have gotten from the left.

There is more good in our health care system than there is bad, and what is bad (not all are covered) can be bridged while we fix the actual cause of that issue. I believe we will stifle what is good if we make it so that government is the only provider, and one way to do that is to have a system that can run deficits forever "compete" with the other providers that cannot, it is a recipe for the worst kind of monopoly.
 
Hence we work to make it available quickly with interim subsidies while we work on the root cause rather than removing all that is good and grabbing at any plan because "Bush didn't do it" which is the current argument I have gotten from the left.

There is more good in our health care system than there is bad, and what is bad (not all are covered) can be bridged while we fix the actual cause of that issue. I believe we will stifle what is good if we make it so that government is the only provider, and one way to do that is to have a system that can run deficits forever "compete" with the other providers that cannot, it is a recipe for the worst kind of monopoly.

"Bush didn't do it" and neither has any other President since LBJ or any President before him. That's my argument. At least your talking point is coherent. You want to slow it down and take your time. Why is this upsetting the left? Because we've heard that for over 100 years and it's never been done. Slow it down we'll figure it out is another way of saying, "Let's bury this thing for another decade." I just don't accept that.
 
"Bush didn't do it" and neither has any other President since LBJ or any President before him. That's my argument. At least your talking point is coherent. You want to slow it down and take your time. Why is this upsetting the left? Because we've heard that for over 100 years and it's never been done. Slow it down we'll figure it out is another way of saying, "Let's bury this thing for another decade." I just don't accept that.
However, when have you heard of an interim solution to bridge the time to the solution?

The difference is I actually want a conversation rather than a wedge issue.

You asked me what I want to see, I have told you. Now I'll tell you what I do see. An attempt to centralize it in the government and a hope that people will believe that it isn't the cost we need to fix but the actual health care. A press to force something quickly when the vast majority of the nation wants to slow it down, and a total disregard of any other idea presented. Only this one solution is acceptable. This is a recipe for 15 more years of waiting, even the AARP has come out against this plan now. The longer it is the "only" acceptable option, the more people will realize it is still the same wedge.

I don't want a wedge, I want a solution.
 
However, when have you heard of an interim solution to bridge the time. The difference is I actually want a conversation rather than a wedge issue.

Fair enough, I want a conversation to. I just wish that's what the Republican party actually wanted as a whole and I think we can both agree that that's not true.
 
Fair enough, I want a conversation to. I just wish that's what the Republican party actually wanted as a whole and I think we can both agree that that's not true.
You asked me what I want to see, I have told you. Now I'll tell you what I do see. An attempt to centralize it in the government and a hope that people will believe that it isn't the cost we need to fix but the actual health care. A press to force something quickly when the vast majority of the nation wants to slow it down, and a total disregard of any other idea presented.

Only this one solution is acceptable.

This is a recipe for 15 more years of waiting, even the AARP has come out against this plan now. The longer it is the "only" acceptable option, the more people will realize it is still the same wedge. It isn't only the R party that is causing this to falter.

I don't want a wedge, I want a solution. I don't want the costs hidden, I want them found. I don't want the government to be the provider, because those who provide for you also expect to be able to give conditions for their provision.
 
You asked me what I want to see, I have told you. Now I'll tell you what I do see. An attempt to centralize it in the government and a hope that people will believe that it isn't the cost we need to fix but the actual health care. A press to force something quickly when the vast majority of the nation wants to slow it down, and a total disregard of any other idea presented. Only this one solution is acceptable. This is a recipe for 15 more years of waiting, even the AARP has come out against this plan now. The longer it is the "only" acceptable option, the more people will realize it is still the same wedge.

The fact that it's been 15 years since the country was even talking about health care this much speaks volumes. 15 years ago we had to slow down and talk it over.
 
The fact that it's been 15 years since the country was even talking about health care this much speaks volumes. 15 years ago we had to slow down and talk it over.
No, 15 years ago we hated the amount of times the "plan" could send you to prison. Hillarycare was a monster of its own, the arguments weren't to slow down, they pointed out what was in the plan.

During that 15 years D congresses also brought nothing forward, shoot during the 2000 campaign it was "lockboxes" for SS that they argued about, in 2004 the war. In 2008 both sides had their own "solution" and neither seems willing to actually have a conversation.

It's time to demand that Congressional leaders get together and put forward something different than this, because this one isn't going to pass. It seems to me that too often we get one party in power and it makes it so that no compromise can be reached. It seems our government works better and finds the best compromises when congress and the WH are held by different parties.
 
That's because you've got your plate to full and ergo; you're not able to do any of the things efficiently.

You might have to put aside the schooling, for the time being, and do what's necessary to take care of yourself.

So I should drop out of college so that I can become a more efficient worker at my low wage jobs?
 
Fair enough, I want a conversation to. I just wish that's what the Republican party actually wanted as a whole and I think we can both agree that that's not true.
How ironic. 'I want to be serious; its the Republican's fault.' LOL

You can afford a pickup truck just not one with leather seats and chrome wheels.
 
No, I can't afford health insurance at all. Not even shitty health insurance.



The GOP has worked its base up to a fever pitch about health care in order to bury it for another decade.

If that's truly the case then you have Medicade. If not then you're budgeting wrong.

Hopefully we can bury this thing forever. *shrug*
 
If that's truly the case then you have Medicade. If not then you're budgeting wrong.

Hopefully we can bury this thing forever. *shrug*

I don't qualify for Medicade. My paychecks go to rent, food, electricity, water, public transportation, and medication.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/13clinic.html?_r=1&hpw

INGLEWOOD, Calif. — They came for new teeth mostly, but also for blood pressure checks, mammograms, immunizations and acupuncture for pain. Neighboring South Los Angeles is a place where health care is scarce, and so when it was offered nearby, word got around.

For the second day in a row, thousands of people lined up on Wednesday — starting after midnight and snaking into the early hours — for free dental, medical and vision services, courtesy of a nonprofit group that more typically provides mobile health care for the rural poor.

Like a giant MASH unit, the floor of the Forum, the arena where Madonna once played four sold-out shows, housed aisle upon aisle of dental chairs, where drilling, cleaning and extracting took place in the open. A few cushions were duct-taped to a folding table in a coat closet, an examining room where Dr. Eugene Taw, a volunteer, saw patients.

When Remote Area Medical, the Tennessee-based organization running the event, decided to try its hand at large urban medical services, its principals thought Los Angeles would be a good place to start. But they were far from prepared for the outpouring of need. Set up for eight days of care, the group was already overwhelmed on the first day after allowing 1,500 people through the door, nearly 500 of whom had still not been served by day’s end and had to return in the wee hours Wednesday morning.

The enormous response to the free care was a stark corollary to the hundreds of Americans who have filled town-hall-style meetings throughout the country, angrily expressing their fear of the Obama administration’s proposed changes to the nation’s health care system. The bleachers of patients also reflected the state’s high unemployment, recent reduction in its Medicaid services for the poor and high deductibles and co-payments that have come to define many employer-sponsored insurance programs.

Many of those here said they lacked insurance, but many others said they had coverage but not enough to meet all their needs — or that they could afford. Some said they were well aware of the larger national health care debate, and were eager for changes.

Article Continues
 
Back
Top