|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 29, 2014 20:49:44 GMT -8
The mess that is also known as the ACA or ObamaCare did not have to end up this way. For one thing, though the cost of health care was (and had been for some time) a big problem in this country, it was not the "Oh, my god, we have to do something, just about ANYTHING now... like RIGHT NOW . . . or the world will be destroyed" crisis that the Dems said it was. A more deliberate, step by step approach, with both parties actually allowed to participate in the creation of the legislation, could have been taken.
But, then, when something is an existential threat to the whole world as we know it, there is no time to quibble over details. Details such as Is this legislation sensible and well-crafted or is it just a blind shot in the dark? Ever notice how often the Democrats use the "This is a terrible crisis and we just can't wait to act" ploy? What, you think we are really going to read all those pages before voting?
Also making things worse was the incompetence of the introduction of ObamaCare. After years of work and billions of dollars spent. Finally, we cannot ignore the growing realization that the VA, which is a totally government owned and operated health care system, is a failure. And that despite the billions of dollars spent on it under the supervision of both parties. If you wonder what completely socialized medicine would look like, just take a look a the VA. Reminds me of what Hedrick Smith said of the Soviet health system in his book The Russians.
Anyway, there is no way in hell that those who supported ObamaCare four years ago, in their worst nightmares, would have thought that there was even a tiny smidgen of likelihood that the act would be the disaster that it has become. If I had been able to interact with some of them, I do not doubt that they would gladly have bet a tidy sum that by now ObamaCare would have become a solid hit with Americans, as popular as the other milestones along the road to a collectivist America. The reality is that "train wreck" would be a better adjective.
As I said, it did not have to be that way, and this piece clearly explains that . . .
washingtonexaminer.com/obamacares-scott-brown-moment-is-still-not-over/article/2551429
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 29, 2014 21:43:27 GMT -8
Washington Examiner, giggle-worthy conservative rag here in DC given out for free at metro stations. Quotes a poll - "twice as many Americans feeling hurt than helped by it [the ACA]", no source. Actual polling puts ACA approval between 45-49%. "Complex bill with no consensus behind it" - This really is the unfortunate part, we could have had real health care reform, and instead the Dems chose a Republican plan. "While Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt went out of their way to ensure wide and bipartisan backing for the Civil Rights Act " - laughably ironic, for obvious reasons. "Brown presented Obama with the fork in the road of his lifetime,..." - Delusional if author believes what she just wrote there. "Now is now, when 59 percent of the people still oppose health care,..." - Really? 59% of people oppose health care? Seems high. If author means the Affordable Care Act, she cherry-picked a poll, didn't cite said poll, and used a different measure than quoted above. "...and Obama’s approval rating sits around 39 percent." - Nearest I could find was author using a cite from Breitbart News, in which Breitbart News misquotes Gallup's three-day rolling average. I looked into Gallup's presidential approval numbers, they're interesting. Approval by Education| High School or Lower | 37% | | Some College | 41% | | College Graduate | 42% | | Postgraduate | 52% |
*Likely voters approve in greater numbers with increasing levels of education. No surprise. Approval by Party| Republican | 10% | | Democrat | 79% |
*21% of Democrats do not currently approve of Obama, while only 10% of Republicans do approve. The 11% difference consists of Democrats who rightly feel Obama is not much of a Democrat. Approval by Church Attendance| Weekly | 34% | | Near Weekly/Monthly | 41% | | Seldom/Never | 47% |
*Interesting that church attendance correlates quite well with hatred for the leader of the free world. Approval by Martial Status| Married | 34% | | Not Married | 48% |
*Not a surprise either, but interesting. Approval by Age| 18-29 | 49% | | 30-49 | 42% | | 50-64 | 40% | | 65+ | 32% |
*This is the biggie. People like our resident Obama-bashers are quickly going to be going out of style. If the GOP wants to stay relevant with the voters of 10/20/30 years from now, they need to make fundamental changes to their ideologies and espoused policies. Starting with social issues would be the wisest choice. Noemie Emery - Author of this piece, writes for such reputable publications as the Weekly Standard, New Republic, Hot Air, Conservatives4Palin, Hoover Institute, and National Review. Well, no, she doesn't "write" for them... "Guest blogs" would be a better term. A quick search of those sites brings up articles such as Obama's Scandal Society, Obama's Crisis Arrives, Grand New Party - These aren't your grandfather's Republicans, Addicted to Race - The left's struggle against imaginary bigotry, Keep Fear Alive - The liberal obsession with playing the race card, Nice Try - Palin is still standing, and Secondhand Hate - Another step downhill for modern liberalism. -- Other than that, though, great article and analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 30, 2014 12:17:18 GMT -8
This current ObamaKare Bill is going down one way or the other. It is unsustainable economically and is widely unpopular due to both cost and the rationing aspect. Live with that and try to support meaningful legislation that will work.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 30, 2014 13:15:58 GMT -8
Single payer
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 30, 2014 15:38:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 30, 2014 22:45:19 GMT -8
Well, that doesn't send a tingle up my leg, either. There are many things that government must do, though even there they are frequently not done too well. But there are many, many tasks that government has taken upon itself to perform, tasks that government is ill-equipped to handle.
The reason for that is pretty simple to understand. Though most politicians and government employees are at least reasonably honest and dedicated, the structure of government is filled with pitfalls that make doing a really good job very difficult. You simply can't get rid of a government agency, no matter how badly it has lost its way. You can't even make major changes in government programs, even when most people agree that those programs are far less than acceptable.
What happens in the private sector when a company runs into trouble it cannot overcome? Let me cite an example. The Packard Motor Car Company began in Warren, Ohio in 1899. It soon moved to Detroit where it built very fine automobiles. So good was the Packard that by the teens the make was the premier luxury car in America. Packard maintained its position until about the mid-1930s. By that time, Packard, as with all American car companies, was struggling to survive in terrible economic times. Many well-established makes went under. Those included what many car enthusiasts consider the finest American car ever build, the Duesenberg. Also victims of the Depression were Pierce Arrow, Marmon, Graham, Hupmobile, REO, and a number of others. But not Packard. And not Cadillac, either.
In order to survive the Depression, Packard designed and build principally medium priced models that competed with Nash, Oldsmobile, Buick, etc. They were good cars, but they were not up to the standard of the great Packards of previous years. Meanwhile, Cadillac continued to build only luxury cars. Cadillac would have joined the other makes that could not survive the Depression had it not been for the fact that Cadillac was subsidized by giant General Motors.
Anyway, after WWII, Packard was never able to regain its predominance in the luxury segment of the industry. Packard, along with the other small companies found it increasingly difficult to compete with the Big Three (GM, Chrysler, and Ford). Despite the best efforts of its new CEO, Packard was forced into a desperation move, a merger with Studebaker, a company that had managed to survive bankruptcy in the '30s. Both companies had management problems and combining them into one firm was not the answer. First Packard (1958), then Studebaker (1966) disappeared.
I suppose if BHO had been President in the '50s and '60s, there would have had a giant bailout and Packard and Studebaker would still be limping along, never quite able to regain financial well-being but never being put out of their misery, either.
The bailout of Chrysler in 1980 set a bad precedent, one that was duplicated in the auto bailout of 2009. Chrysler, founded by a distinguished auto executive in 1924, was for many years an industry leader. But it had gone stale by 1980 and should have been allowed to fail as was the case with Studebaker and Packard. Keeping failing companies going by infusing them with taxpayer money is foolish and self-defeating.
Now, as for health care, please do not tell me that we should have socialized medicine, which is exactly what single payer or Medicare for all would be. The horror stories that we have heard about the VA is exactly the kind of thing that all too often characterizes government operations. As I said above, you can't get rid of government agencies, no matter how bad they are. I want people to be able to go to another provider if they are not satisfied with the one they currently have. If the whole health care system is in essence controlled by the government, there will be no alternatives. (Ah, but I spoke too soon. The rich, especially the One Percenters, will essentially be able to keep fine doctors and clinics on retainer. We hear a lot about income inequality, but I don't hear anything from the Democrats about forcing every American to sign up for ObamaCare. No, the rich, especially those who are swimming in money, will never have to wait for appointments three months in the future. Nor, and this is ominous but inevitable, will they have to wonder if their kin will live long enough to get that vital organ transplant. No going to the back of the line for them. No, not for the Koch brothers nor for George Soros, nor for the many fat-cats who give millions to the Democrats.)
In the private economy, if you don't cut the mustard, you die. That's why you can't drive down to your local Packard dealer and check out the new models. But you can check our the new Chryslers. Have you ever read carefully Consumer Reports reviews of Chrysler products? Those models are almost toward the bottom of their respective market niches. That's what happens when a bad company is put on taxpayer life support. It ain't pretty.
For that matter, GM is a long, long way from being able to fund the new car lines that will be required to satisfy the unrealistically high mileage standards. I must amend my statement about cutting the mustard. If you are big enough and have enough pull with the government, you can be bailed out and keep limping along. Too Big to Fail really means Unable to Compete without government help.
In the health field, the government will really control everything under single-payer or Medicare for all. The far Left, the descdents of those Fabian socialist of a century or more ago, have long since learned that official government ownership of industry is stupid. If the sign on the building says Government Motors, or Government Foods, the people are going to get pretty pissed at the politicians when things go wrong. And they will most assurednly go wrong. No, much better to maintain the fiction that Marathon Motors or Friendly Foods are in private hands. The collectivists can tinker away all they want by way of more, and more detailed, regulation of those industries. Pretty soon the companies are only nominally private. But if the cars catch fire or people start dying from tainted meat, how easy it is to go on TV, wag your finger at the camera, and condemn those money grubbing owners.
No, I do not want socialized medicine, no matter what you want to call it. Since I do not believe in Utopia, I am not impressed by the empty promises that Leftist pols utter during campaign season. They know less than nothing about almost every issue they are called upon to deal with. I'll take my chances with the private sector every time.
Well, all but those companies that are on the right side of the people who actually run this country. Those would be the unelected and anonymous writers of government regulations hiding in their dark basement cubicles deep in the bowels of D.C. office buildings.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 31, 2014 6:26:46 GMT -8
My medical needs are provided by Sharp, has been so for more than 30 years. Now that I have Medicare I am still covered by Sharp through their Medicare advantage program. Sharp is a private business and they believe they can serve my medical needs with my Part B premium. Is that socialism?
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 31, 2014 7:52:04 GMT -8
William. Aren't you retired? Don't you have Medicare? How is it working for you?
Medicare is NOT socialized medicine. It is a single payer system. It is an insurance plan. A traditional 80 - 20 one. The VA, Kaiser, and the military hospital system are examples of socialized medicine.
While Medicare is a government program it is primarily run and administered by private companies such as blue cross which handles much of the claim processing.
The government provides zero, or almost zero, actual physical medical care to Medicare patients. Private hospitals and doctors provide the rest. How is that socialized medicine?
Yes, Medicare sets reimbursement rates. Medicare reimbursement rates are also used as the baseline for all negotiations between private insurance and the hospitals too.
Medicare also has the lowest expense ratio of any other medical insurance plan at about 3% returning 97% to the providers. Private, for profit, insurance plans are much higher with some approaching 50%.
Aztec70 uses Sharp via Medicare. My mother-in-law uses kaiser. Both have the exact same access and waiting times for doctors and procedures as any other user of their systems. No difference.
Medicare is currently used by almost 50 million Americans. The number is set to dramatically rise with the baby boom generation now retiring. The system is scalable. Adding every American to Medicare is no big deal.
The only issue is how to pay for it. My suggestion would be similar to social security. Everybody that works would have a percentage of his pay taken out of his check with the employer matching.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 31, 2014 9:53:06 GMT -8
Both aztec70 and AlwaysAnAztec are no doubt very well-intentioned, intelligent fellows. Nevertheless, they miss the point, which is simply this; He who pays the bills calls the tune.
When the government pays for something, it gets to tell the provider of the service what he will and will not do. In detail. In excruciatingly minute detail. That's called regulation. That's why people are finding that ObamaCare insurance is not so great a deal after all. ObamaCare is a cost shifting plan in which money from more affluent Americans (meaning probably 90% or more of AztecMesa members) goes to pay for the insurance of poorer Americans. Instead of simply creating a new tax, the proceeds of which would fund subsidies for the poor, the Democrats worked a deal with the health insurance companies (which have become, in essence, public utilities like SDG&E) designed to raise the health insurance costs of the more well off. That comes in the form of plans (designed, not by private individuals, but by political hacks) loaded with benefits that most younger, more healthy people don't need.
If given the choice, millions of young people would choose less expensive plans covering mostly catastrophic health issues that most of them will not face for decades. But the government has now told everyone, no matter how young or old, no matter how healthy or sickly, that they must buy more expensive plans. The young will be paying for more coverage than they need or want so that the poor and sickly can benefit. It's wonderful if formerly uninsured people now have plans, but there was a more straightforward (translation: more honest) way this could have been presented to the American people. Instead, the government lied to the American people. The chief liar was our Chief Executive, who made promises that those in government, including him, knew full well were not going to be kept.
Of course, there are the other problems, such as only a few providers in various ObamaCare networks, causing people to have to travel long distances to see a doctor they do not know and might not have selected had a choice been available to them. Also, though the monthly rates may be low (that is not guaranteed, of course), the out of pocket expenses in many cases is simply staggering.
As for Sharp, etc., we have not yet seen the full impact of ObamaCare. The ACA takes a meat axe approach to the problem, which means that we are going to see very severe rationing as it becomes clear that health care expenses are going up, not down. If you think that Sharp, et al, will be able to continue providing quality care, let me assure you that such will become more and more difficult as the ACA stranglehold tightens.
Let me give you an example of the ACA approach and why we are not going to like it. A board is going to decree which are the "most effective" treatments. Only the cost of those treatments, procedures, and medicines that are on the list will be reimbursed. "Hey, 95% of patients respond well in these cases," the Feds will say, implying that you should shut up and be glad that this vanguard of enlightened human beings is taking care of you. But what if you are among the 5% who need a different procedure or medicine? Tough luck, pal. Remember, we all must sacrifice for the greater good. That is collectivism in action.
Ultimately, our biggest political divide is the fissure separating utopian collectivism from libertarian individualism. One (the former) is based on illusion and wishful thinking. The other (the latter) is based on two concepts. One is the belief that each person is distinct from all others, and not just an interchangeable and expendable cell in an organism. The other is a realistic view of what the world is actually like, not what we would like it to be.
ObamaCare is an excellent example of what happens when utopian, if not downright messianic, collectivists are in control of a nation's government. How nice of them to have allowed us to be their social engineering lab rats. We should feel honored, I suppose.
But, as I have already said, it did not have to be this way. In fact, it should never have come to this. Lesson to be learned; Please, let's never again vote for politicians who cannot convince us that they retain at least a smidgen of humility.
AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 31, 2014 9:53:36 GMT -8
I don't see Kaiser as socialized medicine. They are in business. They are unique in that they are both the insurer and the provider.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 31, 2014 10:12:51 GMT -8
I don't see Kaiser as socialized medicine. They are in business. They are unique in that they are both the insurer and the provider. Forgive me if I seem harsh, but you do not seem to be a fast learner on this point. When the government creates very detailed mandatory regulations governing the operation of a private company, that company ceases to be really private. The more detailed the regulations, the more the company becomes private in name only. Example: You own a car. The pink slip and registration say its yours. But the government puts in place a new Vehicle Fairness authority. You now are told which days of the week you can operate your car, during which hours, on which roads you may and may not travel, and which non-car-owning neighbors you will be required to drive to work. . . even if some of the other guy's work days coincide with your days off. Oh, yes, you will also be on call during evening hours if somebody on your block has an emergency and cannot drive. And, let's not forget, being a patriotic ciizten, you surely would not mind driving the 9 year old who lives across the street to Saturday soccer games when his single mother must go to work. At what point does the car really cease to be yours? There have been various historical cases of countries that "offered" to their citizens the wonderful chance to be taken care of so long as they were good boys and girls who did not question the government's edicts. Frankly, I'll take my chances in a free society, since an all-powerful state is certain to limit my freedom while lining its own pockets. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 31, 2014 10:30:05 GMT -8
I don't see Kaiser as socialized medicine. They are in business. They are unique in that they are both the insurer and the provider. Forgive me if I seem harsh, but you do not seem to be a fast learner on this point. When the government creates very detailed mandatory regulations governing the operation of a private company, that company ceases to be really private. The more detailed the regulations, the more the company becomes private in name only. Example: You own a car. The pink slip and registration say its yours. But the government puts in place a new Vehicle Fairness authority. You now are told which days of the week you can operate your car, during which hours, on which roads you may and may not travel, and which non-car-owning neighbors you will be required to drive to work. . . even if some of the other guy's work days coincide with your days off. Oh, yes, you will also be on call during evening hours if somebody on your block has an emergency and cannot drive. And, let's not forget, being a patriotic ciizten, you surely would not mind driving the 9 year old who lives across the street to Saturday soccer games when his single mother must go to work. At what point does the car really cease to be yours? There have been various historical cases of countries that "offered" to their citizens the wonderful chance to be taken care of so long as they were good boys and girls who did not question the government's edicts. Frankly, I'll take my chances in a free society, since an all-powerful state is certain to limit my freedom while lining its own pockets. AzWm LOL So that is the way my health care is delivered from Sharp? No. William, you have the biggest talent for making stuff up. None of your above "example" has any bearing on reality. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 1, 2014 13:05:26 GMT -8
The real discussion should be about the strengths and weaknesses of HMO type plans like Kaiser and Fee for Service plans or PPOs like Scripps.
|
|
