Obama Failure Thread Part IV

Shouldn't businesses be more effective at pressuring health insurers? They're bigger buyers than is an individual, and they (allegedly) are highly motivated because (as we are told) private enterprise is ruthlessly efficient at minimizing costs & maximizing profits.

 

American Gyno

 

Yup - or a 50% increase in copays, for example.

 

One wonders just how big a percent of GDP our health care system will vacuum before people get fed up. Apparently 16% (as opposed to 8-10% for the rest of the developed world) isn't enough.

 

A lot more than 16%. Half the country is convinced we have an outright great health care system, and half of the remaining half knows there are problems but thinks the rest of the world is no better and maybe worse.

30%?

 

Heck, half the country is convinced the reason why our healthcare is 16% of GDP is because we have an outright great healthcare system.

 

Half the country doesn't know what GDP stands for.

 

Gina Does Philadelphia?

 

Nah, but I'm low now. It's gone up another 1.5% in the last year or so. 18.2% as of 2011.

 

Alright 50%. That might get some attention, well not among the Tea Party set but among the clinically sane.

 

Well...yeah.

I mean, he's a conservative.

 

Things aren't always fair.

Not worried about myself. Speaking of my kids, yes, it makes a difference if they can't get in to see their neurologist in a timely fashion. I am talking about making a call after hours on a Saturday night and being able to get to their doctor on a Sunday before noon. It makes a huge difference in some situations for them.

Again, regular appointments aren't what I am arguing. My kids condition is so rare there are only a handfull, about 1500 diagnosed cases, world-wide. We need to be able to get to the answers we need within hours in most cases.

I know the doctors we need to see on a personal basis after 10 years of dealing with their condition and I can call them without having to go through their after hours answering services. I am also notified by them ahead of time if they will be unavailable for an extended period, in which case they get someone else up to speed for that period.

I get my situation is unique, but I do know that relatives in Germany have issues getting timely service. I have also heard about kids with my daughters condition that live in other countries that have major issues dealing with their healthcare systems. Being completely selfish, I want things to remain as close to what they are now.

 

Well, you know what they say, "all politics is local" and you don't get more local than the kitchen table.

 

As Dave said, the definition of a Republican.

Krugman talks about how much he confuses Republicans, because they only understand self interest as a motivator. So they are constantly trying to figure out what Krugman's self interest can be in advocating for a progressive tax rate. That he might do so because he thinks it's the right thing for America is off the radar; that is not an acceptable or even believable reason for them.

 

That has to do with Education and how each doctor perceives his/her profession. American doctors IMHO are taught defensive medicine and too many of them are really more interested in money than in his/her duties... Foreign doctors tend to be more holistic and less currency oriented.

 

If you were in a similar situation, no way would you potentially forsake your kids health in order to serve the "greater good".

It's the definition of a parent.

 

Wow, talk about a giant ******** you! Hey, sorry you got cancer kid - but life isn't fair, so I don't think you should be able to get health insurance.
When I rob your house, can I excuse that because, hey "things aren't always fair"?

And the extra 10% patients won't affect that.

Again, the extra 10% patients won't affect that.

Again, the extra 10% patients won't affect that.

Given that your situation isn't remotely threatened by this new law, your demand that things stay the same to avoid a .00001% chance of it being worse in a way none of us can either imagine is quite callous.

 

That's horseshit. No one's asking you to forsake your kids health. By your argument, everyone whose kids currently have health care should be opposed to this Act, because that's the definition of a parent. Which is, as I said, horseshit.

 

I'm as big a fan of enlightened self interest as the next guy. Stanger's views, however, are appalling to me on a personal level. I have health care right now too, so if my health care might get just a tad worse, ******** everyone who doesn't!

 

And to most conservatives it comes down to few simple perceptions, like goverment's inefficiency, poor people's lazyness and the self-made guy/gal, which to repugs are gospel..

 

At least his positions are consistent.

Stanger can vote, so he doesn't care whether poor people can.

Stanger has health insurance, so he doesn't care whether poor people do.

What else?

 

Right. I hear ya.

But I wouldn't be so self absorbed as to confuse what's best for me, personally, with what is the best policy for the other 300 million Americans.

It seems to me that you are arguing that because YOU PERSONALLY (and your family) would be worse off, that the ACA is bad policy. That doesn't make a lick of logical sense.

 

I have a kid and a wife that's a doctor. I can count on one hand the number of docs I've met that think ACA is a big deal. That said, most of them don't know shit about anything other than medicine. I'm also confident that my wife will make pretty decent money when her residency finally goddamn finishes.

 

Same for a variety of issues WRT to "smaller government" with most of my consultant engineers. When you press them, 60%-75% of their work is "government funded" in one way or another, from my buildings, to a variety of federal/state/locally funded buildings & infrastructure. Would some of that become private work, probably a small percentage, but they certainly couldn't survive the hit of losing 50%+ of their work.

They can engineer the shit out of things, but policy is witchcraft to them.