Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".

He's right.

And people wonder why the Republican party is disliked.

Please show me in Constitution or legal statute that citizens has a right to health insurance. (note: do not conflate health insurance to health care).

First step in this debate is for everyone to acknowledge this.

Secondly, I'm willing to have a debate to make it a right and discuss how to achieve this.

That's not the point Whem. It's that the response to "All these people will lose coverage" should not be "well they have no right to it". It's an incredibly inconsiderate and uncaring state of mind.

It's the harsh truth and everyone need to own up to that.

Stop sugar coating things (ie, like how ACA was advertised when passed) so that people are well informed.

It's really about managing expectations and being truthful of the situation.

What does that statement have to do with what I just said?

Nothing its just whembly moving the goal posts because he got caught being a giant donkey cave

I'm glad I'm not one of the few people I know who are only receiving lifesaving medication due to the ACA. If I were, I'd probably see my impending death sentence as a justification for earning an impending death sentence. "Nothing left to lose" and all that.

I guess what I'm saying is I wonder how many instant security concerns will be born out of this gleeful screwing of the sick and the poor.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Listened to an interview with King today where they asked him about the people projected to loose their coverage. His answer was basically "they have no right to health insurance".

He's right.

And people wonder why the Republican party is disliked.

Please show me in Constitution or legal statute that citizens has a right to health insurance. (note: do not conflate health insurance to health care).

First step in this debate is for everyone to acknowledge this.

Secondly, I'm willing to have a debate to make it a right and discuss how to achieve this.

That's not the point Whem. It's that the response to "All these people will lose coverage" should not be "well they have no right to it". It's an incredibly inconsiderate and uncaring state of mind.

It's the harsh truth and everyone need to own up to that.

Stop sugar coating things (ie, like how ACA was advertised when passed) so that people are well informed.

It's really about managing expectations and being truthful of the situation.

What does that statement have to do with what I just said?

? Just arguing that he's not sugar coating it...

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm glad I'm not one of the few people I know who are only receiving lifesaving medication due to the ACA. If I were, I'd probably see my impending death sentence as a justification for earning an impending death sentence. "Nothing left to lose" and all that.

I guess what I'm saying is I wonder how many instant security concerns will be born out of this gleeful screwing of the sick and the poor.

It's really just part of the GOP's Plan anyways.

Rob from social security

Demonize the people who dare to want the money they paid into it

Keep raising the age and hoping people die off before they can collect so they never have to pay back what was stolen.

So it's in the GOP's interest to want people to die young, and to do what they can to insure it happens, so they can keep robbing the cookie jar.

We should tell all the old people that insurance isn't a right.

It's "stop socialism, hands off my Medicare" all over again.

 whembly wrote:

? Just arguing that he's not sugar coating it...

That's not the point. I never argued that it's a right, you brought it up. My point was that the response to "Millions of people will lose coverage, many who need it to survive" should not be "Well' it's not like they have a right to health insurance".

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

? Just arguing that he's not sugar coating it...

That's not the point. I never argued that it's a right, you brought it up. My point was that the response to "Millions of people will lose coverage, many who need it to survive" should not be "Well' it's not like they have a right to health insurance".

Well, it's nicer than the "feth them" that's the core of the message.

Thread Warning - There's been some personal attacks and general rudeness here. I'm pissy because I had to break out the orange letters, and I don't like using the orange letters. Still better than the red letters.

Anyway, deep breath, toy soldiers forum, all that.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm glad I'm not one of the few people I know who are only receiving lifesaving medication due to the ACA. If I were, I'd probably see my impending death sentence as a justification for earning an impending death sentence. "Nothing left to lose" and all that.

I guess what I'm saying is I wonder how many instant security concerns will be born out of this gleeful screwing of the sick and the poor.

The ultimate irony here is that one of the Republican attacks on the ACA back in the day was regarding so-called death panels. By voting to repeal the ACA with nothing in place to help those who are alive today solely due to the ACA, the GOP will, in essence, be a death panel itself.

 Verviedi wrote:
I also doubt we'll have an unmarried president or president without children. "Traditional family" supporters make up too much of the population.

Maybe. But religious voters this election showed they will line up for the Republican candidate no matter how odious he is, in both a policy sense and a personal moral sense.

One of the interesting dynamics about really loyal voting groups is that while it gives the party they are loyal to great power, it actually reduces the power of the voting base. When they show they will show up and vote no matter what, they are easy to take for granted. Look at black voters and the democratic party - Democrats don't have to offer them a thing because they know they're not voting Republican.

The religious right has that problem even worse, because at least black voters will turn up in reduced numbers when they're not impressed with the Democratic candidate. The religious right turn up no matter what, so why burn political capital doing anything for them?

Similarly, why should Democrats fear them? Knowing they will hate the Democrat and vote Republican no matter what, Democrats have nothing to lose by courting groups the religious right finds scary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its quite ironic how the mainstream media is simultaneously freaking out over "fake news"...whilst uncritically accepting these (as yet unproven) allegations as fact.

No-one has accepted the claims as fact, every single report you can find clearly states them as allegations. Please don't make things up.

Eight years ago we had 28 million people without health insurance.

They were not dying off in job lots.

Now, after eight years, we intend to roll that atrocious piece of legislation back.

Those 28 million or so will lose their healthcare and will probably STILL not be dying off in job lots.

ACA is beyond welfare, a hand up when you are down. It is nothing more than the establishment of a lifelong entitlement program. An entitlement program that will screw 100 million citizens over to the benefit of 28 million.

If you want to talk real reform.

Let's talk about laws requiring hospitals and healthcare providers to publish their prices so we can comparison shop.

Let's have a single independent law that says that insurnce cannot cancel for pre existing conditions.

Let's open up new intermediate classes of healthcare providers. PRN/PA driven levels of care. You do not need to see a bonafide doctor when your kid is running a fever and vomiting.

Let's reform the FDA, get antibiotics OTC, and BC to be OTC.

And let's pass a law that says the legal drug dealers cannot advertise their fething product on tv.

Let's start sending doctors and drug sales reps to jail for prescribing drugs that people do not need.

Let's create a nationwide dispensary that will allow the common citizen to purchase their prescriptions at cost.

But, I will never support a law that takes money out of my pocket to pay for the healthcare for honey fething boo boo.

OTC antibiotics is the single dumbest thing I read on the internet today, and I Reddit.

And yet many countries sell antibiotics OTC.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Putin had planned for years to blackmail Trump into running for President? wtf x 1000

Or just got hands of it and decided to keep in case. Maybe he planned originally to use it for good business deal?

Anyway fact is USA goverment was notified of such a note. Media would be failing it's duty if it did NOT report that such a note was given regardless of whether information in note was true or not. What matters is there is enough possibility that USA intelligence agency bothered with it.

Note news sites aren't generally calling it IS true. They are just reporting that US top heads were informed of such a possibility. That's fact already confirmed by Biden.

And the countries that do have a different concept of "over the counter" than we do, different processes, and educational standards.

They also take tax money pay for honey boo boo's healthcare.

People here can't even take prescribed antibiotics correctly, selling them OTC in our system will kill people. I deal with the idiots who will either kill themselves or contribute to the next public health crisis every single day. Antibiotics are very dangerous, and are very hard to get right, and making them OTC is the dumbest thing out of your list. And that list isn't great to begin with.

Mitochondria wrote:
ACA is beyond welfare, a hand up when you are down. It is nothing more than the establishment of a lifelong entitlement program. An entitlement program that will screw 100 million citizens over to the benefit of 28 million.

That's just looking at one aspect of the ACA and ignoring everything else it tried to do. Not being dropped from your insurance benefited everyone. Not being denied for preexisting conditions benefited everyone. Defining what "preexisting conditions" means benefited everyone. The biggest mistake the ACA made was that it tried to patch a bunch of holes in the healthcare system without resolving any of the underlying problems that produced said holes.

If you want to talk real reform.

Tried that. No one was interested. We got the ACA instead.

Let's talk about laws requiring hospitals and healthcare providers to publish their prices so we can comparison shop.

A man having a heart attack isn't going to ask which hospital will treat him at the lowest cost.

Let's have a single independent law that says that insurnce cannot cancel for pre existing conditions.

Republicans just shot that down.

Let's open up new intermediate classes of healthcare providers. PRN/PA driven levels of care. You do not need to see a bonafide doctor when your kid is running a fever and vomiting.

It's amazing we don't already have this honestly (though if your kid has somiting you should probably see a doctor...). We don't need full doctors to give someone a basic check up.

Let's reform the FDA

Lets reform patents so big pharma stops abusing quasi-monopolies and market conditions to drive prices up for the sake of profits. Other than a law mandating all studies a company pays for/produces be publicly published in full (no more sitting on the studies that found your drug causes cancer), I don't think the FDA needs much reform. The biggest reform it needs actual teeth to enforce mountains of regulations that companies ignore. Pharma spends almost twice as much on marketing as they do on development, and FDA approval is a fraction of the later. If they're so worried about their bottom line stop buying so much ad space. They're already posting some of the best profit margins of any industry. I see little reason to cry for them.

Let's create a nationwide dispensary that will allow the common citizen to purchase their prescriptions at cost.

That's a great idea. But I mean, at that point you might as well just go single payer. No more profits from the suffering of the sick, no more fearmongering for insurance premiums, and an end to the exploitation of the current healthcare scheme.. Just roll everyone into Medicare.

d-usa wrote:OTC antibiotics is the single dumbest thing I read on the internet today, and I Reddit.

And this. The number of drug resistant bacteria are already on the rise the leading cause of which is people using them when they don't have to and using them too much. That bit above about the FDA lacking teeth? For decades now the meat industry has been using antibiotics to treat livestock, which not only violates FDA regulations, but increasing the prominence of drug resistant microbes because those drugs are still in the meat when people eat it. That some of those drugs are just plain not meant to be in humans is another matter. The FDA has been unsuccessful in tackling the problem due to a lack of support.

And yet many countries sell antibiotics OTC.

Ima just link this

There's counter arguments on that site to the one I linked. Read those too if you like, but there are observed and obvious negatives to over the counter sale of antibiotics with no prescription.

Mitochondria wrote:
And yet many countries sell antibiotics OTC.

Some ABX are OTC for those countries.

As a policy, it isn't a good idea to over saturate the community with OTC ABX because such practice would likely increase the drug resistant-super bugs.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
if Trump tries to bring in a gay-bashing bill, or a muslim-mashing measure, he's going to have to fight the will of the majority of the people.

Problem with that being you don't need to have majority's support the way US system works...

Urgent care clinics are a thing.
Walk-in clinics are a thing.
PA as Primary Care providers are a thing.
Full independent practice APRNs are a thing.
Community Paramedics are a thing.
RN health hotlines and consults are a thing.

Expanding these kind of things is often shut down as liberal welfare talk, interfering with capitalist healthcare, etc. I've been involved with pushing legislature for incremental progress and policy reforms in healthcare in Oklahoma for a few years now. And we are getting lots of resistance in our Republican legislature, and the resistance is led by MD Republicans serving in our legislature.

 Compel wrote:
My question to that is, sure you want Obama care gone, sure, whatever. I kinda don't want one of the guys in my online gaming group who is currently receiving cancer treatment under the ACA to die. Pretty sure he doesn't want to either..

*sarcasm* Ah but he's not multimillionaire. He's therefore trash not worth living. *sarcasm*

tneva82 wrote:

 Compel wrote:
My question to that is, sure you want Obama care gone, sure, whatever. I kinda don't want one of the guys in my online gaming group who is currently receiving cancer treatment under the ACA to die. Pretty sure he doesn't want to either..

*sarcasm* Ah but he's not multimillionaire. He's therefore trash not worth living. *sarcasm*

One of my favorite recent moments (two days ago) was a guy who said "I hope they repel Obamacare. The ACA is better" *que weird looks from everyone who heard him*

 LordofHats wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
ACA is beyond welfare, a hand up when you are down. It is nothing more than the establishment of a lifelong entitlement program. An entitlement program that will screw 100 million citizens over to the benefit of 28 million.

That's just looking at one aspect of the ACA and ignoring everything else it tried to do. Not being dropped from your insurance benefited everyone. Not being denied for preexisting conditions benefited everyone. Defining what "preexisting conditions" means benefited everyone. The biggest mistake the ACA made was that it tried to patch a bunch of holes in the healthcare system without resolving any of the underlying problems that produced said holes.

GOP "states" that they'll address the preexisting conditions conumdrum... we shall see what that is...

But, yes, your last sentence is really spot on.

If you want to talk real reform.

Tried that. No one was interested. We got the ACA instead.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm glad I'm not one of the few people I know who are only receiving lifesaving medication due to the ACA. If I were, I'd probably see my impending death sentence as a justification for earning an impending death sentence. "Nothing left to lose" and all that.

I guess what I'm saying is I wonder how many instant security concerns will be born out of this gleeful screwing of the sick and the poor.

I'm not necessarily getting "lifesaving" medication/treatment due to the ACA, but I do deal with some stuff that qualify as pre-existing conditions that are miserable to deal with without medication/treatment. Things that would have put me on an insurance company's coverage chopping block years ago, and things that will make getting health coverage a hell of a lot harder if not impossible while I'm finishing up my college degrees.

On top of that, I'm scheduled to have a surgery in a few months to deal with some nerve damage/mitigate any worse damage. I'm fething terrified of what's coming in the next few months, and whether I'm going to have to deal with the nerve pain for several years at a minimum - along with the long term damage of having it untreated. Today was one of the most miserable days of my life.


If it does end up with the projected repeal with minimal replacement, I really don't know what I'm going to do. Part of me would want to see everyone who is pretty much killed by a repeal to travel to D.C. and die in front of the White House and Congress. Drown them in our corpses.

 whembly wrote:

No. He's right. You can express your preference when you got several EDs in your range.

Again.

A man having a heart attack isn't going to ask how much it costs to not die. A woman with a 13 year old having a seizure isn't going to ask the paramedics how much it costs to get him to a hospital or if the doctor there is cheaper than one ten miles away. Jesus christ the only people who would think this way are robots or shouldn't have kids in the first place.

Second, most people don't have a vibrant market of potential specialized care providers. This would work for general/basic care, but if you need a heart transplant you're have only so many options, and really who in their right mind is going to say "I'll spend $5,000 on a $60,000 that involves having my heart taken out of my chest."

This is the stupidity of trying to apply supply/demand to healthcare. Cost is an irrelevancy in how people think about their care. Either they will have the care they can afford, or they will have none at all. They can either pay for emergency procedures or they can't. Hospitals don't compete by being the cheapest. They compete by being the best. No one looks for a discount brain surgeon and if you do, hey man I got a table, a saw, and a text book on human anatomy. I'll fix your thyroid problem for $500!

It's opaque princing structure, reimbursement through several entities makes it really difficult to get accurate pricing.

This is true, but fixing that doesn't really involve patients looking for the best prices.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

No. He's right. You can express your preference when you got several EDs in your range.

Again.

A man having a heart attack isn't going to ask how much it costs to not die. A woman with a 13 year old having a seizure isn't going to ask the paramedics how much it costs to get him to a hospital or if the doctor there is cheaper than one ten miles away. Jesus christ the only people who would think this way are robots or shouldn't have kids in the first place.

Second, most people don't have a vibrant market of potential specialized care providers. This would work for general/basic care, but if you need a heart transplant you're have only so many options, and really who in their right mind is going to say "I'll spend $5,000 on a $60,000 that involves having my heart taken out of my chest."

This is the stupidity of trying to apply supply/demand to healthcare. Cost is an irrelevancy in how people think about their care. Either they will have the care they can afford, or they will have none at all. They can either pay for emergency procedures or they can't. Hospitals don't compete by being the cheapest. They compete by being the best. No one looks for a discount brain surgeon and if you do, hey man I got a table, a saw, and a text book on human anatomy. I'll fix your thyroid problem for $500!

For heart attack, every trauma ED is required by law to stabilize the patient, so in that case, it's generally going to be the nearest location.

Most of the "shopping" are either long term treatment or elective surgeries.

I can tell you, the overall pricing for something like a Dialysis treatment, or knee surgery varies greatly from entity to entity.

Also, you are so VERY wrong about hospital don't compete by being the cheapest... you are aware that private insurance companies negotiate reimbursment rates to each entities... right?

Another way to look at this. Providers (Medical Groups / Hospitals / etc) are NOT forced to take just anyone's insurance. So, there's this constant tug-o-war between the providers and the individual insurance companies.

It's opaque princing structure, reimbursement through several entities makes it really difficult to get accurate pricing.

This is true, but fixing that doesn't really involve patients looking for the best prices.

In a large metropolitian city with multiple hospital system/medical groups... patients DO shop around for best prices. We see evidence of that with our patient population.

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

No. He's right. You can express your preference when you got several EDs in your range.

Again.

A man having a heart attack isn't going to ask how much it costs to not die. A woman with a 13 year old having a seizure isn't going to ask the paramedics how much it costs to get him to a hospital or if the doctor there is cheaper than one ten miles away. Jesus christ the only people who would think this way are robots or shouldn't have kids in the first place.

Second, most people don't have a vibrant market of potential specialized care providers. This would work for general/basic care, but if you need a heart transplant you're have only so many options, and really who in their right mind is going to say "I'll spend $5,000 on a $60,000 that involves having my heart taken out of my chest."

This is the stupidity of trying to apply supply/demand to healthcare. Cost is an irrelevancy in how people think about their care. Either they will have the care they can afford, or they will have none at all. They can either pay for emergency procedures or they can't. Hospitals don't compete by being the cheapest. They compete by being the best. No one looks for a discount brain surgeon and if you do, hey man I got a table, a saw, and a text book on human anatomy. I'll fix your thyroid problem for $500!

For heart attack, every trauma ED is required by law to stabilize the patient, so in that case, it's generally going to be the nearest location.

Most of the "shopping" are either long term treatment or elective surgeries.

I can tell you, the overall pricing for something like a Dialysis treatment, or knee surgery varies greatly from entity to entity.

Also, you are so VERY wrong about hospital don't compete by being the cheapest... you are aware that private insurance companies negotiate reimbursment rates to each entities... right?

Another way to look at this. Providers (Medical Groups / Hospitals / etc) are NOT forced to take just anyone's insurance. So, there's this constant tug-o-war between the providers and the individual insurance companies.

It's opaque princing structure, reimbursement through several entities makes it really difficult to get accurate pricing.

This is true, but fixing that doesn't really involve patients looking for the best prices.

In a large metropolitian city with multiple hospital system/medical groups... patients DO shop around for best prices. We see evidence of that with our patient population.

Stabilize does not mean they are fine. They should probably be admitted to the hospital to see a cardiologist. That can be very dangerous.

You're missing my point.

If I'm crossing the street and a drunk driver plows into me and slams me into a brick wall at 80 MPH (assuming I'm even alive...) I am not going to ask the ambulance which hospital is the cheapest. I'm not going to ask how much it costs to save my life. People do not think this way. Hospitals do not advertise their spine surgery as cheaper than their competitors, and buying one coma bed will never get me one free. I'm not going to drive ten miles further to save $400 on the doctor who reattached my arm.

I'm talking about the fact that no one tries to save money on saving their own life, and no one goes shopping for the cheapest knee surgery. They go shopping for the best knee surgery, and if they can get it for less great, but there is only one acceptable quality of knee surgery. It's not like a car where you can buy a crappy coup that'll need replacing in five years because its cheap crap. It's your bloody knee, not a screen protector for your iPhone (who the feth pays $60 for a screen protector? I bought one at a gas station for $10...)

Also, you are so VERY wrong about hospital don't compete by being the cheapest... you are aware that private insurance companies negotiate reimbursment rates to each entities... right? Another way to look at this. Providers (Medical Groups / Hospitals / etc) are NOT forced to take just anyone's insurance. So, there's this constant tug-o-war between the providers and the individual insurance companies.

And you're still confusing the things that happen on the back end with those that happen on the patient end. Hospitals do not draw patients in by advertising the cheapest bone marrow transplants and coupons to buy one coma bed get two free. What you're talking about is just another end of why health insurance is one of the worst ways to finance healthcare after the money under my mattress. It's a convoluted mess.

In a large metropolitian city with multiple hospital system/medical groups... patients DO shop around for best prices. We see evidence of that with our patient population.

A lot of people don't live in a metropolitian city, and I didn't say people never do it I said that fixing opaque pricing structures and the inefficiency of our healthcare system doesn't get fixed by patients doing such.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm glad I'm not one of the few people I know who are only receiving lifesaving medication due to the ACA. If I were, I'd probably see my impending death sentence as a justification for earning an impending death sentence. "Nothing left to lose" and all that.

I guess what I'm saying is I wonder how many instant security concerns will be born out of this gleeful screwing of the sick and the poor.

Amazing isn't it that the Trump movement can be born out of the despair of life of the downcast, unemployed and uninsured, but according to prominent right wingers that's just going to get worse because they have no right.

http://time.com/4629680/dakota-pipeline-supporter-senate-indian-affairs-committee-chair/

Talk about petty.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://time.com/4629680/dakota-pipeline-supporter-senate-indian-affairs-committee-chair/

Talk about petty.

Hey man, those injuns are getting rambunctious and need to be reminded who won, and no one is better for that job than an old white guy with a mustache