Health care

[j_b]

The VA= government run health care. Good or bad?

 

 

 

You tell me:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/va-medical-shambles-veterans-groups-say/

 

"Amid growing controversy over procedures that exposed 10,000 veterans to the AIDS and hepatitis viruses, the Department of Veterans Affairs is now bracing against news that one of its facilities in Pennsylvania gave botched radiation treatments to nearly 100 cancer patients.

 

Veterans groups and lawmakers say VA hospitals have permitted these violations because federal regulations allow doctors to work with little outside scrutiny. They say the VA health system, with its under-funded hospitals and overworked doctors, is showing signs of an "institutional breakdown," in the words of one congressman."

 

"A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance."

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

[olyclimber]

The VA= government run health care. Good or bad?

 

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103472297

 

Why are you linking me to communist news sources? I feel dirty after reading that.

 

I like NPR. I dose with their angst-nerd pretentious reporting every morning on my way to work. Sometimes they have a good story--and I love radio.

 

I'll have you know that 2% of the funding of this Communist strong hold comes from the government. I am disgusted that you would listen to that filth.

[StevenSeagal]

Stay on task ADD boy. Bush, Obama, Clinton, whatever. The government will fuck this up. I prefer quality health care and choice. If you like government lines and cockroach infested clinics move to the UK.

 

I've heard it said that the government option proposes to exist alongside continued private options- meaning you'd still have a choice. And that it would be required to be self-sustaining. True or not, if that is so, then technically the best that could happen is if it turns out to be quality, it will force private care to improve to stay in the market. But if as predicted it fails, then, it fails.

 

Hang on a second while I go get my free cheese wheel...

[AlpineK]

I believe Fairweather is missing the key point that the plan isn't to eliminate all private health care. You will still be able to purchase a private plan.

 

The plan is an alternative health insurance that you can purchase and pay for if you want to.

 

Of course if Fairweather is on target with all the other Republifucks the response will be that we aren't privy to the final solution.

 

All the key Republifucks are privy to classified information that the current government is going to show up at the corporate headquarters of Lifewise and Blue Cross with a group of special forces and shut them down two months after the new plan goes into operation.

[glassgowkiss]

Stay on task ADD boy. Bush, Obama, Clinton, whatever. The government will fuck this up. I prefer quality health care and choice. If you like government lines and cockroach infested clinics move to the UK.

Oh, gee choice? You don't have choice, you have lists of providers. Regence closed the lists for independent providers in Whatcom County in 1999, even though there was almost 5% growth during last decade. As the matter of fact they closed for the whole Washington State. Regence is the single largest provider in this state. So your only choice are medical providers who have contract with Regence.

For cockroaches you don'tneed to go to London, all you need is a trip to any eastern seaboard city.

[glassgowkiss]

I like NPR. I dose with their angst-nerd pretentious reporting every morning on my way to work. Sometimes they have a good story--and I love radio.

Radio broadcast and air time aren't free either, so if you like it so much you better support it clownpunch.

[prole]

I've heard it said that the government option proposes to exist alongside continued private options- meaning you'd still have a choice. And that it would be required to be self-sustaining.

 

I believe Fairweather is missing the key point that the plan isn't to eliminate all private health care. You will still be able to purchase a private plan.

 

Oh please! Yeah sure, Obama's been saying this for the last two years and it's a key feature of the proposal, but what the Government really wants is to grind humanity up into one big giant hamburger for Satan to eat. You don't want to be a hamburger do you? Noooo. That's what government does. It's inevitable, it's Serfburger.

[Bosterson]

it's Serfburger.

 

Mmmm.... deep fried serfs...

[Pete_H]

Free government health care should be distributed in an American Gladiator-style sports competition. If you kick ass and do well you get free healtth care. If you're out of shape and suck then you have to pay.

 

I'd also say if we're going to do this we should get rid of Hulk Hogan as the commentator and put in Chuck Norris.

[JayB]

I mean, if you want to argue that covering more people - especially those with serious, expensive, possibly terminal illnesses - would be significantly more expensive than refusing to cover those people the way the provider system does now, that's technically valid, but then we'd have to discuss, again, what the role of the government is in providing for all, and whether ethics dictate that all who need help receive it (if they can).

 

He'd first have to show that not providing affordable health coverage to people is cheaper than giving them treatment in the emergency room because of that dangerous "socialist" idea, the hypocratic oath.

 

What the national tab for caring for the uninsured vs cost shifting by Medicare/Medicaid?

 

What does the data from MA suggest?

 

Making sure that everyone has the resources necessary to procure healthcare doesn't necessarily require forcing them into a third-party cost-containment algorithm based on forcing medical decisions into rigid compliance with a set of abstract statistical aggregates.

[JayB]

No wait, tell us more about those countries with socialized medicine where rock climbing and other dangerous activities have been banned!

 

What's your understanding of the rationale used to justify compulsory seatbelt and helmet laws for adults? Drug prohibition?

 

The government is unlikely to outlaw dangerous, fringe activities for the simple fact that very few people participate in...dangerous fringe activities, and the simple lack of resources would make such bans next to impossible to enforce even if legislators thought that doing so was desirable. Motive - yes. Means - not likely.

 

However, if you are someone that participates in a more popular activity that's likely to impose significant aggregate health-related costs on the state - it's quite a bit more likely that a state funded and administered healthcare monopoly will have both a strong motive to curtail whatever potentially costly behavior that you are engaging in.

 

Whether the state/monopoly-healthcare-provider will ever try to procure the means necessary to inhibit whatever bit of potentially costly, non-fringey personal freedom that you're exercising is an open question - whether they'll have the motive to isn't. Not sure "It hasn't happened yet, therefore it won't" is a heuristic that I'd be willing to bet all of my chips on in that context. There's probably a few brewers/distillers that set up shop in 1919 that wish they wouldn't have followed that approach...

[prole]

No wait, tell us more about those countries with socialized medicine where rock climbing and other dangerous activities have been banned!

 

What's your understanding of the rationale used to justify compulsory seatbelt and helmet laws for adults? Drug prohibition?

 

The government is unlikely to outlaw dangerous, fringe activities for the simple fact that very few people participate in...dangerous fringe activities, and the simple lack of resources would make such bans next to impossible to enforce even if legislators thought that doing so was desirable. Motive - yes. Means - not likely.

 

However, if you are someone that participates in a more popular activity that's likely to impose significant aggregate health-related costs on the state - it's quite a bit more likely that a state funded and administered healthcare monopoly will have both a strong motive to curtail whatever potentially costly behavior that you are engaging in.

 

Whether the state/monopoly-healthcare-provider will ever try to procure the means necessary to inhibit whatever bit of potentially costly, non-fringey personal freedom that you're exercising is an open question - whether they'll have the motive to isn't. Not sure "It hasn't happened yet, therefore it won't" is a heuristic that I'd be willing to bet all of my chips on in that context. There's probably a few brewers/distillers that set up shop in 1919 that wish they wouldn't have followed that approach...

 

Sorry, none of these concerns hold enough weight to suggest that a state funded healthcare system is likely to result in a worse outcome than what currently exists. I'm willing to cross those mandatory seatbelt law bridges as we come to them rather than be cornered into satisfying all your theoretical doomsday scenarios before action is taken.

[JayB]

So - the argument isn't that the state hasn't/won't use the "the state's paying for the ill effects of (insert unpopular behavior that sane adults choose to do to themselves here), the state has the right to outlaw it" rationale if given the chance.

 

It's that the fact that you're willing to exchange whatever liberties the state deems necessary to restrict in the name of cost-containment in exchange for whatever security you expect a third party rationing mechanism run by a state monopoly to provide.

 

Or "Hey, I'm cool with the state outlawing stuff in exchange for single payer."

 

Might as well be clear about it.

[RuMR]

I see the future...... I see a pig running.......

gawd...the mental image of fairypantz chasing a squealing pig around for some farm lovin' is hysterical...

 

carry on!

[Fairweather]

I see the future...... I see a pig running.......

 

 

Like I've already told you, GGK; I have no interest in your chubby, squealing wife.

[prole]

So - the argument isn't that the state hasn't/won't use the "the state's paying for the ill effects of (insert unpopular behavior that sane adults choose to do to themselves here), the state has the right to outlaw it" rationale if given the chance.

 

It's that the fact that you're willing to exchange whatever liberties the state deems necessary to restrict in the name of cost-containment in exchange for whatever security you expect a third party rationing mechanism run by a state monopoly to provide.

 

Or "Hey, I'm cool with the state outlawing stuff in exchange for single payer."

 

Might as well be clear about it.

 

How about "I'm cool with allowing any possible infringements on our liberty like (get ready for this bombshell) mandatory seat belt laws (shivers) to work their way through the normal legislative process that you and yours are so keen to remind us is the best system in human history like any other laws rather than satisfying any and all theoretical potential ideological boogymen that you can toss out while people are dying because they can't afford healthcare". That's what I meant.

[Bosterson]

How about "I'm cool with allowing any possible infringements on our liberty like (get ready for this bombshell) mandatory seat belt laws (shivers) to work their way through the normal legislative process that you and yours are so keen to remind us is the best system in human history like any other laws rather than satisfying any and all theoretical potential ideological boogymen that you can toss out while people are dying because they can't afford healthcare". That's what I meant.

 

 

That Ralph Nader was an evil, evil man.

[Fairweather]

I see the future...... I see a pig running.......

 

 

Like I've already told you, GGK; I have no interest in your chubby, squealing wife.

 

Look, if she's getting really horny for whatever it is you're unable to provide, then show at least a little pride, stop asking other guys to chase her around the pen, and just go to this

website .

 

 

 

[Bug]

"Make the first insemination count".

 

Seems like thread drift could do a lot with that one.

[j_b]

I mean, if you want to argue that covering more people - especially those with serious, expensive, possibly terminal illnesses - would be significantly more expensive than refusing to cover those people the way the provider system does now, that's technically valid, but then we'd have to discuss, again, what the role of the government is in providing for all, and whether ethics dictate that all who need help receive it (if they can).

 

He'd first have to show that not providing affordable health coverage to people is cheaper than giving them treatment in the emergency room because of that dangerous "socialist" idea, the hypocratic oath.

 

What the national tab for caring for the uninsured vs cost shifting by Medicare/Medicaid?

 

The system we have is ~twice as expensive as single payer healthcare formula (by the way, more than 60% of healthcare expenditures in the US are currently paid by taxpayer dollars). I presume that adding 1/6 of the total pop that is currently without healthcare would be cheaper than paying twice as much as we ought to plus paying for emergency room services for little Tom's earache.

 

What does the data from MA suggest?

 

Making sure that everyone has the resources necessary to procure healthcare doesn't necessarily require forcing them into a third-party cost-containment algorithm based on forcing medical decisions into rigid compliance with a set of abstract statistical aggregates.

 

Nobody would be forcing anybody. Additonal private insurance would still be available. Private doctors and HMO's would still make decisions. Enough with the lies.

[j_b]

So - the argument isn't that the state hasn't/won't use the "the state's paying for the ill effects of (insert unpopular behavior that sane adults choose to do to themselves here), the state has the right to outlaw it" rationale if given the chance.

 

Nope, the people enable the state to regulate the pushers for suicidal behavior.

 

It's that the fact that you're willing to exchange whatever liberties the state deems necessary to restrict in the name of cost-containment in exchange for whatever security you expect a third party rationing mechanism run by a state monopoly to provide.

 

Or "Hey, I'm cool with the state outlawing stuff in exchange for single payer."

 

Might as well be clear about it.

 

More lies and fear-mongering. Western democracies with single payer formula have better healthcare than we do, private practioners and HMO's that make health related decisions, private addtionial health insurance for those who need it, and no rationing.

[Fairweather]

Western democracies with single payer formula have better healthcare than we do, private practioners and HMO's that make health related decisions, private addtionial health insurance for those who need it, and no rationing.

 

Liar!

http://www.hlc.org/020108.pdf

 

"In 2005, Britain's misnamed NICE agency (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence)

proposed that the government ration health care (i.e., withhold it) to seniors...Some British doctors now advocate barring operations for some: the elderly, the obese, heavy

drinkers, smokers. While it's unfair to tap taxpayers for treating the consequences of individuals'

poor choices, this kind of rationing could prove a morally slippery slope..."

[Kimmo]

Liar!

http://www.hlc.org/020108.pdf

 

"In 2005, Britain's misnamed NICE agency (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence)

proposed that the government ration health care (i.e., withhold it) to seniors...Some British doctors now advocate barring operations for some: the elderly, the obese, heavy

drinkers, smokers. While it's unfair to tap taxpayers for treating the consequences of individuals'

poor choices, this kind of rationing could prove a morally slippery slope..."

 

umm, that was in 2005, and it said rationing was "proposed"; was rationing in fact implemented?

[j_b]

HLC is a propaganda organization funded by the insurance industry and HMOs that keeps repeating the usual lies about "government run healthcare" (another lie). Fairweather says he is against the rationing of healthcare, but he has no problem with having 1 american in 6 without access to care. If that isn't rationing, what is?

[JayB]

So - the argument isn't that the state hasn't/won't use the "the state's paying for the ill effects of (insert unpopular behavior that sane adults choose to do to themselves here), the state has the right to outlaw it" rationale if given the chance.

 

Nope, the people enable the state to regulate the pushers for suicidal behavior.

 

It's that the fact that you're willing to exchange whatever liberties the state deems necessary to restrict in the name of cost-containment in exchange for whatever security you expect a third party rationing mechanism run by a state monopoly to provide.

 

Or "Hey, I'm cool with the state outlawing stuff in exchange for single payer."

 

Might as well be clear about it.

 

More lies and fear-mongering. Western democracies with single payer formula have better healthcare than we do, private practioners and HMO's that make health related decisions, private addtionial health insurance for those who need it, and no rationing.

 

1. Who are the "pushers for suicidal behavior," what qualifies as such, who makes that decision, and what additional powers would you like to give the government in order to prohibit/criminalize it?

 

2. Better by what definition? Spare me another iteration of life-expectancy/infant-mortality argument.

 

3. What part of the state deciding who's too old to bother treating, who's too ill to continue tying to save, how injuries get diagnosed, which injuries get treated, how they get treated, and when, which chemo options are too costly, how much money gets allocated for surgical services, etc don't constitute rationing? I heard about all of the above on a case-by-case basis for months in a country that supposedly has no rationing.

 

Rationing will be a fixture of any system, the only question is who makes the calls when the time comes to make choices that involve various tradeoffs. The only real question is whether its better to allocate the same pool of resources in a way that leaves the vast majority of those decisions in the hands of individuals or third party payers. If we're left with only a choice between the latter, it's worth asking whether a cash-strapped state monopoly that's immune from liability or a competitive insurance market that has to answer to both the state and the consumers is more likely to have the means and motive to enforce the more stringent rationing.

 

4. Once you strip away the effects of public-to-private cost shifting, rationing, and bogus accounting the cost advantages of publicly administered care completely disappear. Ever look at the administrative costs of non-Medicare programs?

 

The reason that Medicare's administrative costs tend to be significantly lower than other government programs have quite a bit to do with the bogus accounting that I've detailed elsewhere, but they also have quite a bit to do with the fact that the government doesn't administer the claims directly. It solicits bids from private contractors who do the administering per Medicare's rules - which is probably one reason why overbilling and fraud are far more costly for Medicare than private insurers who spend the money necessary to combat these problems effectively.