(07-13-2012 01:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  When have I ever supported a fully single-payer system?

How can you have a not fully single payer system?

Are you trying to be obtuse?

(07-13-2012 01:31 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 01:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  When have I ever supported a fully single-payer system?

How can you have a not fully single payer system?

Are you trying to be obtuse?

Because it's impossible to have a system which provides a base-level of coverage while also allowing for private healthcare, or person funds, to cover other services if one wishes?

(07-13-2012 12:17 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  I agree. It is ridiculous that many people wish their health issues/insurance to be private, and not have the government in the exam room with them.

And, you are right, the federal government spends no money advertisting Obamacare, or a myriad of other programs. Nor, do they spend a single penny on overhead.

The difference is that private industry can be responsive to market (consumer choices) and the profit motive causes them to seek efficiencies and more effective treatments. There are no such things in a government system. You get what they decide to give you, and if it is a sh*t sandwich, your only choice is to eat or not.

Examples of the government spending to advertise Obamacare? And if you find any, compare it to private insurance advertising.

You realize most people have insurance through their employer right? I don't think Wal Mart will listen when you complain their insurance carrier denied your cancer treatment. That's assuming Wal Mart offers insurance so you're not forced to find an expensive policy on your own.

The profit motive causes them to seek less expensive treatments, whether they're effective or not. It causes them to deny, and give bonuses to adjustors who deny.

I'm not opposed to a public option or otherwise allowing people to obtain private insurance for services above what the government offers.

Comparing Medicare to private insurance isn't apples-to-apples when one (Medicare) just applies to elderly people often near the end of their years.

(07-13-2012 11:31 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 07:54 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I always vote, though now that Gene Bartow and my father are both dead, I don't know who I'm going to write-in this year.

Firmbizzle '12

It's going to cost you an ambassadorship of a warm weather coastal country with a wealthy, stable government.

(07-13-2012 01:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 11:31 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 07:54 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I always vote, though now that Gene Bartow and my father are both dead, I don't know who I'm going to write-in this year.

Firmbizzle '12

It's going to cost you an ambassadorship of a warm weather coastal country with a wealthy, stable government.

Congratulations new ambassador of Bermuda. Here are your official shorts and flip flops. We have move the embassy beachside.

(07-13-2012 02:03 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 01:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 11:31 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 07:54 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I always vote, though now that Gene Bartow and my father are both dead, I don't know who I'm going to write-in this year.

Firmbizzle '12

It's going to cost you an ambassadorship of a warm weather coastal country with a wealthy, stable government.

Congratulations new ambassador of Bermuda. Here are your official shorts and flip flops. We have move the embassy beachside.

I knew you secretly supported offshore banking.

I bet that embassy has one hell of a casual friday dress-code

(07-13-2012 02:13 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 02:03 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 01:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 11:31 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 07:54 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I always vote, though now that Gene Bartow and my father are both dead, I don't know who I'm going to write-in this year.

Firmbizzle '12

It's going to cost you an ambassadorship of a warm weather coastal country with a wealthy, stable government.

Congratulations new ambassador of Bermuda. Here are your official shorts and flip flops. We have move the embassy beachside.

I knew you secretly supported offshore banking.

No. I support onshore banking. Preferably tellers in bikinis. That's how I make deposits.

(07-13-2012 01:40 PM)Max Power Wrote:  You realize most people have insurance through their employer right? I don't think Wal Mart will listen when you complain their insurance carrier denied your cancer treatment. That's assuming Wal Mart offers insurance so you're not forced to find an expensive policy on your own.

The profit motive causes them to seek less expensive treatments, whether they're effective or not. It causes them to deny, and give bonuses to adjustors who deny.

Comparing Medicare to private insurance isn't apples-to-apples when one (Medicare) just applies to elderly people often near the end of their years.

I do understand that most people have insurance through their employer. And, that is due to Harry Truman, wage controls, and the ridiculousness of our tax code. Get the employer out of the middle and then YOU can pick the best insurance for you. Market forces, eh?

So, again, government is going to fund whatever treatment at whatever price, right? That is clearly what you are saying above. And, that is not what happens in any single payer or single provider system.

Please expand on your Medicare statement. The government is refusing certain treatments to people because they are "near the end of their years?"

(07-13-2012 01:11 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  When have I ever supported a fully single-payer system?

You have been an idiot your whole adult life so, at least since you were old enough to crawl.

(07-13-2012 03:08 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 01:40 PM)Max Power Wrote:  You realize most people have insurance through their employer right? I don't think Wal Mart will listen when you complain their insurance carrier denied your cancer treatment. That's assuming Wal Mart offers insurance so you're not forced to find an expensive policy on your own.

The profit motive causes them to seek less expensive treatments, whether they're effective or not. It causes them to deny, and give bonuses to adjustors who deny.

Comparing Medicare to private insurance isn't apples-to-apples when one (Medicare) just applies to elderly people often near the end of their years.

I do understand that most people have insurance through their employer. And, that is due to Harry Truman, wage controls, and the ridiculousness of our tax code. Get the employer out of the middle and then YOU can pick the best insurance for you. Market forces, eh?

So, again, government is going to fund whatever treatment at whatever price, right? That is clearly what you are saying above. And, that is not what happens in any single payer or single provider system.

Please expand on your Medicare statement. The government is refusing certain treatments to people because they are "near the end of their years?"

Health care is so much different than anything else that even if you remove the employment ties it still poses too many problems to just leave it to the free market. People don't know medicine and they have no idea what they'll need. And the result of their misjudging their insurance coverage needs is sick and dying people for which the rest of us are going to end up picking up the tab.

I'm not saying a single payer system would cover anything. Obviously there has to be a line drawn so we're not spending millions to prolong somebody's life a few minutes, and I know we can count on conservatives to demagogue that as death panels.

My point on Medicare is that most of their decisions involve seniors with terminal illnesses who want expensive treatment with little or questionable benefit, and private insurance mostly isn't.

Emergency or critical care medicine, is undeniably removed from a free-market system. There are certain aspects of healthcare which aren't, namely most non-emergency cosmetic surgeries, many ortho surgeries, in short basically anything which can be planned and is not an emergency or critical to a persons immediate health (even a fair amount of cancer treatment can be put into this category, but that's where the line becomes fuzzy).

In short, if you have a compound fracture in your arm, it isn't reasonable to apply the same reasons for supporting the free market as one would to buying a new shirt or dishwasher; there is no reasonable expectation for someone to shop around for the lowest price or the most efficient provider. To say otherwise is just being obtuse. If we can't apply the reasons we normally do for support of the free market, then why do we expect it to excel in this specific instance? (This doesn't even begin to cover the issue of requiring payment before services, and the risk that has to patients)

Obama wins, Democrats widen margin in the senate.

(07-13-2012 11:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Emergency or critical care medicine, is undeniably removed from a free-market system. There are certain aspects of healthcare which aren't, namely most non-emergency cosmetic surgeries, many ortho surgeries, in short basically anything which can be planned and is not an emergency or critical to a persons immediate health (even a fair amount of cancer treatment can be put into this category, but that's where the line becomes fuzzy).

In short, if you have a compound fracture in your arm, it isn't reasonable to apply the same reasons for supporting the free market as one would to buying a new shirt or dishwasher; there is no reasonable expectation for someone to shop around for the lowest price or the most efficient provider. To say otherwise is just being obtuse. If we can't apply the reasons we normally do for support of the free market, then why do we expect it to excel in this specific instance? (This doesn't even begin to cover the issue of requiring payment before services, and the risk that has to patients)

You either intentionally or unintentionally combining two very separate things - health care versus health insurance. As a consumer, if I was able to personally shop for my own health insurance, I could buy the very best policy for ME. I wouldn't get the best policy from a list of policies that are, fundamentally, the best for my employer. And, certainly, the more involved the government gets into the insurance market (which was already heavily regulated before Obamacare), the less the free market functions. Want insurance to cover your 26 year old? Buy a policy that does that. Want a high deductible policy and pay for more out of pocket? Buy that.

And, the free market can certainly positively influence health care. Of course, if you get into a car accident or bang your head while ice skating, you are going to head to the nearest emergency care facility. If my car breaks down on the interstate, I'm going to get towed to the nearest garage and deal with it. However, for regular, and even many urgent care situations (plus what you cite above), the market could have a positive influence. If I pay for more normal charges out of pocket, I'm going to make much better decisions. And, doctor charges will be lower because they won't have to deal with the insurance company for an ear ache. How many people go to urgent care because it is more convenient for something their GP could cover? Since their visit basically costs them the copay, why do they care?

(07-13-2012 07:04 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Health care is so much different than anything else that even if you remove the employment ties it still poses too many problems to just leave it to the free market. People don't know medicine and they have no idea what they'll need. And the result of their misjudging their insurance coverage needs is sick and dying people for which the rest of us are going to end up picking up the tab.

I'm not saying a single payer system would cover anything. Obviously there has to be a line drawn so we're not spending millions to prolong somebody's life a few minutes, and I know we can count on conservatives to demagogue that as death panels.

My point on Medicare is that most of their decisions involve seniors with terminal illnesses who want expensive treatment with little or questionable benefit, and private insurance mostly isn't.

I see. So, who is smart enough to decide what coverage I need? A paper pusher in Washington? I'm glad that you think the populace is too ignorant to tend to their own healthcare.

And, you point out that single payer limits choices. Finally.

How about you and the government get out of our personal lives?