I get a kick out of listening to MSNBC then FOX. One side reports how many tens of thousands have signed up already and many who are very happy with what they got; the other side reports the stories of people who said they would pay more and get less. One side reports death panels, the other side reports end of life counseling. One side has anecdotal stories about how efficient and effective the Canadian system was for them; the other has anecdotal stories about how slow and ineffective the Canadian system was for them.
I wonder if in a couple of years we’ll be having people say about ACA the equivalent of the TV scene where the old woman at one of the first Tea Parties rallies said something like, “Get the government out of my life, and don’t touch my Medicare”? 
Occam
I wonder if in a couple of years we'll be having people say about ACA the equivalent of the TV scene where the old woman at one of the first Tea Parties rallies said something like, "Get the government out of my life, and don't touch my Medicare"? :) OccamYou mean "history" based on unverified legend? There's a good chance. You already believe that an early tea party rally featured a lady opposing government involvement in her Medicare (either that or your spinning the legend yourself, though I'm eager to offer the benefit of the doubt).
I'm not addressing your content.That's typical. No it's not typical. I have addressed your content in the preceding couple of pages. I addressed your tort reform, MSA and Insurance regulations bit. I addressed your insistence that the deficit is a reason why we should allow people to go without health insurance. There's a few things right there. Let's take MSAs again. Who's going to put the money in all of those accounts? If it's the employer or the government guess who the onus will fall on for telling people how they can spend the money? Everybody BUT the account holder. The doctors, the hospitals, the government, the employer etc. So you just end up replacing the insurance companies with another 3rd party bureaucracy. Nobody is going to stand for MSAs that only pay partial costs. Many people are not going to voluntarily put money in an MSA. I'll stop there.
There's a few things right there.You give yourself way too much credit.
There's a few things right there.You give yourself way too much credit. Those are your ideas. Please explain how MSAs will work. Perhaps you meant they could be another layer of bureaucracy to supplement insurance? You weren't too clear on how MSAs will work. Or do MSAs just appeal to you because they seem like an example of personal accountability and responsibility? Maybe because it gives the illusion that people are paying for their healthcare with their own money? Because you think somehow that a bureaucracy would be lessened with that system? There is always going to be a bureaucracy. Forget all that though....just address how MSAs will work in your book.
Forget all that though....just address how MSAs will work in your book.Because if I address that it means you addressed it? Is that how this works?
Forget all that though....just address how MSAs will work in your book.Because if I address that it means you addressed it? Is that how this works? No it means you explain how you think MSAs should work. Stop being childish. You don't just get to say MSAs are a better alternative, and then not explain what you mean by MSAs. McGeyver suggested that MSAs be fueled by employer or Govt contributions. You said(paraphrasing) that wouldn't be your ideal method. So obviously you have an idea of how you think MSAs should work.
McGeyver on how MSAs could work-Usually the first $5,000 is contributed to by the patient and the employer or the government with any unused funds remaining at the patients disposal for future medical costs or as an auxiliary retirement fund. This way the patient has some skin in the game for minor medical issues and they have the choice of going where ever they want, but they are covered for the big ones and have to stick to a program within their plan that has been vetted properly.
Bryan's response-Also reasonable. I don’t necessarily agree with the proposal, but it’s a long way off from silliness.There, I went back and got the exact quotes... Explain how you think MSAs should work. Because you brought up MSAs as a better alternative. You proposed MSAs earlier in the thread. And later on in the thread too. So tell us about MSAs and how they work.
Forget all that though....just address how MSAs will work in your book.Because if I address that it means you addressed it? Is that how this works? No it means you explain how you think MSAs should work. Stop being childish. You don't just get to say MSAs are a better alternative, and then not explain what you mean by MSAs. In like manner, you don't get to "address" MSAs by questioning how they work. If you want to know how they work, start with Google. Perhaps your reading will inspire an intelligent question or two.
Forget all that though....just address how MSAs will work in your book.Because if I address that it means you addressed it? Is that how this works? No it means you explain how you think MSAs should work. Stop being childish. You don't just get to say MSAs are a better alternative, and then not explain what you mean by MSAs. In like manner, you don't get to "address" MSAs by questioning how they work. If you want to know how they work, start with Google. Perhaps your reading will inspire an intelligent question or two. If I read Google, what would I need you for? Do you not want to explain MSAs now because you realize how paltry they may seem in the context of this discussion? Or because you really don't know how the money would get into the accounts? Here's you talking about MSAs earlier.
Bryan-Both systems could easily fix the problem with rationing (using the term loosely, since price rationing isn’t the same as gov’t rationing). The ultimate reform (which admittedly is highly unlikely) involves minimizing third-party payment and publicizing health care prices so that health-care consumers can make informed decisions about spending their money. HSAs(Health Savings accounts) are great concept, one which the ACA has greatly damaged.There is no specific MSA. There are MSAs that are voluntary and are put in place to let an employee save money that can be used to cover deductibles and co-pays. Is that what you are referring to? You brought up MSAs as a great alternative. The least you could do is explain how they would be a better alternative to the ACA. Explain how they would fit into an over all healthcare system that ensures everyone has access to medical treatments.
If I read Google, what would I need you for?I'll be here to answer the intelligent question(s) I alluded to earlier. Assuming any of those occur. (Though I suppose the shorter and more direct answer is "Exactly.")
If I read Google, what would I need you for?I'll be here to answer the intelligent question(s) I alluded to earlier. Assuming any of those occur. (Though I suppose the shorter and more direct answer is "Exactly.") This is my favorite part of your cyclical routine(that you use in all of the threads you participate in.) It's the part where you avoid the questions posed to you. How do you see MSAs becoming an integral part of United States HealthCare? How would they work? I'm starting to think you didn't really have any plan or ideas. HSAs, the deficit, and Insurance Regulations were just standard 2 dimensional boiler plate you can throw up as better alternatives to the ACA. But woes to you if somebody actually investigates your propositions.
Forget all that though....just address how MSAs will work in your book.Because if I address that it means you addressed it? Is that how this works? No it means you explain how you think MSAs should work. Stop being childish. You don't just get to say MSAs are a better alternative, and then not explain what you mean by MSAs. In like manner, you don't get to "address" MSAs by questioning how they work. If you want to know how they work, start with Google. Perhaps your reading will inspire an intelligent question or two. If I read Google, what would I need you for? Do you not want to explain MSAs now because you realize how paltry they may seem in the context of this discussion? Or because you really don't know how the money would get into the accounts? Here's you talking about MSAs earlier.
Bryan-Both systems could easily fix the problem with rationing (using the term loosely, since price rationing isn’t the same as gov’t rationing). The ultimate reform (which admittedly is highly unlikely) involves minimizing third-party payment and publicizing health care prices so that health-care consumers can make informed decisions about spending their money. HSAs(Health Savings accounts) are great concept, one which the ACA has greatly damaged.There is no specific MSA. There are MSAs that are voluntary and are put in place to let an employee save money that can be used to cover deductibles and co-pays. Is that what you are referring to? You brought up MSAs as a great alternative. The least you could do is explain how they would be a better alternative to the ACA. Explain how they would fit into an over all healthcare system that ensures everyone has access to medical treatments. Yes,and without one glitch as they get it up and running for 300 million people. George Bush had at least as much trouble with his Medicare Part D and we didn't hear one peep out of Republicans then, did we? Lois
I wonder if in a couple of years we'll be having people say about ACA the equivalent of the TV scene where the old woman at one of the first Tea Parties rallies said something like, "Get the government out of my life, and don't touch my Medicare"? :) OccamYou mean "history" based on unverified legend? There's a good chance. You already believe that an early tea party rally featured a lady opposing government involvement in her Medicare (either that or your spinning the legend yourself, though I'm eager to offer the benefit of the doubt). Sorry Bryan, but I recall seeing a TV shot of an older woman at a Tea Bagger (as it was called then) rally with a sign saying just that. Now it's your turn to claim that she was a plant and not a real Tea Party person. Ah yes, conspiracy theories abound. :lol: Occam
Forget all that though....just address how MSAs will work in your book.Because if I address that it means you addressed it? Is that how this works? Well, we know this does not work, as so clearly explained by Bill Maher. IMO, the principles can be extended to most social programs. https://www.upworthy.com/a-summary-of-mcminimum-wages-and-mcwelfare-in-one-hilarious-clip?c=upw1 At a fundamental level, an unbalanced system of sharing (access to means of survival) inevitably leads to conflict and ever greater competition for limited resources. In the Humanist view a symbiotic relationship (fair distribution of available resources) between all living things seems to be the least problematic as compared to a continually and exponentially rising competition to have it all, "one side against the other". This is global stuff and a positive image of cooperation seems a wise course to take, no?
I wonder if in a couple of years we'll be having people say about ACA the equivalent of the TV scene where the old woman at one of the first Tea Parties rallies said something like, "Get the government out of my life, and don't touch my Medicare"? :) OccamYou mean "history" based on unverified legend? There's a good chance. You already believe that an early tea party rally featured a lady opposing government involvement in her Medicare (either that or your spinning the legend yourself, though I'm eager to offer the benefit of the doubt). Sorry Bryan, but I recall seeing a TV shot of an older woman at a Tea Bagger (as it was called then) rally with a sign saying just that. Now it's your turn to claim that she was a plant and not a real Tea Party person. Ah yes, conspiracy theories abound. :lol: Occam I have seen it also, http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=keep+your+government+hands+off+my+Medicare&FORM=HDRSC2
I have seen it also, http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=keep+your+government+hands+off+my+Medicare&FORM=HDRSC2Occam will need to do better than that. You need a photo from 2009, and not one from after Democrats started to float a health care reform bill that used cuts to the growth of Medicare to lessen the impact of the health care law on the budget. Some of the signs that superficially meet Occam's description actually apply to the Democrats' proposal (now part of the health care law) to set a soft cap on Medicare spending, limiting it to a percentage of GDP. That's under the expected growth of the program. Chronologically, it's just wrong, because the earliest tea party protests occurred in response to the bailouts and stimulus bill. Nothing in either of those programs affected Medicare. So that's why I'm skeptical. I seen it on Teevee! won't do. It passes for hearsay without proper supporting evidence.
Sorry Bryan, but I recall seeing a TV shot of an older woman at a Tea Bagger (as it was called then) rally with a sign saying just that. Now it's your turn to claim that she was a plant and not a real Tea Party person. Ah yes, conspiracy theories abound. :lol: OccamI don't trust your memory. I've heard the allegation before. There should be convincing evidence of it on the Web if you're correct. Shall I bear your burden of proof for you? The Democrats had proposed slowing Medicare growth to help finance health care reform no later than August 20. http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=10
I have seen it also, http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=keep+your+government+hands+off+my+Medicare&FORM=HDRSC2Occam will need to do better than that. You need a photo from 2009, and not one from after Democrats started to float a health care reform bill that used cuts to the growth of Medicare to lessen the impact of the health care law on the budget. Some of the signs that superficially meet Occam's description actually apply to the Democrats' proposal (now part of the health care law) to set a soft cap on Medicare spending, limiting it to a percentage of GDP. That's under the expected growth of the program. Chronologically, it's just wrong, because the earliest tea party protests occurred in response to the bailouts and stimulus bill. Nothing in either of those programs affected Medicare. So that's why I'm skeptical. I seen it on Teevee! won't do. It passes for hearsay without proper supporting evidence. Again, you do get caught up in details which do not affect the substance of the message. It is not where or when, but how is it possible to be so ill-informed about the functions of government.
I have seen it also, http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=keep+your+government+hands+off+my+Medicare&FORM=HDRSC2Occam will need to do better than that. You need a photo from 2009, and not one from after Democrats started to float a health care reform bill that used cuts to the growth of Medicare to lessen the impact of the health care law on the budget. Some of the signs that superficially meet Occam's description actually apply to the Democrats' proposal (now part of the health care law) to set a soft cap on Medicare spending, limiting it to a percentage of GDP. That's under the expected growth of the program. Chronologically, it's just wrong, because the earliest tea party protests occurred in response to the bailouts and stimulus bill. Nothing in either of those programs affected Medicare. So that's why I'm skeptical. I seen it on Teevee! won't do. It passes for hearsay without proper supporting evidence. Again, you do get caught up in details which do not affect the substance of the message. It is not where or when, but how is it possible to be so ill-informed about the functions of government. You ought to pay some attention to detail. The text of the message matters a bunch when the government is proposing a cap on Medicare spending to finance a health care reform law. In a case like that, taking the sign to mean that the person doesn't understand the function of government (doesn't understand that Medicare is a government-controlled program) is a form of dishonesty. Don't go there. Edit to add: Just noticed that the first hit looks like a pretty obvious Photoshop. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YDcE8nhYVVU/TvozztAUD8I/AAAAAAAAAGI/D8MVwgZfEZs/s1600/keep-your-government-hands-off-my-medicare.jpg Heh. Found the original version at RWNJ.org: http://www.rwnj.org/2009/03/15/cincinnati-tea-party-pictures/img_1055/
Who pays for it? The fundamental problem here is an economic one. Third-party payment (insurance or gov't single-payer) strongly encourages increased demand for services. Turning the system into single-payer does not solve the fundamental problem unless you set limits on payment (yes, that's called rationing).And the system that we used to have was by largely Laissez-faire capitalism. That had fundamental problems too. Millions and millions of people were uninsured because they couldn't meet the demand for payment. Yes, that's called rationing!!! At least under this system everyone get's insurance. We'll see what if any rationing takes place. Under the old system, rationing did take place. Millions and millions of people didn't get insurance period. That's rationing out the supply so that only those who can afford insurance get insurance. Is this going to be a segue into "Death Panels" for you Bryan? I'd love to hear you bloviate about Death Panels. That would be entertaining! As long as we have a capital driven health care plan there is no need for death panels. The market itself acts as an overall death panel. Whoever can't afford care dies, often after a long period of suffering. What could be more simple, efficient and Republican than that?