Health Care Bill Passed. Fallout?

[Zinegata]

Prior to this health care bill I alway thought that Americans should have the right to not wear seat belts or wear a helmet. In Canada if you took those types of risks you did so on my dime. If you where an idiot in America and you could get themselves killed for a minimum of cost and inconvenience why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? Being a free society means allowing people do stupid things as long as they don't hurt others.

The problem is that if you go to the ER, the ER pays the cost now and tries to get the money out of you later. That means that the proportion of people who don't pay (including the people who die and did not have insurance), have their costs socialized anyway. If people smoke and then then have to pay for it themselves, that would be at least excusable. Except that takes its toll on the elderly, who benefit from socialized medicare anyway.

Medical costs are always socialized, whether they are actively socialized or not.

-Username17

I dunno. I think that sometimes it's the hospital (especially private ones) that get left with the bill if the patient can't afford the ER. But otherwise this is correct.

Problem is, what if the cost of the bill balloons and wipes out the savings from preventing "socialized" care?

I'm not saying it will happen. But I'm saying it's a big enough concern to be a threat to the Dems and result in really, really bad things. Like "President Palin"

[Kaelik]

I'm not Tzor. I'm just someone who likes to bring up uncomfortable truths

Your stupidity is uncomfortable, but I'm not sure how much it can be considered true.

Ways of taking X money, and turning it into Y money happens billions of different ways, and claiming that using money on preventive care will reduce total health care expenditures is "Apples to Oranges" with every other way of making one amount of money become another amount of money, and that you "Don't understand" how that works, is indicative of nothing but your own stupidity and your willingness to pretend that your stupidity limits anyone besides you.

Oh boy, Kaelik called me an idiot, I guess I must be doing something right. Probably breathing.

So just to be clear, your roll models include Roy, Elennsar, Shadzar, Tzor, and JE.

But do not include Frank, K, Lago, Josh, and Count.

Yeah, I think you've made my argument for me. Thanks.

[Zinegata]

I'm not Tzor. I'm just someone who likes to bring up uncomfortable truths

Your stupidity is uncomfortable, but I'm not sure how much it can be considered true.

Ways of taking X money, and turning it into Y money happens billions of different ways, and claiming that using money on preventive care will reduce total health care expenditures is "Apples to Oranges" with every other way of making one amount of money become another amount of money, and that you "Don't understand" how that works, is indicative of nothing but your own stupidity and your willingness to pretend that your stupidity limits anyone besides you.

Except Crissa's first point wasn't the *correct* argument that it reduces socialized healthcare cost by covering cases that would have otherwise went uninsured. Only Frank came up with the correct argument, hence I acknowledged he was correct.

Crissa's arguments were:

1) Bank interest makes money (Unrelated to a spending bill. You are NOT about to put 1 trillon dollars in a bank and reap interest with this bill)

2) Businesses spend to make money (Unrelated to what is primarily a government regulation program. You are NOT about to setup a company that will sell stuff and make money out of it. In fact,it should lose money because it should provide care to those who cannot afford it)

3) You can save money by making wise decisions on capital investment (i.e. buying a better $1000 heater than a $500 dollar heater which will require maintenance). Which is the closest Crissa ever gets to healthcare, but instead of just explaining it straighforwardly like Frank we get a really far-off analogy.

In short, all three arguments would fall quite neatly under the "Apples and Oranges" label. I didn't say his arguments were untrue. I said they were unrelated. And you completely fail at comprehension if you think I was contesting that bank interest doesn't make money.

Crissa's mistake is that he tried to argue that you can make 200 billion dollars by spending one trillion. Nobody is denying that. That's called "business".

But the context is that the healthcare bill is gonna spend 1 trillon to save 200 billion. Not a bank. Not a business. The Healthcare Bill. And points 1 & 2 have no fucking relation to it, and #3 is a barely-working tangent.

Again, the initial argument by Crissa was stupid and warranted only an "It's totally fucking unrelated" response. If you can't see that it was stupid, then you're stupid.

[violence in the media]

Computers are needed in this age to access things like tax preparers, government services. Vacations are required to keep up health and efficiency at work. I'm not saying ATVs and expensive vacations should come before health insurance; but health insurance is like $10K a year - are you going to begrudge someone a less-than $1K a year expense?

-Crissa

Sorry, I somehow got mind-locked on to the quantity of the penalty for non-coverage. Still, they mentioned on NPR that there are subsidies for families making less than $88K written into the bill to help them afford coverage. Sadly, they didn't get into specifics, but I would imagine that the out-of-pocket cost with a subsidy will wind up being somewhat near the penalty for non-compliance, making opting out even dumber. Also, if your individual insurance is $10K a year, then I hate to break it to you, but you have a Cadillac plan. The bill defines Cadillac plans as those costing $10,200 per year for an individual or $27,500 for a family.

Somewhat related to that, why is employee + spouse coverage more than twice employee only coverage, but employee + children is less than employee + spouse, and employee + family is almost 3.5 times employee coverage alone? Has anyone else run into this? WTF?

[mean_liar]

When is it a bad idea to tax? Every other fucking country on this planet has cheaper healthcare than the US and a fair majority of them also delivery better care. They tax to provide for their systems.

Why the fuck is taxing to pay for something a priori a bad idea?

Stop thinking of taxes as coming from nowhere. Spend it on insurance + health care or give it to the government; it's spent either way... except that giving it to the government lowers the payment by 20% or more. Meaning you actually net more.

But MATH is HARD so FUCK COMMUNISM. Or something.

[Zinegata]

When is it a bad idea to tax? Every other fucking country on this planet has cheaper healthcare than the US and a fair majority of them also delivery better care. They tax to provide for their systems.

Why the fuck is taxing to pay for something a priori a bad idea?

Stop thinking of taxes as coming from nowhere. Spend it on insurance + health care or give it to the government; it's spent either way... except that giving it to the government lowers the payment by 20% or more. Meaning you actually net more.

But MATH is HARD so FUCK COMMUNISM. Or something.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to tax people. Honestly increasing taxes is one way to reduce the huge American deficit, aside from reducing costs. Which is a good thing.

I'm saying voting Americans don't like being taxed. And they tend to vote against people who tax them. Which may be very bad for the Dems.

Crucial difference .

[cthulhu]

Prior to this health care bill I alway thought that Americans should have the right to not wear seat belts or wear a helmet. In Canada if you took those types of risks you did so on my dime. If you where an idiot in America and you could get themselves killed for a minimum of cost and inconvenience why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? Being a free society means allowing people do stupid things as long as they don't hurt others.

The problem is that if you go to the ER, the ER pays the cost now and tries to get the money out of you later. That means that the proportion of people who don't pay (including the people who die and did not have insurance), have their costs socialized anyway. If people smoke and then then have to pay for it themselves, that would be at least excusable. Except that takes its toll on the elderly, who benefit from socialized medicare anyway.

Medical costs are always socialized, whether they are actively socialized or not.

-Username17

I dunno. I think that sometimes it's the hospital (especially private ones) that get left with the bill if the patient can't afford the ER. But otherwise this is correct.

Problem is, what if the cost of the bill balloons and wipes out the savings from preventing "socialized" care?

I'm not saying it will happen. But I'm saying it's a big enough concern to be a threat to the Dems and result in really, really bad things. Like "President Palin"

The hospital never gets left with the bill. Sure they cannot recover the cost from X for HIS bill, so they just split the costs over their other services as overhead and bill everyone else for it.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I'm not saying that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. But I'm saying it's a big enough deal that we should be concerned about what he might do.

[Zinegata]

The hospital never gets left with the bill. Sure they cannot recover the cost from X for HIS bill, so they just split the costs over their other services as overhead and bill everyone else for it.

To clarify: By "hospital gets left with the bill", I mean the cost is never passed on to the government's healthcare. Albeit yes, your point is valid and it does indirectly jack up everyone's healthcare cost, government provided or not.

[Zinegata]

I'm not saying that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. But I'm saying it's a big enough deal that we should be concerned about what he might do.

Apples & Oranges.

It would have worked if you said "Glenn Beck is a moron, but people still watch him anyway".

[Crissa]

...

"Apparently, we are not familiar with all internet traditions."

I don't know where you came from, but why have you foisted your ignorance upon us? At least Tzor was incorrectly informed. You just seem to be... Not informed at all. By choice.

-Crissa

PS: 'Apples and Oranges'? I think this does not mean what you think it means.

[Crissa]

Also, if your individual insurance is $10K a year, then I hate to break it to you, but you have a Cadillac plan. The bill defines Cadillac plans as those costing $10,200 per year for an individual or $27,500 for a family.

I live in California. I get charged tax as though I have an individual plan like my spouse's, as that is how I get coverage. Thanks to DOMA+Bush Administration they price that as just under $10K. (My spouse pays only $9K for the both of us.) No one buys an individual plan with the same coverage as a large group, of course it's 'cadillac'.

Somewhat related to that, why is employee + spouse coverage more than twice employee only coverage, but employee + children is less than employee + spouse, and employee + family is almost 3.5 times employee coverage alone? Has anyone else run into this? WTF?

Risk. Adults have more risk, and because of adverse selection, spouses in those plans (especially ones in families) tend to be the ones who have or will become sick. If they weren't sick, the odds are they would work on their own and get their own insurance.

-Crissa

[Zinegata]

...

"Apparently, we are not familiar with all internet traditions."

I don't know where you came from, but why have you foisted your ignorance upon us? At least Tzor was incorrectly informed. You just seem to be... Not informed at all. By choice.

-Crissa

PS: 'Apples and Oranges'? I think this does not mean what you think it means.

"Apples and Oranges" is the shortened form often-used phrase "You are comparing Apples and Oranges.".

This phrase is used when someone is arguing about two things that are "not comparable", "unrelated", or "belong to different categories". I have specifically said the second definition many times subsequently. Would you like to contest this?

You certainly don't need to say "It does not mean what you think it means" when I've already said several times what it means. You could have refuted it any time you wanted if it was wrong.

The fact is, you're just engaging in some innuendo that you're "smarter" and that Zine is stupider than Tzor.

You're not smarter. You're just being an ass.

Fact is, you got owned in that argument, and you're also getting owned in this one because all you're doing now is hurling insults and innuendo.

So, in a nutshell? You're a moron. And now you're also being an ass.

[cthulhu]

The hospital never gets left with the bill. Sure they cannot recover the cost from X for HIS bill, so they just split the costs over their other services as overhead and bill everyone else for it.

To clarify: By "hospital gets left with the bill", I mean the cost is never passed on to the government's healthcare. Albeit yes, your point is valid and it does indirectly jack up everyone's healthcare cost, government provided or not.

I think you misunderstand what 'socialised ' means. If you indirectly pay for someone elses something, that means it has been socialised ;P

So in this case people skipping out on ER bills resulting in others paying for it is socialised medicine. Stupidly so.

[Zinegata]

The hospital never gets left with the bill. Sure they cannot recover the cost from X for HIS bill, so they just split the costs over their other services as overhead and bill everyone else for it.

To clarify: By "hospital gets left with the bill", I mean the cost is never passed on to the government's healthcare. Albeit yes, your point is valid and it does indirectly jack up everyone's healthcare cost, government provided or not.

I think you misunderstand what 'socialised ' means. If you indirectly pay for someone elses something, that means it has been socialised ;P

So in this case people skipping out on ER bills resulting in others paying for it is socialised medicine. Stupidly so.

Yep. I already said that is correct and it is a very valid point.

I'm just saying how I (formerly) understood "socialized" as direct government payments, as opposed to how the government indirectly pays for it because people skip out on the ER fees.

You are correct that both should fall under "socialized".

[Username17]

Zinegata, you said that you thought hospitals got stuck with the bill after I explained back-end socialization of costs. You don't get to call anyone a moron.

But here, I'll explain it again, and use small words:

The hospital can set their prices to what ever they want. And they do. They set their prices to a level where they make money. When people can't or won't pay for the medical care they receive, this isn't some kind of once-in-a-lifetime event. That happens all the time. And the hospitals can plan for it. And they do.

The way they plan for it, is by increasing the bill for everyone, so that the percentage of people who pay zero dollars have their costs covered by the increased costs heaped on everyone else. In short: even if you don't pay for poor people to get health insurance, you're still paying for poor people to get medical care. Those costs cannot be unsocialized, because the hospital will get that money from somewhere.

So stop saying "apples and oranges" every time you don't understand something. Or at least, stop making declarative statements about something you obviously do not understand.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

Zinegata, you said that you thought hospitals got stuck with the bill after I explained back-end socialization of costs. You don't get to call anyone a moron.

Did you miss the part where I said I was wrong to say that? See above post.

So stop saying "apples and oranges" every time you don't understand something. Or at least, stop making declarative statements about something you obviously do not understand.

-Username17

Stop covering up for Crissa's stupid statements just because he's been here longer and you happen to agree on the same issue. If you wanna refute that the usage of Apples and Oranges was wrong, scroll up to my reply to Kaelik and reply to that.

It is obvious you're not reading, because you're complaining about me not comprehending socialized care when I already replied to chtulu twice that "Yeah, got it. Sorry, forgot about that caveat".

And yes, I understand how banks and businesses work. Just because my first comment is "It boggles the mind how they're spending a trillon to save 200 billion" does not mean I came here without any rudimentary knowledge of business and finance. Again, the context is that it's government spending for a HEALTH CARE BILL.

I appreciate it when people furnish me with details like you do. But I don't appreciate smarty-ass pants replies like Crissa's who go off on wild unrelated tangents that is frankly little more than ego-tripping.

[Username17]

Your original statement was that you could not understand how spending money could save money. Crissa gave some examples, some of which were oddball and some which were not, where you spent money and ultimately saved money. I'm really not covering up anything for her. Some of her numbers were off, but in an off-the-cuff example, I don't even care.

The basic fact is that we're spending money to cover the ER expenses of people even if we never pay a dime towards their actual bill. The hospital has the power, and the obligation, to pass those expenses onto the next person who can actually pay. Preventative care is cheaper than waiting until problems get bad and then going to the ER.

So paying people's actual bills in actual money for preventative care costs less than not paying any money at all and having those people go to the ER more often and skip out on the bill. This is actually pretty similar to Crissa's Water Heater example - you're going to end up paying for all the gas anyway, paying "more" for a better insulated heater actually makes your total bill less.

It's not apples and oranges, because your initial complaint was that you did not see how spending a trillion dollars could save 200 billion dollars. There are lots of ways that could happen, and Crissa seriously did use some pretty basic examples that you should have been able to follow.

-Username17

[Username17]

Also, it's difficult for me to see how this could have a huge devastating effect for the democrats, when even before eight months goes by and proves all the teabaggers to be insane, polling data looks like this:



-Username17

[Zinegata]

Your original statement was that you could not understand how spending money could save money. Crissa gave some examples, some of which were oddball and some which were not, where you spent money and ultimately saved money. I'm really not covering up anything for her. Some of her numbers were off, but in an off-the-cuff example, I don't even care.

My original statement was said in the context of the HEALTH CARE BILL. Crissa gave examples that were widely UNrelated to it.

The basic fact is that we're spending money to cover the ER expenses of people even if we never pay a dime towards their actual bill. The hospital has the power, and the obligation, to pass those expenses onto the next person who can actually pay. Preventative care is cheaper than waiting until problems get bad and then going to the ER.

So paying people's actual bills in actual money for preventative care costs less than not paying any money at all and having those people go to the ER more often and skip out on the bill. This is actually pretty similar to Crissa's Water Heater example - you're going to end up paying for all the gas anyway, paying "more" for a better insulated heater actually makes your total bill less.

Chtulu already explained this. Unpaid Bills go to the hospital overhead. Higher overhead = higher prices for everyone. Hence unpaid bills are socialized.

The only thing you're adding is the preventive care angle. Prevent the disease, and less people go to the ER. Less ER = Less Overhead. Less Overhead = Cheaper Health care for everyone.

Or are you going to continue to pretend that I'm stupid to cover up the fact you didn't read my acknowledgement of chtulu's corrections TWICE before you made your own reply?

It's not apples and oranges, because your initial complaint was that you did not see how spending a trillion dollars could save 200 billion dollars. There are lots of ways that could happen, and Crissa seriously did use some pretty basic examples that you should have been able to follow.

-Username17

Again, in the context of the health care bill.

You mistake "Being DISMISSIVE of such stupidly simple and unrelated examples said in a pretty arrogant way" with "Not comprehending the examples."

Apples = Zinegata talking about how it's seemingly crazy that a Healthcare Bill will save 200 billion by spending 1 trillon dollars (and yet still cover 45 million more Americans - the whole POINT of the bill).

Oranges = Crissa giving examples on basic banking, business, and capital investment.

Moral of the story: Post longer because short responses result in people thinking you're stupid even though one can refute the Keynesian theory that government spending always break recessions.

(Also, Crissa is a she? Whoops. Sorry. Thought Crissa was male ^^;;;)

[cthulhu]

Well, Frank is totally right that the US system is fucking retarded because a hospital visit costs 6,500 dollars on average (figures australian) and the preventative care regime to prevent that hospital visit costs 300-400 dollars.

So you'd have to be an absolute moron to have a system that wasn't structured as a HMO where the provider who pays for acute care also delivers primary care, because if that is the case you seriously want to give away primary care so you do not have to pay for the acute visit.

I hate that there is a co-pay for GP visits. The first like 12 a year should be entirely free

[Zinegata]

Well, Frank is totally right that the US system is fucking retarded because a hospital visit costs 6,500 dollars on average (figures australian) and the preventative care regime to prevent that hospital visit costs 300-400 dollars.

So you'd have to be an absolute moron to have a system that wasn't structured as a HMO where the provider who pays for acute care also delivers primary care, because if that is the case you seriously want to give away primary care so you do not have to pay for the acute visit.

I hate that there is a co-pay for GP visits. The first like 12 a year should be entirely free

I've also already agreed he was correct when he first stated preventative care saved money and it's a very valid point.

[IGTN]

My original statement was said in the context of the HEALTH CARE BILL. Crissa gave examples that were widely UNrelated to it.

Shorter Zinegata: Just because it's true in every other context ever doesn't mean it's true in this one!

[TavishArtair]

Oh boy, Kaelik called me an idiot, I guess I must be doing something right. Probably breathing.

So just to be clear, your roll models include Roy, Elennsar, Shadzar, Tzor, and JE.

But do not include Frank, K, Lago, Josh, and Count.

Yeah, I think you've made my argument for me. Thanks.

You've called way more people than that list idiots and the like. Directly and indirectly. Deservedly and undeservedly. Your choice to not communicate civilly with anyone has made it so that even casual encounters end in insults being flung. Gelare is right to dismiss any insult from you. Since you cannot engage in communication without involving them, one can only presume they are some sort of traditional greeting in Kaelikese, to be overlooked as a cultural quirk which you apparently cannot be socialized back out of.

If you want to pretend there's some sort of prestige in being acknowledged by you as "not an idiot", you shouldn't overuse it. Even if most people are as dumb as posts, pointing it out to everyone removes the effectiveness of the barb to anyone who knows your patterns.

In short, it makes you look like an idiot.

[TavishArtair]

Now, here's where I, after thoroughly slamming him, agree with Kaelik. But not for the reasons he cited. The reasons he cited are dumb. No, here's the thing. Health insurance works best when, get this, everyone is on it. Preferably on the exact same plan, but if you can get a somewhat even distribution on all plans in the country, it costs less.

Yes, I said it. It costs less if you make everyone have health insurance. Why does that follow? It follows because the people who DON'T need it are still paying for it, but their money can go to pay off the insurance costs of the people who DO need it. The world being such as it is, there are certain people who will always be on the "do need it" list, but we have no way of predicting what the "doesn't need it" list is going to be. A house could fall on you and you could suddenly need massive amounts of medical care and insurance payouts to cover them starting yesterday. Thus, it is in your interest to always be paying into a health care plan if you can manage to do so.

The current situation is such that people who don't need it don't get it, and thus don't pay off the health insurance claims of the people who do need it and do have health insurance. This leads to things like rates going up because someone needs to pay for it, and that's everyone who does have health insurance. This makes it less affordable to be on health insurance, and then less people get on to health insurance, et cetera, et cetera. But it's never affordable to not be on health insurance when you need it, so the people who don't have it and then suddenly need it are fucking screwed, and there are a lot more of those because seemingly half of everyone doesn't have health insurance. Preventive care factors into this too as mentioned before.

Socializing the health care to put everyone on the same plan is seriously the best option just looking at these variables, because it automatically affords the best distribution of resources to everyone, if you ignore overhead costs in providing healthcare to hundreds of millions of people. I honestly don't have the necessary figures in front of me to state, for certain, whether a singular government plan would be the best thing when accounting for the other numerous variables that go into this equation. But mandating everyone gets on health care, while simultaneously making sure everyone CAN get health care, does force the matter so that we have less of the poor (and even middle-class) dying in the streets. Honestly, it works far, far better with a public option that would increase competition in a market that is controlled by sedentary companies that have no incentive at the moment to actually make their services affordable because they can put the squeeze on everyone else.

Honestly, the need for a public option, if maybe not a government monopoly on it, should be so blatantly transparent once you take even the most cursory glance at how the math, that it is obvious the only reason that we do not have one is extensive political maneuvering by the insurance companies to maintain their hold on the business. Granted, I would rather entrust people who crunch far more numbers than I with the duty of actually figuring out how best to implement it, but I seriously doubt Congress is a group of such people, so why haven't they delegated it yet? Oh right, politics.