WSJ article on how screwed up our health care system is

[Junior]

Luke, man, you can just google Obamacare and learn all about it and what it's *supposed* to do. It's not inherently broken; however it is severely handicapped because the GOP doesn't understand basic logic. Like I said, it's step one towards a more comprehensive and effective plan. This isn't going to happen overnight.

What, exactly, does the GOP have to do with ObamaCare. I don't seem to recall any Republicans voting for it.

 

They definitely have voted against it. 40 times. I would think they least they could do is present an alternative. I won't even ask for a viable alternative... just any alternative would do.

 

They've also threatened to shut down the government if Obama doesn't defund it. Surely you can see how they are working to prevent it's successful implementation.

And what does any of that have to do with the law as passed?

 

You asked "What, exactly, does the GOP have to do with Obamacare?" This is what they have to do with Obamacare.

 

I could point out that "Obamacare" was their own idea 20 years ago before the party got pushed to the fringe right.

http://www.forbes.co...vidual-mandate/

I could also point out that the last Republican nominee for President of the United States successfully implemented "Obamacare" in Massachusetts while he was governor. And guess what... it's working there.

http://www.washingto...oJedR_blog.html

 

But no, the GOP has nothing at all to do with "Obamacare".

[carlfense]

Maybe more people would file claims if lawyers didn't take such a large part of the pot at the end.

There is no requirement that an attorney be retained.

[carlfense]

For <8 months? Sure. Tens of millions have already made that decision *without* the promise guaranteed insurance waiting for them should something happen. I'm not interested in whether foregoing insurance is a good or bad idea, but whether enough young people would think it's a good idea. The evidence suggests that they're going to forego insurance under ObamaCare, imperiling the entire racket.

OK, then.

 

And the subsidies? I didn't see you mention those.

[carlfense]

And what does any of that have to do with the law as passed?

Are you really trying to argue that actively trying to sabotage a law doesn't have anything to do with the law?

[Junior]

Red herring. Malpractice insurance is expensive because there is a shocking amount of malpractice. The vast majority of patients with valid claims don't file a lawsuit.

 

The CBO estimated in 2009 that comprehensive tort reform would save the healthcare system about $11 billion a year. We all agree (I assume) that healthcare costs in this country are out of control, why oppose this?

 

4. Use the tax system to encourage high deductible plans over low deductible plans.

Why?

 

Again, healthcare costs are far too high in this country. A big reason for that is people don't actually see the money leaving their pockets, so they don't act like a rational custodian of health care dollars when deciding whether to undergo Treatment X or Test Y. Breaking down the barrier between the patient and the expenses they incur (except for select preventative procedures) is a key to controlling healthcare spending.

 

 

I would argue that this sits more on doctors ordering unnecessary tests (done to drive up costs for the hospitals and to protect themselves from a malpractice suit) than on patients for undergoing tests their physicians recommend.

[BigRedBuster]

Red herring. Malpractice insurance is expensive because there is a shocking amount of malpractice. The vast majority of patients with valid claims don't file a lawsuit.

 

The CBO estimated in 2009 that comprehensive tort reform would save the healthcare system about $11 billion a year. We all agree (I assume) that healthcare costs in this country are out of control, why oppose this?

 

4. Use the tax system to encourage high deductible plans over low deductible plans.

Why?

 

Again, healthcare costs are far too high in this country. A big reason for that is people don't actually see the money leaving their pockets, so they don't act like a rational custodian of health care dollars when deciding whether to undergo Treatment X or Test Y. Breaking down the barrier between the patient and the expenses they incur (except for select preventative procedures) is a key to controlling healthcare spending.

 

 

I would argue that this sits more on doctors ordering unnecessary tests (done to drive up costs for the hospitals and to protect themselves from a malpractice suit) than on patients for undergoing tests their physicians recommend.

 

 

Lawyers argue that malpractice doesn't have much to do with the rising costs of health care.

[tschu]

Well of course they do

[strigori]

I live in New Zealand, in case you didn't know already. I'm not sure I completely understand the taxes that come out of my paycheck, but it's pretty comparable to what came out of my checks when I worked in the States for 20 years. The only difference I notice is that I don't have any money going into a similar Social Security type system (which no one will end up seeing anyway). Anyway, here are my health care fees I've racked up here so far:

 

Severe sinus infection: $14 doctor visit, $10 meds

2 knee surgeries (1st for torn meniscus, 2nd for torn ACL): $0 MRI, $0 for both surgeries, $34 for pain meds and anti-inflammatories

Wife giving birth to our son: $30 for 3 different ultrasounds, $46.50 in hospital parking over 3 days.

 

I'm not standing up for privatized insurance or Obamacare...all I know is, this country seems to get it, as do others. I'm hardly complaining.

That is the system we need to move to. Single payer. The people benefit, at the cost of profits from a few business sectors.

 

I'm sure you could actually kill many arguments against it with your experiences in both systems. Like you mention about not complaining, the rest of the nations that have single payer are not trying to move to our broken system

[Mavric]

Luke, man, you can just google Obamacare and learn all about it and what it's *supposed* to do. It's not inherently broken; however it is severely handicapped because the GOP doesn't understand basic logic. Like I said, it's step one towards a more comprehensive and effective plan. This isn't going to happen overnight.

What, exactly, does the GOP have to do with ObamaCare. I don't seem to recall any Republicans voting for it.

 

They definitely have voted against it. 40 times. I would think they least they could do is present an alternative. I won't even ask for a viable alternative... just any alternative would do.

 

They've also threatened to shut down the government if Obama doesn't defund it. Surely you can see how they are working to prevent it's successful implementation.

And what does any of that have to do with the law as passed?

 

You asked "What, exactly, does the GOP have to do with Obamacare?" This is what they have to do with Obamacare.

 

I could point out that "Obamacare" was their own idea 20 years ago before the party got pushed to the fringe right.

http://www.forbes.co...vidual-mandate/

I could also point out that the last Republican nominee for President of the United States successfully implemented "Obamacare" in Massachusetts while he was governor. And guess what... it's working there.

http://www.washingto...oJedR_blog.html

 

But no, the GOP has nothing at all to do with "Obamacare".

So you're just going to continue to try to change the subject? Because some Democrat somewhere supported a war does that mean that all wars are supported by Democrats?

[carlfense]

Lawyers argue that malpractice doesn't have much to do with the rising costs of health care.

It doesn't but don't take my word for it. Go look at the numbers.

[carlfense]

That is the system we need to move to. Single payer. The people benefit, at the cost of profits from a few business sectors.

 

I'm sure you could actually kill many arguments against it with your experiences in both systems. Like you mention about not complaining, the rest of the nations that have single payer are not trying to move to our broken system

You're right.

[Junior]

So you're just going to continue to try to change the subject? Because some Democrat somewhere supported a war does that mean that all wars are supported by Democrats?

 

A) I'm answering the question you asked. That's not changing the subject.

B) If "some Democrat somewhere" was the Presidential candidate for the party... yea, it kind of does.

[Mavric]

B) If "some Democrat somewhere" was the Presidential candidate for the party... yea, it kind of does.

So any position taken by any Presidential candidate automatically becomes the forever position of the entire party?

 

Andrew Jackson supported slavery. Is that still a part of the Democratic platform?

[carlfense]

A) I'm answering the question you asked. That's not changing the subject.

I'm starting to wonder if that particular accusation is a coordinated strategy.

[Junior]

A) I'm answering the question you asked. That's not changing the subject.

I'm starting to wonder if that particular accusation is a coordinated strategy.

 

You think someone else might be trying to change the subject?! Nooooo....