[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
how do you feel about the many thousands who are not poor enough to receive medicaid yet don’t have good enough jobs to have health insurance? If they don’t have insurance fuck em right?
[/quote]
The James’ of the world are willing to fuck 'em, not me. Read his post. In context.
[/quote]
I did read his post. In context. My take on what he said is that we can’t have unlimited benefits, that someone is going to have to make the hard choices on if it is the best application of limited resources. Are those against Obamacare(not you specifically) suggesting that there be unlimited benefits but only if you are insured? That is how it comes across to me.
It did read to me in the OP that the guy was terminal and on deaths door regardless. Could just be reading failure on my part.
While we are talking about one admittedly sad case, many times that will die because they have no health insurance. All I hear about is how bad Obama care is, but I don’t hear of any alternatives. I’m not saying it is all or even mostly good, but lets try to come up with solutions.[/quote]
A couple things here come to mind:
First, there have always been death panels. Always. What changes is who, what is in charge and how they operate. It doesn’t matter what era of medicine we are talking about there is a death panel somewhere, from ancient times to civil war to 20th century and pre-insurance to post insurance to post insurance reform measures to Obamacare. Always.
What I have a HUUUUUGE problem with is the upcoming–and if we are to weight Docs post highly then already emerging–incarnation of said death panels. There is no entity I trust on earth less than gov’t bureaucrats and senators and lobbyists. And I only trust insurance companies slightly more (all you have to is look at stories–true stories mind you–like those John Grisham writes about with insurance companies as well as the history they have in the past 50+ years).
But yes, i do trust insurance companies more than what I see coming down the pipe, if for no other reason than market pressures can eventually force them to change–not to mention lawsuits-- whereas a gov’t run bureaucracy is nearly immutable and immune to the pressures that would otherwise force change. Theoretically this is not so–we elect representatives to further our priorities–but practically speaking this has not worked regarding “agencies” or bureacratic entities for over 60 years. I would argue even further.
Nobody except the patient, his family, and the doctors we train and trust to know the in’s and out’s of medical care and triage should have the permission to make those “death panel” decisions. Doc said it better than myself already, but if you give the gov’t the power to decide what treatments are acceptable in a situation such as this you have already given away the inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit (not attainment) of happiness. And it will never come back. Insurance companies can become by and large only a slight degree better than scum IMO–I hope I have made my disapproval clear–but they are still more accountable to pressures than the above.
Second, and again I hope my opinion is clear that I do not consider the present situation with regard to cost or role of insurance to be anything less than completely FUBAR, there is no such thing as unlimited benefits for ANYBODY rich or poor unless you have unlimited money. There is always a cut-off point for some reason, so anybody suggesting things should be otherwise is perhaps a good hearted soul but clearly living in a dream world that will never exist, gov’t healthcare or not. It never has and it never will.
Third, I would respectfully suggest that if you have heard anybody offer solutions other than Obamacare you are not listening. There exist a number of solutions that are easier to implement, less costly to the country and us as taxpayers, and carry much less risk from a liberty and choice standpoint. Given that the current problems are complex and wide-reaching I am not suggesting that any complete problem exists. However, and this is a clear and immutable part of all analytical problem solving particularly in the sciences (including diagnosis and medicine), if a problem is overly complex, or so multi-factorial that you cannot analyze the situation, you begin not by throwing the kitchen sink at all variables involved but by addressing one aspect at a time to simplify the variables involved. It makes subsequent analysis easier and less error prone, and it tell you how things are affected by your actions: ie in many cases it gives predictive power and in others explanatory power.
What I am saying is that people have been trying to advocate alternative solutions to cheapen cost DIRECTLY for years now but nobody wants to listen. The same can be said for other issues involved in the healthcare debate. Cost is one of the very fundamental issues is it not? Well if cost goes down more people can afford care. Force insurance companies to compete across state lines: It doesn’t fix the whole problem but it is faster to effect and it allows a stepping stone for other issues to be solved. This does two things: give PATIENTS more choices thus re-inforcing liberty, forces lower costs via competition.
You could have passed a bill like that in what…30 pages? Maybe 60? It wouldn’t have alienated political capital either. And it would have made subsequent problem solving attempts easier to predict because one of the variables has been partially tacked down. It would also have kept lobbyist pork to a minimum because people can read a 30 page bill and call out lawmakers for that shit. 3000 pages? Fuck that. A serial approach to issues on tort reform, insurance competition and others would have helped literally millions of people AND ALSO would have clarified more of the problem (or "diagnosis"if you will) making subsequent measures easier to analyze and predict.
There is no perfect system. There never has been, and there never will be. but you don’t conduct a trial, experiment, or drug treatment/diagnosis by changing every fucking variable. You change one at a time, test, measure, then move on to the next variable.
The OP read to me that he is on deaths door (which he most certainly is), but is saveable. read “cure” and “life saving” not “palliative treatment”, so I definitely picked up on Docs post without a problem. Not a dig at you personally, just how I read it.