In reply to Duke:
for correct definintion sake, socialised medicine would be the elimination of an insurance system altogether and the goverment management of health care industry directly in some way, either as single payer, or complete ownership/power of all medical decisions.
Otto Maddox wrote: Socialized anything gets a bad rap. But jeez, without some level of socialization, we wouldn't really be a country. We'd have no military, for starters.
my problem is that people tend toward the sensational and intellectually dishonest when they are proponents of socialised anything.
they make impassioned emotional arguements, and try to bring personal and ethical shame to detractors in such a way that obfuscates the cost of socialising something in the name of being compassionate.
most fiscal conservatives that don't have a major libertarian streak -can- be convinced to go along with quite alot of socialised plans so long as the discussion starts from the cost instead of from some questionable emotional appeal intended to demagog them.
In reply to Otto Maddox:
Otto: Please see Point 2 from my previous post. Also note that I'm not against it just because I think the Democrats proposed it. I'm against it because it is idiotic and touches only the most cosmetic parts of the problem while utterly failing to address the root causes. And it even does that in a spectacularly stupid fashion: how can legally requiring everyone to buy a given commodity do anything except make that commodity more expensive? This is a fundamental of economics and the proposed plan violates the very basic laws of supply and demand. Regarding that, please see Point 1 from my previous post.
In reply to Duke:
I reread point 2. I honestly don't follow your train of thought. Everybody already gets healthcare whether they want it or not. Some of us pay for it. Others don't. The new plan tries to get some of the freeloaders to pay.
The supply of healthcare isn't significantly going up or down. The demand for healthcare isn't significantly going up or down. Thus, the price should stay the same. If for some reason insurers jack up the price just because they think they can, presumably new insurers will join the game and drive down the price. This is how capitalism works, no?
In reply to Duke:
Well, I'll agree there is a semantic argument going on, but I'll stand by what I said. I’ll try to explain more clearly and refrain from inflammatory rhetoric.
Forgive me, but your question is phrased backward. Rather than asking "how is it not?" you should be asking "how is it?" You're asking me to prove a negative, which, actually, in this case isn't that hard.
The word "socialism" has a meaning. True enough, it is a word that defies a very specific definition, which makes it an easy target. But the word refers to structures that are collectively owned and operated. At the very core of socialism is the elimination of a “for profit” distribution system. In any given definition or example of socialism, that is a hallmark feature.
Recently the word has been hijacked by people with an agenda. I'm simply pointing out that using it in some colloquial manner serves only to characterize the health care act with a word that has strong negative connotations for many people. It is not accurate and its use doesn’t serve any other purpose. It is exactly the same as saying a bank is “steeling someone’s home” when they foreclose. It’s not accurate and it is being used only to elicit an emotional reaction. The fact that “socialism” has been used this way a lot lately doesn’t change anything. Our health care system is not sate owned, managed or controlled and doctors, hospitals and insurance companies will continue to run as for-profit, private businesses.
Your scenario doesn’t change that at all. Your penalty is collected by the IRS. As with any taxes collected by the IRS, some of that money will pay for services for other people. Some of your tax money is paying for a school in Iraq. Some of it is paying for a person on Medicaid. Some of it is paying for roads and bridges you may never drive on. That’s how taxes work and it’s no different now than it’s been for decades. Some of your tax dollars will go for the state to directly pay members of the armed forces, police and fire departments. Those are examples of socialism. The State employs and pays those people. Under the new health care plan, your doctor will not work for the state. The state will not tell you who your doctor should be or direct your treatment. Your private insurance company may, as they do now. It is not socialism.
And, no, I don’t agree that socialized health care is the real goal any more than I believe the war in Iraq is the beginning of a plot to take over the world. Everything about the health care plan (to a fault, in my opinion) is designed specifically to avoid a socialized system. It’s so convoluted for exactly that reason. No, I do not see a scenario where this system leads to the elimination of private insurance. If anything it’s a gift to private insurance companies. That’s one of the things I don’t like about it. I do not see how this plan leads to doctors who work for the state. Many people are spending a good deal of time being opposed to a lot of things this plan is not.
madmallard wrote: In reply to Duke: for correct definintion sake, socialised medicine would be the elimination of an insurance system altogether and the goverment management of health care industry directly in some way, either as single payer, or complete ownership/power of all medical decisions.
You said that a lot shorter than me. However, it would be more than the elimination of the insurance industry- it woul be State employed health care providers, not for-profit doctors.
The important companion point is ansering the question- why is that word being used in association with our health care system when it is not accurate. And the answer has to do with politicians and agendas.
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Duke: Obamacare isn't socialized medicine. It was a republican plan intended to be a better alternative to both our current system and socialized medicine. Of course, the republicans instantly hated their plan once the democrats co-opted it. We shall see. I am not convinced it is the best alternative.
Exactly- this was the Republican solution for a very long time. This is almost identical to the plan Nixon tried to enact only to have Kennedy block it, hoping for a better deal once a Democratic president was elected. That is why someone like Romney is in the position he is in. He enacted the Republican model for health care, using private, for-profit industry and now finds the coutry has moved so far right his Republican, for-profit plan is considered "socialism".
madmallard wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: I mentioned medicare by name later than that quote, so yeah. but medicare's current problem is the opposite of the MRI example, and thats bloating costs.
So you did, but hang on...
madmallard wrote: so the point in me bringing it up is 2-fold. 1: in cases where socialised medicine forces a cost that is below the real cost of the product, that product will decline in quality and availability without fail. 2: in cases where socialised medicine is inefficient or flawed in management, then costs will baloon to fill the inefficiency wherever possible. there are multiple examples of insurance and the government plans (medicare) offering TOO much coverage for many things in their negotiated prices, and so the out of pocket expense will bloat until it takes up all that slack.
I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you were not making the same point. You do not say here that Medicare is paying so little as to negatively affect the quality of an MRI.
I don't mean to pick-nits, but it still appears to me that you injected the "socialism" issue into the health care debate without valid reason. I only point it out because, as you can probably tell, that's a bit of a contentious issue for me. And since I seem to be the only person in America saying so, I have to kind of stick to my guns on this one. And, not being sarcastic, I do know that you place value on honest and accurate debate on these issues. I’ll let my previous explanations of the reasons for this word's use in regard to this subject stand rather than rehashing them.
the discussion had gone in the direction of costs and cost differences, and their causes; in this case MRIs. I felt it was relevant to point out that raw cost is not the only consideration as not all MRIs are created equal for the purpose of comparing.
In fact, i'm sure you've seen it before: a disingenuous arguement of people who espouse the virtues of socialised medicine as follows:
"The private for-profit medical and insurance industry is responsible for ridiculously high costs! if we were a single-pay socialised medical care society, we could be like country XXXX and THEY only have a cost of $80 an MRI! You see how much money we could save?"
And then never proceed to explain how long it taked to get your $80 MRI, and what it looks like when its done, letting it disingenously hang out there that its the exact same service when its not.
so i brought it up to point out that holding a discussion on the cost alone, isn't gonna give approachingly complete picture.
From there, costs/consequences associated with government involvement were extrapolated.
madmallard wrote: "The private for-profit medical and insurance industry is responsible for ridiculously high costs! if we were a single-pay socialised medical care society, we could be like country XXXX and THEY only have a cost of $80 an MRI! You see how much money we could save?" And then never proceed to explain how long it taked to get your $80 MRI, and what it looks like when its done, letting it disingenously hang out there that its the exact same service when its not.
Of course there's another side to that coin. And it's also difficult to argue that there is someone at an insurance company saying "it's okay if we spend a little more- as long as you're providing the best possible care". In fact, if there is, they're not doing their job for the shareholders. And that's exactly why there needs to be a balance.
"Whatever drives the bottom line" is fine if you're making a lot of products. But when it comes to essential services, there needs to be a voice with the interest of the consumer in mind. And that's exactly what a government does. When your food is inspected to be sure it's safe, it doesn't enhance the profit of the company selling it- in fact, it does exactly the opposite. But the government is there to make sure their bottom line doesn't put you unduly at risk.
Lots of goaltending going on here now. Don't worry, madmallard. Some of us know what you mean.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:madmallard wrote: In reply to Duke: for correct definintion sake, socialised medicine would be the elimination of an insurance system altogether and the goverment management of health care industry directly in some way, either as single payer, or complete ownership/power of all medical decisions.You said that a lot shorter than me. However, it would be more than the elimination of the insurance industry- it woul be State employed health care providers, not for-profit doctors. The important companion point is ansering the question- why is that word being used in association with our health care system when it is not accurate. And the answer has to do with politicians and agendas.
lol. i've been working on my breivity ;p
I would still consider it socialised medicine if the doctors were employed by a private firm. For my definition, it simply has to cross the threshold of direct government management of the affairs.
thats why medicare IS socialised medicine in my view. Just because you goto a private doctor doesn't mean that this doctor is not directly under the government's thumb while caring for you as a participance in medicare. The only thing I would say makes an arguement for me not calling it socialised medicine is that the doctor is not -forced/compelled- to accept the patient...
...for now.
anyways, to your point:
its a bit of a word association problem, really.
people see the compulsion to give the government money in return for no direct service to them as an individual as a tax. People see the compulsion to give the government money for the direct provision of a service to them as a social service of some kind. Socialism and socialised service are of course related, but not synonamous.
Also the so mentioned Obamacare, the promise being offered by people who defend it are basically what are fueling the critics who call it socialised medicine. Obama himself is also fuel on the fire, having been on record stating a preferred goal of his would be single-payer medical for the USA. But the rest of the supporters use language like: "everyone, fair, universal" and are trying to steer the discussion away from the mandated tax and to some of of reform provisions.
They may not realise its futile; because the mandate tax is not going away from the discussion, then its going to get attached to all the reforms, just like it is in the bill.
"Your kid will be able to goto college and stay on your health plan!..... but you are being forced to buy a health plan or be taxed!"
people associate the government forcing you to do anything as a form of socialism, and they aren't completely wrong... but then you add being taxed for doing something the government doesn't want you to do, instead of raising money for the function of government, and thats a form of social engineering. and so now we have about 4 different forms of the word "socialised" validly in the discussion, even if the bill isn't socialised health care. :/
its easy to get confused.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:ThePhranc wrote:Ok well if i'm wrong, then i apologize. Someone said it, and with you being the main crusader of "berkeley insurance, i pay cash!" it stuck in my head as you. Big difference between "dishonest" and "simple mistake." Calm yourself. Either way. Your cash discounts are there because of insurance. You're welcome.92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:Please quote me saying that. I bet you can't. I also direct you to the other post where I explain simple business. There is no need to be dishonest and make E36 M3 up.MrJoshua wrote:He's stated before in these discussions that he gets 80-90% off services. At a write off that big, it's impacting other people. Even if it's really only a ~50% reduction and he's exaggerating, he's still taking advantage of the negotiations that the insured have paid for through their premiums.Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: I was going to say that, going to point out how he already gets his bills discounted to the point where the rest of us already pay some of his healthcare expenses, etc. But I give up. Some people join a discussion to learn, some just to argue.How is it that "gets his bills discounted to the point where the rest of us already pay some of his healthcare expenses"? Is he delinquent on his bills or is he just paying cash? (please forgive me if I missed a post where he is settling a delinquent debt for reduced rates)
No they ( the "discounts') aren't there because of insurance. They are there because thats what the doctor feels is a fair price. He feels like charging insurance carriers more because its fair to him for having to deal with late payments and extraneous paper work.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:ThePhranc wrote: Its an intellectually dishonest approach...Didn't see that coming.ThePhranc wrote: See you have to create a false argument because you can't actually refutiate mine.No he didn't. He used hyperbole as a rhetorical device to make his point.TheTroll wrote: Thanks for playing,It's okay if you don't understand logic and rhetoric. Another thread degenerated into personal attacks and nonsense being presented as fact. Have fun with it Phranc one. You win the internet.
You're still little punk ass bitch. Go berkeley your self.
Otto Maddox wrote:ThePhranc wrote:$1500 MRI? I just had one and it was only $200.92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:Please quote me saying that. I bet you can't. I also direct you to the other post where I explain simple business. There is no need to be dishonest and make E36 M3 up.MrJoshua wrote:He's stated before in these discussions that he gets 80-90% off services. At a write off that big, it's impacting other people. Even if it's really only a ~50% reduction and he's exaggerating, he's still taking advantage of the negotiations that the insured have paid for through their premiums.Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: I was going to say that, going to point out how he already gets his bills discounted to the point where the rest of us already pay some of his healthcare expenses, etc. But I give up. Some people join a discussion to learn, some just to argue.How is it that "gets his bills discounted to the point where the rest of us already pay some of his healthcare expenses"? Is he delinquent on his bills or is he just paying cash? (please forgive me if I missed a post where he is settling a delinquent debt for reduced rates)
That wasn't a cash price. But please keep making a fool of your self with your ignorance.
Aaaaannd... FastEddie gets the response he was fishing for so he can claim victory.
Can we close this thread, PLEASE.
In reply to ThePhranc:
whats really troubling is the amount of people who aren't saying those kinds of things for the lulz, and trollface
I'm going to go work on a car now.
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Duke: Everybody already gets healthcare whether they want it or not.
No, there are those who do not want it and do not get it. They are in the minority but they do exist.
Otto Maddox wrote: Some of us pay for it. Others don't. The new plan tries to get some of the freeloaders to pay.
The new plan makes those of us who pay less because we choose to use it less pay more. Most of the "freeloaders" will still be freeloaders because they are in a situation where the government will not make them buy health insurance.
Otto Maddox wrote: The supply of healthcare isn't significantly going up or down. The demand for healthcare isn't significantly going up or down. Thus, the price should stay the same....
If I had a higher quality insurance policy I would go to my regular doctor more. Everyone with better insurance goes more. A significant part of the problem we are in is that insurance covers so much and costs so much that most people have the "Well hell, I'm already paying for it" mentality. That is one of many reasons costs will increase if we mandate health insurance. I have no doubt.
I have great insurance. I've been to the doctor once in the last 5 years.
Which... Is actually NOT what my insurance company wants.
mguar wrote: All the new law does is increase the number of people who can pay and reduce the number of people who get medical treatment on your tax dollars.
The vast majority of people who get medical treatment on my tax dollars are poor and cannot afford to pay for health care. Most likely anything designed and enforced by the federal government will exempt those people anyway. I think it is a bloated inefficient system that I choose to contribute as little as possible to by using it as little as possible. The plan isn't designed to reduce the number of people who get medical treatment on my tax dollars. The plan is designed to make me pay for other peoples health care when I don't right now. (Just a fyi to anyone who wants to label me a mooch-I do have insurance, just high deductible. It is the type of policy I think everyone should have)
The idea that catching problems early costs less is one I disagree with. All you do is add expensive medications that delay the onset of the expensive procedure that still happens despite all the treatment efforts. Then you end up treating the side effects of your long term medications with other medications that have their own side effects. You can argue that medicating earlier makes you healthier and therefore it should be done, but it isn't cheaper.
mguar wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: I realize that you are exceptional and all your children are above average. However the practice of only seeing a doctor when there is a pressing need is more costly than regular annual check-ups.. Medical attention delayed is far more costly than prevention or early treatment.. The military who take only fit young people (and 95% of those who go into the military never see combat) Still finds that an annual check-up is worth the time and money.. Plus since you are such a unique person there is no medical record of what is normal for you. They don't realize for example that your heart is in your elbow and your lings are down by your knees (OK maybe a little bit too sarcastic, so I'm sorry) But seriously a doctor who's familiar with you or has your variations noted on a medical chart will be able to help you better than guessing that you are "standard"
Huh?
I CLEARLY said that's NOT what my insurance company wants because it ends up being more expensive for them in the long run. No need to re-state what i said but present it back to me like an argument.
Also: I have no children, and never will. Nor am i special.
I haven't followed the details of the plan too much, one thing I see that bugs me is the mandate. Meaning I have to pay even if I don't want it. As others smarter than me have observed, if I don't have health insurance it's pretty much only my ass on the line.
But that's only one point. The part of the current 'system' that really gets me is how if something happens to me beyond my control (like my dad's cancer or my stepbrother's car crash earlier this year) when all is said and done I might be alive but I'll be broke because the costs of keeping my ass alive means that the hospitals etc would do their damndest to take my house etc so they could have more ficus trees in the lobby and can buy more radio advertising.
Even the costs (co pays, deductibles, etc) for the insured are staggering; my stepbrother's $1.2 million bill for keeping him alive after his accident earlier this year carry with them an additional ~$200,000.00 in co pays, deductibles etc which he will need to pay. He can't work because he has a colostomy bag which limits what he can pick up (an essential part of his job) so he's in a bad spot. He may have to sell his house.
So like him I'd be basically homeless, living the rest of my days on whatever I could scrounge and be dodging creditor calls all the time. If I tried to pull myself back up by my bootstraps they'd be right there ready to pounce. That's no way to live. AFAIK this legislation does nothing to address that. So what friggin' good is it?
(edit) Nah, nevermind. Have a great 4th.
You'll need to log in to post.
