• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Care Bill has passed

LaMidRighter said:
The rub is that the hypocratic oath is non-binding, so unless a state law requires medical providers to give access during an emergency it really is an unquantifiable factor, as it would depend solely on the providers will to give healthcare at a loss. Don't know which way this factor would swing to be honest.
Click to expand...

It paves the way for perfect inelasticty.

I see this as potentially abused more than any other entitlement, if anything demand will exceed supply. For instance my mother works in the charity system here, she sees people who will not take generics and are constant "customers" because they aren't paying, these people will be on the public option eventually when the scum in Washington makes adjustments, so Louisiana's problem is about to become a national one.
Click to expand...

And the private market will be far better off with such people off of their risk pool.

Not necessarily, again, risk is so skewed right now to actually get the situation right would require around 3-4 decades of slowly peeling back the internal problems. Such as eliminating national medical school caps on enrollment, tort reform, etc.
Click to expand...

We have a winner. The second biggest determinant in health care inflation. Are you familiar with medical tourism?

If the heavy regulations are appropriate I agree, however many of the regulations on my industry are not only a band-aid on a bullet wound, they miss the wound itself.
Click to expand...

Agreed! What are your views on shifting the remaining high risk individuals to the government?
 
jallman said:
Well why would they do that when half the people arguing this topic haven't bothered to even read the bill? Admittedly I haven't finished it...barely made a dent in it. These are just issues I've seen with what I have read so far.

And it's slow going. The language is...thick. It practically needs translation at certain points. LOL
Click to expand...

I think rathi made the best point.

This bill is nothing but "style over substance."
Supporters can't tell you what is in it.
 
LaMidRighter said:
That sounds like about two to three personal attacks right there. Hope you don't have money in the stock market, or mutual funds, or anything indexed.
Click to expand...

Looks like the market is doing OK at this point. Dow up about 45 at 2pm. Maybe they have not heard yet.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think rathi made the best point.

This bill is nothing but "style over substance."
Supporters can't tell you what is in it.
Click to expand...

Honestly, what I find most astounding is how populist rhetoric about how "them evil insurance companies are to blame" is what drove support for this bill yet the bill requires you to buy insurance from "them evil insurance companies" or pay a fine to the tune of $695.00 a year. :confused:

Does anyone else see the total implosion of logic here?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I've asked and asked with no response.
The best I've heard is talking points.
Click to expand...

So you think that because you asked a few supporters, every single one in the universe knows nothing? That's a fallacy.

And can you tell us what's in the bill, beyond talking points? Right now?
 
jallman said:
Honestly, what I find most astounding is how populist rhetoric about how "them evil insurance companies are to blame" is what drove support for this bill yet the bill requires you to buy insurance from "them evil insurance companies" or pay a fine to the tune of $695.00 a year. :confused:

Does anyone else see the total implosion of logic here?
Click to expand...

Talking points + people who vote because of emotion = success!
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You are not everyone. I would like you to answer a question: What impact does medical bankruptcy have on the pricing mechanism for health care?
Click to expand...
Any impact it has would be lessened by reducing the COSTS of healthcare because then, bankruptcies would decrease. But the bill just passed does not help to decrease costs. It only adds more of the same that increased the ****ing costs to begin with.

Not everywhere. You are still missing the point. Not everyone has the money to restore their home in an orderly fashion in the event of a fire. Which is why insurance is so heavily demanded in a developed economy. If they do not have the money and let it sit there in shambles it will impact my life.
Click to expand...
All I can say to this is, :boohoo:

You neglected to comment on externalities.
Click to expand...
Because I don't give a flying **** about externalities.


Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. In order to understand how markets function, you have to consider the most basic premise: scarcity. Given the pricing mechanism, what is the relationship to scarcity?
Click to expand...
Scarcity has nothing to do with it since healthcare is far from scarce.


Why does that not correspond to other nations?
Click to expand...
They are not the US.


Given the inelasticity of health care demand, your comment could not be more off base. The chief cause of health care inflation is an aging population. Are you aware of how the "market" achieves equilibrium?
Click to expand...
No, the chief causes of higher costs are govt involvement, insurance companies and malpractice suits.

Not in the business of arguing opinions. You are completely fumbling the cost side of the equation because you are unaware of health care demand. Under your premise; the only way to decrease costs is to decrease quantity demand (invoking a shortage).
Click to expand...
Uh, no. That's not the way to decrease health care costs. WTF?

Where is a good ole supply side solution when you need one? Increase the supply of doctors and the cost of health care falls. ;) Or...... And this is a novel idea. Having a more healthy society will in fact decrease quantity demanded (regardless of elasticity). Adequate health coverage plays a major role.

You are arguing based on emotion and ideology.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, I'm arguing from the side of knowledge and experience. Having worked in the medical field, for an insurance company, for the government AND been a consumer. Not to mention research. So no, no ideology here since I don't subscribe to any 'ideology'. And no emotion based argument either.

It's a fact that when people are given something for "free", they abuse the **** out of it. Medicaid, Medicare are prime examples of this. Go to an ER on any given night and you will see prime examples of this.

A healthy society will certainly reduce health care USAGE. But giving everyone Medicaid and/or forcing them to buy insurance they don't want isn't going to make them healthier. Plus, you're only talking about a fraction of the population that isn't insured. What is it, +/- 12%? 85% or so of the population IS insured and yet you somehow think that if the remaining 12% or so get insured the costs are going to plummet? Gimme a break. :roll:
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
So you think that because you asked a few supporters, every single one in the universe knows nothing? That's a fallacy.
Click to expand...

The supporters, I've encountered, don't know jack crap about it.

misterman said:
And can you tell us what's in the bill, beyond talking points? Right now?
Click to expand...

What would you like to know about it?
 
jallman said:
Honestly, what I find most astounding is how populist rhetoric about how "them evil insurance companies are to blame" is what drove support for this bill yet the bill requires you to buy insurance from "them evil insurance companies" or pay a fine to the tune of $695.00 a year. :confused:

Does anyone else see the total implosion of logic here?
Click to expand...

Yes. Except the bill also contains curbs on many of the insurance practices those complaints were about, such as pre-existing condition restrictions.
 
Gill said:
How does this bill correct this?? It doesn't. What it does is add millions more to the Medicaid roles, creating more inflation.
Click to expand...

Come on..... Aging populations, constricted industry entry, obesity, tobacco etc....

Additional doctors probably won't decrease health costs, but more patients along with fewer doctors will certainly greatly increase wait times to get into doctor's offices.
Click to expand...

:confused:

More doctors equal more competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s because 20 percent of patients account for 80 percent of spending, and that 20 percent is made up mostly of the chronically ill. These patients are often sick with multiple conditions—such as diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure—and more than half of the money we devote to caring for them is spent when they are in the hospital. People who are sick enough to be hospitalized are generally too ill to be insisting on certain tests or procedures.
Click to expand...

Why Does Health Care Cost So Much?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The supporters, I've encountered, don't know jack crap about it.
Click to expand...

How many out of the millions and millions of supporters out there have you encountered?

What would you like to know about it?
Click to expand...

Whatever you think supporters should know. Right now. Don't Google it either.
 
misterman said:
How many out of the millions and millions of supporters out there have you encountered?
Click to expand...

The people that come here to debate, should know what they are debating about.
Running their mouths off because it's "historic", "Punishing insurance companies", and all that other nonsense does not suffice.

You(not you specifically) want to come here and make claims of it's greatness, you better be able to back it up with facts.

misterman said:
Whatever you think supporters should know. Right now. Don't Google it either.
Click to expand...

That a lot of the savings come from the student loan reform inserted into it, that the doc fix(that was taken out) will remove those savings(once it is passed later), how about the funding to minority colleges inserted in the bill.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The people that come here to debate, should know what they are debating about.
Running their mouths off because it's "historic", "Punishing insurance companies", and all that other nonsense does not suffice.

You(not you specifically) want to come here and make claims of it's greatness, you better be able to back it up with facts.
Click to expand...

I agree.

That a lot of the savings come from the student loan reform inserted into it, that the doc fix(that was taken out) will remove those savings(once it is passed later), how about the funding to minority colleges inserted in the bill.
Click to expand...

That's what you think is essential about this bill? Really? Those are things everyone must know in order to debate?

How does the bill work? Describe the basics, in 100 words or less.
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
Or...... And this is a novel idea. Having a more healthy society will in fact decrease quantity demanded (regardless of elasticity). Adequate health coverage plays a major role.
Click to expand...

A large segment of people in this society don't want to be healthy. Being unhealthy, thus being dependent and needy, especially when it gets a monthly check, is an adequate living for some people. Our society has become so morally bankrupt that we reward the unproductive off the backs of the productive. We are dealing with much more than funding healthcare here. We are dealing with a population that is morally and spiritually (not in the religious sense) devoid of reality.

Goldenboy219 said:
You are arguing based on emotion and ideology.
Click to expand...

This entire effing legislation is based on emotion and ideology.

Many of the sick in our society love their illness. It gives meaning to their lives, and is the reason for their existence. This is as much a mental/psychological problem as a financial one.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
Any impact it has would be lessened by reducing the COSTS of healthcare because then, bankruptcies would decrease. But the bill just passed does not help to decrease costs. It only adds more of the same that increased the ****ing costs to begin with.
Click to expand...

And yet you failed to address my question.

All I can say to this is, :boohoo:
Click to expand...

On the contrary, you are the one crying about being forced to purchase insurance.

Because I don't give a flying **** about externalities.
Click to expand...

I don't care if you give a ****. They exist and can severely effect markets. Therefore you cannot expect to give a quality analysis without taking into consideration market failure.

Scarcity has nothing to do with it since healthcare is far from scarce.
Click to expand...

:rofl Everything is scare:2wave:

They are not the US.
Click to expand...

Blanket statements about "government care" only apply to the US now? Fascinating.

No, the chief causes of higher costs are govt involvement, insurance companies and malpractice suits.
Click to expand...

Right. And markets always self correct, government always does it wrong, and insurance companies do not provide a legitimate service.

Uh, no. That's not the way to decrease health care costs. WTF?
Click to expand...

That is what you have been arguing for....

Incorrect, I'm arguing from the side of knowledge and experience. Having worked in the medical field, for an insurance company, for the government AND been a consumer. Not to mention research. So no, no ideology here since I don't subscribe to any 'ideology'. And no emotion based argument either.

It's a fact that when people are given something for "free", they abuse the **** out of it. Medicaid, Medicare are prime examples of this. Go to an ER on any given night and you will see prime examples of this.

A healthy society will certainly reduce health care USAGE. But giving everyone Medicaid and/or forcing them to buy insurance they don't want isn't going to make them healthier. Plus, you're only talking about a fraction of the population that isn't insured. What is it, +/- 12%? 85% or so of the population IS insured and yet you somehow think that if the remaining 12% or so get insured the costs are going to plummet? Gimme a break. :roll:
Click to expand...

You could have fooled me. All you have presented me with are normative rants without any positive support. You are going to have to do much better.
 
lizzie said:
A large segment of people in this society don't want to be healthy. Being unhealthy, thus being dependent and needy, especially when it gets a monthly check, is an adequate living for some people. Our society has become so morally bankrupt that we reward the unproductive off the backs of the productive. We are dealing with much more than funding healthcare here. We are dealing with a population that is morally and spiritually (not in the religious sense) devoid of reality.



This entire effing legislation is based on emotion and ideology.

Many of the sick in our society love their illness. It gives meaning to their lives, and is the reason for their existence. This is as much a mental/psychological problem as a financial one.
Click to expand...

Wow.............
 
lizzie said:
A large segment of people in this society don't want to be healthy. Being unhealthy, thus being dependent and needy, especially when it gets a monthly check, is an adequate living for some people. Our society has become so morally bankrupt that we reward the unproductive off the backs of the productive. We are dealing with much more than funding healthcare here. We are dealing with a population that is morally and spiritually (not in the religious sense) devoid of reality.



This entire effing legislation is based on emotion and ideology.

Many of the sick in our society love their illness. It gives meaning to their lives, and is the reason for their existence. This is as much a mental/psychological problem as a financial one.
Click to expand...

I'll gladly trade my heart condition with someone who wants to be sick like this.

Any takers?
 
jallman said:
Honestly, what I find most astounding is how populist rhetoric about how "them evil insurance companies are to blame" is what drove support for this bill yet the bill requires you to buy insurance from "them evil insurance companies" or pay a fine to the tune of $695.00 a year. :confused:

Does anyone else see the total implosion of logic here?
Click to expand...

I'd like to get that figured clarified - I was just listening to Rush and he said the figure is 2% of your income or $2,000 a year, which ever is greater. That is all I know about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom