The Affordable Coffee Act

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]H factor wrote:
The big issue in comparing coffee to health care is the insane costs though Nick. A kid in my fiances class from about 6 years has been battling cancer for about ten months. His insurance has not covered everything, it has covered some things. Right now he is starting to take a new drug that is not covered by his insurance. The cost of the pills alone (nothing else) for him is 180 dollars a day. Luckily I don’t think he has to take them for a super long amount of time.

The costs of JUST those pills for him if he had to take them for a year is over 65,000 dollars. No doctors appointments. No chemo (he’s been through three rounds). Nothing else. 65,000 dollars a year.

Health care is a bitch because we are talking about people’s lives. It’s way easier to deny yourself coffee if coffee prices are high. Denying your loved ones life saving treatments because of the costs just doesn’t happen.

I don’t disagree with your post, but I think comparing health care and coffee is a gigantic stretch my man.

Nothing can speak cheaper healthcare into existence though, you’re absolutely right. [/quote]

And you think government controlled and administered health care would pay for all that? lol.

Did you know medicare has the highest denial rate on claims for insurers in the US?

22

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
The big issue in comparing coffee to health care is the insane costs though Nick. A kid in my fiances class from about 6 years has been battling cancer for about ten months. His insurance has not covered everything, it has covered some things. Right now he is starting to take a new drug that is not covered by his insurance. The cost of the pills alone (nothing else) for him is 180 dollars a day. Luckily I don’t think he has to take them for a super long amount of time.

The costs of JUST those pills for him if he had to take them for a year is over 65,000 dollars. No doctors appointments. No chemo (he’s been through three rounds). Nothing else. 65,000 dollars a year.

Health care is a bitch because we are talking about people’s lives. It’s way easier to deny yourself coffee if coffee prices are high. Denying your loved ones life saving treatments because of the costs just doesn’t happen.

I don’t disagree with your post, but I think comparing health care and coffee is a gigantic stretch my man.

Nothing can speak cheaper healthcare into existence though, you’re absolutely right. [/quote]

And you think government controlled and administered health care would pay for all that? lol.

Did you know medicare has the highest denial rate on claims for insurers in the US?[/quote]

I don’t know why you would attempt to build this strawman when I’ve repeatedly been against government actions in the health care industry in multiple threads.

Not only did I never say that or anything close to it, I actually believe pretty much the opposite in most cases. And I have numerous anti-government health care posts to show that is the case.

I just think comparing coffee and healthcare is a gigantic stretch for an analogy and the markets as they are in 2014 have almost nothing in common.

23

[quote]H factor wrote:
I just think comparing coffee and healthcare is a gigantic stretch for an analogy and the markets as they are in 2014 have almost nothing in common. [/quote]

This. Most analogies lead you to the same place, which is headinasstown.

If the government can force me to fund the armed forces, they can force me to fund Ron Jeremy’s dildo collection. Because, you know, both are things that cost money.

24

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In many ways, a rational choice in such an eventuality is violence, hostage-taking, hijackery, etc. Denzel warned us.[/quote]

Hahaha. I was just about to post a reference to that movie but you beat me to it. Kick ass movie, also thought provoking on a certain level with this discussion

25

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If the government can force me to fund the armed forces, they can force me to fund Ron Jeremy’s dildo collection. Because, you know, both are things that cost money.[/quote]

I know you were attempting to exaggerate there, but that is absolutely true. If the majority decided to fund such a collection, you would either be funding a dildo collection or breaking the law. Is it likely that the majority could be convinced to fund that? Of course not.

However, our government has decided that it owns the territory which we rent from it(along with a large percentage of your labor), so it certainly could force you to, and your only recourse would be to abandon much of what you own, give up your ability to visit people with whom you have no issues, and leave this land mass.

26

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
The big issue in comparing coffee to health care is the insane costs though Nick. A kid in my fiances class from about 6 years has been battling cancer for about ten months. His insurance has not covered everything, it has covered some things. Right now he is starting to take a new drug that is not covered by his insurance. The cost of the pills alone (nothing else) for him is 180 dollars a day. Luckily I don’t think he has to take them for a super long amount of time.

The costs of JUST those pills for him if he had to take them for a year is over 65,000 dollars. No doctors appointments. No chemo (he’s been through three rounds). Nothing else. 65,000 dollars a year.

Health care is a bitch because we are talking about people’s lives. It’s way easier to deny yourself coffee if coffee prices are high. Denying your loved ones life saving treatments because of the costs just doesn’t happen.

I don’t disagree with your post, but I think comparing health care and coffee is a gigantic stretch my man.

Nothing can speak cheaper healthcare into existence though, you’re absolutely right. [/quote]

And you think government controlled and administered health care would pay for all that? lol.

Did you know medicare has the highest denial rate on claims for insurers in the US?[/quote]

I don’t know why you would attempt to build this strawman when I’ve repeatedly been against government actions in the health care industry in multiple threads.

Not only did I never say that or anything close to it, I actually believe pretty much the opposite in most cases. And I have numerous anti-government health care posts to show that is the case.

I just think comparing coffee and healthcare is a gigantic stretch for an analogy and the markets as they are in 2014 have almost nothing in common. [/quote]

But is it denying yourself coffee if you can’t afford it? That would be like saying you deny yourself coverage when you can’t afford that. And I think you underestimate the value of caffeine in the productivity of the US. It’s a performance enhancer in the work environment that lack of can cause people to loose their jobs.

27

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You could argue it would behoove a civilized society to help pay for the healthcare of someone that can’t afford it in order to reduce the likelihood of said person resorting to armed robbery. [/quote]

You certainly could! Davy Crockett apparently once made a great speech about just this sort of thing: Wesley Downs Site – Your SUPER-powered WP Engine Site

Lord knows I disagree with Nick on a variety of policy and idealism, as I am no anarchist, but I think everybody needs to read this link and digest it thoroughly. It is a fantastic piece of historical story that deserves thoughtful cogitation.

I have mixed feelings of Lew Rockwell but this is spot on

28

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
The big issue in comparing coffee to health care is the insane costs though Nick. A kid in my fiances class from about 6 years has been battling cancer for about ten months. His insurance has not covered everything, it has covered some things. Right now he is starting to take a new drug that is not covered by his insurance. The cost of the pills alone (nothing else) for him is 180 dollars a day. Luckily I don’t think he has to take them for a super long amount of time.

The costs of JUST those pills for him if he had to take them for a year is over 65,000 dollars. No doctors appointments. No chemo (he’s been through three rounds). Nothing else. 65,000 dollars a year.

Health care is a bitch because we are talking about people’s lives. It’s way easier to deny yourself coffee if coffee prices are high. Denying your loved ones life saving treatments because of the costs just doesn’t happen.

I don’t disagree with your post, but I think comparing health care and coffee is a gigantic stretch my man.

Nothing can speak cheaper healthcare into existence though, you’re absolutely right. [/quote]

And you think government controlled and administered health care would pay for all that? lol.

Did you know medicare has the highest denial rate on claims for insurers in the US?[/quote]

I don’t know why you would attempt to build this strawman when I’ve repeatedly been against government actions in the health care industry in multiple threads.

Not only did I never say that or anything close to it, I actually believe pretty much the opposite in most cases. And I have numerous anti-government health care posts to show that is the case.

I just think comparing coffee and healthcare is a gigantic stretch for an analogy and the markets as they are in 2014 have almost nothing in common. [/quote]

But is it denying yourself coffee if you can’t afford it? That would be like saying you deny yourself coverage when you can’t afford that. And I think you underestimate the value of caffeine in the productivity of the US. It’s a performance enhancer in the work environment that lack of can cause people to loose their jobs.[/quote]

I think this is tongue in cheek, but it’s still nonsensical and not worth addressing even if it is not.

Comparing health care and coffee is certainly possible, but if we are going to have a serious discussion about how similar the markets are I’m going to bow out. No rational comparison really exists to compare someone “needing” a cup of coffee vs. “needing” emergency care after a car wreck.

Who pays, how, how we lower costs, why costs are high, and a ton of other things are things I have talked about many times in health care debates. Most Americans who can’t get a cup of coffee because of financial reasons may be able to satisfy thirst in cheaper ways. It’s really hard to “shop around” when you need a life saving procedure from a wreck.

A lot of the debates in the health care threads come from us treating it like it’s a free market. It doesn’t resemble anything like a free market and hasn’t in a long, long time. To say coffee is just like health care though isn’t rational.

29

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You could argue it would behoove a civilized society to help pay for the healthcare of someone that can’t afford it in order to reduce the likelihood of said person resorting to armed robbery. [/quote]

You certainly could! Davy Crockett apparently once made a great speech about just this sort of thing: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html[/quote]

Lord knows I disagree with Nick on a variety of policy and idealism, as I am no anarchist, but I think everybody needs to read this link and digest it thoroughly. It is a fantastic piece of historical story that deserves thoughtful cogitation.

I have mixed feelings of Lew Rockwell but this is spot on[/quote]

I disagree with Nick on some things as well, but the brilliant part about Nick (and the anarcho-capitalist thinking I used to read so much when I was younger) is how consistent many of the arguments are.

Even though I may disagree with what the results of those decisions may bring (to say nothing of the unfortunate fact that we will never have any idea as nothing like that will likely be tried in our lifetime on a nationwide scale) it’s brilliant reading and discussion for thought.

30

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If the government can force me to fund the armed forces, they can force me to fund Ron Jeremy’s dildo collection. Because, you know, both are things that cost money.[/quote]

I know you were attempting to exaggerate there, but that is absolutely true. If the majority decided to fund such a collection, you would either be funding a dildo collection or breaking the law. Is it likely that the majority could be convinced to fund that? Of course not.
[/quote]

Are you sure? We’re already funding penis pumps.

Actually as I think about it we’re incredibly close to funding dildo collections already as Obama and his cronies continue to consider opening medicare to sexual reassignment surgery.

You know what they use to stretch out a newly created vagina, don’t you? Yep, a set of dildos. All Ron Jeremy needs to do is wait it out a little longer, decide he’d be better off with a vagina, and voila; a tax-payer funded dildo collection for the one and only.

You can’t make this stuff up. Just dealing with a majority is bad enough, but now we have to deal with a mob and numerous groups of bureaucratic elitists that can make these decisions on a whim with zero congressional approval.

31

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You could argue it would behoove a civilized society to help pay for the healthcare of someone that can’t afford it in order to reduce the likelihood of said person resorting to armed robbery. [/quote]

You certainly could! Davy Crockett apparently once made a great speech about just this sort of thing: Davy Crockett vs. Welfare [/quote]

Lord knows I disagree with Nick on a variety of policy and idealism, as I am no anarchist, but I think everybody needs to read this link and digest it thoroughly. It is a fantastic piece of historical story that deserves thoughtful cogitation.

I have mixed feelings of Lew Rockwell but this is spot on[/quote]

I disagree with Nick on some things as well, but the brilliant part about Nick (and the anarcho-capitalist thinking I used to read so much when I was younger) is how consistent many of the arguments are.

Even though I may disagree with what the results of those decisions may bring (to say nothing of the unfortunate fact that we will never have any idea as nothing like that will likely be tried in our lifetime on a nationwide scale) it’s brilliant reading and discussion for thought. [/quote]

I think it’s about as useful as debating the merits of adding unicorn meat to your diet. You know for all the protein…

I’ll give Nick credit though, the Davy Crockett link was a good one.

32

[quote]tedro wrote:
Just dealing with a majority is bad enough, but now we have to deal with a mob and numerous groups of bureaucratic elitists that can make these decisions on a whim with zero congressional approval.[/quote]

Only when congress grants the authority and fails to properly supervise.

33

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You could argue it would behoove a civilized society to help pay for the healthcare of someone that can’t afford it in order to reduce the likelihood of said person resorting to armed robbery. [/quote]

You certainly could! Davy Crockett apparently once made a great speech about just this sort of thing: Davy Crockett vs. Welfare [/quote]

Lord knows I disagree with Nick on a variety of policy and idealism, as I am no anarchist, but I think everybody needs to read this link and digest it thoroughly. It is a fantastic piece of historical story that deserves thoughtful cogitation.

I have mixed feelings of Lew Rockwell but this is spot on[/quote]

I disagree with Nick on some things as well, but the brilliant part about Nick (and the anarcho-capitalist thinking I used to read so much when I was younger) is how consistent many of the arguments are.

Even though I may disagree with what the results of those decisions may bring (to say nothing of the unfortunate fact that we will never have any idea as nothing like that will likely be tried in our lifetime on a nationwide scale) it’s brilliant reading and discussion for thought. [/quote]

I think it’s about as useful as debating the merits of adding unicorn meat to your diet. You know for all the protein…

I’ll give Nick credit though, the Davy Crockett link was a good one. [/quote]

I used to get onto the ACists guys on a forum I posted about because I told them they spent a lot of time thinking about stuff that had absolutely no chance of ever coming to fruition. I don’t feel that way anymore. There is value in thinking about things in all manners, because it helps us give more informed answers to our questions.

So even though some of the things Nick says I disagree with in terms of how it may work or even in the likelihood that it will ever be tried in our lifetime, it doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable to consider multiple viewpoints.

In fact it’s one reason I like Nick so much as a poster. He is much different than most of the people on here in the way he thinks things should be done. I think I’m different than a lot of people on here, but he’s a lot more different than me even.

Austrian economics interests me a lot even when I think some of the things are bad ideas. They are still excellent to think about and consider.

34

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You could argue it would behoove a civilized society to help pay for the healthcare of someone that can’t afford it in order to reduce the likelihood of said person resorting to armed robbery. [/quote]

You certainly could! Davy Crockett apparently once made a great speech about just this sort of thing: Davy Crockett vs. Welfare [/quote]

Lord knows I disagree with Nick on a variety of policy and idealism, as I am no anarchist, but I think everybody needs to read this link and digest it thoroughly. It is a fantastic piece of historical story that deserves thoughtful cogitation.

I have mixed feelings of Lew Rockwell but this is spot on[/quote]

I disagree with Nick on some things as well, but the brilliant part about Nick (and the anarcho-capitalist thinking I used to read so much when I was younger) is how consistent many of the arguments are.

Even though I may disagree with what the results of those decisions may bring (to say nothing of the unfortunate fact that we will never have any idea as nothing like that will likely be tried in our lifetime on a nationwide scale) it’s brilliant reading and discussion for thought. [/quote]

I think it’s about as useful as debating the merits of adding unicorn meat to your diet. You know for all the protein…

I’ll give Nick credit though, the Davy Crockett link was a good one. [/quote]

I used to get onto the ACists guys on a forum I posted about because I told them they spent a lot of time thinking about stuff that had absolutely no chance of ever coming to fruition. I don’t feel that way anymore. There is value in thinking about things in all manners, because it helps us give more informed answers to our questions.

So even though some of the things Nick says I disagree with in terms of how it may work or even in the likelihood that it will ever be tried in our lifetime, it doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable to consider multiple viewpoints.

In fact it’s one reason I like Nick so much as a poster. He is much different than most of the people on here in the way he thinks things should be done. I think I’m different than a lot of people on here, but he’s a lot more different than me even.

Austrian economics interests me a lot even when I think some of the things are bad ideas. They are still excellent to think about and consider. [/quote]

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with thinking in terms of hypothetical situations nor do I think using those same hypothetical situations in a debate in this type of forum is a bad thing either. I too like the sound of a lot of what Nick writes, however, when you (general you) start to act as if the results of the hypothetical situations can/should be applied to real world problems, that’s where the disconnect is for me. Life rarely is cut and dry enough for any of those solutions to work in my opinion.

35

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
The big issue in comparing coffee to health care is the insane costs though Nick. A kid in my fiances class from about 6 years has been battling cancer for about ten months. His insurance has not covered everything, it has covered some things. Right now he is starting to take a new drug that is not covered by his insurance. The cost of the pills alone (nothing else) for him is 180 dollars a day. Luckily I don’t think he has to take them for a super long amount of time.

The costs of JUST those pills for him if he had to take them for a year is over 65,000 dollars. No doctors appointments. No chemo (he’s been through three rounds). Nothing else. 65,000 dollars a year.

Health care is a bitch because we are talking about people’s lives. It’s way easier to deny yourself coffee if coffee prices are high. Denying your loved ones life saving treatments because of the costs just doesn’t happen.

I don’t disagree with your post, but I think comparing health care and coffee is a gigantic stretch my man.

Nothing can speak cheaper healthcare into existence though, you’re absolutely right. [/quote]

And you think government controlled and administered health care would pay for all that? lol.

Did you know medicare has the highest denial rate on claims for insurers in the US?[/quote]

I don’t know why you would attempt to build this strawman when I’ve repeatedly been against government actions in the health care industry in multiple threads.

Not only did I never say that or anything close to it, I actually believe pretty much the opposite in most cases. And I have numerous anti-government health care posts to show that is the case.

I just think comparing coffee and healthcare is a gigantic stretch for an analogy and the markets as they are in 2014 have almost nothing in common. [/quote]

But is it denying yourself coffee if you can’t afford it? That would be like saying you deny yourself coverage when you can’t afford that. And I think you underestimate the value of caffeine in the productivity of the US. It’s a performance enhancer in the work environment that lack of can cause people to loose their jobs.[/quote]

I think this is tongue in cheek, but it’s still nonsensical and not worth addressing even if it is not.

Comparing health care and coffee is certainly possible, but if we are going to have a serious discussion about how similar the markets are I’m going to bow out. No rational comparison really exists to compare someone “needing” a cup of coffee vs. “needing” emergency care after a car wreck.

Who pays, how, how we lower costs, why costs are high, and a ton of other things are things I have talked about many times in health care debates. Most Americans who can’t get a cup of coffee because of financial reasons may be able to satisfy thirst in cheaper ways. It’s really hard to “shop around” when you need a life saving procedure from a wreck.

A lot of the debates in the health care threads come from us treating it like it’s a free market. It doesn’t resemble anything like a free market and hasn’t in a long, long time. To say coffee is just like health care though isn’t rational. [/quote]

You think the general voting public sees, understands, or cares about the nuances in the differences of the markets? Hell no. All they know is they can vote for the government to give them stuff they want. They want insurance, so they vote for the government to give it to them. They want coffee, so they’d vote for that too.

The very fact that they are extremely different markets and voting for free coffee is a bit absurd is part of the point. It’s a bit like voting for the government to make everyone rich by printing 1 million dollars for each person.

You are mistaken to think that the nuances of the insurance market, through careful thought, are what lead people to demand Obama care. To them it’s as simple as monkey see, monkey want, monkey vote.

36

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

You think the general voting public sees, understands, or cares about the nuances in the differences of the markets? Hell no. All they know is they can vote for the government to give them stuff they want. They want insurance, so they vote for the government to give it to them. They want coffee, so they’d vote for that too.

The very fact that they are extremely different markets and voting for free coffee is a bit absurd is part of the point. It’s a bit like voting for the government to make everyone rich by printing 1 million dollars for each person.

You are mistaken to think that the nuances of the insurance market, through careful thought, are what lead people to demand Obama care. To them it’s as simple as monkey see, monkey want, monkey vote.
[/quote]

Actually you are mistaken by continuously (for some odd reason) to create positions for me which aren’t based on anything I have ever said before. For some reason you keep “wanting” me to be someone who thinks something. So you just make my thoughts for me because that’s much better for whatever you are trying to do in this thread.

I just wonder at what point will you tire of inventing positions for me and attacking those make believe positions? I didn’t say anything like what you are talking about yet again and you still are working on those positions. Actually I didn’t say ANYTHING about what led to Obamacare, but is that actually what you want to talk about or would you just rather make me into someone you can be easily mad about?

37

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

You think the general voting public sees, understands, or cares about the nuances in the differences of the markets? Hell no. All they know is they can vote for the government to give them stuff they want. They want insurance, so they vote for the government to give it to them. They want coffee, so they’d vote for that too.

The very fact that they are extremely different markets and voting for free coffee is a bit absurd is part of the point. It’s a bit like voting for the government to make everyone rich by printing 1 million dollars for each person.

You are mistaken to think that the nuances of the insurance market, through careful thought, are what lead people to demand Obama care. To them it’s as simple as monkey see, monkey want, monkey vote.
[/quote]

Actually you are mistaken by continuously (for some odd reason) to create positions for me which aren’t based on anything I have ever said before. For some reason you keep “wanting” me to be someone who thinks something. So you just make my thoughts for me because that’s much better for whatever you are trying to do in this thread.

I just wonder at what point will you tire of inventing positions for me and attacking those make believe positions? I didn’t say anything like what you are talking about yet again and you still are working on those positions. Actually I didn’t say ANYTHING about what led to Obamacare, but is that actually what you want to talk about or would you just rather make me into someone you can be easily mad about?

[/quote]

The comparison revolves around people creating government provided coffee the same way they went about health care. For it to be an invalid comparison it must be invalid on those grounds. The people who’d do it would have to understand and care about the nuances of the market place to invalidate the comparison on your grounds. I only noted that which is necessary for your position in the form of a question (note that it was a question and asserted nothing about your position). It’s like you claiming the sky is green then getting pissed when I question whether the wavelength of light passing through the atmosphere falls in the green spectrum because you didn’t say anything about wavelengths. I actually even phrased it that way specifically because I know you don’t accept it as your position, which invalidates your contention.

Yes, the markets for the 2 things are entirely different, but that is a non-factor for the comparison. Ducks have webbed feet like frogs even if frogs jump and ducks fly.

38

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The comparison revolves around people creating government provided coffee the same way they went about health care. For it to be an invalid comparison it must be invalid on those grounds. The people who’d do it would have to understand and care about the nuances of the market place to invalidate the comparison on your grounds. I only noted that which is necessary for your position in the form of a question (note that it was a question and asserted nothing about your position). It’s like you claiming the sky is green then getting pissed when I question whether the wavelength of light passing through the atmosphere falls in the green spectrum because you didn’t say anything about wavelengths. I actually even phrased it that way specifically because I know you don’t accept it as your position, which invalidates your contention.

Yes, the markets for the 2 things are entirely different, but that is a non-factor for the comparison. Ducks have webbed feet like frogs even if frogs jump and ducks fly.
[/quote]

And I have not even attempted to acknowledge that this is not the case.

All I have said is that comparing coffee to how health care actually is in 2014 (or even 1994, 84, 74, 64) doesn’t make much sense for rational discussion about what to do about health care.

Let’s start over at the very beginning of something is a very poor way to attempt to make change. And trying to make those points may lead to some good conclusions to say X is just like Y…but X is nothing like Y right now. Nothing at all. And that is precisely what I’ve been saying.

You can compare my iPhone to a piece of paper if you want in an attempt to understand them both, but they don’t have a lot in common. And coffee right now and health care right now have even less.

39

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
…battling cancer… The cost of the pills alone (nothing else) for him is 180 dollars a day.

The costs of JUST those pills for him if he had to take them for a year is over 65,000 dollars. No doctors appointments. No chemo (he’s been through three rounds). Nothing else. 65,000 dollars a year.[/quote]

Cancer treatment is not intended for the poor.

http://www.techyville.com/2014/01/social-media/pharmaceutical-ceo-says-poor-people-dont-deserve-cancer-treatment/
[/quote]

Poor People should just DIE and shut the fuck up

40

[quote]H factor wrote:
The big issue in comparing coffee to health care is the insane costs though Nick. A kid in my fiances class from about 6 years has been battling cancer for about ten months. His insurance has not covered everything, it has covered some things. Right now he is starting to take a new drug that is not covered by his insurance. The cost of the pills alone (nothing else) for him is 180 dollars a day. Luckily I don’t think he has to take them for a super long amount of time.

The costs of JUST those pills for him if he had to take them for a year is over 65,000 dollars. No doctors appointments. No chemo (he’s been through three rounds). Nothing else. 65,000 dollars a year.

Health care is a bitch because we are talking about people’s lives. It’s way easier to deny yourself coffee if coffee prices are high. Denying your loved ones life saving treatments because of the costs just doesn’t happen.

I don’t disagree with your post, but I think comparing health care and coffee is a gigantic stretch my man.

Nothing can speak cheaper healthcare into existence though, you’re absolutely right. [/quote]

Just a little anecdote to put this in perspective. I had to get a massive rotator cuff repair last August. The cost? So far it has topped $90k. Um, sort of. Here is where it gets murky.

The important point in what I am going to say next is that all of you I think miss what the economics of health care are. I am not the customer for the hospital, my insurance company is. So, the hospital billed them an astronomical sum which then by a set of byzantine bureaucratic agreements was reduced by a factor of about 20 – so the actual cost of the surgery was about $4,500 of which I had to pay around $500 out of pocket. $4,000 isn’t too shabby. The point is that there was/is a tremendous amount of finagling that goes on between hospitals and insurance. I got breathless statements from the insurance company showing what the hospital charged followed by eye-popping discounts. Um. Yeah. Right. Whatever. My reading is that the hospitals completely over charge so they can bargain. Since there is no free market in healthcare, it turns into backroom horse trading…

Another case study was that I had some other surgery done last year. My insurance wouldn’t cover it because it was out of band. My doctor charged me 1/3 of his normal cost if I paid it and he explained it was because it was far cheaper to get the money from an individual than try and get it from insurance (i.e. he doesn’t have to pay staff to hassle with the insurance company). I read later an article that found that many doctors will charge like this rather than deal with insurance. Again, the insurance companies are the customers of healthcare, not the patients.

Just saying that the so-called economics that prompted the ACA are not what I have observed in the field. There is something else at work here. Any other stories people have to share?

As always, I’m probably just full of shit…

– jj