Another Federal Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional

[PeshakJang]

So, the government is inefficient and therefore we shouldn't have socialized healthcare?

If your goal is to reduce current costs while maintaining quality of service, then yes.

Seriously, your argument is nothing but bunch of meaningless, anecdotal buzzwords.

Every point you have brought up in this discussion has been either an anecdote or an opinion. If you want to ignore the facts I've presented to you , then fine, but you shouldn't be so critical.

Yes.

Facts disagree with you. Problem is, when you talk about government efficiency, you can't just look at one area or another to measure efficiency, because most programs are funded from the general fund, and unfortunately, a large amount of the general fund is borrowed money.

Anecdotally, I can tell you that doctors are paid far, far less for their services under medicare/medicaid, and if given the option, would not accept it. Unless you are hurting bad for patients, you're losing money accepting medicaid in most instances.

 

[PeshakJang]

1 Billion dollars, is quite a bit of money and that just based of their financial report, I wonder what would happen if we didn't include any of their lobbying efforts.

Wellpoint spent about $21 million lobbying in 2010. Literally a fraction of a fraction of a penny for every policyholder they cover.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=Blue+Cross/Blue+Shield&year=2010

In contrast, the government spent about $150 million on the presidential inauguration in 2009, or about 7.5 times more. Think about how many people they could have bought insurance for.

 

[Tab]

If your goal is to reduce current costs while maintaining quality of service, then yes.

Then why shouldn't we do the same for our police and firefighters, you reasoning was because the Constitution says so? We could easily set-up for profit policing and fire protection.

Every point you have brought up in this discussion has been either an anecdote or an opinion. If you want to ignore the facts I've presented to you , then fine, but you shouldn't be so critical.

Not true.

Facts disagree with you.

Too bad, they don't. Your argument, is, literally healthcare would be too expensive when costs would decrease and socialized healthcare would be nothing, especially if we were to reduce our defense budget is bloated and enormous.

Problem is, when you talk about government efficiency, you can't just look at one area or another to measure efficiency, because most programs are funded from the general fund, and unfortunately, a large amount of the general fund is borrowed money.

Okay?

Anecdotally, I can tell you that doctors are paid far, far less for their services under medicare/medicaid, and if given the option, would not accept it. Unless you are hurting bad for patients, you're losing money accepting medicaid in most instances.

Most doctors are losing when accepting medicad? Source?

 

[Tab]

Wellpoint spent about $21 million lobbying in 2010. Literally a fraction of a fraction of a penny for every policyholder they cover.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=Blue+Cross/Blue+Shield&year=2010

$21 million dollars, is substantial amount of money.

In contrast, the government spent about $150 million on the presidential inauguration in 2009, or about 7.5 times more. Think about how many people they could have bought insurance for.

If true, I'd like to see that reduced.

 

[soundforbjt]

If you honestly think Wellpoint only makes approx $30.00 per person they insure a year, then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. Why be in the business? I'm sure they're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

Included in their "expenses" are lavish vacations for the top people with Grammy winning entertainers (I know this because I worked for an entertainer that did a one night show in Austrailia for a big U.S. insurance co.). They flew us there for 5 days and 6 nights (we only worked one night) paid all of our expenses including first-class flight to and from ($10K\per person) stayed at a 5 star hotel, etc. Yeah they're hurting in that business.

Why do they pay millions for a team of lawyers working mostly to deny coverage as do most insurance companies?

Someone (maybe you) posed the question as to why pharma would bother to develop drugs if not for big profits? How about for the benefit for his fellow man? I'm pretty sure penicillin wasn't developed because of the promise of wealth.

The healthcare industry in this country is so greedy, they've forgotten the very oath doctors take. Not everything must be done for a huge profit.

 

[PeshakJang]

Then why shouldn't we do the same for our police and firefighters, you reasoning was because the Constitution says so? We could easily set-up for profit policing and fire protection.

We have for-profit security, for-profit fire services, and for-profit ambulance services. The difference, that being the nature of the public services of police and fire are such that competition is not possible.

Like I've said a couple times already, it's an invalid comparison due to the nature of the services being provided, and the authority being granted.

Not true.

Your argument opened with an anecdote about your own medical situation and the conclusions you drew about the company, and you went on to talk about fairness of how much money individuals are making, drifting back and forth between opinion and anecdote. I've replied to a good number of your posts with facts and hard figures, which you have summarily ignored in favor of rhetoric and more personal anecdotal feelings.

Too bad, they don't. Your argument, is, literally healthcare would be too expensive when costs would decrease and socialized healthcare would be nothing, especially if we were to reduce our defense budget is bloated and enormous.

Your interpretation of my position is barely intelligible, but yes, forcing costs down artificially, which is what you are proposing, would cost us far more in terms of innovation, quality of service, and eventually costs to taxpayers.

So far, your position consists of your opinion of what is "fair", along with claims that for-profit insurance companies are the reason costs are so high, despite the facts that I provided. Your position, like so many on the left, is based on feelings of what is "fair" and "right", while you ignore the realities of the situation.

Most doctors are losing when accepting medicad? Source?

Why should I give you a source for this? You've ignored every other fact I've posted... what makes you so curious now?

I said, anecdotally, which by this point in the argument, I don't believe you understand what that means. My girlfriend is a dentist with a private practice and with a larger office. Medicaid reimbursement for services is so low that the private office cannot accept it without losing money. Larger offices are able to accept these plans because they can handle a much larger throughput, so the volume makes up for the low reimbursement. It's like the Wal-Mart of medical services.

 

[PeshakJang]

$21 million dollars, is substantial amount of money.

If you believe your own statement, then there is no logical way that you could support government run anything, because $21 million is literally meaningless in the scope of the federal government.

 

[PeshakJang]

If you honestly think Wellpoint only makes approx $30.00 per person they insure a year, then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. Why be in the business? I'm sure they're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

I posted the numbers, if you don't want to believe them, that's on you. Facts are facts.

Included in their "expenses" are lavish vacations for the top people with Grammy winning entertainers (I know this because I worked for an entertainer that did a one night show in Austrailia for a big U.S. insurance co.). They flew us there for 5 days and 6 nights (we only worked one night) paid all of our expenses including first-class flight to and from ($10K\per person) stayed at a 5 star hotel, etc. Yeah they're hurting in that business.

So there are abuses, just like there are abuses everywhere large sums of money are involved. If you believe that similar abuses don't happen in the federal government, then I've got a bridge to sell back to you.

Why do they pay millions for a team of lawyers working mostly to deny coverage as do most insurance companies?

Same reason the federal government does. You think they don't have lawyers working for Medicaid? If they had a few more, maybe they wouldn't have so much fraud.

Someone (maybe you) posed the question as to why pharma would bother to develop drugs if not for big profits? How about for the benefit for his fellow man? I'm pretty sure penicillin wasn't developed because of the promise of wealth.

Ironic, since the discovery of penicillin basically led to the development of the modern pharmaceutical industry.

Also, the majority of "big profits" pharma companies make are plowed back into R&D to develop tomorrow's drugs. If they don't, they don't exist in 10 years.

The healthcare industry in this country is so greedy, they've forgotten the very oath doctors take. Not everything must be done for a profit.

So who decides how much doctors should get paid?

 

[Tab]

Like I've said a couple times already, it's an invalid comparison due to the nature of the services being provided, and the authority being granted.

No, they're not. They're both assistance, protection. Heathcare is, essentially, no different.

I've replied to a good number of your posts with facts and hard figures, which you have summarily ignored in favor of rhetoric and more personal anecdotal feelings.

And, you have your idealogical blinders and enjoy spewing FUD, hence that comment; Nobody read the bill!

Your interpretation of my position is barely intelligible, but yes, forcing costs down artificially, which is what you are proposing, would cost us far more in terms of innovation, quality of service, and eventually costs to taxpayers.

The quality of service that is provided in other countries is essentially the same, and the innovation would still exist as we're leaving big pharm and other medically related industries alone.

So far, your position consists of your opinion of what is "fair", along with claims that for-profit insurance companies are the reason costs are so high.

Your position, is what exactly then?

No, that's only one of my reason. No where did I say that was reasons, again, you consistently keep mis-representing my position.

Why should I give you a source for this? You've ignored every other fact I've posted... what makes you so curious now?

You haven't posted a source to anything at all and I haven't ignore any facts, they're just wrong or not facts to begin with.

If you believe your own statement, then there is no logical way that you could support government run anything, because $21 million is literally meaningless in the scope of the federal government.

If the system were socialized, those millions and millions of dollars would add up.

 

[PeshakJang]

No, they're not. They're both assistance, protection. Heathcare is, essentially, no different.

So there is no difference between health insurance and mail delivery? They're both services.

And, you have your idealogical blinders and enjoy spewing FUD, hence that comment; Nobody read the bill!

How many politicians who voted on the bill read it? Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrat's in the house, said that we had to pass it to find out what is in it. That's not FUD, that's fact.

The quality of service that is provided in other countries is essentially the same, and the innovation would still exist as we're leaving big pharm and other medically related industries alone.

No, you're not. If you socialize the market that an industry operates in, you necessarily affect that industry. If the government becomes your largest consumer, and eventually your only consumer, only a consumer with the force of law, that is necessarily going to affect you.

Your position, is what exactly then?

That the current government plan to "fix" healthcare will do nothing to that end, and will in fact probably cause more harm in terms of added public costs, reduced quality of services for the majority of America, and slowed innovation and advancement. Modest, reasonable reforms are needed, with minimal government involvement, but the current proposals do *nothing* to solve the underlying problem, which is increased demand for service in high-cost conditions and end-of-life care.

In summary, we are trying to modify the end result of supply vs demand, while ignoring the two variables in the equation.

No, that's only one of my reason. No where did I say that was reasons, again, you consistently keep mis-representing my position.

You've mentioned profit more than a few times. You've stated that removing the for-profit aspect will necessarily lower costs without affecting any other aspect of the system.

You asked how we would reduce costs, I said we'd remove the for-profit element which would reduce costs.

You've also made pretty silly statements like

If, we, decide we want to live long as possible and costs be damned so be it.

Leading me to believe you have no real grasp of the costs of health care.

If health costs in the US cost the government $5 trillion a year, so be it. Costs be damned. Right? No profit involved so everything is good, right?

You haven't posted a source to anything at all and I haven't ignore any facts, they're just wrong or not facts to begin with.

Everything I've gotten is from Wellpoint's 10K, the CDC, and the Mdicare/Medicaid Admin's website. Your ability to recognize facts is not of my concern.

If the system were socialized, those millions and millions of dollars would add up.

The federal government is socialized. Nobody there seems to share your thinking.

 

[werepossum]

The facts (which are easily accessable) is that the Western worlds population is aging. There are many nations that are far ahead of us in per capita cost increases, and I cited the UK as an example because you used them earlier. That cost tend must increase for all of the industrialized nations with an elderly population. Taking care of people is not a unit of production because time is a necessary component in health care and it's generally agreed among those who provide it that we've gone beyond what is prudent. It's not just a matter of cost, it's about adequate, focused interaction. That does not scale up because providers already at capacity. Increasing output means lowering quality. So the solution is to increase capacity and means more money. Governments are aware of it but no one wants to give bad news, so we have these distractions of band aid solutions which will increase costs but feel good.

The crisis is already upon us and we'll collectively ignore or misrepresent it.

We're experiencing the beginning of what Japan has been suffering through, but (begin sweeping generalizations) we are not Japan. We are much less homogeneous (meaning diagnostics and treatments have to work efficiently across a much broader spectrum of humanity.) We are much fatter. We are much more violent. We are much more sedentary. We eat much less heart-healthy diets. We are much blacker (black folks suffer higher rates of most serious diseases, not least because doctors have less experience diagnosing symptoms with darker skin and because drug companies tend to use homogeneous white trial subjects, but mostly because blacks are statistically more American in almost every bad habit we have.) We have many more guns; in fact, we have more dangerous hobbies in general. We drive much more, and farther, and faster. We also have higher expectations. And we are much more lawsuit happy.

Frankly I don't see how any health care system can maintain what we have enjoyed as the baby boomers retire and age, especially since we are hemorrhaging wealth creating jobs. I think we are going to have to return to wards versus semi-private rooms, elderly staying with relatives where possible, less aggressive end-of-life care, and other things not normally associated with American health care. Single payer solves some problems while it also brings new ones, but the biggest thing is that no socialized health care system is going to be able to care for Americans without managing us like cattle. Personally I'd like to see more health savings accounts and more personal responsibility, but I think the trend is clearly toward less personal responsibility and more centralized decision making - mostly by people with zero experience or knowledge of medicine.

 

[theeedude]

Aging baby boomers are all the more reason to make sure we keep our young people healthy and productive by guaranteeing that they have proper coverage.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Aging baby boomers are all the more reason to make sure we keep our young people healthy and productive by guaranteeing that they have proper coverage.

Get back to work!

 

[Tab]

So there is no difference between health insurance and mail delivery? They're both services.

I'm specifically referring to your comment regarding the reasoning behind police and fire services. Or did you not read what I quoted?

How many politicians who voted on the bill read it? Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrat's in the house, said that we had to pass it to find out what is in it. That's not FUD, that's fact.

Nobody read the bill in it's entirety, that's what they're referring to.

In summary, we are trying to modify the end result of supply vs demand, while ignoring the two variables in the equation.

And your solution moderate reforms include, and it's impossible to have, reform without government intrusion.

You've mentioned profit more than a few times. You've stated that removing the for-profit aspect will necessarily lower costs without affecting any other aspect of the system.

And you just skipped over the part were I pointed out you mis-represented my position?

Removing the for-profit element in healthcare providing would certainly change things, as I said before, big pharm and the other medical-related industries would still exist.

If health costs in the US cost the government $5 trillion a year, so be it. Costs be damned. Right? No profit involved so everything is good, right?

Again, out of context. I said, if the United States, collectively decides this, then yes. And the idea it would reach $7 Trillion is absolutely obscene and a logical fallacy.

Everything I've gotten is from Wellpoint's 10K, the CDC, and the Mdicare/Medicaid Admin's website. Your ability to recognize facts is not of my concern.

My apologies, thought I'm still interested in seeing a source that states that most doctors don't accept medi* due to they don't make money.

The federal government is socialized. Nobody there seems to share your thinking.

Are you, high? If the Government were to takeover the whole government system overnight, there would be a substantial savings, no more lobbying required.

 

[Tab]

Personally I'd like to see more health savings accounts and more personal responsibility, but I think the trend is clearly toward less personal responsibility and more centralized decision making - mostly by people with zero experience or knowledge of medicine.

Right, go read the hundreds of stories regarding those whom still can't get or afford healthcare. Not a single one of them is due to personal responsibility.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If health costs in the US cost the government $5 trillion a year, so be it. Costs be damned. Right? No profit involved so everything is good, right?

You are arguing with someone who has no understanding of the system and doesn't want to. You are trying to convert a 6 Day Creationist to evolution. I mean be my guest and all because it might be entertaining, but it isn't edifying.

 

[xj0hnx]

Are you, high?

If the Government were to takeover the whole government system overnight, there would be a substantial savings, no more lobbying required.

If the government were to take over the whole government? Are YOU high?

Or did you mean to say if the government took over the whole health care system there would be substantial savings? If you think that you are extremely deluded.

 

[Tab]

I can sort-of, relate to the default attitude towards towards government, authority and in-general politics. Yea, many people are skeptical and have a reason to be, but I think lately it's gotten out of out control; completely. The idea that one can simply argue, correctly against by simply smugly stating thats it's "socialist" or general references towards inefficiency are completely baseless, unfounded and most of just plain immature.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

 

[PeshakJang]

I'm specifically referring to your comment regarding the reasoning behind police and fire services. Or did you not read what I quoted?

Ok, I can't win an argument with somebody who doesn't know what side they are arguing on from post to post.

You brought up police and fire. I said that it isn't a valid direct comparison due to the nature of the systems. You said they are both services provided for the common good. I said so is the mail. Now you are arguing for... what exactly?

Nobody read the bill in it's entirety, that's what they're referring to.

Nobody COULD, because it was of such massive size, with so little time before the vote, that NOBODY had any idea what the exact outcome of it would be... yet so many claimed that *whatever was in it* would save our health care system. So many people contributed so many different things to it, that there is was no possibility for anybody or any group to fully understand what the outcome would be from enacting it.

And your solution moderate reforms include, and it's impossible to have, reform without government intrusion.

You know what I mean. There is a difference between enacting reasonable regulations, and creating an entirely new bureaucracy to do *NOBODY KNOWS BECAUSE NOBODY UNDERSTOOD THE BILL*.

And you just skipped over the part were I pointed out you mis-represented my position?

Please state your position then, because every time I try to comment on it you simply insist that I am misrepresenting your position, or not arguing facts, or using anecdotes. Every time I post one of my positions, and back it up with facts, you simply insist that the facts are wrong, and that you're being misrepresented. So please, go ahead.

Removing the for-profit element in healthcare providing would certainly change things, as I said before, big pharm and the other medical-related industries would still exist.

There you go again... insisting something will be just because you think it will. If you missed it earlier... not-for-profit insurance companies raise their rates basically at the same rate as for-profit companies... which I also pointed out, even the largest insurance company in the US makes extremely modest profits, contrary to your anecdotal claims.

Again, out of context. I said, if the United States, collectively decides this, then yes. And the idea it would reach $7 Trillion is absolutely obscene and a logical fallacy.

The $5 trillion figure is simply an illustration of something being too much for us to afford. You said COSTS DON'T MATTER. That is what YOU said. COSTS DON'T MATTER. So if we decide to spend $10 trillion a year to make sure everybody has access to any medical procedure, any time of day or night, no expenses spared... even if it cost us 3x our national GDP... COSTS DON'T MATTER.

There is no mis-characterization going on here. That is your explicitly stated position. You said COSTS BE DAMNED, as long as we want something, COSTS DON'T MATTER.

My apologies, thought I'm still interested in seeing a source that states that most doctors don't accept medi* due to they don't make money.

Ok, we keep talking about anecdotes here... let's take a break...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdote

Now maybe the previous 10 pages will make more sense to you.

Why is it that you demand sources for the 1 thing that I myself qualified as anecdotal, since I have personal knowledge of it, yet for everything else in which I provide facts, numbers, quantifiable evidence, you simply ignore my point or claim it is fictional?

Are you, high? If the Government were to takeover the whole government system overnight, there would be a substantial savings, no more lobbying required.

I'll defer to the other poster on this... you're hurting my head.

PS... on the subject of lobbying... who is to blame? The companies that spend money trying to influence congressmen? Or the congressmen who take the money?

Again... Wellpoint spent about $21 million lobbying in 2010. Take that money and apply it to reduced premiums for all 33.7 million policy holders. What is the net effect?

 

[PeshakJang]

I can sort-of, relate to the default attitude towards towards government, authority and in-general politics. Yea, many people are skeptical and have a reason to be, but I think lately it's gotten out of out control; completely. The idea that one can simply argue, correctly against by simply smugly stating thats it's "socialist" or general references towards inefficiency are completely baseless, unfounded and most of just plain immature.

I thank you for at least being civil during our argument... but I can't continue. You've ignored about every one of my points, and discounted the rest by simply making a counter-claim with zero supporting evidence.

To paraphrase yourself, the idea that one can simply argue by stating that something is "unfair", or something is "good for everyone", or some other similarly subjective descriptor, or make comments like "infinitely more efficient and ethical" despite what real-world evidence suggests, is insane, and a trap that so many fall into when arguing for something that would be great in theory, but would not work in practice.

Have a good night. Take care of your back.

 

[xj0hnx]

I can sort-of, relate to the default attitude towards towards government, authority and in-general politics. Yea, many people are skeptical and have a reason to be, but I think lately it's gotten out of out control; completely. The idea that one can simply argue, correctly against by simply smugly stating thats it's "socialist" or general references towards inefficiency are completely baseless, unfounded and most of just plain immature.

Funny, that's what we think about people that argue that government could handle health care efficiently. Big government has proven time and time again that it is not efficient. Some of the saner people round here have huge reservations about handing over such a large portion of our economy to a body that has no incentive to operate efficiently.

 

[theeedude]

Anti-Obamacare crew is the one that believes this kind of Creationist nonsense, like they believed Saddam being involved in 9/11, or trickle-down economics working, or Republicans being able to govern.
Reality of course is that in every other civilized country, the healthcare system is tightly controlled by the government, like a public utility that it is, and they get much lower costs with better results. While the same crew that has been wrong time and again is telling us to just wait for the free market to take care of it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Anti-Obamacare crew is the one that believes this kind of Creationist nonsense, like they believed Saddam being involved in 9/11, or trickle-down economics working, or Republicans being able to govern.
Reality of course is that in every other civilized country, the healthcare system is tightly controlled by the government, like a public utility that it is, and they get much lower costs with better results. While the same crew that has been wrong time and again is telling us to just wait for the free market to take care of it.

There isn't free market health care and nothing has been done to address or even consider the far greater problems I've mentioned. In fact they all mysteriously go away when the government takes over, as you've seen from the posts of others. That's magical thinking, and it's indeed like 6 day Creation. No answers, but a lot of faith. In every other civilized country those who are in control are pooping their pants if their demographics have a substantial aging population.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, and I didn't believe in trickle down or Iraq or the other stuff, but that does not obligate me to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Healthcare.