Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 117 of 117

Thread: Government Shutdown and the Affordable Care Act

  1. #101
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,711
    Like
    1,159
    Liked 563 Times in 368 Posts
    for chiildren it includes essential health benefits, of which vision is one.

    btw, those nations with universal health care spend a lot less money, not more money, than the US......and, they get better outcomes. That data is out there, has been for decades.
    Lighten up Francis....

  2. #102
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,804
    Like
    173
    Liked 652 Times in 366 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    The government removing regulation, giving freedom to coroporations, is not the government doing something that makes the companies act one way or the other. The people that run those companies made those choices. I really don't understand your stance at all.
    That's like arguing if the government removed murder laws it wouldn't have played a role in a crap-ton of murders happening.

  3. #103
    Head Moderator MVP glunn's Avatar
    Posts
    5,070
    Like
    4,498
    Liked 714 Times in 378 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    That's like arguing if the government removed murder laws it wouldn't have played a role in a crap-ton of murders happening.
    So the big lenders were like murderers at a time that murder was legal?

  4. #104
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,804
    Like
    173
    Liked 652 Times in 366 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    So the big lenders were like murderers at a time that murder was legal?
    Absolutely. Bulk of the blame.

  5. #105
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,348
    Like
    410
    Liked 800 Times in 503 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    I think health care is not like potato chips. You don't get to choose if you are sick or not, and the basic premises of capitalism fall apart in this area.
    I don't agree with this at all. You can control a lot about your health. Yes, there are some things that you cannot reasonably prevent, but a smoker saying they didn't choose to get lung cancer is kind of silly. A fat person saying they didn't choose to have knee problems is kind of silly. People make lifestyle choices all the time that affect their health, whether that be working too many hours at work, to eating to much, to smoking, etc.

    Yes, there are some things you can't choose about your health, but the bulk of it does boil down to simple lifestyle decisions.

    The other thing is that you can also control how you deal with it. Some people don't want to wait in line to see the Dr, so they just go to the ER. That costs more. And a single payer doesn't discourage that. Nor does a single payer encourage innovation to reduce prices. Truth be told, insurance as it's presently implemented doesn't do that either. There's nothing efficient about it. They say this is to reduce prices, but in reality prices will do nothing but go up. Subsidies never lower prices in the long term. They create dependence.

  6. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan View Post
    You mentioned it works in other places, but you also forget that most of these other places that can afford it also don't maintain a standing army that essentially rules the globe.
    This is the biggest problem in the U.S. right now. Why do we have to be the world's police? Just think if we scaled our military back by 50% (we'd still spend more than any other country at this rate). Just think what that would do for the debt, as well as necessary social programs.
    BYTO R.I.P.

  7. #107
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,281
    Like
    32
    Liked 124 Times in 80 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan View Post
    I don't agree with this at all. You can control a lot about your health. Yes, there are some things that you cannot reasonably prevent, but a smoker saying they didn't choose to get lung cancer is kind of silly. A fat person saying they didn't choose to have knee problems is kind of silly. People make lifestyle choices all the time that affect their health, whether that be working too many hours at work, to eating to much, to smoking, etc.

    Yes, there are some things you can't choose about your health, but the bulk of it does boil down to simple lifestyle decisions.

    The other thing is that you can also control how you deal with it. Some people don't want to wait in line to see the Dr, so they just go to the ER. That costs more. And a single payer doesn't discourage that. Nor does a single payer encourage innovation to reduce prices. Truth be told, insurance as it's presently implemented doesn't do that either. There's nothing efficient about it. They say this is to reduce prices, but in reality prices will do nothing but go up. Subsidies never lower prices in the long term. They create dependence.
    It also doesn't work like your proposed change (or someone else's). It was mentioned that if things were pay as you go then costs would be driven down. That's true but the quality of care and amount of preventative care would drastically decline. Doctors and hospitals would start really cutting corners to attract patients since they are now price shopping for everything and people would just skip preventative care (huge long-term consequences). And when someone needed a big dollar operation due to injury or other non-lifestyle illness they simply wouldn't get treated due to not having insurance. Either they would die or they could end up disabled and unable to work. there are massive issues before and after the ACA but the previously proposed system (possibly by you) would be a horrendous step backwards.

    Do we actually know that E-room visits and regular doctor visits have the same fees? Taiwan (I have National Health Insurance here) had the same fees initially and that was a giant screw-up (obviously) but they raised the E-room fees and my friends had no problems getting admitted into the E-room almost immediately when I took her. basically it became a non-issue.

  8. #108
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,711
    Like
    1,159
    Liked 563 Times in 368 Posts
    So years of proof in other countries, vs what we get, does nothing for you? You really think innovation is only done for the US market? I don't think you've really looked at the facts and data across the world. Healthcare is more expensive here, ALOT more expensive, and gets worse outcomes. That is indisputable. You can disagree if you want, but you have no facts to back up your opinions.
    Lighten up Francis....

  9. #109
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,711
    Like
    1,159
    Liked 563 Times in 368 Posts
    As for choice, sure, we can choose a lot of our behaviors. But we can't choose falling off a bike, or having a stroke, or other stuff.....And, even as a smoker, you aren't choosing to need healthcare, like choosing to buy doritos. It just isn't the same. Lots of economists have made that point in their work.

    all of these opinions are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect any opinion of my employer.....
    Lighten up Francis....

  10. #110
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,093
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    48
    Liked 1,581 Times in 822 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan View Post
    The other thing is that you can also control how you deal with it. Some people don't want to wait in line to see the Dr, so they just go to the ER. That costs more. And a single payer doesn't discourage that. Nor does a single payer encourage innovation to reduce prices. Truth be told, insurance as it's presently implemented doesn't do that either. There's nothing efficient about it. They say this is to reduce prices, but in reality prices will do nothing but go up. Subsidies never lower prices in the long term. They create dependence.
    The problem with this is that health care is usually not a true free market situation.

    If you get sick and have to go to the hospital, you generally don't price-shop hospitals and make an informed decision. Sure, you can do that with general check-ups but that's not where the real costs of health care are found... They're found in surgeries and emergency visits, which offer little or no cost-control opportunity for the consumer.

    An example of this is TIME finding an example of a hospital in Texas charging ~$7,000 for a procedure.

    The same procedure was ~$90,000 in a California hospital.

    There is no rhyme or reason to healthcare pricing because in so many cases, hospitals have a monopolistic control over their patients. If you get hit by a car, you don't get to request "hey, take me to that hospital instead of this hospital... their beds are nicer". The EMTs take you to the closest hospital. In many places, there is only one hospital within a reasonable distance.

    The free market does a good job of managing many costs and keeping things competitive... But when the consumer base has little or no choice in what products and services they use, the private sector takes the opportunity to charge whatever they want. All rhyme or reason goes out the window in favor of pure profit-grabbing.

  11. #111
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,711
    Like
    1,159
    Liked 563 Times in 368 Posts
    To be fair, from what I can tell, not all hospitals and doctors are about pure profit grabbing, Brock.

    all of these opinions are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect any opinion of my employer.....
    Lighten up Francis....

  12. #112
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,093
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    48
    Liked 1,581 Times in 822 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    To be fair, from what I can tell, not all hospitals and doctors are about pure profit grabbing, Brock.

    all of these opinions are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect any opinion of my employer.....
    I didn't mean to imply that.

    My point is more that without alternatives, there is nothing to stop hospitals from profit-grabbing whenever possible. Without a proper free market, which healthcare doesn't really offer because of the limitations of how it is administered, there is nothing "competitive" about the market at all.

  13. #113
    Head Moderator MVP glunn's Avatar
    Posts
    5,070
    Like
    4,498
    Liked 714 Times in 378 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    From what I am hearing, most doctors who are general practitioners are not making very much money. On the other hand, hospitals and drug companies seem to be making more than ever.

    I believe that hospitals should be required to make their rates available on demand so that consumer groups can publish comparisons.

  14. #114
    Owner MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    8,093
    Twitter
    @rocketpig76
    Like
    48
    Liked 1,581 Times in 822 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    From what I am hearing, most doctors who are general practitioners are not making very much money. On the other hand, hospitals and drug companies seem to be making more than ever.
    That has reduced the competitive nature of the market to a further degree. Specialists dominate the medical landscape nowadays and GPs are paid less and hard to find (one of my friends is a GP because he felt a social obligation to go that direction, despite it being a "bad career choice").

    More specialists mean higher costs (but also, better more focused treatment). They're also found only in certain locations and hospitals, which further reduces the ability of the consumer to make a truly free market choice.

    The deck is stacked against the consumer in the healthcare industry. We need to throw out these notions of "competitive free market" because they don't apply in the reality of today's world. Then we can start finding real solutions that don't exist only in the theoretical.

  15. #115
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,348
    Like
    410
    Liked 800 Times in 503 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    The problem with this is that health care is usually not a true free market situation.

    If you get sick and have to go to the hospital, you generally don't price-shop hospitals and make an informed decision. Sure, you can do that with general check-ups but that's not where the real costs of health care are found... They're found in surgeries and emergency visits, which offer little or no cost-control opportunity for the consumer.

    An example of this is TIME finding an example of a hospital in Texas charging ~$7,000 for a procedure.

    The same procedure was ~$90,000 in a California hospital.

    There is no rhyme or reason to healthcare pricing because in so many cases, hospitals have a monopolistic control over their patients. If you get hit by a car, you don't get to request "hey, take me to that hospital instead of this hospital... their beds are nicer". The EMTs take you to the closest hospital. In many places, there is only one hospital within a reasonable distance.

    The free market does a good job of managing many costs and keeping things competitive... But when the consumer base has little or no choice in what products and services they use, the private sector takes the opportunity to charge whatever they want. All rhyme or reason goes out the window in favor of pure profit-grabbing.
    I've used this example before Brock. This is part of the problem. This is in large part because these prices aren't posted anywhere. They aren't required to do this so that no one can comparison shop. Most procedures aren't emergencies that need to be done immediately. You can price shop if the prices are public. Switch to a system where insurance only covers emergency situations and this type of stuff will stop rather quick.

  16. #116
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,711
    Like
    1,159
    Liked 563 Times in 368 Posts
    Well, I'd say if insurance covered large financial risk (like, you know, the entire purpose for insurance), we'd be better off.....but most financial risk is not emergency either. That does not mean you can ignore the non-risk parts of the system, though, and leave all of that up to individuals. The incentive device inside our minds does not fully work correctly for the best decisions (for individuals and society) to work for long term things like health. It just doesn't.

    And, most insurance companies now have cost estimators their members can use. If your's doesn't, something is wrong probably.

    all of these opinions are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect any opinion of my employer.....
    Lighten up Francis....

  17. #117
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,804
    Like
    173
    Liked 652 Times in 366 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    Yep. There is no way to objectively look at this situation and say it is Obama's fault.
    Well, after a few weeks it's clear the shutdown wasn't Obama's fault. But good god, has there been a more incompetently handled piece of legislation in recent memory? The executive branch might as well get out of a tiny car honking horns every time they arrive for a press conference.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.