The point is that Peter is already footing it. The only way to get Peter to not foot it is to just let Paul die rather than granting him emergency care for the affliction he didn't go to when it was a minor condition on account of him having no insurance.
That's the point - we've already, as a nation, collectively decided that we're not willing to just let these people die. You may be willing to do so, but enough other people haven't that it's not even part of the debate any more. We're going to treat these people. We're now trying to figure out the most effective way to accomplish that.
*sigh*
I don't think you're capable of getting it. But I guess I'm a sucker for repeating myself, so I'll spell it out:
The fact that you and your friends are so interested in sheltering anyone who doesn't fit your definition of rich from economic harm (see, I can make broad generalizations as well), has no impact on the need to address costs in the first place. Which is what I originally wrote and repeated again and what I was trying to discuss.
Got it this time?
It is cheaper to cure the sniffles than it is to cure pneumonia.
Yes. And if you do have to cure pneumonia, it's cheaper to do so outside the context of an ER.
Since apparently we're being condecending now, mroblongata, I will type very slowly:
Providing coverage to more people will reduce costs by treating afflictions earlier and in a more efficient fashion. It is not just about shifting costs, it is about reducing them. You prattling about - fuck, whatever it is you're prattling about, I've kind of lost track - does not alter this basic fact.
You keep going on about robbing Peter or ass-ramming Paul or whatever, but the point is that we're already treating these people. The status quo, the bare minimum of care we're collectively willing to administer, is expensive and stupidly inefficient. We have nowhere to go but up. Simply increasing the number of people covered will, as a matter of fact, reduce costs, because our current system is quite literally the most expensive possible means of running a health care system, short of injecting all patients with liquified twenty dollar bills.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
short of injecting all patients with liquified twenty dollar bills.
Wait, would you literally shit money?
Honestly though, I just don't get mrdobalinas argument. As you said, the POINT is that it WILL cause a lowering of costs. The fact that it doesn't lower costs as much as it could is irrelevant. Once the bill is passed costs will decrease, and more bills will be acted upon which will lower costs further. For better or worse, the way politics in America work all-or-nothing propositions will get shot down.
Frankly, I just want the option to go to the doctor regularly and have it not costs hundreds of dollars (which is why I don't).
Providing coverage to more people will reduce costs by treating afflictions earlier and in a more efficient fashion. It is not just about shifting costs, it is about reducing them. You prattling about - fuck, whatever it is you're prattling about, I've kind of lost track - does not alter this basic fact.
You keep going on about robbing Peter or ass-ramming Paul or whatever, but the point is that we're already treating these people. The status quo, the bare minimum of care we're collectively willing to administer, is expensive and stupidly inefficient. We have nowhere to go but up. Simply increasing the number of people covered will, as a matter of fact, reduce costs, because our current system is quite literally the most expensive possible means of running a health care system, short of injecting all patients with liquified twenty dollar bills.
short of injecting all patients with liquified twenty dollar bills.
Wait, would you literally shit money?
Honestly though, I just don't get mrdobalinas argument. As you said, the POINT is that it WILL cause a lowering of costs. The fact that it doesn't lower costs as much as it could is irrelevant. Once the bill is passed costs will decrease, and more bills will be acted upon which will lower costs further. For better or worse, the way politics in America work all-or-nothing propositions will get shot down.
Frankly, I just want the option to go to the doctor regularly and have it not costs hundreds of dollars (which is why I don't).
Firstly, I don't buy that just expanding coverage will by its stead decrease costs.
Second, I believe (as I said earlier) that a lot of people are getting pissed off, riled up, and wasting political capital while simultaneously avoiding the kinds of topics and solutions that will have the largest impact on the macro problem.
The Senate Finance Committee comes up with an even stupider idea.
I didn't think it was possible.
I'm guessing someone will try to defend it by saying that making hiring and termination decisions based on that criteria is illegal, but that's really really hard to prove.
short of injecting all patients with liquified twenty dollar bills.
Wait, would you literally shit money?
Honestly though, I just don't get mrdobalinas argument. As you said, the POINT is that it WILL cause a lowering of costs. The fact that it doesn't lower costs as much as it could is irrelevant. Once the bill is passed costs will decrease, and more bills will be acted upon which will lower costs further. For better or worse, the way politics in America work all-or-nothing propositions will get shot down.
Frankly, I just want the option to go to the doctor regularly and have it not costs hundreds of dollars (which is why I don't).
Firstly, I don't buy that just expanding coverage will by its stead decrease costs.
...so you disagree with the very foundational basis of insurance?
Second, I believe (as I said earlier) that a lot of people are getting pissed off, riled up, and wasting political capital while simultaneously avoiding the kinds of topics and solutions that will have the largest impact on the macro problem.
Such as?
moniker on
0
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
The Senate Finance Committee comes up with an even stupider idea.
I wish I could just make it a rule that when it comes to health care reform, congress is not allowed to mention or even consider something that has not already been tested in a first world nation.
short of injecting all patients with liquified twenty dollar bills.
Wait, would you literally shit money?
Honestly though, I just don't get mrdobalinas argument. As you said, the POINT is that it WILL cause a lowering of costs. The fact that it doesn't lower costs as much as it could is irrelevant. Once the bill is passed costs will decrease, and more bills will be acted upon which will lower costs further. For better or worse, the way politics in America work all-or-nothing propositions will get shot down.
Frankly, I just want the option to go to the doctor regularly and have it not costs hundreds of dollars (which is why I don't).
Firstly, I don't buy that just expanding coverage will by its stead decrease costs.
Second, I believe (as I said earlier) that a lot of people are getting pissed off, riled up, and wasting political capital while simultaneously avoiding the kinds of topics and solutions that will have the largest impact on the macro problem.
If you mandate coverage and make recision harder you make ignoring strange lumps a less viable choice, decreasing the burden on the ER and catching things sooner. Preventative care is cheaper.
Seriously, messing up my name? Am I arguing with a 10 year old?
I don't think I've ever referred to you by your proper name. You just noticed?
Next time, get a name I can remember, mrdoppleganger.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
If you mandate coverage and make recision harder you make ignoring strange lumps a less viable choice, decreasing the burden on the ER and catching things sooner. Preventative care is cheaper.
But not cheaper than refusing care altogether!
This seems to form the basis of Republican opposition here.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited August 2009
Is it possible for the Senate to, once Finance produces their bill, just drop it in a trashcan and decide to use a different bill as a basis moving forward?
If you mandate coverage and make recision harder you make ignoring strange lumps a less viable choice, decreasing the burden on the ER and catching things sooner. Preventative care is cheaper.
But not cheaper than refusing care altogether!
This seems to form the basis of Republican opposition here.
"We're not saying we want people to die in the streets. We're just pointing out that you can hire a whole lotta street sweepers for the cost of one doctor, ya know?"
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
short of injecting all patients with liquified twenty dollar bills.
Wait, would you literally shit money?
Honestly though, I just don't get mrdobalinas argument. As you said, the POINT is that it WILL cause a lowering of costs. The fact that it doesn't lower costs as much as it could is irrelevant. Once the bill is passed costs will decrease, and more bills will be acted upon which will lower costs further. For better or worse, the way politics in America work all-or-nothing propositions will get shot down.
Frankly, I just want the option to go to the doctor regularly and have it not costs hundreds of dollars (which is why I don't).
Firstly, I don't buy that just expanding coverage will by its stead decrease costs.
...so you disagree with the very foundational basis of insurance?
Exactly. I really don't know how much further this discussion can go we can't even agree on this basic definition.
The Senate Finance Committee comes up with an even stupider idea.
Wow.
That's laughably dumb.
I am literally laughing.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If you mandate coverage and make recision harder you make ignoring strange lumps a less viable choice, decreasing the burden on the ER and catching things sooner. Preventative care is cheaper.
But not cheaper than refusing care altogether!
This seems to form the basis of Republican opposition here.
"We're not saying we want people to die in the streets. We're just pointing out that you can hire a whole lotta street sweepers for the cost of one doctor, ya know?"
The Senate Finance Committee comes up with an even stupider idea.
Wow.... what the FUCK?!? That is basically the worst idea I have ever heard. There's not even a way to reconcile the basic idea in order to make it better.
Also I'm really really worried about this mob mentality crap. It was being used during the McCain campaign (particularly by Palin), and got to the point where he had to step up and stop it. Now there's no one stepping in and denouncing these groups and telling people to calm down. There's no civil "Look, I'm sure they have everyone's best interests in mind, but I think we have a better plan" coming from anywhere.
Someone's going to get hurt. And unfortunately for the people with legitimate complaints or worthwhile revisions they'll be ignored as the current legislators working on the bill become less and less open to listening.
I would love if someone tried to interview her so she could explain how she arrived at such a distorted perception of what Obama is proposing.
I'm pretty sure it went:
"Obama calls for public option" -> "More people rely on gov't for care" -> "Government instructs people on how to be best cared for" -> "Gov't needs soylent green" -> "Robot death squads roam nation looking to cleanse it from costly sick and elderly patients"
It's pretty logical, if you ask me. Not nearly as crazy as it first sounded now that I've laid it out for you, eh?
Is this wave of Palin/Limbaugh/Town hall zaniness/Teabagger essentially cresting right now? Because you're already seeing GOP folks at the margins start to call for the debate to be dialed down.
That's my impression, at least. For all the complaints that Obama hasn't been proactive enough in presenting his case, it seems like his being a punching bag is having exactly the effect the administration would have hoped it would -- it smoked out the fringe element and put them front and center.
My bet is that we'll see a high profile Republican make noises about the need for bipartisanship within the week. We're moving from the negotiation phase to the face-saving phase.
There's no civil "Look, I'm sure they have everyone's best interests in mind, but I think we have a better plan" coming from anywhere.
But if you look closely, the GOP is actually much closer to winning than they were just weeks ago.
That's where the Dems continue to fail against them. They never expect the GOP, when backed into a corner, to come out bringing the batshit crazy at full tilt.
Remember how organized the GOP can be, even if acting as the bearers of completely erroneous data? This is it, baby. This is what crazy looks like. And if the Dems aren't careful, they're going to lose this issue and possibly a lot more, because people like Nancy Pelosi don't know how to fight crazy and not look just as crazy.
I would love if someone tried to interview her so she could explain how she arrived at such a distorted perception of what Obama is proposing.
I'm pretty sure it went:
"Obama calls for public option" -> "More people rely on gov't for care" -> "Government instructs people on how to be best cared for" -> "Gov't needs soylent green" -> "Robot death squads roam nation looking to cleanse it from costly sick and elderly patients"
It's pretty logical, if you ask me. Not nearly as crazy as it first sounded now that I've laid it out for you, eh?
Posts
Yes. And if you do have to cure pneumonia, it's cheaper to do so outside the context of an ER.
Since apparently we're being condecending now, mroblongata, I will type very slowly:
Providing coverage to more people will reduce costs by treating afflictions earlier and in a more efficient fashion. It is not just about shifting costs, it is about reducing them. You prattling about - fuck, whatever it is you're prattling about, I've kind of lost track - does not alter this basic fact.
You keep going on about robbing Peter or ass-ramming Paul or whatever, but the point is that we're already treating these people. The status quo, the bare minimum of care we're collectively willing to administer, is expensive and stupidly inefficient. We have nowhere to go but up. Simply increasing the number of people covered will, as a matter of fact, reduce costs, because our current system is quite literally the most expensive possible means of running a health care system, short of injecting all patients with liquified twenty dollar bills.
Wait, would you literally shit money?
Honestly though, I just don't get mrdobalinas argument. As you said, the POINT is that it WILL cause a lowering of costs. The fact that it doesn't lower costs as much as it could is irrelevant. Once the bill is passed costs will decrease, and more bills will be acted upon which will lower costs further. For better or worse, the way politics in America work all-or-nothing propositions will get shot down.
Frankly, I just want the option to go to the doctor regularly and have it not costs hundreds of dollars (which is why I don't).
Seriously, messing up my name? Am I arguing with a 10 year old?
I've already addressed this in later posts.
Firstly, I don't buy that just expanding coverage will by its stead decrease costs.
Second, I believe (as I said earlier) that a lot of people are getting pissed off, riled up, and wasting political capital while simultaneously avoiding the kinds of topics and solutions that will have the largest impact on the macro problem.
It just has to get to conference.
Those are practically synonymous ideas. The only reason to address costs *is* to shield people from economic harm.
I didn't think it was possible.
I'm guessing someone will try to defend it by saying that making hiring and termination decisions based on that criteria is illegal, but that's really really hard to prove.
Who are the Senate Democrats on the Conference Committee? In my head, I imagine it's somehow, Reid, Lincoln, Baucus, Nelson, and Bayh.
...so you disagree with the very foundational basis of insurance?
Such as?
Anybody who breaks this rule will be flogged.
And hanged by their figgin.
It depends on who gets picked both from the House and the Senate.
This was a holdover from the last thread.
Probably not worth rehashing though. It's been a long day.
If you mandate coverage and make recision harder you make ignoring strange lumps a less viable choice, decreasing the burden on the ER and catching things sooner. Preventative care is cheaper.
I don't think I've ever referred to you by your proper name. You just noticed?
Next time, get a name I can remember, mrdoppleganger.
But not cheaper than refusing care altogether!
This seems to form the basis of Republican opposition here.
"We're not saying we want people to die in the streets. We're just pointing out that you can hire a whole lotta street sweepers for the cost of one doctor, ya know?"
Exactly. I really don't know how much further this discussion can go we can't even agree on this basic definition.
I mean, this is how insurance works.
Wow.
That's laughably dumb.
I am literally laughing.
Would you say that you could hire a plethora?
Wow.... what the FUCK?!? That is basically the worst idea I have ever heard. There's not even a way to reconcile the basic idea in order to make it better.
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
Not the first mentally challenged thing to pass across her lips, but still. She won't stop until she gets someone to kills someone else.
This was the republican VP offering.
WTF?
Also I'm really really worried about this mob mentality crap. It was being used during the McCain campaign (particularly by Palin), and got to the point where he had to step up and stop it. Now there's no one stepping in and denouncing these groups and telling people to calm down. There's no civil "Look, I'm sure they have everyone's best interests in mind, but I think we have a better plan" coming from anywhere.
Someone's going to get hurt. And unfortunately for the people with legitimate complaints or worthwhile revisions they'll be ignored as the current legislators working on the bill become less and less open to listening.
She didn't really arrive there. She lives there.
She's referring to this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CHBvKGmevI
About 2:50 in.
I'm pretty sure it went:
"Obama calls for public option" -> "More people rely on gov't for care" -> "Government instructs people on how to be best cared for" -> "Gov't needs soylent green" -> "Robot death squads roam nation looking to cleanse it from costly sick and elderly patients"
It's pretty logical, if you ask me. Not nearly as crazy as it first sounded now that I've laid it out for you, eh?
Is this wave of Palin/Limbaugh/Town hall zaniness/Teabagger essentially cresting right now? Because you're already seeing GOP folks at the margins start to call for the debate to be dialed down.
That's my impression, at least. For all the complaints that Obama hasn't been proactive enough in presenting his case, it seems like his being a punching bag is having exactly the effect the administration would have hoped it would -- it smoked out the fringe element and put them front and center.
My bet is that we'll see a high profile Republican make noises about the need for bipartisanship within the week. We're moving from the negotiation phase to the face-saving phase.
Not my fault you don't like the same music as me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Wish_My_Brother_George_Was_Here
Track 2.
Not really Del's best work. Then again, far from his worst.
But if you look closely, the GOP is actually much closer to winning than they were just weeks ago.
That's where the Dems continue to fail against them. They never expect the GOP, when backed into a corner, to come out bringing the batshit crazy at full tilt.
Remember how organized the GOP can be, even if acting as the bearers of completely erroneous data? This is it, baby. This is what crazy looks like. And if the Dems aren't careful, they're going to lose this issue and possibly a lot more, because people like Nancy Pelosi don't know how to fight crazy and not look just as crazy.
Does she not understand that its the current free-market aproach that would judge Trig worthless?
Try getting Health Insurance with a pre-existing condition like Down's syndrome?
Stop reading these proposals. There is no time for reading. There certainly is time for laughter. We must pass this bill yesterday.
To do nothing now would be criminal.
An indelible part of my childhood.
From when I didn't have healthcare. (<
staying on topic)
Supposedly an Obama health adviser. Rahm's brother it sounded like? Sorry, cant' turn up the volume too much.
She quoted a comment about how gov't needed to ration care, and that meant not to the disabled.
Sounds good to me.