Healthcare bill debate passed

[Carmen813]

The UK (and some others have similar) have a NICE which does cost analysis and approval that basically say whether or not they'll pay for certain things/treatments based on cost.

We have that in America too.

 

[blackangst1]

East/West? I've lived on both coasts. Maybe you're just stuck on 'incomprehensible'.

That may be. The east/west comment was referring to your responses, thus your understanding of what I wrote, had nothing to do with what I wrote, and was as far from it as the east is from the west.

I think you are mistaking the systems paying certain prices for treatments as an edict from on high that forces people to conform and that's simply not accurate. Their prices are not artificially low, ours our artificially high.

I know you wont agree with this, but when you have price differences as there are between us and other countries, and look at the fact that we have, for the most part, a free market, and other countries' governments dictate price, Im inclined to believe that free market prices are correct. I believe the correct price for something (anything) is the price people will pay.

In other words, I believe you are wrong in your statement.

edit: and its funny how the grass is always greener isnt it?

http://www.treatitabroad.co.uk/ComparingMedicalCosts.html

On the whole, the cost of travelling abroad for medical treatments should be less expensive than having the same medical treatments in the UK. The large discounts that can be gained by taking a short flight to countries in Europe is one of the main reasons why thousands of people from the UK are now flying abroad for their surgery. Comparing medical costs between the UK and countries abroad is the best way to see exactly why people are travelling abroad for surgery.
Over 50,000 people from the UK travel abroad each year with the sole intention of obtaining high quality, low cost surgery as part of their holiday. The range of surgeries is as diverse as the countries that provide the medical services. Comparing costs of surgery at home and abroad is an important aspect in calculating the final cost of your surgical treatment abroad.





LOL

 

[Carmen813]

Stupak doesn't prevent "gov't subsidized/funded abortion", Hyde already does that. What Stupak does is to prevent any insurance available in the exchange from providing any kind of elective abortion coverage. It goes well beyond already present federal limitations and its quite ironic considering the main rally cry of the tea baggers is that healthcare reform will strip away their freedoms ... with that ammendment, people who purchase their own private insurance from one of the plans in the exchange have already had one decision made for them.

Technically you are incorrect. http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#p=3

The amendment allows plans to cover abortion on the exchange, it just doesn't allow anyone receiving a federal subsidy to purchase a plan that does. In practice, most companies on the exchange will not cover abortions on the exchange in order to maximize the amount of potential customers. This will lead to "abortion insurance," which is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, but that's another story.

I don't see it as being impossible for a single plan to exist where on the only premium some people pay is coverage for abortions (while the subsidy covers the rest of the medical premium).

 

[Pens1566]

Technically you are in correct. http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#p=3

The amendment allows plans to cover abortion on the exchange, it just doesn't allow anyone receiving a federal subsidy to purchase a plan that does. In practice, most companies on the exchange will not cover abortions on the exchange in order to maximize the amount of potential customers. This will lead to "abortion insurance," which is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, but that's another story.

I don't see it as being impossible for a single plan to exist where on the only premium some people pay is coverage for abortions (while the subsidy covers the rest of the medical premium).

Look again. Since its federal funding being used to setup the "exchange", its being suggested that any participating plan will not be allowed to cover the procedure. Which is why a big deal is being made out of the issue.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

With all these alleged 'savings' and 'efficiencies'...shouldn't they be talking tax cuts instead of increases?:awe:

 

[blackangst1]

Look again. Since its federal funding being used to setup the "exchange", its being suggested that any participating plan will not be allowed to cover the procedure. Which is why a big deal is being made out of the issue.

*with the exception of rape, incest, or life endangerment of the mother

 

[blackangst1]

With all these alleged 'savings' and 'efficiencies'...shouldn't they be talking tax cuts instead of increases?:awe:

They are cutting Medicare/Medicaid

Democrats hate old people!

 

[Pens1566]

*with the exception of rape, incest, or life endangerment of the mother

Thats kind of implied ...

 

[Carmen813]

Thats kind of implied ...

Honestly I don't think the abortion thing is the end of the world. It's a procedure that typically costs < $1,000 if performed in the first trimester. I understand why people are upset about it though.

 

[fskimospy]

That may be. The east/west comment was referring to your responses, thus your understanding of what I wrote, had nothing to do with what I wrote, and was as far from it as the east is from the west.


I know you wont agree with this, but when you have price differences as there are between us and other countries, and look at the fact that we have, for the most part, a free market, and other countries' governments dictate price, Im inclined to believe that free market prices are correct. I believe the correct price for something (anything) is the price people will pay.

In other words, I believe you are wrong in your statement.

edit: and its funny how the grass is always greener isnt it?

http://www.treatitabroad.co.uk/ComparingMedicalCosts.html

On the whole, the cost of travelling abroad for medical treatments should be less expensive than having the same medical treatments in the UK. The large discounts that can be gained by taking a short flight to countries in Europe is one of the main reasons why thousands of people from the UK are now flying abroad for their surgery. Comparing medical costs between the UK and countries abroad is the best way to see exactly why people are travelling abroad for surgery.
Over 50,000 people from the UK travel abroad each year with the sole intention of obtaining high quality, low cost surgery as part of their holiday. The range of surgeries is as diverse as the countries that provide the medical services. Comparing costs of surgery at home and abroad is an important aspect in calculating the final cost of your surgical treatment abroad.

LOL

So the 'correct price that people will pay' when they band together in large groups is artificially low, but the correct price due to the massive concentration of medical resources here is the 'right price'? That's ridiculous. An artificially low price only exists when it is being subsidized from somewhere else or someone is has chosen to produce something at a loss for whatever reason.

If you can show me that the people providing medical care in Europe have a separate income stream to make up for their money losing medical procedures, then I will agree with you. Otherwise, the price is correct. (note: this subsidy must be outside what is taken into account on the countries' per capita health care spending)

I find it strange that you think that when one country has prices that are 200-300&#37; higher than the rest of the world, that our prices are right and theirs are wrong.

EDIT: Is it just that people have trouble dealing with the fact that sometimes the free market is a failure?

 

[fskimospy]

With all these alleged 'savings' and 'efficiencies'...shouldn't they be talking tax cuts instead of increases?:awe:

No, of course not. They are providing more total care. With a more efficient system you will be getting a tax cut on each and every purchase you make however, as you will no longer have to pay as large a 'Honda health care tax', or a 'Target health care tax' that is built into the price of everything you buy.

Don't you feel better now?

On a side note, I guarantee you that if the government were to increase taxes by $1 trillion a year and provide the exact same services that we pay $2.5 trillion a year to do privately, we would have people shrieking about a tax increase.

 

[fskimospy]

No, you as well are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. It's either that or you take pleasure in arguing for the sake of arguing.

I actually do take pleasure in beating on people like CAD. I have no expectation of him actually participating in this discussion in a rational way, I am only doing it to continue to verbally abuse him.

If he happens to start discussing the issue in a rational and intellectually honest way I'd be glad to engage him in that way. If not, I'm perfectly happy doing this too.

 

[blackangst1]

No, of course not. They are providing more total care. With a more efficient system you will be getting a tax cut on each and every purchase you make however, as you will no longer have to pay as large a 'Honda health care tax', or a 'Target health care tax' that is built into the price of everything you buy.

Don't you feel better now?

On a side note, I guarantee you that if the government were to increase taxes by $1 trillion a year and provide the exact same services that we pay $2.5 trillion a year to do privately, we would have people shrieking about a tax increase.

Can you point to a place in the bill where it will make things "more efficient"? AFAIK we arent adding more providers, but rather more customers, same providers. I have a feeling youre buying the leftist tripe here, but giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[fskimospy]

Can you point to a place in the bill where it will make things "more efficient"? AFAIK we arent adding more providers, but rather more customers, same providers. I have a feeling youre buying the leftist tripe here, but giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not buying any tripe or making any statements as to the overall efficiencies generated (or not) by this bill. I'm just saying that the premise of his statement was flawed and I believe it mostly comes from the fact that people don't realize how much we are taxed by corporations for health care.

EDIT: To be clear, there isn't much point in talking about it until you have a final bill. So much of the system is interconnected that changes in one place have large effects elsewhere.

 

[blackangst1]

So the 'correct price that people will pay' when they band together in large groups is artificially low, but the correct price due to the massive concentration of medical resources here is the 'right price'? That's ridiculous. An artificially low price only exists when it is being subsidized from somewhere else or someone is has chosen to produce something at a loss for whatever reason.

If you can show me that the people providing medical care in Europe have a separate income stream to make up for their money losing medical procedures, then I will agree with you. Otherwise, the price is correct. (note: this subsidy must be outside what is taken into account on the countries' per capita health care spending)

I find it strange that you think that when one country has prices that are 200-300% higher than the rest of the world, that our prices are right and theirs are wrong.

Normally when you and I disagree we have a pretty good raport. Not this week I guess. You are reading things (read: making assumptions) about what I mean about things, that I dont.

Theres another reason for artificially low prices that you didnt mention: mandate.

If you can show me that the people providing medical care in Europe have a separate income stream to make up for their money losing medical procedures, then I will agree with you. Otherwise, the price is correct.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

[fskimospy]

Normally when you and I disagree we have a pretty good raport. Not this week I guess. You are reading things (read: making assumptions) about what I mean about things, that I dont.

Theres another reason for artificially low prices that you didnt mention: mandate.



I guess we'll agree to disagree.

The mandate for what?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The mandate for what?

dinner and movie? :sneaky:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I actually do take pleasure in beating on people like CAD. I have no expectation of him actually participating in this discussion in a rational way, I am only doing it to continue to verbally abuse him.

If he happens to start discussing the issue in a rational and intellectually honest way I'd be glad to engage him in that way. If not, I'm perfectly happy doing this too.

"beating"? :biggrin: Sure, if you say so dear. You refuse to address the concepts and yet whine like a little bitch that I haven't answered your asinine/irrelevant questions but instead opted to steer you to the answers? Poor little eskipie...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

EDIT: Is it just that people have trouble dealing with the fact that sometimes the free market is a failure?

We have a free market for healthcare?




.... sure seems like I've asked this type of question in this thread... hmmm...

 

[fskimospy]

"beating"? :biggrin: Sure, if you say so dear. You refuse to address the concepts and yet whine like a little bitch that I haven't answered your asinine/irrelevant questions but instead opted to steer you to the answers? Poor little eskipie...

For the second time, you're no Socrates.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm not buying any tripe or making any statements as to the overall efficiencies generated (or not) by this bill. I'm just saying that the premise of his statement was flawed and I believe it mostly comes from the fact that people don't realize how much we are taxed by corporations for health care.

EDIT: To be clear, there isn't much point in talking about it until you have a final bill. So much of the system is interconnected that changes in one place have large effects elsewhere.

Fair enough.

:beer:

 

[blackangst1]

The mandate for what?

The UK mandates its pricing. Not as directly as Japan, but end result is the same. Again, with a single payer system you can.

 

[blackangst1]

We have a free market for healthcare?




.... sure seems like I've asked this type of question in this thread... hmmm...

Comparatively, yes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Comparatively, yes.

That's where eskipie got stuck before, the idea that comparisons are valid in determining definitions/outcomes when the subject isn't a relative one, but rather an either/or one.

Sure, relative to socialist countries - we have a more free-market system. That doesn't mean we have a free-market system though.

 

[blackangst1]

That's where eskipie got stuck before, the idea that comparisons are valid in determining definitions/outcomes when the subject isn't a relative one, but rather an either/or one.

Sure, relative to socialist countries - we have a more free-market system. That doesn't mean we have a free-market system though.

But comparisons are perfectly valid. There are some, for example, that say we're headed towards a 3rd world country. Or that our poor are suffering soooo much. LOL

Compared to fucking what? It's narrow minded. You cannot base a definition on something based on what you think it should be. It has to be based on comparatives. For example, in our country the median salary is what....just over $50,000. So, $1 mill is alot of money. BUT! If, say, the median salary was $500,000, $1 mill isnt that much.

Get it?