Might as well misogynyFollow

And just to clarify something a bit more, I've argued against the entire concept of using insurance as a means of delivering health care on this forum long before Obama was ever elected. This is not about partisan politics for me. It's not about liking or disliking Obama. Can you say the same?

Thanks for the honest answer!!

Edited, Jun 13th 2014 8:27pm by Bijou

Here's what I don't get about Obamacare implementation:
For a while the biggest selling point for it was "no more rejection for pre-existing conditions" along with making the normal parasitic insurance agencies look like this horrible boogyman that you want to run to Obamacare for protection from.
That point was hammered on much that even during the arguments it was sold as the number one reason to do this and that this eclipsed any other way to transform healthcare access and anyone that didn't agree with that approach was an enemy to the underprivileged people of America..

The practices of insurance companies have been found so damned unfair that the governments sees fit to make it a LAW that you buy from "their guy"....
Why couldn't the gov simply have made stricter regulations of insurance companies? Isn't it done with other companies? The gov can shut down or penalize a company for not adhering to a certain standard.. This seems no different and yet more important.

So rather than restrict the freedoms of an insurance company we have chosen restrict the freedoms of individual people (yes the freedom of not purchasing health insurance).
Why not just have something like a default "state-of-having-insurance" if you haven't bought any "pro" insurance... instead of wasting money on forcing people to deal with the ineptitude of gov bureaucracy? Wouldn't it make more sense to just let the hospitals AR department deal with that sort of thing instead of leaving it up to the old hoi polloi?

I mean, I understand that it's all a racket anyway no matter what.. so meh.

Edited, Jun 14th 2014 1:46pm by Kelvyquayo

No, it wasn't. The number one reason was to make sure that all Americans had access to affordable health care. You're arguing a false premise.


Pre-existing conditions was just one of many things (and not even the first listed) to fall under "Why people don't have adequate access to health care".

Edited, Jun 14th 2014 2:14pm by Jophiel

Maybe because the insurance lobby is able to effectively block it? Remember there are groups out there still shouting that the government shouldn't be able to have any interaction with businesses, and the free market will adjust. The businesses own sense of ethics will stop them from dumping raw sewage into the local lakes or selling tainted food products, since we know they would never take short cuts to save a few bucks.

There's still no way to force people to go in for check-ups even if you are forcing them to pay for insurance.. although it does provide better incentive than nothing.
Perhaps it's my all-or-nothing mentality and complete distrust of the upper-crust.... but I still see this as yet a fundamental change in the wrong direction because of my views about over-reach yada yada yada...

This is how I think it (maybe) should be.
Medical care should be Universal and Free. How do we pay for it? The same way we pay for our military.
Military protection of our citizens from foreign invaders is the duty of our military. If the military were defending a particular area.. all people in that area are assumed to be universally protected by that army posted on the borders of that area. At the end of the day it isn't logical or feasible to have all of those citizens give account of themselves over how much money they owe to the military budget for their individual protection. Their mere presence within the borders of the country entitle them to be protected.

I think health care should be the same way. Rather than being a government reform of insurance practices it would indeed be a government take over the medical industry.. which in turn would/should make medical insurance obsolete.. and I it also leaves a medical practitioners income at the mercy of the government as well which leaves an argument for taking away incentive for people to want to be doctors.. but to that I point to history where doctors always existed in some form even when they were considered outcasts. There would surely be a way to work out a system that actually favors the poor rather than those getting rich off of their illnesses. Money is needed for research sure.. where do research grants end and decadence begin? The gov bends over backward to keep the oligarchy in place naturally because the individuals in power are the ones to benefit off of the great teat knows as public office.

Despite anything that has happened: doctors and insurance companies staying rich still trumps the health of the poor.
Does this direction that we are stepping lead away from that or toward it?

The VA has sucked for hundreds of years, so you might want to rethink who you want in charge of the people's health.

That's kind of a weird question, since the military is a gubbmint branch and all that. The Department of Veteran's Affairs is, I guess the best way to put it, more handled by the civilian side if that makes any sense.

It does, and that may be the problem.

Don't forget that it takes them over a year to pay a simple invoice, while accountants harass you about the missing revenue.

I get that this is stated so often that it's assumed to be true, but it's just not. The problem is that the two things aren't related in any significant way. It's like someone needed an emotion laden reason to get people on board with subsidizing general health insurance and they latched onto "people in emergency rooms" as the best they could come up with.

The percentage of emergency room visits which could be prevented by providing people with comprehensive health insurance (with "preventative care") is very close to zero. Most emergency room visits are the result of accidental injuries, or illnesses which can't be "prevented" by going to a doctor once or twice a year. All you're doing is increasing the total costs involved by paying for one thing which doesn't at all affect the cost of the other thing. People with health insurance still fall off ladders. Their children still get ear infections. And they go to urgent care (emergency rooms) for treatment, just the same as the uninsured do. The cost is the same. Only now you've introduced a middle man which will increase total costs.

About the only thing that can be consistently be shown to decrease total systemic health care costs via prevention is flu shots and vaccinations. And if someone proposed that we simply provide those for free, I'd have no problem with it. Because that would actually reduce our total health care costs. What was sold to the public as a cost saving measure was not only not, but arguably will result (must result) in increased total systemic health care costs. We were vastly better off cost-wise just absorbing the cost for the occasional emergency room visit by the uninsured than what we have now.

Here is a short list of things that can be treated before they turn into emergencies:

High blood pressure
Heart disease
High cholesterol
Infections
Minor injuries

Here is a short list of conditions that can be diagnosed during a routine medical exam:

High blood pressure
Heart disease
Diabetes
Many types of cancer
Endocrine irregularities
Anemia and other blood disorders

You know what group doesn't go to the doctor with minor ailments and/or for routine screening exams? The uninsured.

This certainly wasn't the case at the hospital where Flea worked (which was hemorrhaging money from unnecessary and usually unpaid emergency room visits) but I suppose you'll just use your vaunted "common sense logic" and shit rather than listen to any actual experience.