SCOTUS upholds Obama Care.

[BlueFlames]

I’m sure all government agencies are qualified to tell people what they want to hear.

Yeah, that's kind of the vapid, baseless response that I expected.

Surely, for all the organizations stating that the ACA will sink the economy, you can find one that has found a plausible scenario, in which the ACA causes an increase in premiums or a massive increase in the deficit and has the data to back up the claim. Maybe if you put some effort into finding and presenting that data, then you can form a convincing argument to that effect, instead of coming off as a partisan hack/conspiracy theorist. If you can't or won't find any kind of credible data to back up your claim that the the Affordable Care Act will have an adverse effect on providing affordable healthcare, then you have no place making that claim to begin with.

If you do insist on only defending this insipid, "The government only tells you what you want to hear, maaaan!" position, though, then provide some credible evidence that the DHHS, GAO, and CBO consistantly provide rosey policy analyses that fly in the face of reality.

[Spidey]

You got the response you baited for…I have no intention of defending that position, but I am old enough to remember the government telling everyone that nuclear power will be so cheap, there will be no need to meter the usage. I can also give countless other examples…

Oh, and you can stick your straw man, I never claimed the ACA will sink the economy…you pulled that one out of your ass. My contention is the name is a joke.

There are many credible independent sources that are in conflict with the government’s numbers, but I’m not in a habit of posting useless links that nobody clicks on.

I am also not a “partisan hack”.

So, I will just give my opinion as usual…
There are three basic reasons I believe this law will not bring down the cost of health care.

1. The provisions eliminating lifetime care caps & the pre-existing conditions clause etc.
2. This law does absolutely nothing to address the root cause for high health care costs in the first place*
3. The false idea that everyone without insurance is some strapping young healthy stud. And somehow shifting the cost of the deadbeats to the taxpayer instead of providers will somehow magically reduce costs.

• The root cause of high health care costs lie in the fact that most care givers bill insurance companies and not the receivers of health care, therefore eliminating the normal “what the market will bear” pressure. I have raised the “simple eye operation” more than once on this board, but nobody seems to have the balls to answer the question.

The first reason goes to the many provisions in this law that will induce upward pricing pressure. And the second goes to the blind spot everyone seems to have regarding this issue. As for the third…well that one is my personal peeve, being someone that has pre-existing conditions and no insurance.

[BlueFlames]

Heaven forbid, someone make you put effort into articulating and defending your position.

I am old enough to remember the government telling everyone that nuclear power will be so cheap, there will be no need to meter the usage.

Show me the estimates and the real numbers. Bear in mind, as you do, that the US electrical grid's conversion to nuclear power also ground to a halt in the late seventies, so it's probably not the best example, since 67% of US electricity is still generated by coal and natural gas.

As to your "countless other examples," SHOW THEM! If you can actually establish a pattern of government policy analyses being way off base, then do it. If you can do so convincingly, then I'll have to concede the point and find more reliable sources of information. Otherwise, you're making an assertion without evidence, and such assertions can be dismissed without evidence.

There are many credible independent sources that are in conflict with the government’s numbers, but I’m not in a habit of posting useless links that nobody clicks on.

This is egregious, and it's why I called you a hack. You claim to be sitting on a mountain of obvious evidence, and then you refuse to provide any of it to back up your argument. That says to me that you don't have the evidence, are too lazy to look any of it up, and assume that the people reading your post are gullible enough to accept your claim without proof. This "nobody clicks mah links" is nothing more than an obvious smokescreen to hide the fact that you're unwilling or unable to find the evidence that you claim supports your position, and even provides some potential insight into how much effort you're willing to put into verifying a source, before disparaging it. It's nobody's job but your's to do the research to defend your position or attack your opposition's, and if you're unwilling to do that, then you demonstrate that your position has no merit.

Your "three basic reasons" for predicting the ACA as being ineffectual are again, assertions without evidence, and if you're not willing to do the necessary research to defend them, then I have no particular need to address them.

[Spidey]

“You claim to be sitting on a mountain of obvious evidence”

More BS, I’m done.

[BlueFlames]

“You claim to be sitting on a mountain of obvious evidence”

More BS, I’m done.

So you didn't say, "There are many credible independent sources that are in conflict with the government’s numbers"?

No, you did say that, but you apparently don't want to provide or are incapable of providing those sources.

[Spidey]

Maybe you should look up the difference between projections and opinions vs. evidence and facts.

[Sergeant Thorne]

... and if you're unwilling to do that, then you demonstrate that your position has no merit.

Incorrect. That's an example of what I would call a 'shutout tactic.' The logically correct observation that an antagonist may draw from this is that it may indicate that the opposing position has no merit.

[Tunnelcat]

• The root cause of high health care costs lie in the fact that most care givers bill insurance companies and not the receivers of health care, therefore eliminating the normal “what the market will bear” pressure. I have raised the “simple eye operation” more than once on this board, but nobody seems to have the balls to answer the question.

And herein lies the problem. This is NOT the root cause that healthcare is so costly. The real reason is that everyone wants to live, NO MATTER THE COST. We have INELASTIC DEMAND for a product that everyone HAS TO HAVE, because no one wants to get sick or die, since we all have that silly human trait known as wanting to survive. In the free market, prices have no checks and balances with a product that is driven by inelastic demand. The price will keep going up and up until that demand is met, but so far, the ceiling itself keeps moving up because demand keeps going up. So either we get a system where everyone pays to support everyone else, some form of socialized government-run single-payer system, in which care can be substandard and institutionalized. Or a system where only those that can afford the product can have access to it, namely private enterprise, which leaves those who can't afford it to depend on charity, thievery, or ultimately, death. Both systems have their drawbacks and ethics problems with how costs are controlled and care is distributed, ie., RATIONED, so people will eventually need to decide which way they want to take healthcare in this country. Obamacare doesn't address this, nor does the free market either. Eventually it's going to come down to how much is it worth to society for everyone who wants to live as long as possible to be able to do so, no matter what, and whether we can even afford this as a nation, because that day is rapidly approaching.

[woodchip]

“You claim to be sitting on a mountain of obvious evidence”

More BS, I’m done.

So you didn't say, "There are many credible independent sources that are in conflict with the government’s numbers"?

No, you did say that, but you apparently don't want to provide or are incapable of providing those sources.

One thing I read about was the govts. first 10 year projection included 2010 and 2011 which have a minimizing effect as those 2 years (along with 2012) have no costs involved when averaged in. What are the 10 year projections from when Obamacare kicks in in 2014?

[Spidey]

tc...Links…I demand links…Just kidding.

Well there are many things we consume on a daily basis, that would fit into your INELASTIC DEMAND definition…food, water, shelter, energy…etc, and I can see the market forces working on these things, all of the time.

Funny how we all feel we have the right to cheap consumer products, but not healthcare…if you were getting the bill instead of some faceless insurance company, I think the same process would apply.

[Tunnelcat]

Think about it Spidey. Say you get injured in an accident, or even get diagnosed with cancer. What's the first thing you'd think of doing? I'm willing to bet that your first action would be to charge to the doctor seeking help and treatment, without any thought of how to pay for it at the moment. Most people are going to seek medical help first because either they're in pain, or they think they're going to get sick or die. That's the natural reaction. They usually don't think of how they're going to pay for it until that first bill shows up.

As an example, I was watching a medical ethics show a couple of years back about the ethics of end-of-life care. They were interviewing an older gentleman in his 70's who had stage 4 cancer. The doctors were honest and told him that the treatment would probably not last or stop the cancer and it would only extend his life for about 2 months, would also be very costly and probably make the rest of his life painfully miserable during treatment. So what did he decide to do? He wanted those precious last 2 months, which is about what he got, no matter how much it cost and no matter how painful it became. Can you see the problem? He had insurance, and guess who paid for his decision, the insurance company. And where does that company get that money to pay for that guy's last 2 months of life? Why, through everyone else's higher and higher premiums of course.

As for your food, water and housing examples, there are plenty of people who are homeless and hungry and survive at it. At least they aren't dead, but I'll bet you a lot of them aren't very happy about the circumstances they're living in either. With no healthcare access for those who can't pay, most people will become ...... painfully dead, like in the olden days before doctors and modern medicine.

[Spidey]

I’m living proof that you are wrong…

As you already know I am blind in my right eye…well if I had the money, I would get it fixed.

There are also some more effective drugs available to help with my diabetic neuropathy, but I do without.

I also have this prescription sitting on my desk, for an CAT scan, for a problem I am having with my gut…guess what…

If health care were sold directly to the consumer, it would be the same as anything else…if the price were too high…no sale.

The insurance companies negotiate with the providers for pricing…AND YOU ARE NOT EVEN IN THE LOOP! Providers try to get the best price they can, insurance companies charge what they need to make a profit, without regard to the consumer, because most of the charge for insurance is born by governments and business…duh.

Don’t get me wrong tc, I do understand the affect you are describing, and that explains why health care will always be a premium service…but in no way can account for the outrageous costs we see today.

[Tunnelcat]

I too have a few problems I don't have the money to fix either. Some "repairs" I don't even want them to try to fix. It's just cheaper to live with the problems.

But by far largest amounts of money being spent right now are going to end-of-life care for seniors and we're all subsidizing it. It's going to get worse with the Boomers now reaching that age where things start to fail. My own mother, bless her soul, spent nearly a million dollars trying to stay alive after a diagnosis of stage 4 lung cancer. All those treatments she desperately tried only gave her ONE YEAR extra of life. Was that worth it? After watching her go through it, no. Whether you like it or not, you helped pay for it through your insurance premiums. If you have the time, watch the segment from CBS below. Very sad and revealing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-6747002.html

The cost of dying is going to kill us all. Just how would you fix the system Spidey? Get rid of insurance? Have insurance for only certain things? Everyone in the system is taking their piece of meat, so where do you make cuts? Doctors don't want to get a pay cut. Hospitals don't want to lose profits. Drug companies want their huge profit margin. Insurance companies already take 30% off the top. All of these entities want to make profit. Where do you trim the fat without taking away from someone somewhere? How do you train the medical system to use some common sense when treating illnesses that have little chance of being cured with the present medical knowledge?

[callmeslick]

Spidey,
In NO other civilized country would you be expected to go through what you just describe above. Healthcare ought to be a right of citizenship, not a source of profit-taking. Period. Why the rest of the world gets it, and so many Americans do not eludes me.

[callmeslick]

TC, you make some very valid points, above. Part of the issue we see in the US that isn't due to the drive for profit is around human expectations in this country. Everyone, or most(Spidey would seem to be an exception) seems to EXPECT all-out, top notch, state-of-the-art medical practices to be performed on them, no matter the proof of outcome. Yet, everyone wishes to carp about the costs of 'medicine'. Let's face it, experimental cell implantation costs big money, robotic laser surgical instrumentation is going to cost money, etc. What we need to get to is a reasonable state of healthcare, and a reasonable state of mind regarding personal expectations. As I stated to Spidey, I think routine and baseline level medical care ought to be a right, from cradle to grave, for everyone. Care above that level(as determined by a rational discussion of tax costs, definition establishment for baseline care, etc) would have to be financed out of pocket or by supplemental insurance. Why has this not happened? Simple, too many people, pulling too many political strings, don't want the nation to go to such a model.

[woodchip]

And in civilized Britain people were pulling their own teeth out because of the long wait to see a dentist.

[callmeslick]

And in civilized Britain people were pulling their own teeth out because of the long wait to see a dentist.

yet, overall satisfaction with the National Health service is at 96%, second highest in the world(behind Luxemborg). Go figure.

oh, and interesting(and, all too predicatable) that you cite a DENTAL horror story to illustrate the utter failure of the MEDICAL
system. Does your medical insurance cover dentistry? Mine doesn't. Still, thanks, yet again, for demonstrating exactly how weak the opposition argument to socialized medicine is. All that the right ever does is trot out horror stories, yet the US ranks around 20th in outcomes and public satisfaction.

[woodchip]

And in civilized Britain people were pulling their own teeth out because of the long wait to see a dentist.

yet, overall satisfaction with the National Health service is at 96%, second highest in the world(behind Luxemborg). Go figure.

oh, and interesting(and, all too predicatable) that you cite a DENTAL horror story to illustrate the utter failure of the MEDICAL
system. Does your medical insurance cover dentistry? Mine doesn't. Still, thanks, yet again, for demonstrating exactly how weak the opposition argument to socialized medicine is. All that the right ever does is trot out horror stories, yet the US ranks around 20th in outcomes and public satisfaction.

"Roughly (in 2003) 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthc ... anada.aspx

"The “Bismarck system” operates across most of Europe, including Austria, Netherlands, France and Switzerland, all with well-rated healthcare. The NHS’s “Beveridge system,” free at point of use and taxpayer funded, may be much loved by the British people, but arguably does not match the Bismarck system in medical outcomes and aspects of patient satisfaction. "

"In Germany, you don’t wait 18 weeks from referral for joint replacement. Equally, “Bismarck” countries largely avoided the high hospital infection rates in NHS units in the Noughties. "

Keep telling me how great Britains health system is.

[Spidey]

My solutions…well I guess that’s a fair question.

I had some solutions worked out a little while ago, but they were way too radical, and had just as many problems.

So I came up with this…

Build public funded hospitals and clinics, along with a system of reimbursement to private institutions to provide care for the people who can’t afford insurance…simple and cost effective.

I think we are too fixated with everyone having insurance, when the real need here is the care.

[callmeslick]

Spidey, good thoughts all.....possibly cumbersome to put into practice nationwide, but good thoughts nonetheless.


Woody. You DID notice that you were citing 9 year old statistics, from before the most recent systemic reforms and all, right?
Try looking at numbers from 2008 and forward. Mind you, the British model isn't perfect, nor the only workable model. The Swiss use a sort of version of Obamacare on steroids and it works very well. Anything is an improvement on the US system we've been stuck with. Obamacare is a step, but only a step, toward addressing a VERY complex problem. Spidey has an approach that has merit. What, pray tell, are you bringing to the table other than ideological whining?