You see it happen at town halls time and time again. A citizen asks a question and a legislator gives a vague answer or none at all. The citizen gets upset and the legislator wonders why. The advocates of the plan wonder why there is outrage against it and the public wonders why they can't get answers. Well the same happens on U4prez.
I have posed 2 specific questions to proponents of UHC and/or NHC over 10 times on this website. Specific answers received - ZERO.
There is the one advocate of the system who just flat ignored me and acted as if he didn't see the question. At least he has an excuse that maybe, just maybe he didn't see it after it was posted 3 times in a thread during a debate and once on his comments page, but you never know.
Another said he needed time to read the question and 'promised' to get back with me. A week later when I confronted him again his answer was that he didn't have time to answer questions from people he didn't even know and we were all ignorant hicks.
A third advocate of the system answered that if doctors didn't do face lifts for 'rich cunts' or something to that effect, we would be ok. Cool, I guess we will start letting plastic surgeons do triple bypasses.
So there you have it, 3 advocates of some form of UHC, NHC or single payer plan......Zero answers to honest questions. So here we go. I'm gonna try it one more time in blog form. Didn't work well for MDuminiak but i'll give it a shot:
1. How does the government keep from having to ration care when it injects 40 million new people into the system without injecting a proportionate number of caregivers and facilities to meet the increase in demand?
2. If the government has to ration care because of the above reason what is the difference between them rationing it because of supply and demand, and the insurance companies rationing because of price? In short, is no from the government the same as no from the insurance company?
So there you have it. 2 specific and simple questions about a proposed UHC/NHC/single payer health care system. Any bets on whether I get specific answers?
|
|
| |
|
|
Once again FnG here is an article I posted stating that we don't have the resources now, let alone if this passes. Let me know if you think it's bullshit and i'll post one of the 50 others that give the stats on our resources: From USA Today: The number of U.S. medical school students going into primary care has dropped 51.8 percent since 1997, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians. Considering it takes 10 to 11 years to educate a doctor, the drying up of the pipeline is a big concern to health-care experts. The academy is predicting a shortage of 40,000 family physicians in 2020, when the demand is expected to spike. The U.S. health care system has about 100,000 family physicians and will need 139,531 in 10 years. The current environment is attracting only half the number needed to meet the demand. At the heart of the rising demands on primary care physicians will be the 78 million baby boomers in the United States born from 1946 to 1964, who begin to turn 65 in 2011 and will require increasing medical care, and the current group of underserved patients. If Congress passes health care legislation that extends insurance coverage to a significant part of the 47 million Americans who lack insurance, the need for more doctors is going to escalate.
posted by smashey on 09/01/2009 @ 6:12 PM
I just, I don't really understand it. The words are, I don't want to say jumbled, but they're both in one sentence, so for me, it's hard to understand them.
lol
I don't know what the fuck is wrong wioth this site. I can't post the blog. Oh well, nobody gives a shit anyways.
Yeah Erock I just tried again to post it and it wouldn't load. Maybe I've been banned from blogging after I posted HR3200 and nuked the system.lol
On a side note the internet says u can not find FNG's blog lol
As Smashey pointed out you even said we would end up priotrizing. And u keep right on ignoring the facts! Your numbers are a myth and the government will end up taking over all of heatlhcare in order to control costs or as I have shown be forced to raise massive amounts of taxes. I am sorry but your plan has been tried and found to be lacking in facts and reality.
lol. Yeah I'm living in a dream world where all Americans can go see a doctor when they are sick, and even be seen ahead of rich foreignors, and where all Americans have the same copay, and all Americans help pay for the system instead of simply the working class. I live in a dream world where health care isn't allocated to the highest bidder but is shared amongst all of our citizens. What I see here is an arguement that says that we don't have enough resources to provide health care to everyone, which is total bullshit, but just in case, we'll only provide it for those that can afford it.
This is a very good blog,I have read through the comments and I must say,,,, FnG is lost. I once had hope that he would wake up and see the light but he has fallen off the edge. Maybe someday there will be a cure but for now,,,, he is a lost cause.
So once again I get no specific answers but at least FnG tried. More than I can say for the rest of them. later all. Dinner time.
Banks have to have a specific amount of capital on the books in order to lend money. You know what TARP was? It was a taxpayer loan at high interest rates that banks could treat as capital so that they could still loan ten times their capital amount. It allowed banks to make loans based on taxpayer loans to the banks in order to satisfy regulation. We had to reinstitute uptick because TARP was a crappy solution and any intelligent investor knew that.
Check and mate Smashey
Lehman Brothers and many others went down because of regulation. Sarbanes Oxley says that if your assets increase in value you have to list them at cost, but if they go down in value you have to list them at FMV. That little piece of regulation made Lehman Brothers and so many others look completely worthless when the housing bubble began to head down hill and resulted in the bank run that brought about TARP. TARP funds were funneled to banks so that they could comply with Sarbanes Oxley and other regulation requirements without going out of business.
Is that proof enough that we DONT have the resources?
The "rationing hypothesis" is not mine, it is a fact that you cannot dispute. You even said in your response that we may have to "prioritize" the care. rationing is rationing no matter what you want to call it.
You think Lehman Brothers went down just because of short sellers?
And u think government is going to help us achive that? I dont think so! They fucked this all up to start with! So why trust them to fix this mess.
From USA Today:
The number of U.S. medical school students going into primary care has dropped 51.8 percent since 1997, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Considering it takes 10 to 11 years to educate a doctor, the drying up of the pipeline is a big concern to health-care experts. The academy is predicting a shortage of 40,000 family physicians in 2020, when the demand is expected to spike. The U.S. health care system has about 100,000 family physicians and will need 139,531 in 10 years. The current environment is attracting only half the number needed to meet the demand.
At the heart of the rising demands on primary care physicians will be the 78 million baby boomers in the United States born from 1946 to 1964, who begin to turn 65 in 2011 and will require increasing medical care, and the current group of underserved patients.
If Congress passes health care legislation that extends insurance coverage to a significant part of the 47 million Americans who lack insurance, the need for more doctors is going to escalate.
FNG does not live in the real world his 40 million number is big fucking lie.
Goddammit, everybody, you are going around in convoluted ciorckes here. I don't deny that we have great health care resources in this country, I just would rather Americans have it then rich arabs
FNG so we can afford to give everyone full coverage? Never mind the 11.6 trillion debt? Never mind the lack of primary docters and lack of nurses now! Geezes man what are u drinking these days?
No we don't FnG and i'll be right back to post the statistics of our medical provider shortage.
I gots ta go ttyl
Friday read why they instituted the uptick rule in the first placce back in 1938 - in 2007 it was simply assumed that nobody would risk the billions it would take to bring down a venerable institution like Lehman Bros. They were wrong.
Why would we want to have only the government running the show if they deny the treatment u would have no where to go. Today u can pick the insurance company that best fits your needs. And IF we would allow more insurance competion rather then just favoring big firms we would see a drop in prices!
Smashey, exactly.
http://ccvoice.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/kennedy-ca
re/ Why didn't Ted go to one of the 36 countries that are better than the US for healthcare?
No smashey. I'm sorry the "rationing" hypothesis is purely yours. I quite frankly don't think anything important would not be available. We have the resources.
There's no provision in my healthcare solutions post because it's not the Federal Government's job. The states and communities need to be the ones providing health insurance for the poor. I think I did say that in my healthcare solutions post.
Still didn't answer the question of why the Canadians flock here with their great national system. The same system you seem to advocate here.
I gotta go pick some apples with my daughter but thanks for the debate fellas.
Oh, and removing uptick isn't what crashed the markets. Selling short isn't a good investment unless you know it's going to keep going down. If the economy was good, removing uptick wouldn't do a thing. By removing it, at least some people were able to make money on the downturn. Putting uptick back on was just one more bailout that kept fund managers from making any money and helped destroy the investment class.
Not saying it wouldn't happen that way FnG, just saying someone said that the govt having to make choices would happen, you are saying you would do it, and they were dismissed as an unpatriotic fear mongering liar. Seems to me like you agree that may have to happen. Your words, not mine.
yes, Friday I absolutely agree with that. And I agree with alot of what you put forth in that link the other day. Lots of good ideas, but there is no provision in that reform package for those that cannot afford health care.
with a shortage of doctors and nurses the fact is we would be waiting. Average wait times are lower here then across the world do we want to take that away as well? I am sorry but the FNG baby machine is trying to wreck this nation and the GOP party not save it. He would drown us in more taxes and more debt.
Yes, Smashey we are a rich country with alot of resources and foreignors come here all the time to partake in those resources. Under my administration, health care would be reserved for Americans first, then foreignors.
How about this FnG, how about we let a doctor with 4 years of college remove the wart so that the specialist can be free to work on Johnny. We would cut costs all around that way.
Againg FNG is clearly lacking understanding why do they come here? So they do not wait in line for an MRI and that we have better care. Lastly its not just rich Canadians its Canadians of all strips and foreignors of all strips that come here. they come to see specialists and other doctors and physicians. Do we want to stop that? I don't and government run healthcare would do just that.
FnG, since when does the guy who removes warts from your butt also specialize in whatever is killing Johnny?
Jesus christ Smashey, you are the one that came up with the unlikelty scenario of 50 people that will die if they don't get the same procedure fronm the same doctor. It's a stupid scenario, and yea, in that situation I would put children ahead of all others, wouldn't you?
So ask yourself why Canadians flock here for healthcare in the first place? Thought they had a great universal plan?
And oh yeah, rich Canadians and arabs and Chinese and other foreignors who flock here for health care, would be last in line
So the old people are screwed? Sounds like by your plan Sarah Palin may have been right huh?
I would put children first, then pregnant women
You are assuming that there are a ton of doctors in Johnny's city that can perform the procedure. which leads me back to the original question in the blog. If there are 50 people that need the same procedure, who gets priority then? First come first serve and Johnny is dead anyway. But at least he was covered right? Maybe they can put that on his tombstone.
Friday, there wouldn't have need to be a bailout of the Bush administration hadn't allowed the theivery to take place. For one thing Friday, please tell me why they did away with the 70-year "uptick rule" in 2007, which was specifically designed to prevent the very scenario that unfolded in Sept 2008.
Let's assume everybody is covered. If Johnny is going to die if he doesn't receive care, CLEARLY Johnny will take priority over a guy that goes in to get a wart removed from his ass. However, if the guy who has the wart on his ass is wealthy and has great insurance, and Johnny has no insurance and cannot afford to see a doctor and get proper care, clearly he is going to die. The first thing you do is make sure everyone is covered.
Bush is responsible. He started acting like a Democrat when he signed Pelosi/Reid's bailout program under the assumption that acting like a Democrat is better than doing nothing. If we pass Obamacare, we are acting under the assumption that acting like a Democrat is better than doing nothing. It was wrong then, it's still wrong now.
The worst economic calamity in our lifetime happened after several quarters of uninterrupted growth. What changed? Democrats won congress, raised the price of labor, kept Americans from developing our own energy sources, and failed to regulate the housing industry. Put the work in FnG, do the research. Don't just by the Obama "last 8 years" line.
Friday, the Bush administration just presided over probably the worst economic calamity we'll see in our lifetime. Do the Democrats in Congress share part of the blame? Of course! But for Chrissakes, the president is very much responsible.
If you provide incentive for quality healthcare, supply will increase and prices will drop. If you take away that incentive quality and quantity will decrease and the cost to the system will increase. That is why they are having babies in the bathroom in the UK.
The assumption that there is only so much healthcare available is a false assumption. The level of any resource available may still be limited, but it's limitations vary depending on the incentives to increase the resources available. Look at what price caps did to oil and gas supply under Carter. Look what happened when Reagan abolished them. Supply increased and prices dropped.
And my answer is if it is shared, the rest of them are fucked anyway. What good is a public plan if the government gets to pick and choose who gets what? No is still no regardless of who says it to you is it not? Johnny is still gonna die if he has to wait a year for the care he needs, but at least he was covered! That doesn't make sense to me.
You can't make the arguement on principal "cause its the right thing to do." The question is "how can it be done." You are still not answering the question.
Erock your anti-government drivel is getting almost nauseating. We undertsand - you bitterly hate and distrust the government.
Let's simplify the argument because I don't see what you are trying to say.
Let's start with this assumption - there is only so much health care available. The question is, do we try to share that health care amongst everybody, or should we simply just allow a portion of the population to get everything they need or want and fuck the rest of them?
FnG, did I mention Bush was projecting a surplus before Democrats took over in 2006? I love how Obama loves to blame the last 8 years when the only economic troubles of those 8 years happened when Democrats controlled congress.
Exactly their is a differance between specialists and non specialists.
The government is interested in power or are u just that naivie? Add to it how is the government going to control the cost of healthcare without taking it all over? and what u are implying is that the government will end up acting as insurance companies or it can tax us all to death or just keep borrowing money. I reject that out right.
FNG, first off thank you for finally responding. I don't think it matters what 'cunt' you referenced, th argument didn't make sense because the physicians don't do the same job. Here's my response, the government WILL have to ration based on cost. Either by limiting what the Dr's are paid or limiting what care you get. As RS put it, he would hope it would be incentive to put more Dr's in the system, but if their pay is regulated there will not be incentive and henceforth less Dr's. Then they will have to ration it based on availability and the cost of the procedure itself. I understand your point but do you not see that regardless it will be rationed and cost will be the factor? Ability to pay only plays in if you have your own insurance. Ability of the Dr' to do it will play if you have the public option. Either way you won't get the care or will have to wait for it. Happens everytime this system is tried without fail.
Friday, perhaps if Bush wasn't so adamant about borrowing money to finance tax breaks for the wealthy during a time of war, and perhaps if the Bush adnministration didn't preside over the biggest ripoff in American history, Obama wouldn't need to take any of the measures he has taken. Obama, in fact, has rescued capitalism from itself.
Actually, Smashey, I specifically referenced "fat cunts" rather than "rich cunts" and it was in reference to putting a sick child ahead of some "fat cunt" who wants a facelift.
I'll try to answer your questions:
1) There may not be a way to get around "rationing" of some resources, but we could do the best we can. The idea that we shouldn't allow 40,000,000 more people to obtain health care because it might result in "rationing" as you put it, is just sickening. Do you mean to tell me that because we might have to set priorities at times, or "ration" health care as you put it, we shouldn't seek to insure everyone? What kind of a demented mentality is that? Fuck those people that can't afford it, we don't want to have to wait in line? It is about the most disgusting reasoning I've heard yet against universal health care.
2) The difference between the government or insurance companies setting priorities or "rationing" as you must put it, is that the government is interested in the general welfare of it's citizens, whereas the insurance company is interested in the general welfare of it's stockholders and CEOs.
Now let me get this straight - you actually believe that health care should be allocated to the highest bidder rather than to who needs it the most? Do you realize what you are saying? So exactly what happens to the people who can't afford ever-increasing health care?
RS, Obama is getting ready to eclipse Bush's war deficits, and in fact will by the first part of next year. I would also like to point out that Bush was scheduled to show a surplus this year back in 2006 before we elected a Democrat congress because Republicans spent too much. Chew on that for a minute.
I will kindly respond to you RS as you were so kind to answer: #1 - "At the same time, maybe this will bring back on the job training for the lower skill medical professions and more incentives for the more skilled professions to encourage more to join who are interested, and helping lower unemployment. Unfortunately, we are likely looking at a tax increase..."------#1. It could be incentive for more to join the medical profession but med school is not a quick turn and lets face it, not everyone is cut out to do the job. And if the government regulates Dr. pay to limit cost that is incentive to not. #2. I would hope so as well but as erock pointed out cost is the #1 issue here in the end and they may have no choice if they want to have incentive for Dr's as you pointed out in answer #1. The cost has to be regulated somewhere.
How exactly would you like it worded Eagle? I don't mind trying to help you out but I don't know if I can word it much differently. It is what it is.
Smashey, I will admit to everyone on this site that I am a little slow. Jackie and Danny both know that. I will try my best to answer that question, but could you possibly word them a little differently? Thanks,
-Eagle
If anyone cares to answer my questions, they remain unanswered in my blog archive.
With 11.6 trillion in debt and more to come they would have no choice but to base it on cost.
"1. How does the government keep from having to ration care when it injects 40 million new people into the system without injecting a proportionate number of caregivers and facilities to meet the increase in demand?" ~ Valid point, and will likely be the cause of some chaos in the beginning. At the same time, maybe this will bring back on the job training for the lower skill medical professions and more incentives for the more skilled professions to encourage more to join who are interested, and helping lower unemployment. Unfortunately, we are likely looking at a tax increase... a tax increase was however inevitable to begin with because of the out of control war spending that Bush was so kind as to pass to the next guy... "2. If the government has to ration care because of the above reason what is the difference between them rationing it because of supply and demand, and the insurance companies rationing because of price? In short, is no from the government the same as no from the insurance company?" Again, a valid point. And no, I don't believe there is much of a difference, though if it does come to that, I would hope the government would base its decisions on needs as opposed to cost.
It will be interesting to see if I have any answers when I get home from work. Not holding my breath however.
|
<< Home