Obama Care - Hillary Care II

[vetalalumni]

Thank you for presenting another example ...

You are very welcome. Same to you.

... using a subjective view of a very small portion of a larger subset to misrepresent the set.

First, you assume far too much. There has been no representation of anyone or anything, save myself. My views, irrelevant to you or not, are mine, and I voice them just as you do yours. My independent views aside, there is no recruitment underway by me.

I took issue with specific assertions in portions of your post # 91, as presented. Rather than immediately countering, I chose to see [[prompt if you will) first whether anyone else also had issue [["Anyone gonna challenge these assertions?"). Why do that? Simple. It is illogical to automatically and aggresively attack views seemingly contrary to my own. I dig further, hoping to better understand the various arguments. I was not countering. You will know full well when that is done.

Second, the attempted authoritarian trick works on some. Fortunately, and thankfully, everyone is not shamed or ridiculed into submission by such rudimentary tactics. And some here on DYes are not hesitant to call it out. Fear in this context would encase, and you do not have that ability You likely understand that and would not let anyone so control you. Why attempt to do so to another? You took it there.

You see this takes discussion off course and not much is ultimately accomplished. Well, possibly some sort of narrow rhetorical victory. Is that what is sought?

... I tell you some stories of people being denied expensive long shot chances, will you agree most everyone is getting robbed by the people running medicine?

Of course not. To coin the popular phrase as of late, this is a simple "false choice" of your creation.

Now you know. Come on back [[appropriately please).

[vetalalumni]

BTW mjs, when contending here on DYes your abilities come through loud and clear.

[mjs]

if I tell you some stories of people being denied expensive long shot chances, will you agree most everyone is getting robbed by the people running medicine?

Of course not. To coin the popular phrase as of late, this is a simple "false choice" of your creation.

I agree its a false choice, but its not of my creation. Its the false choice used by those that think we need to replace HMOs, PPOs, and hospital administrators with government beuracrats. All these guys are doing is keeping the bills down by denying the spots they have found to get the least bang for the buck. They say let that guy go in peace with dignity so these three can live long happy lives. Death and sacrifice is a part of life.

People go into bankruptcy over medical costs because even though they can see its a one in a million chance, what are they going to do, deny themselves or a child of theirs that one in a million chance to protect their nest egg. As a nation, we have the compassion, understanding, and respect to say that if they're willing to go all in, we're willing to write off their loans once the cards have been shown.

Yes, my lawyer side sometimes gets the better of me once I'm deep into an argument. I'm sorry and I try not to, but I obviously need more practice.

[vetalalumni]

... if I tell you some stories of people being denied expensive long shot chances, will you agree most everyone is getting robbed by the people running medicine?

This says that because some higher risks are denied care, that the majority [["most everyone") are getting ripped off by the current health care bureaucracy [["people running medicine"). The majority are not being robbed in the current health care bureaucracy due to the clever structure under which it operates. Remove the robbery aspect regardless of structure.

... its a false choice... used by those that think we need to replace HMOs, PPOs, and hospital administrators with government beuracrats.

Some may assert this false choice in the manner described, but not all. Are the majority in greater potential danger of care denial? What happens over time when the metrics change [[trend) and care may be denied at a different rate thereby affecting the majority? Or when expensive but appropriate care becomes cost prohibitive even to the majority?

All these guys are doing is keeping the bills down by denying the spots they have found to get the least bang for the buck. They say let that guy go in peace with dignity so these three can live long happy lives.

What a great power this is in the hands of "these guys" [[euphonic), the current health care bureaucracy! Ex cathedra determinations?

Current health care bureaucracy [[model):

1. keep costs down and minimize risks
2. deny care to those ill who are least likely to recover
3. thereby [[per # 2) let die those ill who are least likely to recover
4. # 3 provides peace and dignity for those ill who are least likely to recover [[this is part is unclear)
5. # 2 helps offset the costs of not denying care to those ill who are most likely to recover

Is replacing this model a false alternative [[choice)? Why? Because of the costs? The savings? Lower margins among the players in the health care bureaucracy?

People go into bankruptcy over medical costs because even though they can see its a one in a million chance, ...

Not always one in a million, life or death situations.

... what are they going to do, deny themselves or a child of theirs that one in a million chance to protect their nest egg.

Typically not. It can be argued that this is the real false choice.

As a nation, we have the compassion, understanding, and respect to say that if they're willing to go all in, we're willing to write off their loans once the cards have been shown.

After the current health care bureaucracy fails a citizen of the United States of America, this person's sole choice is to "go all in" [[loans, bankruptcy, nest egg, college tuition, assets, etc...). And the health care bureaucracy is made well, including the associated private entities. What are the cards [["once the cards have been shown")? The subjective "compassion, understanding, and respect" alluded to is suspect, so it is better to keep strictly to economic arguments.

... my lawyer side sometimes gets the better of me once I'm deep into an argument.

Cute, but I'm sure you can maintain. Reminds me of the last time I was a juror. I was almost as interested in the Attorneys carrying on as the case itself. Lt. Daniel Kaffee's role in the film "A Few Good Men" was enjoyable.

[rb336]

Rb...start with rational thought and moral absolutes, then confirm with data.

gee, bats, that is perhaps the clearest example of how little you understand the scientific method.

[mjs]

Vetalalumni, we are in more agreement than you think. No one trait ever defines every member of the group, so everytime I list a group you can infer I mean most or a large or portion or a significant amount. Using those terms in every sentence would make it pretty hard to communicate.

So, yes, I agree, some proponents may make these arguments, but not all. And some here have. For some here, the main reason we need universal health care is to obliterate the HMOs, PPOs, and administrators. For some here, the reason for this is because the organizations are evil which they prove with isolated tales of denials. I'm saying if thats why people want it, then they're not going to get what they think they will get from a government ran system.

The cards being shown is whether you die or get well. It is the biggest gamble and the outrage I hear in some people's arguments isn't because a guy on welfare needs a cane because he can't get knee surgery. Its that he dies because he can't get heart surgery. My problem isn't with people that say, lets all chip in to get this guy heart surgery, or even so much the people that say lets all chip in so we can get this guy both knee surgery and heart surgery. My problem is with the people that say, this guy can have heart surgery, knee surgery, and we can do a long shot operation on his terminal cancer all at no cost to anyone. The bottom line is that simple math says it can't be done for free because it takes more doctors and nurses and hospital space and equipment use.

So if someone wants universal health care because they believe the extra people covered is worth extra taxes, then they should support it. If someone wants universal health care because it doesn't really cost anything extra, they'll be no denials, and they can take a swing at the man, their frustrations are making them dellusional. Thats not the reality in any of the countries they cite.

[ccbatson]

Rb...what is the starting point of any scientific experiment? I will help you out, a hypothesis. What is a hypothesis? Rational thoughts and observations of objective reality [[THE primary moral absolute BTW...what is, is, or A is A, or existents exist).

Get some rest Rb...you are having a really bad day on the board today.

[WolverinesA2]

Regarding bankruptcies...??? So? It is not a societal problem, but an individual one. The responsibility for bankruptcy avoidance needs to fall to the individual, if bigger government inserts itself, the incentive to avoid personal financial disaster goes down.

And when millions of people go bankrupt, it becomes a societal problem. You DO know what society is, don't you? It's a collection of individuals. So you can see how individual problem, when multiplied by millions of individuals, can quickly become societal problems. Read this:

http://www.wrightnewsletter.com/etip...20090622a.html

You're diagnosed with diabetes. The medical bills start stacking up. Suddenly, you're facing out-of-pocket costs of $26,000. Then—bankruptcy. Our broken health care system is an anchor around the neck of our national economy. We're spending nearly 20% of our GDP on health care, more than any other prosperous Western nation. This is a societal problem because it affects our economic prosperity.

"That couldn't happen to me," you might be thinking, with a sigh of relief. "I have health insurance."

But I didn't mention—that $26,000 up there? That's the average out-of-pocket cost for people WITH insurance.

So says a new study out of Harvard. It revealed that health problems caused 62% of bankruptcies in America in 2007. Even more frightening—the vast majority of those people [[78%) had medical insurance at the start of their illness. And over 60% had private coverage.

On average, the people with private insurance reported out- of-pocket medical bills upwards of $17,000. People with diabetes reported bills over $26,000. And people with neurological illnesses such as MS fared even worse—being asked to cough up nearly $35,000.

The lead author of the study pointed to the grim truth—so many of our health insurance policies have "so many loopholes, co-payments, and deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse."

So tell me CC, does the average responsible American keep tens of thousands of dollars in a "rainy day medical fund", just in case the worst happens? It can happen to you to, you've just been lucky.

[mjs]

Actually the story he cites says the average insured filer had $17,749 out-of-pocket and the insured had $26,971 out-of-pocket.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...%3B+government

I would think its a good idea to have tens of thousands in savings as experts recommend, but, no, unfortunately I don't think the average American does. Something else could happen in your life time like I don't know, a recession, job loss, or even retirement. While the report's author believes $17,749 puts people like me one step from bankruptcy because I'm not Warren Buffet, I could actually pay this off in cash despite having had my savings drained by not having been at work since December.

However, lets examine these numbers so Vetalalumni can see what I mean about using minority numbers as scare tactics that we're all at serious risk. There were 801,840 bankruptcies filed in 2007 and being 40% higher than 2006, sounds like a very high year. Its estimated there are 304,059,724 Americans. That means that 0.26% of Americans filed bankruptcy in 2007. So, the selected study says that 0.15% of Americans filed bankruptcy for medical reasons in 2007. Doesn't sound high enough to be at the top of my worries.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/03/news...ptcy/index.htm

It also says that 2/3 of them were homeowners. I would like to think that when we return to normal times, even homeowners with zero in their account will be more likely to have $18,000 to $27,000 worth of equity they can borrow against for a rare medical emergency. I realize its not as glamorous as doing a refi for a pool, a boat, or even a new SUV, but I'd borrow for medical bills if for some reason I didn't have the savings. And despite losing more than $18,000 from my 401k last year, I'd still like to think I would cash that out to cover a medical emergency. I believe the IRS even has penalty free exception for that.

[WolverinesA2]

Its estimated there are 304,059,724 Americans. That means that 0.26% of Americans filed bankruptcy in 2007. So, the selected study says that 0.15% of Americans filed bankruptcy for medical reasons in 2007. Doesn't sound high enough to be at the top of my worries.

Look up the difference between incidence and prevalence. Yeah, 0.15% of Americans filed for medical bankruptcy in 2007. Did you forget about the ones who filed in 2006? 2005? 2004? 2003? That's a lot of Americans who have at some point had to file bankruptcy because they got sick or hurt and aren't pulling in six figures. You know, those people don't just disappear when a new year begins.

But yeah, the sympathy that oozes out of people like you and ccbatson is truly heartwarming. "I've got mine, now fuck everyone else"...the mantra of American conservatism.

[mjs]

I've never got close to a six figure year. I have savings because I don't have a $40,000 SUV and its gas bill or live in a $300,000 home or eat out three times a day every day or vacation in Europe every year. Its called budgeting and living within your means. Here I'm arguing money with the guy that thinks eating fast food is cheaper than brown bagging it or cooking a well rounded meal at home.

Two guys make $40,000 a year for the same employer and both have a credit card with a $6000 credit limit. First guy saves $50 a month and has $12,000 after two years. Second guy has a little nicer house which costs an additional $70 per month so he has $6000 on his credit card. Both get a medical bill for $18,000. First guy gives the hospital $12,000 in cash and puts the other $6000 on his credit card. After he gets the $7000 tax refund because he deducted $18,000 in medical costs, he has $1000. Second guy goes to court and has a judge tell the hospital they're out $18,000 and the credit card company is out $6000. He now has zero, but he still has the nicer house and a fresh start. You think the asshole is the first guy because he didn't want to toss in $500 to help the second guy avoid the bankruptcy? You are warped.

[ccbatson]

0.15%?? 15 in a 10000 [[or 1.5 in 1000)?? And this says nothing of the severity of their financial situation or how they were able to recover afterwords.

By contrast, Obama and the socialist libs want to bankrupt the country, 100%, 1 out of every person to address this. Time for a reality check

[vetalalumni]

Vetalalumni, we are in more agreement than you think.

Really? I'm not so sure. BTW, sorry for breaking the 48 hour response rule

No one trait ever defines every member of the group, so everytime I list a group you can infer I mean most or a large or portion or a significant amount. Using those terms in every sentence would make it pretty hard to communicate.

OK, I'll have to remember that.

So, yes, I agree, some proponents may make these arguments, but not all. And some here have. For some here, the main reason we need universal health care is to obliterate the HMOs, PPOs, and administrators. For some here, the reason for this is because the organizations are evil which they prove with isolated tales of denials.

Evil is such a judgemental and potentially strident term that it automatically conjures critique. Words are component tools and their selection is as important as that being communicated. Why use a sledgehammer to pound in a tack? I know it is a debate/argument tactic, but it is unfortunately often overused.

Let us [[you and I?) raise the bar. But not for a communication utopia. Rather to prove our arguments on a level playing field. Ever heard that in the courtroom?

I'm saying if thats why people want it, then they're not going to get what they think they will get from a government ran system.

Not so sure the compelling impetus is a response to an evil. Again, makes the reader infer, and this is not a mere implication. Absolutist terminology is used in abundance here on DYes. So prevalently, it might be worthy of a separate thread, though many would not agree.

The cards being shown is whether you die or get well. It is the biggest gamble and the outrage I hear in some people's arguments isn't because a guy on welfare needs a cane because he can't get knee surgery. Its that he dies because he can't get heart surgery. My problem isn't with people that say, lets all chip in to get this guy heart surgery, or even so much the people that say lets all chip in so we can get this guy both knee surgery and heart surgery. My problem is with the people that say, this guy can have heart surgery, knee surgery, and we can do a long shot operation on his terminal cancer all at no cost to anyone. The bottom line is that simple math says it can't be done for free because it takes more doctors and nurses and hospital space and equipment use.

So if someone wants universal health care because they believe the extra people covered is worth extra taxes, then they should support it. If someone wants universal health care because it doesn't really cost anything extra, they'll be no denials, and they can take a swing at the man, their frustrations are making them dellusional. Thats not the reality in any of the countries they cite.

Any changes would require resources. What does "the man" really have to do with anything in this discussion?

[ccbatson]

It isn't that complex. Use history as a guide. All socialistic entitlement programs travel the road of declining quality and availability and increasing costs. in contrast, free market industries demonstrate the opposite dynamic. The choice is easy.

[mjs]

I know that "Evil is such a judgemental and potentially strident term that it automatically conjures critique." My post was commenting on the foaming at the mouth judgemental critique style of some people's posts about insurance companies. A short summary of even a half page of posts: insurance is pure evil so we need to put it in the loving arms of big brother. Not my opinion, but their's. I'm also asking "Why use a sledgehammer to pound in a tack?"

So, just like right now, the only bureaucrats who will be deciding what care you receive, how much the doctor gets paid, and how services will be rationed to you will be those bureaucrats working for your insurance company. Ever hear of pre-certification? Utilization reviews? Yeah, I'm sure your for-profit insurance company cares more about your well-being than the government does.

Do you want someone whose $20 million annual compensation depends on screwing you out of coverage for an essential procedure? that is what we have now.

that one line shows just how credulous you are, falling for the entire republican/big insurance lie hook, line and sinker

And I'll tell you something else. Insurnace companies DO NOT CARE about your health. Studies have shown that most people will stay with a health insurance company for an average of 10 years. So really, insurance companies are only interested in keeping you health for the short-term future. They don't care what happens once you're not on the roster anymore. . . And on top of that, once you hit age 65, you become eligible for Medicare and thus you and all your medical problems can be dumped on the federal government.

Quote: "Anyone who thinks the system we have is fine is just whistling past the graveyard."

Or they haven't lost theirs yet.

People that think all is ok, are not paying their own insurance. I pay my own and can attest these insurance companies need to regulated hard. They can do whatever the F they want. You have two choices, like it or not.

hey, if the insurance companies stop sucking away all our money and coverage so they can give their execs multi-million dollar bonuses, if they stopped spending so much justifying denial of coverage, perhaps they could compete. If they can't, then that great invisible hand of the marketplace will have spoken, and you should be happy with the result. after all, the markets are never wrong.

I very rarely see groups or situations as good or evil. People are good or evil. I don't get angry over any problems with the status quo because I always figure they can either be fixed with scarifice and trade-offs or they are the best choice in an imperfect world.

[vetalalumni]

I'm also asking "Why use a sledgehammer to pound in a tack?"

Very clever of you counselor Admittedly, you and others usually cite "facts" and figures better than I.

My post was commenting on the foaming at the mouth judgemental critique style of some people's posts about insurance companies. A short summary of even a half page of posts: insurance is pure evil so we need to put it in the loving arms of big brother.

WolverinesA2, rb336, and Sstashmoo may [[should?) take issue with how you've shaped their positions. Their duty.

I very rarely see groups or situations as good or evil. People are good or evil.

Excellent point.

While I may and often do disagree with your posts, they tend to be thoughtful. Same can be said for the posts of few others, such as oladub and the infamous omaha.

[ccbatson]

People's thoughts stemming from core values are what can be defined as good or evil. Situations occur as a result of the thoughts, then actions of people.

[Lorax]

What?

[WolverinesA2]

By contrast, Obama and the socialist libs want to bankrupt the country, 100%, 1 out of every person to address this. Time for a reality check

If you truly feel that Obama is evil and that you are oppressed, then why don't you take up arms against the government?

Or are you too cowardly to fight for your rights?

[rb336]

Originally Posted by mjs
My post was commenting on the foaming at the mouth judgemental critique style of some people's posts about insurance companies. A short summary of even a half page of posts: insurance is pure evil so we need to put it in the loving arms of big brother.

WolverinesA2, rb336, and Sstashmoo may [[should?) take issue with how you've shaped their positions. Their duty.

Insurance companies are about anything but health care -- they are about making enough profit to give their CEOs billion-dollar bonuses [["dollar" Bill McGuire/United Health). to do that, they deny coverage, and when such denial results in a death, they are murderers. If you don't think such denials happen, and fairly regularly, you have your head buried very far [[in the sand, up something, you chose)

[mjs]

Rb336, which insurance or HMO CEOs got billion dollar bonuses? Please cite. Of course companies seek to make a profit and of course they reward those that help them get there; thats not evil within itself. When they don't seek to make a profit, we call them non-profit charities.

Vetalalumni, are you beginning to understand my point that some are basing their decision on demonizing insurance companies? Insurance executives are murderers? It speaks to whether people are looking for solutions for a better future or looking for revenge for perceived past wrongs.

I'm not mocking or being sarcastic when I say I greatly respect Obama for saying, "Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction, but surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature."

[ccbatson]

Insurance in health care has been misconstrued by the public. Example by analogy; You have a fender bender with your car...you pay a sizable deductible, and you don't get upgraded equipment as an entitlement by virtue of owning an insurance policy. Yet, with health care, for some reason, this is the level of expectation.

[vetalalumni]

Insurance companies are about anything but health care -- they are about making enough profit to give their CEOs billion-dollar bonuses [["dollar" Bill McGuire/United Health). to do that, they deny coverage, and when such denial results in a death, they are murderers. If you don't think such denials happen, and fairly regularly, you have your head buried very far [[in the sand, up something, you chose)

Vilification of Heath Care Insurance is not my point. It is easy to be misunderstood in the DYes environment.

[vetalalumni]

Vetalalumni, are you beginning to understand my point that some are basing their decision on demonizing insurance companies?

The "evilness" of an insurance company is not an argument that I'm making. I have not set out to defend or protect the position as that would be the defensive or protective duty of those asserting the position. The forewarning in your position has been heard. My position is less conclusive and seeks additional insight into the general discussion as a whole. You and I are on two different tracks.

[mjs]

Exactly, vetala. I'm not arguing with your analysis or where it takes you. I'm arguing with their analysis even if it takes them to the same conclusion as you.

I can live with whatever the group decides just as long as the group has realistic expectations and understands the consequences of their decision. You seem to make informed decisions because you care to understand the question and the trade-offs. They still don't and I'm still baffled by it.