Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's say we don't pay for "the wars," which is a rather confusing theory. I presume then that you are implying that we therefor go to war a lot because we don't have to pay for them? Is that right? LMAO
This is on the level of when liberals would just type "Haliburton" in response to anything, no matter whether it made sense or not (and it usually didn't).
Let's say we don't pay for "the wars," which is a rather confusing theory. I presume then that you are implying that we therefor go to war a lot because we don't have to pay for them? Is that right? LMAO
I propose we end them because (among many other reasons) we are not paying for them.
Quote:
This is on the level of when liberals would just type "Haliburton" in response to anything, no matter whether it made sense or not (and it usually didn't).
Not disagreeing with FJR. That said, there's a very narrow technical fix to the ambulance over-utilization problem which is slapping on a copay greater than transportation alternatives. Which in many states medicaid does not do, hence his/her experience. You don't necessarily have to address the broad dilemma to solve the local problem.
It's not like people want to use medical care they don't need -- but they'll do it if incentivized to. Deliberate plan design can solve some of the problems of mis-use without having to address the thornier question of who pays.
It's interesting how you admit that charging someone will cause them to weigh whether or not to use a service. But then later add hastily that we don't have to "address the thornier issue of who pays." Those are rather contradictory statements.
The fact is that the poor have no incentive to either maintain their health or to properly access healthcare systems. On the "prevention/maintenance" side of things, there's no incentive because it doesn't cost them (financially) anything if they have poor health. Even many people who actually have healthcare insurance ignore their health, now liberals turn to people who are being given it for free or substantially discounted and have this fantasy land view that they're going to be very enthusiastic about keeping up with their doctor appointments. In reality, they continue to not go to doctor's offices and just use the ERs whenever they feel like it, now buoyed with the knowledge that "I'm insured." And on the flip side, while they don't properly maintain their actual health, they'll go to hospitals all the time for nuisance issues, which are only a drain on the system. And meanwhile, anything that is missed or any time they don't get the best testing results in liberal lawyers getting ready to sue everyone for a hefty sum.
But, yes, I am sure that socialized medicine is great.
It's interesting how you admit that charging someone will cause them to weigh whether or not to use a service. But then later add hastily that we don't have to "address the thornier issue of who pays." Those are rather contradictory statements.
The fact is that the poor have no incentive to either maintain their health or to properly access healthcare systems. On the "prevention/maintenance" side of things, there's no incentive because it doesn't cost them (financially) anything if they have poor health. Even many people who actually have healthcare insurance ignore their health, now liberals turn to people who are being given it for free or substantially discounted and have this fantasy land view that they're going to be very enthusiastic about keeping up with their doctor appointments. In reality, they continue to not go to doctor's offices and just use the ERs whenever they feel like it, now buoyed with the knowledge that "I'm insured." And on the flip side, while they don't properly maintain their actual health, they'll go to hospitals all the time for nuisance issues, which are only a drain on the system. And meanwhile, anything that is missed or any time they don't get the best testing results in liberal lawyers getting ready to sue everyone for a hefty sum.
But, yes, I am sure that socialized medicine is great.
It's not a contradiction because you could have a government-subsidized plan with copay design either set with a sufficient degree of intelligence and thought - or outsourced to an insurer to do the same - to guide utilization toward more appropriate places of service and prevent scenarios where 'medical' services are cheaper than equivalent non-medical services. Will there still be some distortion because there is pretty much always distortion when you subsidize things? Of course. You can engineer the worst of it out of the system though, and the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.
edit: although to circle back to the premise of the thread, prudent use of health resources generally means use outside the hospital setting whenever feasible, so that would be pretty bad for hospital revenue even if the government is still picking up individuals' premium tab.
The GOP has had eight years to craft a better affordable care act but instead they wasted time voting and promising to repeal and replace. They should've had another bill in place already in of the very likely case a Republican was elected. IMO that sums up what their commitment is to actually repealing or replacing the Affordable Care Act.
you could have a government-subsidized plan with copay
Yes, I am sure having a copay would really motivate the poor and indigent to want to make appointments to see physicians in order to maintain their health. Or, more likely, they'll just continue to ignore their health until it's catastrophic and then burst into a random ER and go "OMG, make sure I get all treatments and care and I never want to be taken off life support, I know my rights!!"
Sure, you did, even if you didn't intend to. See, I proposed a two-track system. One that was free market and one that was socialized. And the socialized one would be for the poor and indigent and for the wealthy liberal elites (unions, politicians) who professed to support it. And unlike with Obamacare, they wouldn't be allowed to bail out on it.
Now, the wealthy liberals should easily be able to fund the socialized system as a contained system. You have rich and poor within it and I am told that socialized healthcare produces the best results in the world. But you interpreted it as everyone will fund it. But that would be silly. Why would the rest of the country fund a system they're not part of? And why would a socialized system require funding from millions of people who don't use it?
A public option would be just that, open to the public. Rich or poor. And like you I would support the continuance of relatively free market HC options as well. From both the HC delivery and the provider side. Many docs don't want to be forced to participate in any public option.
Now the taxation part we don't know. Medicare is funded by taxpayers not enrolled. Although most will eventually take their benefits.
Deficit spending is not taxation, and I stick by what I said and meant.
The GOP has had eight years to craft a better affordable care act but instead they wasted time voting and promising to repeal and replace. They should've had another bill in place already in of the very likely case a Republican was elected. IMO that sums up what their commitment is to actually repealing or replacing the Affordable Care Act.
Republicans aren't capable. If we get anything it will be because of Trump.
Not disagreeing with FJR. That said, there's a very narrow technical fix to the ambulance over-utilization problem which is slapping on a copay greater than transportation alternatives. Which in many states medicaid does not do, hence his/her experience. You don't necessarily have to address the broad dilemma to solve the local problem.
It's not like people want to use medical care they don't need -- but they'll do it if incentivized to. Deliberate plan design can solve some of the problems of mis-use without having to address the thornier question of who pays.
The problem with that high copay is that some patients needing emergent transfer will balk. And can that can cause excess morbidity and mortality. A better option IMO is to have separate non-emergent medical transport system.
Yes, I am sure having a copay would really motivate the poor and indigent to want to make appointments to see physicians in order to maintain their health. Or, more likely, they'll just continue to ignore their health until it's catastrophic and then burst into a random ER and go "OMG, make sure I get all treatments and care and I never want to be taken off life support, I know my rights!!"
Pull your insurance card out of your wallet. If you're on a commercial plan, you'll see a low PCP copay, a low to moderate specialist copay, and a high ER copay. This isn't rocket science. You can cut the overall levels of the copays but maintain the differential for an indigent population.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
