- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Oh this is just fun...
Page 124 of the bill has language written into it that bars judicial review and suit against the federal government by private insurers if they take exception to the fixed prices the "Health Choices Commissioner" sets in place for procedures.
:roll:
I pay my own bills.Who picks up the bill if you develop a serious condition? How does this effect aggregate cost?
Wrong. :2wave:Nope! You just are ill informed in regards to health care economics. :2wave:
What does insurance have to do with it? Your neighbor can choose to restore the house or not, regardless of insurance.Never said it did (so kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth). However, if a vacant charred house is sitting there for a year until it can be restored because my douche of a neighbor didn't purchase insurance.... It will effect me. You understand how externalities work?
No, it doesn't.That all sounds really nice. Reality dictates something different entirely.
Yes, I have commented on them. At length. I've made no faulty comments whatsoever. At the lowest level, Govt, insurance companies, and malpractice are the reasons for the high costs. Those initial high costs put upon people who couldn't afford them caused some people to neglect their obligations to pay and force the rest of us to pay for them, which only further drove up the costs. And the libtard's answer for this mess is to add more of the same that started it in the first ****ing place. ****ing brilliant.Going out quite far on the limb? Given your history for faulty comments in regards to health care economics, i cannot take your opinion seriously. The market for health care does not behave in a simple supply/demand fashion. There more forces at work, in which you have neglected to define and/or comment on.
Incorrect. I've yet to see anyone disprove a single bit of it.Not with the least bit of accuracy. All you provide are normative rants.
FACEBOOK?!!??!?!? :lamo:lamo:lamo
Oh this is just fun...
Page 124 of the bill has language written into it that bars judicial review and suit against the federal government by private insurers if they take exception to the fixed prices the "Health Choices Commissioner" sets in place for procedures.
:roll:
I forget which page, somewhere near the beginning, it states that if there's not enough money to pay for ****, then the Secretary "shall make such adjustments as are necessary" such as reducing benefits, increasing premiums, and establishing waiting lists.
WOOT!
yay for death panels?
Well, on the demand argument we have an artificially created demand that has just been created, it would not have to be subsidized if it had not been legislated.
This thing is going to cause massive economic damage and further dependence on government services, there have been instances where it's most ardent supporters have pretty much let that slip.
Sure. For instance with this situation, you don't have to be insured, or even pay to seek medical assistance in certain instances because of federal law, it puts a strain on hospitals which raises costs. If you pay cash you get a discount, but since many can't pay cash the increases are assessed on insurance payouts, when insurance companies have to pay more then we have to pay more. If the federal government hadn't put that burden on hospitals in the first place, along with very unfriendly tort laws which further not only increases in cost, CYA medicine, and an upward shift of MM. Insurance, we would see savings passed along to us down the entire health chain.
True, and while I agree with you, I can't go as far as to force people to purchase.
I forget which page, somewhere near the beginning, it states that if there's not enough money to pay for ****, then the Secretary "shall make such adjustments as are necessary" such as reducing benefits, increasing premiums, and establishing waiting lists.
WOOT!
What, there's no rationing in this bill! Nancy and Obama said so, and they never lie!That starts about midway down page 29 where it talks about rationing healthcare.
That starts about midway down page 29 where it talks about rationing healthcare.
What, there's no rationing in this bill! Nancy and Obama said so, and they never lie!
The rub is that the hypocratic oath is non-binding, so unless a state law requires medical providers to give access during an emergency it really is an unquantifiable factor, as it would depend solely on the providers will to give healthcare at a loss. Don't know which way this factor would swing to be honest.The demand is entirely (or pretty damn close) organic given the oath doctors take, and the life or death scenario. Dynamic shifts in demand given increased access need to be isolated accordingly. We know that health care after age 70 is pretty much inelastic, while health care at age 25 is less so. Yet.... given the life or death scenario, it is perfectly inelastic given all age groups.
I see this as potentially abused more than any other entitlement, if anything demand will exceed supply. For instance my mother works in the charity system here, she sees people who will not take generics and are constant "customers" because they aren't paying, these people will be on the public option eventually when the scum in Washington makes adjustments, so Louisiana's problem is about to become a national one.Demand for health care should tread a certain level if we aspire to have a truly healthy society.
Not necessarily, again, risk is so skewed right now to actually get the situation right would require around 3-4 decades of slowly peeling back the internal problems. Such as eliminating national medical school caps on enrollment, tort reform, etc.If someone does not have the money for health care, they will either go into debt (which has a tendency to lead to bankruptcy) or go without it. Either scenario raises the cost.
If anything we are going to see those healthcare inflation costs escalate in about two years, as well, let's not forget that this bill is a setup to eliminate private insurance companies, if they go down everyone does.The only way i see this reform damaging the economy is if we see even greater costs increases (health care inflation).
Not always better, usually not in fact, but this bill is not the way to go.Agreed. But I am not in the camp of "less available health care" is always better.
If the heavy regulations are appropriate I agree, however many of the regulations on my industry are not only a band-aid on a bullet wound, they miss the wound itself.I think it is a silly idea as well, but they did not include a public option. My personal preference would be for a heavily deregulated private sector to compete with an open public option. :shrug:
Hey, those palms aren't gonna grease themselves now, are they?Oh this is just great...just effin' great:
On page 65 of the bill, it is mandated that tax payers will subsidize the plans of all UNION retirees and "community organizations".
And then on page 95, it states that the federal government will pay ACORN and Americorp to sign people up for the government run option.
But wait!! There's not going to be any rationing of health care! How dare you speak such vile words. Those are only bloated talking points instigated by the evil right wing to try and make you believe that the govt will...
Oh wait, nvm. They put it right there in black and white in the bill.
God this is a sad day for this country. I've never voted a straight ticket in my life and I swore I never would. But I most likely will come Nov. Just to voice my disagreement with the ****tards who voted this atrocity in.
A non-accountable bureaucrat making my health care decisions for me? That is a vast improvement over a non-accountable beancounter making my health care decisions for me.Well it's right there in black and white. It goes on till about page 42 and in that time, it sets up the rolls of committees that will decide what health care you get and it defines the role of the Health Choices Commissioner (read: Healthcare Czar) who will adjust those choices based on the current year's budget. :shrug:
I pay my own bills.
Wrong. :2wave:
What does insurance have to do with it? Your neighbor can choose to restore the house or not, regardless of insurance.
No, it doesn't.
At the lowest level, Govt, insurance companies, and malpractice are the reasons for the high costs.
Those initial high costs put upon people who couldn't afford them caused some people to neglect their obligations to pay and force the rest of us to pay for them, which only further drove up the costs. And the libtard's answer for this mess is to add more of the same that started it in the first ****ing place. ****ing brilliant.
Incorrect. I've yet to see anyone disprove a single bit of it.
I have it on good authority (Faux News) that end of days/communism/Great Depression II all begin the day Obama signs health care reform ~
[IMGx]http://bestoftheleftpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/39cartoon44anydaynow.jpg[/IMG]
jallman has the advantage of actually knowing what is in the bill. It's almost unfair.It would be truly shocking to see you actually address some of the points brought up by jallman... Truly shocking. :roll:
It would be truly shocking to see you actually address some of the points brought up by jallman... Truly shocking. :roll:
Given the inelasticity of health care demand, your comment could not be more off base. The chief cause of health care inflation is an aging population. Are you aware of how the "market" achieves equilibrium?
Where is a good ole supply side solution when you need one? Increase the supply of doctors and the cost of health care falls.Or...... And this is a novel idea. Having a more healthy society will in fact decrease quantity demanded (regardless of elasticity). Adequate health coverage plays a major role.
You are arguing based on emotion and ideology.
jallman has the advantage of actually knowing what is in the bill. It's almost unfair.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?