Koch Report Backfires

[*michaelsean*]

I could get on the Medicare type where your basic needs are covered and you can upgrade. I don’t have the slightest idea what basic needs would consist of though. If you have 3 blocked arteries a bypass is a pretty basic need. Hell I don’t know. Ima go along with whatever people decide.

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2018, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Appreciate the "answers". 

1) So in design I would have to pay more for the same coverage if I have a job and/or one that pays well. Not sure I'm a fan of that.

Do you mean pay more in comparison to people that don't pay as much? If so, oh well.

(07-31-2018, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 2) Yeah, that answer really isn't one

Considering I'm not in the discussions about what a national single-payer system would look like for the country, that is the best I can do.

(07-31-2018, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3) So I have no choice of my healthcare provider. Not sure I'm a fan of it.

That is literally the opposite of what I said.

(07-31-2018, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 4) IDK, they seemed to suggest it was because of the system; they couldn't see a specialist to get the care or procedures necessary for an knee injury.

And they are wrong. This is something I have looked at for a class when we analyzed the Canadian Medicare system. The flaws are in the administration and the funding. The program would work if the resources were put into it.

(07-31-2018, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems folks are just saying this single payer system is the way to go without fully understanding/exploring it and I have no idea how a report like that listed in the OP can have any validity with the numerous assumptions and  it appears that's one thing Bernie and I agree one.

Any time there is analysis of a potential policy it is based on assumptions. When a tax bill is passed, the numbers about how much it will raise or lower the deficit is based on numerous assumptions. It's how wonks do their thing. It's not throwing darts at a dartboard, there is actual statistical modeling involved to come up with answers that can hold up to review.

(07-31-2018, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: BTW, I'm retired Military and as such am authorized care at Military Treatment Facilities at no cost. Would single payer change that? 

Depends on the system, but the likely answer is no.

(07-31-2018, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I believe everyone should be entitled to healthcare. I simply believe more options should be available if you have earned them and/or pay for them. I'm against someone unemployed receiving the same health coverage as an employed individual does. It removes one of the motivations to seeks employment.   

There are a number of different potential systems out there. If it worked like our current Medicare system, which is highly likely, it would allow for some customization and improved coverage if you were willing to pay for it. Pat already pointed this out, but this is very accurate.

[*bfine32*]

(07-31-2018, 07:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Do you mean pay more in comparison to people that don't pay as much? If so, oh well.


Considering I'm not in the discussions about what a national single-payer system would look like for the country, that is the best I can do.


That is literally the opposite of what I said.


And they are wrong. This is something I have looked at for a class when we analyzed the Canadian Medicare system. The flaws are in the administration and the funding. The program would work if the resources were put into it.


Any time there is analysis of a potential policy it is based on assumptions. When a tax bill is passed, the numbers about how much it will raise or lower the deficit is based on numerous assumptions. It's how wonks do their thing. It's not throwing darts at a dartboard, there is actual statistical modeling involved to come up with answers that can hold up to review.


Depends on the system, but the likely answer is no.


There are a number of different potential systems out there. If it worked like our current Medicare system, which is highly likely, it would allow for some customization and improved coverage if you were willing to pay for it. Pat already pointed this out, but this is very accurate.

Cannot sat I'm a fan of "oh well" as why I should pay more for others to pay less, but that's a fundamental difference in philosophies. I'm more of a reap what you sow type. 

The rest pretty much summarizes what I have asserted, Folks talk single payer, but that's not really what they are advocating. They are advocating the responsible take care of the irresponsible. I'll have to take you at your word that you know more about the pitfalls of the Canadian healthcare than those experiencing it; but you solution of throw more money at it is in keeping with the mentality.

I suppose your answer of "no one" when I asked who decides who you get to see made me point to the opposite of what you stated; as I was assuming the answer would be the individual. But that would lead the more skilled physicians to be overbooked and who gets to decide whom they see and in what order?

Folks say other countries do it; why don't we. It's because we are not them. I don't think any other nation in the history of civilization has went from nothing to the world's global power in just over 2 centuries as we have. And it's most likely because we don't model ourselves off others. 

As I understand it. No one in this country is denied emergency care and those that want additional coverage can pay for it or earn it. 

[Yojimbo]

A single-payer/universal/Medicare for all (not all the same thing) should replace the VA, in my opinion. Now, if vets had a different classification that meant no co-pays or some benefit like that, I’d be for that.

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2018, 07:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Cannot sat I'm a fan of "oh well" as why I should pay more for others to pay less, but that's a fundamental difference in philosophies. I'm more of a reap what you sow type. 

I'm more of a "the role of the government is to promote the general welfare of the citizenry, per the Constitution, and it is patriotic duty to pay to help those less fortunate in this country." So yeah, just a difference in philosophies.

(07-31-2018, 07:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The rest pretty much summarizes what I have asserted, Folks talk single payer, but that's not really what they are advocating. They are advocating the responsible take care of the irresponsible.

Not really. But I know there it is fruitless to argue this point with you.

(07-31-2018, 07:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll have to take you at your word that you know more about the pitfalls of the Canadian healthcare than those experiencing it; but you solution of throw more money at it is in keeping with the mentality.

Plenty of people don't know anything about what they are experiencing. It happens all of the time. As for the money aspect, it isn't just that. It also involves resource allocation and efficiency issues. Those are administrative problems.

(07-31-2018, 07:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose your answer of "no one" when I asked who decides who you get to see made me point to the opposite of what you stated; as I was assuming the answer would be the individual. But that would lead the more skilled physicians to be overbooked and who gets to decide whom they see and in what order?

When I said "no one," it was implied that it was the individual. And it would be up to the service providers, just as it is now. Except it would be more universal because there would be a single insurer instead of a bunch, but only a couple work with the provider. You would have more freedom of choice than you do now.

(07-31-2018, 07:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks say other countries do it; why don't we. It's because we are not them. I don't think any other nation in the history of civilization has went from nothing to the world's global power in just over 2 centuries as we have. And it's most likely because we don't model ourselves off others. 

Yes we do. Sure, we change some things to make it uniquely American, but we absolutely model ourselves off of others.

(07-31-2018, 07:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I understand it. No one in this country is denied emergency care and those that want additional coverage can pay for it or earn it. 

People absolutely do get denied emergency care. I know of hospitals that will move the goalposts on what is an emergency based upon what their perception is of the patient's ability to pay. They also get denied non-emergent but absolutely necessary care on a regular basis. Even if they do get the care, it can bankrupt them.

[*bfine32*]

(07-31-2018, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm more of a "the role of the government is to promote the general welfare of the citizenry, per the Constitution, and it is patriotic duty to pay to help those less fortunate in this country." So yeah, just a difference in philosophies.


Not really. But I know there it is fruitless to argue this point with you.


Plenty of people don't know anything about what they are experiencing. It happens all of the time. As for the money aspect, it isn't just that. It also involves resource allocation and efficiency issues. Those are administrative problems.


When I said "no one," it was implied that it was the individual. And it would be up to the service providers, just as it is now. Except it would be more universal because there would be a single insurer instead of a bunch, but only a couple work with the provider. You would have more freedom of choice than you do now.


Yes we do. Sure, we change some things to make it uniquely American, but we absolutely model ourselves off of others.


People absolutely do get denied emergency care. I know of hospitals that will move the goalposts on what is an emergency based upon what their perception is of the patient's ability to pay. They also get denied non-emergent but absolutely necessary care on a regular basis. Even if they do get the care, it can bankrupt them.

Yeah, you have me confused with someone that suggests we shouldn't pay taxes. Not sure if you did that out of ignorance or on purpose. However, there have been numerous debates over exactly what general welfare encompasses. Does general welfare mean you get for free everything I work for? So yeah, it's a philosophical difference.

Of course it is fruitless to agree the point, because it's exactly what you are saying and your reasoning is "oh well"

You do realize "resources" are money

Apologies for not knowing your implication

And the uniquely American part is where we do not model. We've done pretty good.

The EMTLA disagrees with your assertion here. If you've got issues with what hospitals consider required care; that's a totally different issue.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2018, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it is fruitless to agree the point, because it's exactly what you are saying and your reasoning is "oh well"

It's not. Your assertion is your interpretation and is an over-simplistic misrepresentation of the issue. But it's par for the course, so I kno wit would be fruitless to bother explaining the reasoning.

(07-31-2018, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You do realize "resources" are money

You do realize my comments were in response to you (erroneously) asserting my answer was to "throw more money at it."

(07-31-2018, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And the uniquely American part is where we do not model. We've done pretty good.

On some things. Others, not so much. But we still model a hell of a lot on others.

(07-31-2018, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The EMTLA disagrees with your assertion here. If you've got issues with what hospitals consider required care; that's a totally different issue.  

Much like the Canadian Medicare system, the policy says one thing but the way the policy is executed isn't always as the law intended.

[GMDino]

(07-31-2018, 05:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I believe everyone should be entitled to healthcare. I simply believe more options should be available if you have earned them and/or pay for them. I'm against someone unemployed receiving the same health coverage as an employed individual does. It removes one of the motivations to seeks employment.   

 

This used  to mean something.  For years (decades) getting healthcare was an important part of getting a job.  But for the last 10-15 years those benefits are being cut, employee payment for them is being raised, and sometimes it is not even offered.

On a secondary note I worry about people who think that the "unemployed" don't "deserve" anything that might make their life easier.  That seems to go against the concept that we are a "Christian Nation" and against the idea of us being the greatest country in the world.

If we do not take care of those who need it who are we taking care of?

But you're the expert (probably) so I'm sure it will be explained.

[Belsnickel]

(08-01-2018, 09:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: On a secondary note I worry about people who think that the "unemployed" don't "deserve" anything that might make their life easier.  That seems to go against the concept that we are a "Christian Nation" and against the idea of us being the greatest country in the world.

If we do not take care of those who need it who are we taking care of?

It's like the FDR quote in my sig.