No government - anywhere on the planet, at any time in history - has ever demonstrated the slightest competence in delivering consumer goods or services.
In the field of consumer goods, government devotes all its attention to preserving yesterday's jobs, and none at all to producing tomorrow's products. Remember the Yugo and the Brabi?
In the field of consumer services, the service providers are civil servants who are responsible only to their supervisors and have no responsibility to the customers. Think DMV.
The only way the consumer can prosper is when he/she has alternative sources from which to choose. A government monopoly is just as oppressive as any private monopoly; think USSR, Cuba or Venezuela.
You don't understand how UHC works, and it has been delivered very well in many countries.
It's also hilarious that Republicans are even talking about this. You people didn't want the high-risk pool to exist in the first place, now you're sad that some people might be excluded? Maybe you should have anticipated this and suggested that the allocation be bumped to $7 billion or $10 billion. Oh wait, you weren't going to vote for it no matter what, despite the entire bill being pretty much exactly what you proposed during the Clinton administration. Before it was your own idea, then it's socialism, and now it doesn't give enough to the poor?
The hypocrisy is impressive.
i note your position and then i compare it to realityNo government - anywhere on the planet, at any time in history - has ever demonstrated the slightest competence in delivering consumer goods or services.
In the field of consumer goods, government devotes all its attention to preserving yesterday's jobs, and none at all to producing tomorrow's products. Remember the Yugo and the Brabi?
In the field of consumer services, the service providers are civil servants who are responsible only to their supervisors and have no responsibility to the customers. Think DMV.
The only way the consumer can prosper is when he/she has alternative sources from which to choose. A government monopoly is just as oppressive as any private monopoly; think USSR, Cuba or Venezuela.
And neither do you.You don't understand how UHC works,
Nope, proving you don't know what you are talking about. The only relatively successful UHC models come from very small countries with a fraction of a percentage of the major UHC providers who are in cost crisis mode right now.and it has been delivered very well in many countries.
What facts? He is completely wrong.Stop confusing the issue with facts!
No he isn't!What facts? He is completely wrong.
We're in cost-crisis mode. 16% of GDP vs the next closest of 10% or so. Canada, for example, is having budget problems, but they still spend fewer tax dollars on health care than we do. Read that again. America spends more tax dollars on health care than Canada. Changing demographics and poor lifestyle choices are driving everyone towards the same cost-cliff, but America is going over the edge before everyone else is.And neither do you. Nope, proving you don't know what you are talking about. The only relatively successful UHC models come from very small countries with a fraction of a percentage of the major UHC providers who are in cost crisis mode right now.
Yes, you....you are incorrect, wrong if you will. You aren't a healthcare or insurance professional and are using the same debunked crap that wasn't correct the first ****ing time it was issued. So that would make you wrong, it's okay to admit it.No he isn't!
Wait...
Let me 'splain it for you. Canada having budget problems paying for healthcare as well as the UK, Spain, France, Germany to varying degrees and all of the other budget busters have to measure expenditures as a portion of GDP cause......stay with me now, the taxpayers are on the hook for everyone's medical coverage.....provided it's ever issued since there are rationing boards in many of those UHC countries. If you want to wait for essential care be my guest, but don't expect everyone else to suffer it. As well, the US is mainly a user pays system, so it is more instantaneous, as well, the GDP costs are irrelevant because guess what, individuals pay for it with minor exceptions. Now, there is NOTHING, not a thing, ZERO, NADA in UHC which will actually adress the things that make healthcare artificially expensive, if you care to read back in other threads Captain Courtesy, a few other informed posters, and myself have spelled them out at great expense to our time because we actually give a **** what happens to medical care in this country and don't have agendas in this other than getting people the best system humanly possible.We're in cost-crisis mode. 16% of GDP vs the next closest of 10% or so. Canada, for example, is having budget problems, but they still spend fewer tax dollars on health care than we do.
Already been handled, by the above. If you want to have a discussion on this bring more than a bunch of empty and easily defeated rhetoric, as well actually learn a few things about my industry before consulting biased blogs and talking points, otherwise you will continue to be wrong.Read that again. America spends more tax dollars on health care than Canada. Changing demographics and poor lifestyle choices are driving everyone towards the same cost-cliff, but America is going over the edge before everyone else is.
No evidence, LOL! I have been putting industry knowledge out, you have been regurgitating incorrect. 'Scuse me if I call you on it.You make lovely statements like "No you're wrong you don't know the facts" yet don't post any evidence to support that.
Industry knowledge means more than a bunch of blog posts because I work in the industry, your sources do not. End of discussion.You've been typing words into an internet forum and citing "industry knowledge" as if that should end the argument.
No, the unhealthy will still have to use drugs, and the R&D costs are not affected in that respect. As well, only people who NEED them will be using them for the most part. You lose on this point.Nothing to address costs in UHC? Within a quarter of a second "drug costs" came to mind. Having the entire population as a bargaining pool gets you lower prices on, well, pretty much anything you want.
Nope, full retirement to those running the system through government departments. The administrative costs are backloaded at a higher cost. You lose on this point.Then there's administrative overhead, which is lower in countries with UHC.
Ah, so "because Deuce says so" is the theme here. Tell you what, you'll know when you get one right after I respond, until then you can debate with yourself because you truly have demonstrated no working knowledge of this subject. Ta.Depending on the system, you can remove the profit margin from healthcare to shave a few percentage points off. If UHC (which is so wide a range of systems that trying to discuss it like this is almost absurd) does nothing to address cost, why does every country that adopts it spend less?
Industry knowledge means more than a bunch of blog posts because I work in the industry, your sources do not. End of discussion.
No, the unhealthy will still have to use drugs, and the R&D costs are not affected in that respect. As well, only people who NEED them will be using them for the most part. You lose on this point. Nope, full retirement to those running the system through government departments. The administrative costs are backloaded at a higher cost. You lose on this point. Ah, so "because Deuce says so" is the theme here. Tell you what, you'll know when you get one right after I respond, until then you can debate with yourself because you truly have demonstrated no working knowledge of this subject. Ta.
Deuce, you don't get it do you? The issue is ER overcrowding and the expenses that brings due to abuse, there are countless industry reports and news stories available to anyone that knows the very basics of research. The only fallacy here is the strawman you built to discredit the story, you started from the wrong position and misrepresented what it means which I am sure now was completely on purpose.So many argumentative fallacies it's hilarious. You realize you haven't cited any sources at all in this thread, right?
You accuse me of the "Deuce says so" method but this is precisely what you're doing.
You don't think Aetna's CEO gets a retirement package?
If you have some numbers to support your statements, maybe you'll have some grounds to make these accusations.
Deuce, you don't get it do you? The issue is ER overcrowding and the expenses that brings due to abuse, there are countless industry reports and news stories available to anyone that knows the very basics of research. The only fallacy here is the strawman you built to discredit the story, you started from the wrong position and misrepresented what it means which I am sure now was completely on purpose.
Yes, your assertion that this is the conservative argument is another great example of a strawman. As well, you have just proven again you aren't quite sure how health coverage works. High risk pools should be small and should be exclusionary because these are the portions of the population with the greatest consumption of medical services, most of which being in the highest dollar catagories. As well, this high risk pool will necessarily be more expensive since it requires the most usage of the money, next part of that is the group coverage model, it is the most expensive because the pool is weighted towards the least healthy amongst the group since everyone must have the same rate in their coverage group. If anything, people who actually know what they are talking about would argue that high risk pooling should be a singular classification, not a group model. Finally, NONE of that has anything to do with the topic at hand in a major sense because ER care while the most expensive is not used for minor things by those with private coverage since they necessarily can get primary care and are willing to pay for it, not use a legal technicality to stick those insured with the additional cost.The straw man that conservatives are attacking a high-risk pool for being too small when they didn't want it to exist in the first place? That straw man?
Yes, your assertion that this is the conservative argument is another great example of a strawman. As well, you have just proven again you aren't quite sure how health coverage works. High risk pools should be small and should be exclusionary because these are the portions of the population with the greatest consumption of medical services, most of which being in the highest dollar catagories. As well, this high risk pool will necessarily be more expensive since it requires the most usage of the money, next part of that is the group coverage model, it is the most expensive because the pool is weighted towards the least healthy amongst the group since everyone must have the same rate in their coverage group. If anything, people who actually know what they are talking about would argue that high risk pooling should be a singular classification, not a group model. Finally, NONE of that has anything to do with the topic at hand in a major sense because ER care while the most expensive is not used for minor things by those with private coverage since they necessarily can get primary care and are willing to pay for it, not use a legal technicality to stick those insured with the additional cost.
So, to summarize.....nice try but you are completely out of your element here.
We are “deeply concerned that these pools may not provide quality coverage or will limit enrollment,” Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas), John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Michael Burgess (R-Texas), the ranking members on the Energy and Commerce panel
Yes I did confuse them.Are you sure you're not confusing this thread with the other one? This thread is about the high-risk pool.
This bill does not fix anything about high risk pools, and you were taking the stand that adding high risk will somehow magically reduce cost. Insurance does not work that way.Republicans are "deeply concerned" that this pool will "limit enrollment." They voted against this pool even existing. This is the point I was making.
Yes I did confuse them.
This bill does not fix anything about high risk pools, and you were taking the stand that adding high risk will somehow magically reduce cost. Insurance does not work that way.
And the fact that you actually think this is exactly why I cannot take you seriously in this debate. If you truly think that high risk pools which exist in any system due to consumption of services you are fooling yourself, and yourself only. Look, I know you want subsidized healthcare at successfull and productive people's expense, I get that. The problem is there is reality and then there is what you want to happen, the two aren't compatible.What? No I wasn't. That was talking about single-payer/UHC.
Those are different things.
Oh, yeah. So then "no matter what you do" unhealthy people cost more, and UHC has no options other than DENIAL to counter costs. What good is free **** if you don't have access to it? You really need to stop trying to lecture others on this topic, you've proven you don't understand it, you especially need to stop lecturing me as it is my profession. Again, bring facts or you are dismissed.High-risk pools are going to be expensive regardless of what you do, because those are the expensive patients. The pool itself is not going to reduce total costs, merely spread that cost out amongst the taxpayers.
And the fact that you actually think this is exactly why I cannot take you seriously in this debate. If you truly think that high risk pools which exist in any system due to consumption of services you are fooling yourself, and yourself only. Look, I know you want subsidized healthcare at successfull and productive people's expense, I get that. The problem is there is reality and then there is what you want to happen, the two aren't compatible.
Oh, yeah. So then "no matter what you do" unhealthy people cost more, and UHC has no options other than DENIAL to counter costs. What good is free **** if you don't have access to it? You really need to stop trying to lecture others on this topic, you've proven you don't understand it, you especially need to stop lecturing me as it is my profession. Again, bring facts or you are dismissed.
Oh, but you did say it and don't realize it.What in God's name are you talking about? You're inventing all kinds of things that I never actually said. My contribution to the thread was this:
News flash, there aint no "high risk pool" provision in the bill, but there is mandatory coverage.Republicans voted against the health care reform bill and the high-risk pool provisions it contains.
Republicans later attack the bill because the high-risk pool is too small or something.
Um, you attacked a fellow poster for not knowing the issue, I simply demonstrated you don't either.Everything else was some bizarre derail that YOU started. I'm honestly baffled as to where you are getting all of this. High-risk pools are more expensive because high-risk patients are more expensive. Anything else you think I was saying is a fabrication of your own brain. Nothing is free, I don't know where you came up with that particular talking point, but it sure as hell wasn't from me.
Again, everything I addressed is EXACTLY what you are advocating for whether you realize it or not. That you are getting frustrated is your problem.Seriously. Go ****ing back to the start of this thread and read again. Just that one, first post I made. When trying to understand it, only pay attention to the words I actually wrote instead of what you assume that I'm saying.
Cute, now how does that actually address the cost problem in your expert opinion? Yeah, thought so.Hahahah. Ok. I'm for things that I don't realize I'm for.
You're inventing arguments and then attacking them with the wonderful tactic of "I know everything because I'm in the business and you know nothing so THERE, I win!"
Have fun with that. Apparently you don't actually need me for this "debate." You seem to have it all covered in your head. Enjoy.
Meanwhile:
High-Risk Insurance Pools Launched - WSJ.com
So this $5billion for high-risk pools, and the requirement for states to make a decision on high-risk pools. It's not a high-risk pool? It's not in the bill? Let's look!
Text of H.R.3590 as Amendment in Senate (OC Prepared): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress
So what is this then, mr. industry man?
Or maybe you're just trying to score some e-points by debating semantics?
Cute, now how does that actually address the cost problem in your expert opinion? Yeah, thought so.
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?