Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    They do push preventative care. Trouble is it's entirely up to the individual to go in for it, and then listen to what the doctor says.


    The trouble is that the "preventative care" that they push is generally wrong and usually involves drugs that do more harm than good (statins anyone?) or even worse, unnecessary operations. It's not the fault of the general population that they don't have the time or inclination to do the research themselves and just trust in the doc.


    But again, that's topic for another forum.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    They do push preventative care. Trouble is it's entirely up to the individual to go in for it, and then listen to what the doctor says.

     


    The trouble is that the "preventative care" that they push is generally wrong and usually involves drugs that do more harm than good (statins anyone?) or even worse, unnecessary operations. It's not the fault of the general population that they don't have the time or inclination to do the research themselves and just trust in the doc.


    But again, that's topic for another forum.

     



    What kind of preventative care are you referring to that involves drugs? And how do you know if doctors push the wrong kind of preventative care? Is there hard evidence backing this up? 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    Pauls  "Clarification:

    health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care

    So they will decide what is "extreme care"?

    Will whether it's extreme be based on the persons age with regards to their illness?

    will it be likely hood of recovery that decides?

    How will extreme cases be decided? Because the bottom line is some people will not get the medical help they need due the govt thinks it cost to much to make it worth it for them!!

    yay The govt decides who has to die and who gets the chance to live based on how much it costs!!!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    Thank you. This mainly confirms my suspicions: There isn't mcuh of anything government can do to address health care costs, short of going single-payer.

     

     

    Mostly it just confirms your confirmation bias. The truth is that the healthcare industry, not being exempt from the laws of economics, will only become more efficient and less costly through genuine competition. That, and changing how allopathic doctors insist on treating the symptoms instead of the causes of disease but that's a topic for a different forum.

     



    The actual evidence on this issue supports the exact opposite of your contention.  We have the most competitition in terms of healthcare plans of any industrial nation, but we also have the most expensive system.  And of course a more competitive system will also exclude people unable to pay.  In both regards we will be less "efficient" than others.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    Health Insurers Warn on Premiums

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-insurers-warn-premiums-030100423.html

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    The fact of the matter is we regularly spend a million bucks plus to keep someone alive a few extra weeks. Is it really so evil to ask "what is the point of that?"




    It's extremely rare that the costs are a million bucks for few week; more like tens of thousands and YES it is immoral totell people "we could extend your life for a time but, it's too expense so, sorry but, grandma is going to have to die sooner than she has to!

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    the bottom line is some people will not get the medical help they need due the govt thinks it cost to much to make it worth it for them!

     

    What do you think insurance policy caps and refusing to pick up people with pre-existig conditions was about?

    The fact of the matter is we regularly spend a million bucks plus to keep someone alive a few extra weeks. Is it really so evil to ask "what is the point of that?" I really need to get around to writing a living will so that doesn't happen to me.



    Medicare pays out approximately 50-55 billion dollars for treatment in the last two months of life. Having a plan between doctor and patient about end of life medical treatment seems highly appropriate.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:



    Medicare pays out approximately 50-55 billion dollars for treatment in the last two months of life. Having a plan between doctor and patient about end of life medical treatment seems highly appropriate.

    [QUOTE]

    Thats in total not per patient!!! How many patients and over how many years or decades is this number accounting for?

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    Well it's up to the patient, not government, to make that happen, thereby reducing that patient's long-term costs.

     

    Well, we agree on that much. Ultimately it's up to each individual to be responsible for his/her own health.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    YES it is immoral totell people "we could extend your life for a time but, it's too expense so grandma has to die.



    But things like slashing unemployment, slashing food aid, etc., ....that's not immoral?

    [QUOTE]

    No it's unfortunate but, it is not telling a person they have to die because we dont think extending grandma's life is an economic priority!

     




     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:



    Medicare pays out approximately 50-55 billion dollars for treatment in the last two months of life. Having a plan between doctor and patient about end of life medical treatment seems highly appropriate.

    [QUOTE]

    Thats in total not per patient!!! How many patients and over how many years or decades is this number accounting for?

     



    No kidding.... it is not for one person.... Wow, you are a real bright one...

    But it is still a huge amount of money spent for all people at a time when they are going to die anyway.  Our system rewards doctors for engaging in this kind of treatment, treatment that does not really help the patient not society in general.  You cannot wipe out all of this outlay, but 20-30% is considered inappropriate.  That's money that we could use elsewhere.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    YES it is immoral totell people "we could extend your life for a time but, it's too expense so grandma has to die.



    But things like slashing unemployment, slashing food aid, etc., ....that's not immoral?

    [QUOTE]

    No it's unfortunate but, it is not telling a person they have to die because we dont think extending grandma's life is an economic priority!



    You apparently have no knowledge of end of life decisionmaking.  It's not about "economics" it's about quality of life.  Doctors talk about possible procedures and results and leave the conclusion of whether it is "worth it" to the patient and the family.  And "worth it" is not about money.  

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    Our system rewards doctors for engaging in this kind of treatment, treatment that does not really help the patient not society in general.  You cannot wipe out all of this outlay, but 20-30% is considered inappropriate.  That's money that we could use elsewhere.

     



    Would you rather doctors just told the old geezers to go home and die quietly?

     



    Sure that is exactly what I am saying...  Are you naturally obnoxious or did you have to get training?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    Our system rewards doctors for engaging in this kind of treatment, treatment that does not really help the patient not society in general.  You cannot wipe out all of this outlay, but 20-30% is considered inappropriate.  That's money that we could use elsewhere.

     



    Would you rather doctors just told the old geezers to go home and die quietly?

     

     



    Sure that is exactly what I am saying...  Are you naturally obnoxious or did you have to get training?

     



    Based on your post it does seem you are saying that. Don't get mad at me for reading what you wrote instead of what you meant to write.

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    Thank you. This mainly confirms my suspicions: There isn't mcuh of anything government can do to address health care costs, short of going single-payer.

    Removing special trust status is something government could do. But bear in mind that an insurer must be of a sufficiently great size because it needs a big risk pool to work. The market only supports so many large insurers. Forcing them to go smaller might result in more failing.


    Individuals makin themselves healthy. I obviously agree with that, but again, that's not something we can say government fails us in making happen. Apart from putting out information there really isn't anything it can do - at least, not without stepping on some seriously slippersly slopes (ie, a weight tax; mandated exercise - Orwellian stuff).

     

    "no benefits to anyone who is not here legally"? Like what?

    Currently, hospitals have to stabalize anyone who is brought in an emergency. You don't want us to get rid of that, do you? It would mean that if you were unconscious and you didn't have enough identifying information with you - maybe you got hit by a car while jogging, without your wallet - you just die. So we can't get rid of that.

    How many benefits to illegals really get, and how much does it really cost? Especially compared to the overall system costs?

     

    "Service providers should be given the right to refuse treatment to people that cannot show an ability to pay. This might only apply to non-life threatening treatments. Can't let people be irresponsible, not have a doctor and then inflict the high cost of their stupidity on the rest of us"

    Well that's what the mandate does. You buy in, or if you don't, you pay a tax to defray other costs of the program.

    And I'm pretty sure that service providers can refuse people who do not have insurance and cannot pay. Unless, of course, they are brought to a hospital in a life threatening emergency.

     

     

    To sum up: The problem with health care costs under the current system is that it largely depends on individuals choosing to engage in the right behaviors. Obamacare goes pretty much as far as government can go without aiming itself at 1984 - by coercing people to buy insurance. Absent single-payer, there isn't much more it can do. Hence, why I've largely defended Obamacare.

    It's a fine pickle we're in.

    Meanwhile, more treatments and more medicines are being discovered yearly. The more that can be treated, the more doctors are ethically obligated to treat, the more health care costs there are, the fault of nothing but human innovation.

    So there's that, too.

     

     

     

     



    WHat can the government do? Well aside from the anti-trust stuff, they could get out of the way and allow insurers to segregate risks by behaviors. That would proovide financial incentives for people to take care of themselves. 

     

    You want to smoke? Fine, then you pay for your own health care or find an insurer that accepts your behavior and charges you much more to cover the risk.

    Right now as it is the true costs of our bad decisions around taking care of ourselves is hidden and it is spread out over the population unfairly.

     



    The only problem is those people would never be able to afford the premiums because of their high risk. As a result the govt would never allow that kind of system

    Even if they did I doubt the higher premiums would still be incentive enough. If someone can allow themselves to be grossly obese then that tells me there really isn't anything that could ever motivate them. If one can look at themselves in a mirror and not be disgusted enough to make a change then nothing will.

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    As you love to point out so much, there is only so much money in the world. What if it turns out that we literally cannot afford to provide every possible treatment to every single person all of the time?




    When we stop paying for cell phones and do nothing to stop fraud in so many programs, paying to explore rocks in the desert and snow bunnies in the artic, let alone PBS, PPH, and the thousands of other pet projects that our crooked politicans add on to bills. If we still dont have enough money then I guess let grandma die early!

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.


    Biden's One-Night Paris Hotel Tab: $585,000.50...
    $459,388.65 Hotel Bill in London...

    How many days would that buy Grandma to live???

     

    OBAMACARE: 6 in 10 physicians will retire earlier than planned...

    Official: 'Let's just make sure it's not a third-world experience'...

    Three years later, healthcare law even more unpopular...

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    Well, no, I didn't grab from Brietbart.  I wish I had.  Brietbart was one of the few people that would stand up to the bullies on the left.

     

    Look, I get you a Nobel Prize winning economist from the left saying we are going to have to insititute death panels  in order for Obamacare to work, and you still find a problem with it.

    You are beyond salvage.

     

     




    The difference is that Krugman's comment was a joke.  Palin's use the same term was no joke. 

     



    Ah, no, it wasn't joke.  You just can't understand what he explained above the "joke".

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    lol what a tool! Obama did not write or vote on the HCR bill. It was Dingy Harry and Pelosi that ran backroom deals and locked out debate to any alternatives. They are who that I blame. Yet there is infinite money for cell phones, unemployment, PBS, Planned parenthood, foriegn aid but, grandma has to die sooner because we cant afford it?? oh ok those are your priorities!



    How about you address the problem rather than hiding behind political snipes at Obama:

     

    As you love to point out so much, there is only so much money in the world. What if it turns out that we literally cannot afford to provide every possible treatment to every single person all of the time?

    Again, tvoter.

    The problem is your position assumes there is infinite money. Or at least, that if there is finite money, it must first be allocated to healthcare before anything else.

    And don't you realize that the old system was simply that when people hit their lifetime cap (or if they were uninsured), they would go to the ER. The ER would then stabalize them but NOT necessarily engage in every last last-day treament. And they would end up dying. And we would end up paying the cost? 

    Your posts seem to assume that before Obamacare, everyone was getting every last treatment possible, and then big mean Obama came in and rationed it away from them.

    That is not reality.

     



    And you seem to think that government control, ie. Obamacare solves the infinite money problem.

    and why should money be allocated to healtcare first.  As a free person, isn't it my choice what I do with may money? Isn't it up to me where I allocate it first?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

    I think it is time to remind the left about the dimwitedness of their position that the government must control everything with the oft cited milt Friedman Phil Donahue debate, though it is unfair to call it a debate, as Friedman stomps every liberal ideal Donahue puts before him.

     

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E1lWk4TCe4U

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Uh oh. Paul Krugman, not Sarah Palin.

     

Share