Author Topic: Impending Government Shutdown Questions  (Read 78780 times)

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #200 on: October 07, 2013, 07:11:30 PM »
There are real reasons why our healthcare is so expensive. One of the biggest is lack of preventative care. The poor cannot afford it, and the healthcare system has no incentive to reduce costs to the rest of us by providing it...

I agree about the lack of prevention driving up US healthcare costs, but I disagree that the poor can't afford the most effective preventative measures.  In rough order of effectiveness:

Quit smoking?  That costs nothing, and will save a pack-a-day smoker something like $5-$7 per day.  (Per http://www.theawl.com/2013/07/what-a-pack-of-cigarettes-costs-now-state-by-state )

Eat healthy & lose weight?  Again, probably costs little or nothing, maybe saves money if you e.g. bike to work instead of driving, or cook meals from scratch.

Take a daily aspirin?  Maybe a penny a day, if you buy a big bottle at WalMart.  (In Switzerland, I paid something like $8 for a package of a dozen.)

Vaccinations?  Usually available at low cost from public health departments/vaccination campaigns.

No, the problem is not that these proven to be effective preventative health care measures are too expensive, it's that there is a subset of people who simply will not use them.  (And to preempt complaints of racism, I do not think that subset is defined by race.)  Indeed, that's part of why I oppose taxing me to fund their health care.  I use all these measures, and more, so why should I pay the same rates as they do?

« Last Edit: October 07, 2013, 10:20:39 PM by Jamesqf »

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #201 on: October 07, 2013, 09:23:16 PM »
My friend was recently surfing in a land of "universal" healthcare when he stepped on a shard of metal on the beach in Mexico and went to the local clinic who promptly informed him they didn't have tetanus shots.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5742
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #202 on: October 08, 2013, 08:06:30 AM »

Quit smoking?  That costs nothing, and will save a pack-a-day smoker something like $5-$7 per day.  (Per http://www.theawl.com/2013/07/what-a-pack-of-cigarettes-costs-now-state-by-state )


I've seen studies that show smokers have less healthcare costs.  It seems counter intuitive but they have more health issues and they die younger.  We all have high end-of-life costs.  Smokers just put in fewer total years.  (Too lazy to find the reference.)

Le Dérisoire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 108
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #203 on: October 08, 2013, 11:12:57 AM »
My friend was recently surfing in a land of "universal" healthcare when he stepped on a shard of metal on the beach in Mexico and went to the local clinic who promptly informed him they didn't have tetanus shots.

What about Somalia? Do they have universal healthcare in Somalia? I bet they do since everything is wrong there.

We could infer that it will be the same for the US since it's basically the same country.

Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1594
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #204 on: October 08, 2013, 11:54:46 AM »
My friend was recently surfing in a land of "universal" healthcare when he stepped on a shard of metal on the beach in Mexico and went to the local clinic who promptly informed him they didn't have tetanus shots.

What about Somalia? Do they have universal healthcare in Somalia? I bet they do since everything is wrong there.

We could infer that it will be the same for the US since it's basically the same country.

Don't you dare besmirch the libertarian paradise that is Somalia. There's no government there getting all in your business.......or providing you a system of legal recourse.....or making other people honor your personal property rights.......

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: France
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #205 on: October 08, 2013, 03:47:09 PM »

Quit smoking?  That costs nothing, and will save a pack-a-day smoker something like $5-$7 per day.  (Per http://www.theawl.com/2013/07/what-a-pack-of-cigarettes-costs-now-state-by-state )


I've seen studies that show smokers have less healthcare costs.  It seems counter intuitive but they have more health issues and they die younger.  We all have high end-of-life costs.  Smokers just put in fewer total years.  (Too lazy to find the reference.)

In the UK, at least, the money raised from the tax on tobacco products pays for the smokers' NHS care. Source: Radio 4 while driving somewhere, years ago :)

lentilman

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
    • the Independent Penguin
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #206 on: October 08, 2013, 04:08:17 PM »

Quit smoking?  That costs nothing, and will save a pack-a-day smoker something like $5-$7 per day.  (Per http://www.theawl.com/2013/07/what-a-pack-of-cigarettes-costs-now-state-by-state )


I've seen studies that show smokers have less healthcare costs.  It seems counter intuitive but they have more health issues and they die younger.  We all have high end-of-life costs.  Smokers just put in fewer total years.  (Too lazy to find the reference.)

Here is one from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

Deano

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #207 on: October 08, 2013, 05:15:35 PM »
Thoughtful response. A few points...some elective procedures in Canada and Australia take a bit of time, no doubt, but generally are done fairly quickly. My colleague's ACL was done in a week, just texted him. Not sure if that is normal, but it doesn't seem too far off.

There are various sources to show that waiting times for elective procedures are better in the US than in Canada, Australia, and the UK. 
For waiting times of 4 months or more, Canada, the UK, and Australia had much worse results than the US, France, Switzerland, or Germany:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/06/08/g6-08-02.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-59-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html


No modern western country records baby deaths as still-births at a rate greater than any other, this has been trumped up a few times in the US press, but refuted elsewhere (sorry, no link).


Peer-reviewed scientific journals (not the US press) such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11862950 and subsequent studies such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22344455 disagree with you.  I welcome disagreements, but links to peer-reviewed studies are necessary to refute this point. 


I think you're right for the majority of Americans being satisfied about their own healthcare, but this ignores the enormous impact of tens of millions of people with no healthcare. I've always said there are two Americas, one of those doesn't get healthcare. Healthcare in most nations represents a nation's ability to take care of its people, as a whole, the US clearly struggles in this area. The market is not as efficient as we sometimes think.

I don't disagree with you here, other than to say that I did mention that the 1/6 of Americans who do not have health insurance overwhelmingly support health care reform.

In regards to cancer survival rates, Canada and Australia have pretty much the same rates as the US (as reported in the Lancet), along with Cuba. All three have nationalized healthcare, with Aus. allowing some private action on the side. Europe has low screening rates as well, so this skews the survival rates if you're going to use them to reflect quality of care.

This is also true.  My point here wasn't to say that the US healthcare system was the best, just that at least on some measures the quality of US healthcare is very good.

-wait times...Canadians opt to keep health care costs down by making wait times for procedures that can wait even longer. We're not talking life saving treatments here, or even ones with huge effects on quality of life (i.e. the oft quoted hip replacements).

-I don't not sure I need to link to peer reviewed. In abstract #2 you provided it seems at least Canada and the US report still-births in much the same way. We'll split the difference perhaps here, I don't have evidence on hand to refute the rest of it. You may be right in that regard. I had images of doctors suggesting that the death of a 4 week old was a still birth, not what we were discussing obviously.

-1/6 of your population is 50 million. 50 million people don't have healthcare. That's something close to Canada and Australia. Put together....

-You are right and we agreed, on some measures US healthcare is good. If I had some life-threatening illness and I was in the top 10% of society, I might opt to be an American. No one would argue with that, but I think we need to focus on the damage done to the US by the fact that 50 million don't have healthcare, there is massive waste in the system and the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US (aside maybe from the housing bust) is medical related.

In any event, it's clear that well thought out responses can rationalize the lack of universal healthcare. I am however, quite unsure of the morality of it, but, I'm not an American.

btw...Americans might not know this, but do you know where Canada got the idea of universal healthcare from? YOU! It just didn't fly, doctors/insurers got upset. They did here too, but we had politicians who fought hard.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #208 on: October 08, 2013, 05:37:19 PM »

-I don't not sure I need to link to peer reviewed. In abstract #2 you provided it seems at least Canada and the US report still-births in much the same way. We'll split the difference perhaps here, I don't have evidence on hand to refute the rest of it. You may be right in that regard. I had images of doctors suggesting that the death of a 4 week old was a still birth, not what we were discussing obviously.

You're right, Canada was the closest, but there were 23 other industrial countries in that report.  Your original comment was "no modern western country records baby deaths as still-births at a rate greater than any other" – I think I pretty clearly showed there are significant differences.

-1/6 of your population is 50 million. 50 million people don't have healthcare. That's something close to Canada and Australia. Put together....

Yes, this is why I am personally in favor of universal health care.


Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #209 on: October 08, 2013, 05:46:47 PM »
-1/6 of your population is 50 million. 50 million people don't have healthcare.

Wrong.  The original statement is that 1/6 of the population does not have health insurance.  It's perfectly possible to have health care without having health insurance.  It's also perfectly possible to go for long periods without needing much in the way of physician-provided health care, other than keeping vaccinations up to date &c, which is pretty inexpensive.  (And why do I need an expensive doctor visit to get say a tetanus booster shot?)


matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #210 on: October 08, 2013, 05:56:29 PM »
-1/6 of your population is 50 million. 50 million people don't have healthcare.

Wrong.  The original statement is that 1/6 of the population does not have health insurance.  It's perfectly possible to have health care without having health insurance.  It's also perfectly possible to go for long periods without needing much in the way of physician-provided health care, other than keeping vaccinations up to date &c, which is pretty inexpensive.  (And why do I need an expensive doctor visit to get say a tetanus booster shot?)

Just because it's perfectly possible doesn't mean it's perfectly reasonable to assume 50 million people need no more healthcare than keeping vaccinations up to date.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #211 on: October 08, 2013, 11:10:10 PM »
Just because it's perfectly possible doesn't mean it's perfectly reasonable to assume 50 million people need no more healthcare than keeping vaccinations up to date.

It's exactly as reasonable as assuming that all of them need more health care than that :-)  Besides, the claim was that all of those 50 million do not have health care at all, which is obviously overstated.  Some of us don't need much, others of us are capable of getting what we do need without insurance.

Indeed, don't Obama and the Democrats openly admit that this is how they hope to finance their scheme, by compelling lots of healthy people to sign up for insurance?  For which we'll pay well over the odds - that is, much more than would be justified by the actuarial risk that we'll need medical care.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #212 on: October 09, 2013, 05:45:24 AM »
Yeah because that is what the definition of how insurance works.. It isn't a scheme, it is how insurance functions.

And frankly my assumption that 50 million people will need more healthcare than vaccinations is much more reasonable than they only need vaccinations. Those aren't even remotely equal assumptions.

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #213 on: October 09, 2013, 07:26:08 AM »
I'm just glad we have unlimited resources now.

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: France
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #214 on: October 09, 2013, 08:20:27 AM »
Yeah because that is what the definition of how insurance works.. It isn't a scheme, it is how insurance functions.

And frankly my assumption that 50 million people will need more healthcare than vaccinations is much more reasonable than they only need vaccinations. Those aren't even remotely equal assumptions.

No, that isn't the way insurance functions. Insurance is about grouping pools of similarly risked people together. If I buy a homeowner's insurance policy for a 2BR apartment in NYC, they are going to group me with other similarly risked apartments--probably 2BR apartments in large cities or areas of large cities with similar risk profiles. So the price of my policy will be determined by the odds that an apartment like mine will make a policy claim. Nobody would suggest that my apartment be grouped in the same pool as the house across the street from a chemical plant, the house in tornado alley, the house in the middle of the woods where trees fall during storms or the apartment building in the 50 year flood plain, and I'd be a fool to sign up for a policy that did, since those homes have vastly different risk profiles.

The same thing happens with auto insurance. That's why your insurance rate is based on how many tickets or accidents you've had, and what model of car you drive. No one expects the new Porsche driver with biannual speeding tickets to pay the same as my father, who drives a 10 year old Honda and has never gotten a ticket in 50 years of driving. This is effectively what the exchange policies do: they group together everyone based on nothing more than age and smoking status, assuming they all have equal risk profiles and should pay the same rate. The healthcare exchanges are the antithesis of how actuarily sound insurance policies have worked in the past.

Mm-hmm, so if through no fault of your own you are born with a certain condition that requires $100k of healthcare throughout your life... do you shoulder that burden entirely yourself? Or does society help you?

Universal health care insurance... means that if you are a human, you're grouped in the same pool. A Large Chunk of Cash is taken from the taxes people pay to ensure that every human being in a given country has access to a doctor and medical facilities that will try to keep them well.

All humans are equal - no? Isn't it discriminatory to insure differently (Porche vs Buick - I'd say all people are in the same class of car, going with your analogy).

Sure if you go skydiving you should take extra insurance. Or doing dangerous things like driving. But for your basic human needs, fixing a broken arm, cancer treatment, whatever, there is no way someone without money should be denied.

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #215 on: October 09, 2013, 08:20:41 AM »
Yeah because that is what the definition of how insurance works.. It isn't a scheme, it is how insurance functions.

And frankly my assumption that 50 million people will need more healthcare than vaccinations is much more reasonable than they only need vaccinations. Those aren't even remotely equal assumptions.

No, that isn't the way insurance functions. Insurance is about grouping pools of similarly risked people together. If I buy a homeowner's insurance policy for a 2BR apartment in NYC, they are going to group me with other similarly risked apartments--probably 2BR apartments in large cities or areas of large cities with similar risk profiles. So the price of my policy will be determined by the odds that an apartment like mine will make a policy claim. Nobody would suggest that my apartment be grouped in the same pool as the house across the street from a chemical plant, the house in tornado alley, the house in the middle of the woods where trees fall during storms or the apartment building in the 50 year flood plain, and I'd be a fool to sign up for a policy that did, since those homes have vastly different risk profiles.

The same thing happens with auto insurance. That's why your insurance rate is based on how many tickets or accidents you've had, and what model of car you drive. No one expects the new Porsche driver with biannual speeding tickets to pay the same as my father, who drives a 10 year old Honda and has never gotten a ticket in 50 years of driving. This is effectively what the exchange policies do: they group together everyone based on nothing more than age and smoking status, assuming they all have equal risk profiles and should pay the same rate. The healthcare exchanges are the antithesis of how actuarily sound insurance policies have worked in the past.

Correct, insurance is only viable when payouts are random and fortuitous, otherwise it's just transfer payments. That's the first premise, then you can try and identify subsets of a population like you describe to charge different rates, so yes the younger uninsureds are foolish to sign up, but that's how govt works in America, penalizing the marginal and poor.

CDP45

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #216 on: October 09, 2013, 08:28:52 AM »


All humans are equal - no? No, clearly all humans are not equal, I'm not a rich as bill gates nor can I dunk like MJ.

Isn't it discriminatory to insure differently (Porche vs Buick - I'd say all people are in the same class of car, going with your analogy). Auto insurance is a good analogy as it's totally provided by private insurance, there doesn't seem to be any crises in that market, and people choose their coverage which is cheaper based on your risk profile.

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #217 on: October 09, 2013, 08:39:24 AM »
Can you image if we all had to buy car insurance from a central service bureaucracy? Imagine how much an oil change would cost? What if you need a new A/C compressor and all the extra burden the repair shop had to shoulder to get the parts ok'd by a govt agency? Imagine some of the price gouging some shops might engage in since a govt entity is paying for the repair bill. Imagine the inflated cost due to dealing with all the red tape to repair your car in a collision...even worse, with injury involved, collaborating with ACA policies and procedures.

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #218 on: October 09, 2013, 08:59:20 AM »
Can you image if we all had to buy car insurance from a central service bureaucracy? Imagine how much an oil change would cost? What if you need a new A/C compressor and all the extra burden the repair shop had to shoulder to get the parts ok'd by a govt agency? Imagine some of the price gouging some shops might engage in since a govt entity is paying for the repair bill. Imagine the inflated cost due to dealing with all the red tape to repair your car in a collision...even worse, with injury involved, collaborating with ACA policies and procedures.

Not to mention the added cost when you have to purchase your gas through your insurance since it's necessary and preventive, ensuring every gas station now needs a billing secretary or four to handle the insurance paperwork...

A set of wipers will cost me $81.56. They'll have to be changed once a year whether they need it or not. I'm not allowed to replace them myself, a Service Center will have to do that. I'll have to make an appointment to have that done. Should only take 2-3 hours out of my Saturday if I don't want to take a half day off work.

footenote

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 801
  • MMMing in MN
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #219 on: October 09, 2013, 10:08:59 AM »
Can you image if we all had to buy car insurance from a central service bureaucracy? Imagine how much an oil change would cost? What if you need a new A/C compressor and all the extra burden the repair shop had to shoulder to get the parts ok'd by a govt agency? Imagine some of the price gouging some shops might engage in since a govt entity is paying for the repair bill. Imagine the inflated cost due to dealing with all the red tape to repair your car in a collision...even worse, with injury involved, collaborating with ACA policies and procedures.
Um... except that's not the case. I have 66 silver plan choices (and that's just silver level!) offered by five large, mainstream insurers under ACA in my state. They are competing with one another for my business, just like car insurers and garages compete for my business. And if I don't like the first insurer I choose, I can move on to try one of their competitors during the next open enrollment period next year.

No one in the federal government will be approving anything about my healthcare.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #220 on: October 09, 2013, 10:19:17 AM »
Can you image if we all had to buy car insurance from a central service bureaucracy?

This appears to be a common misunderstanding, and I'm not sure why.  Nobody is required to buy insurance from a central bureaucracy. 

When Democrats originally pitched the single-payer idea that has been so effective in controlling costs in other countries, Republicans characterized it as a threat to the private insurance industry and so the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank, instead proposed the Romneycare model of giving government subsidies to private insurers in exchange for expanding coverage.  The individual mandate was the GOP counteroffer to the universal mandate, designed to encourage personal responsibility instead of government imposition. 

If you have employer insurance, nothing changes for you under the new law.  You have nothing to complain about.

If you don't have employer insurance, the government is going to pay you to buy private insurance from a private company.  How much they pay you is dependent on how rich you are.  If you are very very rich, they are not going to pay you at all and you are right back where you were before the law. 

Everyone will still have the option of buying private insurance directly from insurance companies.  There is no mandate to buy through the exchanges.  The exchanges were established to help market forces work more efficiently, to encourage price competition and allow comparison shopping.  This is like a conservative wet dream for health insurance!  Which is why Romney made it happen in his state when he was governor.

I totally don't get all the GOP hate for this law.  Democrats totally caved on every negotiating point during the health care debate, eventually passing the GOP proposal in its entirety.  The conservatives got everything they wanted out of health reform, but then it got labelled Obamacare and suddenly they had to oppose it.

Has the GOP really moved so far right in the past three years?  From where I'm sitting, the conservative right so completely dominated the health care debate that the left adopted all of their talking points.  The country moved so far to the right that current Democrats are taking credit for things that were GOP ideas three years ago.  In order to maintain the illusion of partisianship, the GOP has had to abandon their own ideas and move even farther right, with the net result of the political center drifting farther and farther right over time. 

Republicans have shut down the entire government precisely because it has adopted all of their own policies.  It's very confusing to me.

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: France
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #221 on: October 09, 2013, 10:43:17 AM »
Insurance in Quebec is handled centrally, as I believe in BC. In Ontario it is not. Insurance in QC is about 1/3 to 1/2 that in ON.

jba302

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #222 on: October 09, 2013, 10:46:12 AM »

Quit smoking?  That costs nothing, and will save a pack-a-day smoker something like $5-$7 per day.  (Per http://www.theawl.com/2013/07/what-a-pack-of-cigarettes-costs-now-state-by-state )


I've seen studies that show smokers have less healthcare costs.  It seems counter intuitive but they have more health issues and they die younger.  We all have high end-of-life costs.  Smokers just put in fewer total years.  (Too lazy to find the reference.)

Here is one from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

This is kind of mind-blowing, but as I sit here thinking about it makes sense. One of my friend's parents just passed away at 60 years old due to throat cancer from smoking. My grandma made it to 96. Having at least some marginal awareness of costs to keep people alive (my job is in work comp), it does seem accurate that a few intense years of cancer care would be eclipsed by 2 decades of old-maintenance.

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: France
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #223 on: October 09, 2013, 10:50:04 AM »


All humans are equal - no? No, clearly all humans are not equal, I'm not a rich as bill gates nor can I dunk like MJ.

Isn't it discriminatory to insure differently (Porche vs Buick - I'd say all people are in the same class of car, going with your analogy). Auto insurance is a good analogy as it's totally provided by private insurance, there doesn't seem to be any crises in that market, and people choose their coverage which is cheaper based on your risk profile.

That totally misses the point. At birth, all humans are equal; and Bill Gates and Michael Jordan have the same bodily systems as you and I. Wealth is completely irrelevent.

Cars are things. Cars don't get sad, depressed, suicidal; they get broken and replaced, they wear out. Money and helping someone not die are not compatible - IMHO.

I'm British so, yes, I think you Americans are crazy :)

KulshanGirl

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Location: Washington State
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #224 on: October 09, 2013, 10:55:03 AM »
That totally misses the point. At birth, all humans are equal; and Bill Gates and Michael Jordan have the same bodily systems as you and I. Wealth is completely irrelevent.

Cars are things. Cars don't get sad, depressed, suicidal; they get broken and replaced, they wear out. Money and helping someone not die are not compatible - IMHO.

I'm British so, yes, I think you Americans are crazy :)

Word.

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #225 on: October 09, 2013, 10:57:46 AM »
Insurance in Quebec is handled centrally, as I believe in BC. In Ontario it is not. Insurance in QC is about 1/3 to 1/2 that in ON.

Those who did not study economics are advised to google "monopsony."

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #226 on: October 09, 2013, 11:05:21 AM »
Can you image if we all had to buy car insurance from a central service bureaucracy? Imagine how much an oil change would cost? What if you need a new A/C compressor and all the extra burden the repair shop had to shoulder to get the parts ok'd by a govt agency? Imagine some of the price gouging some shops might engage in since a govt entity is paying for the repair bill. Imagine the inflated cost due to dealing with all the red tape to repair your car in a collision...even worse, with injury involved, collaborating with ACA policies and procedures.
Um... except that's not the case. I have 66 silver plan choices (and that's just silver level!) offered by five large, mainstream insurers under ACA in my state. They are competing with one another for my business, just like car insurers and garages compete for my business. And if I don't like the first insurer I choose, I can move on to try one of their competitors during the next open enrollment period next year.

No one in the federal government will be approving anything about my healthcare.

Really? There are certain health insurance plans that used to be sold, which are now illegal. If you're 35, you can't buy a catastrophic insurance plan with a high deductible any more. It's not allowed. Period. You can't buy an insurance plan that doesn't offer maternity coverage, even if you're past menopause, don't want kids and are willing to shoulder the tiny risk of having to pay OOP for maternity, or have had a tubal ligation. You can't offer an insurance plan to your employees that doesn't cover "family planning" services, regardless of your own feelings about the morality of such services. The federal government is approving or, rather, not allowing, all sorts of things about people's health insurance plans.

Yep, this. Of course the insurance industry giants are happy to comply since it favors their bottom line.

Le Dérisoire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 108
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #227 on: October 09, 2013, 11:05:38 AM »
Americans! Stop arguing and adopt universal healthcare like everyone else in the civilized world.

And also adopt the metric system. It is the 21st century for Christ's sake (I mentioned Christ to catch your religious attention).

And tell your congressmen to stop acting like children if you don't want Angela Merkel to come and spank their asses like she did to the Greeks.

EDIT: It's just a joke. Take a deep breath.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 11:58:57 AM by Le Dérisoire »

KatieSSS

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
  • Location: DC
  • "Because of your badassity, babe!" - My GoudaMan
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #228 on: October 09, 2013, 11:15:53 AM »
Can you image if we all had to buy car insurance from a central service bureaucracy?

This appears to be a common misunderstanding, and I'm not sure why.  Nobody is required to buy insurance from a central bureaucracy. 

When Democrats originally pitched the single-payer idea that has been so effective in controlling costs in other countries, Republicans characterized it as a threat to the private insurance industry and so the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank, instead proposed the Romneycare model of giving government subsidies to private insurers in exchange for expanding coverage.  The individual mandate was the GOP counteroffer to the universal mandate, designed to encourage personal responsibility instead of government imposition. 

If you have employer insurance, nothing changes for you under the new law.  You have nothing to complain about.

If you don't have employer insurance, the government is going to pay you to buy private insurance from a private company.  How much they pay you is dependent on how rich you are.  If you are very very rich, they are not going to pay you at all and you are right back where you were before the law. 

Everyone will still have the option of buying private insurance directly from insurance companies.  There is no mandate to buy through the exchanges.  The exchanges were established to help market forces work more efficiently, to encourage price competition and allow comparison shopping.  This is like a conservative wet dream for health insurance!  Which is why Romney made it happen in his state when he was governor.

I totally don't get all the GOP hate for this law.  Democrats totally caved on every negotiating point during the health care debate, eventually passing the GOP proposal in its entirety.  The conservatives got everything they wanted out of health reform, but then it got labelled Obamacare and suddenly they had to oppose it.

Has the GOP really moved so far right in the past three years?  From where I'm sitting, the conservative right so completely dominated the health care debate that the left adopted all of their talking points.  The country moved so far to the right that current Democrats are taking credit for things that were GOP ideas three years ago.  In order to maintain the illusion of partisianship, the GOP has had to abandon their own ideas and move even farther right, with the net result of the political center drifting farther and farther right over time. 

Republicans have shut down the entire government precisely because it has adopted all of their own policies.  It's very confusing to me.

I completely agree and could not have said this better myself. In fact, I sent your post to a friend to explain my position on this whole shutdown thing! During the healthcare debate the President was all about compromise. When the GOP says the Dems "rammed it down our throats" I just want to cry. It is like they don't remember all the times Obama and the Dems caved to their healthcare ideas. Selective memory, I guess. And I know this hasn't been brought up much, but I think it is relevant in the healthcare debate: the GOP seems to stand for "government stay out of our lives and our health care" except when it comes to a woman's uterus. Then they want in. I just can't understand this logic.

Oh, and to the Brit who said that as a Brit, they can't understand what is going on here with healthcare and the shutdown: I don't get it either, and I'm an American! I can't say that enough...because I really want to convey that there are some of us in this country who feel ashamed that we don't have universal healthcare and also feel ashamed that our lawmakers are acting in such a childish fashion.

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #229 on: October 09, 2013, 11:19:48 AM »
Americans! Stop arguing and adopt universal healthcare like everyone else in the civilized world.

And also adopt the metric system. It is the 21st century for Christ's sake (I mentioned Christ to catch your religious attention).

And tell your congressmen to stop acting like children if you don't want Angela Merkel to come and spank their asses like she did to the Greeks.

Because universal healthcare is free, and leads to prosperity. If only we offered universal housing, clothing and meals, we just might escape being bent over Angela's knee.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #230 on: October 09, 2013, 11:51:58 AM »
Americans! Stop arguing and adopt universal healthcare like everyone else in the civilized world.

And also adopt the metric system. It is the 21st century for Christ's sake (I mentioned Christ to catch your religious attention).

And tell your congressmen to stop acting like children if you don't want Angela Merkel to come and spank their asses like she did to the Greeks.

Since I've already weighed in on the other two, what's so great about the metric system?  Unless you're using Kelvin, which no one does, all units arbitrarily sized anyway.  I work in labs, so I use the metric system more than the Imperial system, but I always enjoy asking people (especially Europeans) if they know what defines a meter.  Do you?

KatieSSS

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
  • Location: DC
  • "Because of your badassity, babe!" - My GoudaMan
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #231 on: October 09, 2013, 11:53:01 AM »
Can you image if we all had to buy car insurance from a central service bureaucracy?

This appears to be a common misunderstanding, and I'm not sure why.  Nobody is required to buy insurance from a central bureaucracy. 

When Democrats originally pitched the single-payer idea that has been so effective in controlling costs in other countries, Republicans characterized it as a threat to the private insurance industry and so the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank, instead proposed the Romneycare model of giving government subsidies to private insurers in exchange for expanding coverage.  The individual mandate was the GOP counteroffer to the universal mandate, designed to encourage personal responsibility instead of government imposition. 

If you have employer insurance, nothing changes for you under the new law.  You have nothing to complain about.

If you don't have employer insurance, the government is going to pay you to buy private insurance from a private company.  How much they pay you is dependent on how rich you are.  If you are very very rich, they are not going to pay you at all and you are right back where you were before the law. 

Everyone will still have the option of buying private insurance directly from insurance companies.  There is no mandate to buy through the exchanges.  The exchanges were established to help market forces work more efficiently, to encourage price competition and allow comparison shopping.  This is like a conservative wet dream for health insurance!  Which is why Romney made it happen in his state when he was governor.

I totally don't get all the GOP hate for this law.  Democrats totally caved on every negotiating point during the health care debate, eventually passing the GOP proposal in its entirety.  The conservatives got everything they wanted out of health reform, but then it got labelled Obamacare and suddenly they had to oppose it.

Has the GOP really moved so far right in the past three years?  From where I'm sitting, the conservative right so completely dominated the health care debate that the left adopted all of their talking points.  The country moved so far to the right that current Democrats are taking credit for things that were GOP ideas three years ago.  In order to maintain the illusion of partisianship, the GOP has had to abandon their own ideas and move even farther right, with the net result of the political center drifting farther and farther right over time. 

Republicans have shut down the entire government precisely because it has adopted all of their own policies.  It's very confusing to me.

I completely agree and could not have said this better myself. In fact, I sent your post to a friend to explain my position on this whole shutdown thing! During the healthcare debate the President was all about compromise. When the GOP says the Dems "rammed it down our throats" I just want to cry. It is like they don't remember all the times Obama and the Dems caved to their healthcare ideas. Selective memory, I guess. And I know this hasn't been brought up much, but I think it is relevant in the healthcare debate: the GOP seems to stand for "government stay out of our lives and our health care" except when it comes to a woman's uterus. Then they want in. I just can't understand this logic.

Oh, and to the Brit who said that as a Brit, they can't understand what is going on here with healthcare and the shutdown: I don't get it either, and I'm an American! I can't say that enough...because I really want to convey that there are some of us in this country who feel ashamed that we don't have universal healthcare and also feel ashamed that our lawmakers are acting in such a childish fashion.

If you think abortion is infanticide, the logic is fairly simple. We generally don't encourage the government to stay out of people's private right to kill others. If a fetus is a tiny human being, then it's rights come into play, and it's hardly outrageous to outlaw killing it.

And there is the rub. The debate about when life begins. And not one easily answered or without controversy. So I see what you mean about if the logic is that they believe an unborn fetus is a life, then that means they want to extend the power to protect it by any means necessary. I am of the belief that the government doesn't have the right to tell a human being what it can and cannot do with their own body when it comes to reproduction. No forced abortions, no forced pregnancies, no forced sterilization, no forced procedures of any kind that relate to such personal matters as sex and reproduction. Another way to say this is I don't get how the GOP can believe in freedom in some areas but not freedom in others. As in, the freedom to own guns vs. the freedom of a woman to choose what she should and should not do with the reproductive parts of her body.

Le Dérisoire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 108
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #232 on: October 09, 2013, 11:58:22 AM »
Americans! Stop arguing and adopt universal healthcare like everyone else in the civilized world.

And also adopt the metric system. It is the 21st century for Christ's sake (I mentioned Christ to catch your religious attention).

And tell your congressmen to stop acting like children if you don't want Angela Merkel to come and spank their asses like she did to the Greeks.

Merkel was mad at the Greeks because they didn't have sufficient socialized healthcare, not because they borrowed and spent far, far beyond their means and were now coming to the most solvent country in the EU for a rescue package. Right?
Because universal healthcare is free, and leads to prosperity. If only we offered universal housing, clothing and meals, we just might escape being bent over Angela's knee.

It was a JOKE. I'm sorry I wrote a joke in a serious thread and hurt some sensibilities.

By the way, about the Merkel thing, I was speaking about the republican threat to destroy the global financial system in a few week from now, not universal healthcare.

Still just a joke though...

jefffff

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #233 on: October 09, 2013, 12:07:29 PM »
Americans! Stop arguing and adopt universal healthcare like everyone else in the civilized world.

And also adopt the metric system. It is the 21st century for Christ's sake (I mentioned Christ to catch your religious attention).

And tell your congressmen to stop acting like children if you don't want Angela Merkel to come and spank their asses like she did to the Greeks.

Since I've already weighed in on the other two, what's so great about the metric system?  Unless you're using Kelvin, which no one does, all units arbitrarily sized anyway.  I work in labs, so I use the metric system more than the Imperial system, but I always enjoy asking people (especially Europeans) if they know what defines a meter.  Do you?
No one cares how big a meter is, only the ratio between it and a kilometer. Using powers of ten seems to lend itself to more reasonable calculations that randomly generated numbers like 12 and 26.5.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #234 on: October 09, 2013, 12:23:50 PM »
Mm-hmm, so if through no fault of your own you are born with a certain condition that requires $100k of healthcare throughout your life... do you shoulder that burden entirely yourself? Or does society help you?

Turn the question around.  Suppose you are born with naturally perfect health: why should society expect you to shoulder the burden for those who aren't?

Now take it a step further, and suppose your good health is due not to nature, but to your own hard work.

Quote
All humans are equal - no?

NO!  This should be obvious: let me and one of these guys http://www.imdb.com/list/plgEmlNDS0k/ walk into a singles bar, and see which of us gets hit on first :-)  In fact, the inequality of humans (and all other creatures) is the fundamental driving force of evolution.

You're confusing equality and equal rights, and also don't seem to understand the difference between rights and economic goods.  For example, freedom of the press - a right - does not mean the government (meaning the taxpayers) has to buy you a printing press.

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #235 on: October 09, 2013, 12:28:13 PM »
Americans! Stop arguing and adopt universal healthcare like everyone else in the civilized world.

And also adopt the metric system. It is the 21st century for Christ's sake (I mentioned Christ to catch your religious attention).

And tell your congressmen to stop acting like children if you don't want Angela Merkel to come and spank their asses like she did to the Greeks.

Merkel was mad at the Greeks because they didn't have sufficient socialized healthcare, not because they borrowed and spent far, far beyond their means and were now coming to the most solvent country in the EU for a rescue package. Right?
Because universal healthcare is free, and leads to prosperity. If only we offered universal housing, clothing and meals, we just might escape being bent over Angela's knee.

It was a JOKE. I'm sorry I wrote a joke in a serious thread and hurt some sensibilities.

By the way, about the Merkel thing, I was speaking about the republican threat to destroy the global financial system in a few week from now, not universal healthcare.

Still just a joke though...

It's all fun and games until the Tea Party singlehandedly brings down the entire world economy. And the establishment thought they were insignificant. Bah!

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #236 on: October 09, 2013, 12:33:01 PM »
No one cares how big a meter is, only the ratio between it and a kilometer. Using powers of ten seems to lend itself to more reasonable calculations that randomly generated numbers like 12 and 26.5.

Wrong!  I do care how big a foot or a mile is, because I know what these are, so if someone tells me their house is X miles down the road, I know just how far they mean. 

And unlike Europeans, I can do math other than by powers of 10, so I don't have to make up silly, confusing prefix names to attach to "meter" in order to use larger units :-)
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 12:35:25 PM by Jamesqf »

KatieSSS

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
  • Location: DC
  • "Because of your badassity, babe!" - My GoudaMan
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #237 on: October 09, 2013, 12:40:05 PM »

This is not morally complicated to people who are pro-life. If a fetus is a human being, it doesn't matter if said fetus is wildly inconvenient, undesirable or causing illness to the person who is providing its temporary home. It's still just as immoral to kill it as it would be to kill a person outside the womb who was wildly inconvenient, undesirable or causing illness to another. A woman aborting her child is, int heir eyes, not only telling the baby where it can go, but forcibly extinguishing it's life, which is a far larger violation of its freedoms than the woman's are being violated by carrying to term.

People have this idea that the Republican party are libertarians. They're not. They're pro certain kinds of freedoms in certain circumstances, just like the left. You seem to be a libertarian in the area of sexual morality, which is certainly your prerogative. I don't see why you're baffled that everyone doesn't share your worldview.

Of course I understand people believe different things. You might be surprised that I am actually pro-life. But for MYSELF. As in, I believe abortion is morally wrong and so I would never have one, but I don't believe in telling others what to do, because I can't force anyone to do anything they don't want to. What they do in their personal life is their business. I'd rather spend my time educating people on birth control, safe sex, and to have children when they are ready. I'm not baffled that EVERYONE doesn't share my worldview. I'm explaining why their worldview doesn't make sense to me, and isn't that the point of having a debate? Explaining different perspectives and opinions? I guess I'm a libertarian in sexual morality if you mean that I don't care what others do with their sexual lives as long as it doesn't affect me. That is definitely true.

But to be more on topic - does anyone think that there is a realistic chance that a default will actually happen? The longer this shutdown goes on the more I wonder.

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #238 on: October 09, 2013, 12:44:12 PM »
Can you image if we all had to buy car insurance from a central service bureaucracy?

This appears to be a common misunderstanding, and I'm not sure why.  Nobody is required to buy insurance from a central bureaucracy. 

When Democrats originally pitched the single-payer idea that has been so effective in controlling costs in other countries, Republicans characterized it as a threat to the private insurance industry and so the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank, instead proposed the Romneycare model of giving government subsidies to private insurers in exchange for expanding coverage.  The individual mandate was the GOP counteroffer to the universal mandate, designed to encourage personal responsibility instead of government imposition. 

If you have employer insurance, nothing changes for you under the new law.  You have nothing to complain about.

If you don't have employer insurance, the government is going to pay you to buy private insurance from a private company.  How much they pay you is dependent on how rich you are.  If you are very very rich, they are not going to pay you at all and you are right back where you were before the law. 

Everyone will still have the option of buying private insurance directly from insurance companies.  There is no mandate to buy through the exchanges.  The exchanges were established to help market forces work more efficiently, to encourage price competition and allow comparison shopping.  This is like a conservative wet dream for health insurance!  Which is why Romney made it happen in his state when he was governor.

I totally don't get all the GOP hate for this law.  Democrats totally caved on every negotiating point during the health care debate, eventually passing the GOP proposal in its entirety.  The conservatives got everything they wanted out of health reform, but then it got labelled Obamacare and suddenly they had to oppose it.

Has the GOP really moved so far right in the past three years?  From where I'm sitting, the conservative right so completely dominated the health care debate that the left adopted all of their talking points.  The country moved so far to the right that current Democrats are taking credit for things that were GOP ideas three years ago.  In order to maintain the illusion of partisianship, the GOP has had to abandon their own ideas and move even farther right, with the net result of the political center drifting farther and farther right over time. 

Republicans have shut down the entire government precisely because it has adopted all of their own policies.  It's very confusing to me.

I completely agree and could not have said this better myself. In fact, I sent your post to a friend to explain my position on this whole shutdown thing! During the healthcare debate the President was all about compromise. When the GOP says the Dems "rammed it down our throats" I just want to cry. It is like they don't remember all the times Obama and the Dems caved to their healthcare ideas. Selective memory, I guess. And I know this hasn't been brought up much, but I think it is relevant in the healthcare debate: the GOP seems to stand for "government stay out of our lives and our health care" except when it comes to a woman's uterus. Then they want in. I just can't understand this logic.

Oh, and to the Brit who said that as a Brit, they can't understand what is going on here with healthcare and the shutdown: I don't get it either, and I'm an American! I can't say that enough...because I really want to convey that there are some of us in this country who feel ashamed that we don't have universal healthcare and also feel ashamed that our lawmakers are acting in such a childish fashion.

If you think abortion is infanticide, the logic is fairly simple. We generally don't encourage the government to stay out of people's private right to kill others. If a fetus is a tiny human being, then it's rights come into play, and it's hardly outrageous to outlaw killing it.

And there is the rub. The debate about when life begins. And not one easily answered or without controversy. So I see what you mean about if the logic is that they believe an unborn fetus is a life, then that means they want to extend the power to protect it by any means necessary. I am of the belief that the government doesn't have the right to tell a human being what it can and cannot do with their own body when it comes to reproduction. No forced abortions, no forced pregnancies, no forced sterilization, no forced procedures of any kind that relate to such personal matters as sex and reproduction. Another way to say this is I don't get how the GOP can believe in freedom in some areas but not freedom in others. As in, the freedom to own guns vs. the freedom of a woman to choose what she should and should not do with the reproductive parts of her body.

This is not morally complicated to people who are pro-life. If a fetus is a human being, it doesn't matter if said fetus is wildly inconvenient, undesirable or causing illness to the person who is providing its temporary home. It's still just as immoral to kill it as it would be to kill a person outside the womb who was wildly inconvenient, undesirable or causing illness to another. A woman aborting her child is, int heir eyes, not only telling the baby where it can go, but forcibly extinguishing it's life, which is a far larger violation of its freedoms than the woman's are being violated by carrying to term.

People have this idea that the Republican party are libertarians. They're not. They're pro certain kinds of freedoms in certain circumstances, just like the left. You seem to be a libertarian in the area of sexual morality, which is certainly your prerogative. I don't see why you're baffled that everyone doesn't share your worldview.

I would say that a pro-life view has taken over the libertarian party. I know if we read Rothbard, he argues that "life" is determined by the host, as cancer is a life form and determined to be invasive, so an unwanted fetus can be determined to be as well. I don't agree with that at all, and I think the number of pro-choice libertarians is very much the minority now. And I think that's the reason why the Libertarian Party is still pretty insignificant and the libertarian principles in the GOP are growing.

I agree with KatieSSS that there should be no force in a womans sexual life, but lets extend that to its conclusion... there should be no government force in any HUMAN life. This includes murdering a life, which a fetus is a human life, so that I do not consider "government" force because it's not your life. If you have an abortion you are the committing the act of force on another life, which is murder. Murder is handled at the state level, so it's not a federal issue either way.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 01:19:57 PM by Mr.Macinstache »

KatieSSS

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
  • Location: DC
  • "Because of your badassity, babe!" - My GoudaMan
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #239 on: October 09, 2013, 01:03:40 PM »
I'd also point out that abortions have exploded right in line with innovations in effective birth control and the massive increase in social acceptance of using it. It would seem, if anything, that the arrow of causality does not point to more contraception=fewer abortions. Rather, widespread availability and acceptance of both abortion and contraception change sexual behavior in ways that lead to more unwanted children being conceived.

Sources, please? See all these studies that say the opposite:
http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-significantly-cuts-abortion-rates/
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/01/1640851/states-teen-pregnancy-rates/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/23/surprise-the-abortion-rate-just-hit-an-all-time-low/
http://www.mnn.com/family/babies-pregnancy/stories/free-birth-control-causes-us-abortion-rates-to-plummet
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 01:08:32 PM by KatieSSS »

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: France
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #240 on: October 09, 2013, 01:20:57 PM »
Mm-hmm, so if through no fault of your own you are born with a certain condition that requires $100k of healthcare throughout your life... do you shoulder that burden entirely yourself? Or does society help you?

Turn the question around.  Suppose you are born with naturally perfect health: why should society expect you to shoulder the burden for those who aren't?

Now take it a step further, and suppose your good health is due not to nature, but to your own hard work.

Quote
All humans are equal - no?

NO!  This should be obvious: let me and one of these guys http://www.imdb.com/list/plgEmlNDS0k/ walk into a singles bar, and see which of us gets hit on first :-)  In fact, the inequality of humans (and all other creatures) is the fundamental driving force of evolution.

You're confusing equality and equal rights, and also don't seem to understand the difference between rights and economic goods.  For example, freedom of the press - a right - does not mean the government (meaning the taxpayers) has to buy you a printing press.

Suppose your bad health is not due to your lack of 'hard work' but some rare genetic disorder.

Life isn't fair; I get that. In the eyes of the law, all humans are equal - they have a right to fair trial, not be harassed, etc. I say: they also have a right to good, 'free-when-you-need-it' health care for things that are necessary to live in as close to normal a way as possible. By normal I mean with 2 arms, 2 legs, sexual organs, hair, teeth, eyes - if you don't have an arm and we can't do anything about it, never mind, but if something can be done, it should. I don't believe everyone has a right to two arms and can sue the government if they don't have them; but I think if it's possible *and not unduly burdensome on society* then a person should get an arm from society.

And of course I know *unduly burdensome* is going to get picked apart because it's not obvious what that should mean; we should go for the low hanging fruit first (cheap, makes huge difference) and progress up the tree.

But to answer your question: If I'm lucky enough to be born with naturally perfect health, I should be grateful and of course I wouldn't (and don't) mind a portion of the tax I have paid and do pay and will pay going to provide care to those less fortunate. I have - touch wood - no health issues; I have two slightly dodgy eyes (-6.25 and -5.75) but fuck me, if that's the worst of my problems, (and noting that I in no way believe in a deity of any kind) I'm blessed.

Equal as in base class = human, not as in Dave === James.

KatieSSS

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
  • Location: DC
  • "Because of your badassity, babe!" - My GoudaMan
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #241 on: October 09, 2013, 01:21:38 PM »
That's not really a consistent stance, though. If you think abortion is undesirable, icky or unpleasant, then opting out of it yourself makes sense. It's nothing more than a preference. If you think it's honest to goodness killing tiny people, then it's not just wrong for you, it's wrong for everyone. No one that I know of is, say, anti-murder or theft for themselves, but fine with other people doing it.

Ok, I'll go a little further to clarify. I believe abortion to be wrong for me, but it is up to society to determine how we judge this act along with murder and theft, as you said. In fact, we bring them to trial for things because we deem them illegal as a society (like murder and theft). We pass laws or bring cases to the courts. We don't bring women to trial for abortion, because abortion is currently legal. We also don't prosecute murderers and thieves the same way. I'm "opting out" as you say because I choose not to take part in something (i.e. having an abortion) even though it is legal. I agree with Mr. Macinstache that these are the types of things that should be handled at the state level, through state legislatures and courts.

I've met plenty of women who agree with me that they could never have an abortion themselves, but still can't tell another woman what to do as they are not in her shoes. I would say that perhaps things like murder and theft are on different levels. Would I steal to feed my family? Yes. Would I kill someone to protect my family? Probably, but I hope I'm never in that situation. It all depends on the situation, and you would never know what you would do unless you are in it.

But really, back on the actual topic: Does anyone see a potential solution on the horizon for the shutdown/debt ceiling issue?
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 01:28:09 PM by KatieSSS »

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: France
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #242 on: October 09, 2013, 01:27:41 PM »
Insurance in Quebec is handled centrally, as I believe in BC. In Ontario it is not. Insurance in QC is about 1/3 to 1/2 that in ON.

Those who did not study economics are advised to google "monopsony."

Phew, ok my brain is not up to taking that in - I have no background in economics at all. I would posit, though, that regarding insurance there is no mass labour pool relevant - aside from Walmart, Amazon and their like (supermarkets?), the tertiary industry nature of the workforce.. changes things? A bit? I have read in other places that minimum wage is not helpful, and it makes sense in that it just drives the price of things up.

(Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony)

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: France
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #243 on: October 09, 2013, 01:30:29 PM »
That's not really a consistent stance, though. If you think abortion is undesirable, icky or unpleasant, then opting out of it yourself makes sense. It's nothing more than a preference. If you think it's honest to goodness killing tiny people, then it's not just wrong for you, it's wrong for everyone. No one that I know of is, say, anti-murder or theft for themselves, but fine with other people doing it.

Ok, I'll go a little further to clarify. I believe abortion to be wrong for me, but it is up to society to determine how we judge this act along with murder and theft, as you said. In fact, we bring them to trial for things because we deem them illegal as a society (like murder and theft). We pass laws or bring cases to the courts. We don't bring women to trial for abortion, because abortion is currently legal. We also don't prosecute murderers and thieves the same way. I'm "opting out" as you say because I choose not to take part in something (i.e. having an abortion) even though it is legal. I agree with Mr. Macinstache that these are the types of things that should be handled at the state level, through state legislatures and courts.

I've met plenty of women who agree with me that they could never have an abortion themselves, but still can't tell another woman what to do as they are not in her shoes. I would say that perhaps things like murder and theft are on different levels. Would I steal to feed my family? Yes. Would I kill someone to protect my family? Probably, but I hope I'm never in that situation. It all depends on the situation, and you would never know what you would do unless you are in it.

But really, back on the actual topic: Does anyone see a potential solution on the horizon for the shutdown/debt ceiling issue?

Isn't the relevant question, 'would you have an abortion if you were raped?' or perhaps 'would you have an abortion if you couldn't afford to take care of the child?'

KatieSSS

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
  • Location: DC
  • "Because of your badassity, babe!" - My GoudaMan
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #244 on: October 09, 2013, 01:36:44 PM »
That's not really a consistent stance, though. If you think abortion is undesirable, icky or unpleasant, then opting out of it yourself makes sense. It's nothing more than a preference. If you think it's honest to goodness killing tiny people, then it's not just wrong for you, it's wrong for everyone. No one that I know of is, say, anti-murder or theft for themselves, but fine with other people doing it.

Ok, I'll go a little further to clarify. I believe abortion to be wrong for me, but it is up to society to determine how we judge this act along with murder and theft, as you said. In fact, we bring them to trial for things because we deem them illegal as a society (like murder and theft). We pass laws or bring cases to the courts. We don't bring women to trial for abortion, because abortion is currently legal. We also don't prosecute murderers and thieves the same way. I'm "opting out" as you say because I choose not to take part in something (i.e. having an abortion) even though it is legal. I agree with Mr. Macinstache that these are the types of things that should be handled at the state level, through state legislatures and courts.

I've met plenty of women who agree with me that they could never have an abortion themselves, but still can't tell another woman what to do as they are not in her shoes. I would say that perhaps things like murder and theft are on different levels. Would I steal to feed my family? Yes. Would I kill someone to protect my family? Probably, but I hope I'm never in that situation. It all depends on the situation, and you would never know what you would do unless you are in it.

But really, back on the actual topic: Does anyone see a potential solution on the horizon for the shutdown/debt ceiling issue?

Isn't the relevant question, 'would you have an abortion if you were raped?' or perhaps 'would you have an abortion if you couldn't afford to take care of the child?'

Probably, yes. And both of my answers to that question are "no." I would either raise the child or give that child up for adoption. It would be a tough decision either way. But other women would and do answer those questions differently, for sure.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #245 on: October 09, 2013, 01:37:10 PM »

But really, back on the actual topic: Does anyone see a potential solution on the horizon for the shutdown/debt ceiling issue?

Not really, no.  Republicans do not (and never did) have the votes to get what they wanted, and they've backed themselves up against a wall.  Their choices:
1) Speaker Boehner allows a vote on a clean CR, which passes with every Democrat and a minority of Republicans.  The only reason Boehner hasn't done this is that it leads to him losing the Speakership. 
2) That minority of Republicans joins Congressional Democrats in signing a discharge petition, allowing a vote on a clean CR to come to the floor.  Unfortunately, many of the Republicans who would vote for a clean CR would not sign such a discharge petition.
When Congressional Republican leaders such as Boehner and Eric Cantor (see his editorial in the Washington Post today) display such a clear misunderstanding of government and the will of the American people, I have little confidence in their leadership.  As such, I've bought several put options on broad market indices to protect my portfolio in case of a significant decline.

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #246 on: October 09, 2013, 01:42:08 PM »
Insurance in Quebec is handled centrally, as I believe in BC. In Ontario it is not. Insurance in QC is about 1/3 to 1/2 that in ON.

Those who did not study economics are advised to google "monopsony."

Phew, ok my brain is not up to taking that in - I have no background in economics at all. I would posit, though, that regarding insurance there is no mass labour pool relevant - aside from Walmart, Amazon and their like (supermarkets?), the tertiary industry nature of the workforce.. changes things? A bit? I have read in other places that minimum wage is not helpful, and it makes sense in that it just drives the price of things up.

(Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony)

Monopsony is just a one-buyer market.  The sellers all have to take whatever the buyer wants to give because there is no other buyer.  That is why universal care in other countries is so vastly cheaper than healthcare in the  US.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #247 on: October 09, 2013, 04:16:00 PM »
Life isn't fair; I get that. In the eyes of the law, all humans are equal - they have a right to fair trial, not be harassed, etc.

No, they are not equal in the eyes of the law, they have equal rights.  They're vastly different things.

Quote
I say: they also have a right to good, 'free-when-you-need-it' health care for things that are necessary to live in as close to normal a way as possible.

But they can't have those things unless they're first produced by someone.  Now if you take away the product of someone's labor, you're simply turning them into slaves, no?  So what of their rights?

That is why universal care in other countries is so vastly cheaper than healthcare in the  US.

Is it really cheaper, though, when you take into consideration ALL the costs?  Including the large fraction of the costs in other countries that are paid as tax rather than medical bills?
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 04:20:15 PM by Jamesqf »

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3961
  • Location: France
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #248 on: October 09, 2013, 04:30:49 PM »
Life isn't fair; I get that. In the eyes of the law, all humans are equal - they have a right to fair trial, not be harassed, etc.

No, they are not equal in the eyes of the law, they have equal rights.  They're vastly different things.

Quote
I say: they also have a right to good, 'free-when-you-need-it' health care for things that are necessary to live in as close to normal a way as possible.

But they can't have those things unless they're first produced by someone.  Now if you take away the product of someone's labor, you're simply turning them into slaves, no?  So what of their rights?

That is why universal care in other countries is so vastly cheaper than healthcare in the  US.

Is it really cheaper, though, when you take into consideration ALL the costs?  Including the large fraction of the costs in other countries that are paid as tax rather than medical bills?

Oh, brother! As it pertains to the law, they are equal - take Jane Doe and replace her with John Smith and they should be treated by the same in all circumstances - innocent til proven guilty, etc. I'm fairly pedantic myself, but I'd say this is a language difference. I'm over it.

You entice someone to 'produce' healthcare by 'paying' them. If you want more available, you pay more people. The cost of paying them is taken up by society - yes? The only difference here is that in a universal system, everyone pays in proportion to how much they earn; with the US system, they pay in proportion to how likely it might be that they need help, unless the company knows about something and thus refuses the person any insurance, meaning the person would have to pay for all care themself. So, taking all humans as having equal rights to healthcare (regardless of money), the universal system means everyone *can* get the care they need, whereas under the US system *some people* cannot get the care they need due to *money only*. And what the hell is money? Something we made up - something that your Federal Reserve prints - something that has NO LINK to how much care a person will need.

I die because I came from an abusive household, got a crap job at a fast food place, and hence can't afford care? I live because I managed to sell people cars? I die because my father had a condition and I couldn't afford the insurance premium because of that? I live because I had a credit card but went bankrupt after, vs someone who never got a credit card?

It's senseless!

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Impending Government Shutdown Questions
« Reply #249 on: October 09, 2013, 04:32:44 PM »
That is why universal care in other countries is so vastly cheaper than healthcare in the  US.

Is it really cheaper, though, when you take into consideration ALL the costs?  Including the large fraction of the costs in other countries that are paid as tax rather than medical bills?

Go look at percentage of GDP spent on healthcare in countries with universal care compared with the US.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!