Wake Up Call

[Cap'n Cat]

What $700 trillion? We don't have any money....

We have enough money to stay at war and man over 700 military bases overseas..

Poor Z. Rolled so unkindly on such a nice day.

[ASUG8]

What $700 trillion? We don't have any money....

We have enough money to stay at war and man over 700 military bases overseas..

We should be doing something about that. Write your leadership to get this rectified. And maybe close down a Cuban prison in the process.

[GannonFan]

I agree, it's gotten so confusing and out of hand as to what things really cost that we almost need to start over. Let people see what things really cost, let them make a decision about what they want to pay for, and go from there. I like the marketplace idea, but it's not going to work because the costs are still basically hidden and not well understood.

That's why I'm a fan of single payer. Providers, manufacturers, and pharma could compete in an open market and consumers could shop services and products around.

The amount of waste in paper work alone with the current system is astounding. Small offices spend billions on administrative costs alone. That's money and resources that could be going to care.

I'm not a fan of that because, at the end of the day, it crushes any innovation that isn't cost related. There has to be an option that allows and rewards individuals and companies to develop and improve on medicine and then to be able to make money off of that innovation. We don't want health care to become what the vaccination market became - because it's mostly government that buys the vaccinations, they pretty much set the price. Because the margins are so small, most people just don't even bother investing their time (medical personnel, researchers, etc) or their money (investors) in a market of such known low returns. A single payer system would do the same in health care - when you know that you won't get rewarded for groundbreaking innovation, why would you even try? And the headwinds are clear that this would be the direction - why else would, as part of Obamacare, would you institute an excise tax (not even an income tax, they went right to the excise power) on medical equipment manufacturers? That's a clear indication that innovation is not welcome and certainly won't be paid for. It wouldn't be a surprise, then, that innovation wouldn't be very common in that scenario, and while I'm still decades away from needing a lot of medical care, I'd sure like to think that I could benefit from the improvements between now and then.

[kalm]

That's why I'm a fan of single payer. Providers, manufacturers, and pharma could compete in an open market and consumers could shop services and products around.

The amount of waste in paper work alone with the current system is astounding. Small offices spend billions on administrative costs alone. That's money and resources that could be going to care.

I'm not a fan of that because, at the end of the day, it crushes any innovation that isn't cost related. There has to be an option that allows and rewards individuals and companies to develop and improve on medicine and then to be able to make money off of that innovation. We don't want health care to become what the vaccination market became - because it's mostly government that buys the vaccinations, they pretty much set the price. Because the margins are so small, most people just don't even bother investing their time (medical personnel, researchers, etc) or their money (investors) in a market of such known low returns. A single payer system would do the same in health care - when you know that you won't get rewarded for groundbreaking innovation, why would you even try? And the headwinds are clear that this would be the direction - why else would, as part of Obamacare, would you institute an excise tax (not even an income tax, they went right to the excise power) on medical equipment manufacturers? That's a clear indication that innovation is not welcome and certainly won't be paid for. It wouldn't be a surprise, then, that innovation wouldn't be very common in that scenario, and while I'm still decades away from needing a lot of medical care, I'd sure like to think that I could benefit from the improvements between now and then.

I'm not advocating Obamacare, and why does the nature of how insurance is managed have to impede technological/manufacturing/research innovation?

[Chizzang]

I'm not a fan of that because, at the end of the day, it crushes any innovation that isn't cost related. There has to be an option that allows and rewards individuals and companies to develop and improve on medicine and then to be able to make money off of that innovation. We don't want health care to become what the vaccination market became - because it's mostly government that buys the vaccinations, they pretty much set the price. Because the margins are so small, most people just don't even bother investing their time (medical personnel, researchers, etc) or their money (investors) in a market of such known low returns. A single payer system would do the same in health care - when you know that you won't get rewarded for groundbreaking innovation, why would you even try? And the headwinds are clear that this would be the direction - why else would, as part of Obamacare, would you institute an excise tax (not even an income tax, they went right to the excise power) on medical equipment manufacturers? That's a clear indication that innovation is not welcome and certainly won't be paid for. It wouldn't be a surprise, then, that innovation wouldn't be very common in that scenario, and while I'm still decades away from needing a lot of medical care, I'd sure like to think that I could benefit from the improvements between now and then.

I'm not advocating Obamacare, and why does the nature of how insurance is managed have to impede technological/manufacturing/research innovation?

It doesn't...

[GannonFan]

I'm not advocating Obamacare, and why does the nature of how insurance is managed have to impede technological/manufacturing/research innovation?

It doesn't...

Sure it does. Do you really think the excise tax (i.e a tax on the sales, not a tax on profit) on medical devices won't have the effect of reducing the amount of research or innovation in that field? People like to make money from their efforts and when people see that their cannot profit from a particular line of research or innovation they tend to work on something else. Again, we have a vaccination market, globally, that doesn't really come up with new vaccinations anymore and when they do, the rollout is limited, the supply is minimal, and mostly it's because there is no way to profit from those endevours. Governments typically are the consumers in this market and they set a price and there is no competition. You get whatever they are willing to pay. It does result in real cheap vaccinations, but it also results in limited supply and a general lack of new and innovative vaccinations.

To say that we are only managing how insurance is managed is disingenious. This has never been and isn't now soley about health insurance. Medicare is basically just insurance, but its impact on the pricing and availability of medical care is pretty profound. How we treat people and medically care for people is certainly affected by the way the insurance is managed - why else would we even be discussin this issue?

[89Hen]

Here is a newly minted article from Canada about their single payer system.


http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/st ... 95911.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This isn't Canada.

Weren't you one of the guys with a boner for Iceland's banking practices?

[kalm]

This isn't Canada.

Weren't you one of the guys with a boner for Iceland's banking practices?

This isn't banking.

(But it sounds like Canada's system is less predatory as well.)

Btw, weren't you one of the guys with a boner for using Greece (small economy) as an example of austerity?

[89Hen]

Weren't you one of the guys with a boner for Iceland's banking practices?

This isn't banking.

(But it sounds like Canada's system is less predatory as well.)

Btw, weren't you one of the guys with a boner for using Greece (small economy) as an example of austerity?

Ummm, no.

You were busted, just fess up and I'll let it drop.

[kalm]

It doesn't...

Sure it does. Do you really think the excise tax (i.e a tax on the sales, not a tax on profit) on medical devices won't have the effect of reducing the amount of research or innovation in that field? People like to make money from their efforts and when people see that their cannot profit from a particular line of research or innovation they tend to work on something else. Again, we have a vaccination market, globally, that doesn't really come up with new vaccinations anymore and when they do, the rollout is limited, the supply is minimal, and mostly it's because there is no way to profit from those endevours. Governments typically are the consumers in this market and they set a price and there is no competition. You get whatever they are willing to pay. It does result in real cheap vaccinations, but it also results in limited supply and a general lack of new and innovative vaccinations.

To say that we are only managing how insurance is managed is disingenious. This has never been and isn't now soley about health insurance. Medicare is basically just insurance, but its impact on the pricing and availability of medical care is pretty profound. How we treat people and medically care for people is certainly affected by the way the insurance is managed - why else would we even be discussin this issue?

So it's impossible to have innovation AND single payer?

No innovations have come from countries with socialized insurance?

[kalm]

This isn't banking.

(But it sounds like Canada's system is less predatory as well.)

Btw, weren't you one of the guys with a boner for using Greece (small economy) as an example of austerity?

Ummm, no.

You were busted, just fess up and I'll let it drop.

Pretty sure you were. Iceland is a bad example because it's a small economy. Greece is a great example because the outcome fits your ideology.

[Cap'n Cat]

[AZGrizFan]

We have enough money to stay at war and man over 700 military bases overseas..

Poor Z. Rolled so unkindly on such a nice day.

Oh yeah. He really got me there. He's a regular fucking Einstein.

[89Hen]

Ummm, no.

You were busted, just fess up and I'll let it drop.

Pretty sure you were. Iceland is a bad example because it's a small economy. Greece is a great example because the outcome fits your ideology.

What in the HELL are you talking about???

I just think dismissing Iceland's success because of it's size is lame.

Let it drop Kalm.

[kalm]

Pretty sure you were. Iceland is a bad example because it's a small economy. Greece is a great example because the outcome fits your ideology.

What in the HELL are you talking about???

I just think dismissing Iceland's success because of it's size is lame.

Let it drop Kalm.

I still think it's lame. Basic banking and basic health insurance don't need to be complicated.

Now, run along and find the thread where I called out the hypocrisy on using Greece as an example versus Iceland. Pretty sure you either left that one quickly or never posted on it.

[89Hen]

What in the HELL are you talking about???



Let it drop Kalm.

I still think it's lame. Basic banking and basic health insurance don't need to be complicated.

Now, run along and find the thread where I called out the hypocrisy on using Greece as an example versus Iceland. Pretty sure you either left that one quickly or never posted on it.

If I never posted on it, not sure where you're going with it.

Point is, you just dismissed an argument by saying "this isn't Canada". You are on the short end of this one Kalm.

[kalm]

I still think it's lame. Basic banking and basic health insurance don't need to be complicated.

Now, run along and find the thread where I called out the hypocrisy on using Greece as an example versus Iceland. Pretty sure you either left that one quickly or never posted on it.

If I never posted on it, not sure where you're going with it.

Point is, you just dismissed an argument by saying "this isn't Canada". You are on the short end of this one Kalm.

Yeah...I was being flippant and dismissive...but...this really isn't Canada.

It's kind of like Gannon's issues with single payer. He's tying his argument to what currently is, or to what Obamacare is requiring. I'm arguing for what can be.

Just because Canada has issues with their socialized medicine doesn't mean we can't learn from those and avoid some of the issues if we choosed to do away with our ridiculous labyrinth of insurance regulations and administration.

Again...we're not Canada.

[Cap'n Cat]

If I never posted on it, not sure where you're going with it.

Point is, you just dismissed an argument by saying "this isn't Canada". You are on the short end of this one Kalm.

Yeah...I was being flippant and dismissive...but...this really isn't Canada.

It's kind of like Gannon's issues with single payer. He's tying his argument to what currently is, or to what Obamacare is requiring. I'm arguing for what can be.

Just because Canada has issues with their socialized medicine doesn't mean we can't learn from those and avoid some of the issues if we choosed to do away with our ridiculous labyrinth of insurance regulations and administration.

Again...we're not Canada.

Kalmie,
Conks do not seek positive experiences from outside the borders of the United States. They can't. If America didn't do it, it doesn't warrant a look. Long live Reagan.

[GannonFan]

Sure it does. Do you really think the excise tax (i.e a tax on the sales, not a tax on profit) on medical devices won't have the effect of reducing the amount of research or innovation in that field? People like to make money from their efforts and when people see that their cannot profit from a particular line of research or innovation they tend to work on something else. Again, we have a vaccination market, globally, that doesn't really come up with new vaccinations anymore and when they do, the rollout is limited, the supply is minimal, and mostly it's because there is no way to profit from those endevours. Governments typically are the consumers in this market and they set a price and there is no competition. You get whatever they are willing to pay. It does result in real cheap vaccinations, but it also results in limited supply and a general lack of new and innovative vaccinations.

To say that we are only managing how insurance is managed is disingenious. This has never been and isn't now soley about health insurance. Medicare is basically just insurance, but its impact on the pricing and availability of medical care is pretty profound. How we treat people and medically care for people is certainly affected by the way the insurance is managed - why else would we even be discussin this issue?

So it's impossible to have innovation AND single payer?

No innovations have come from countries with socialized insurance?

It's not an absolute, but a matter of degrees. There will still be innovations, of course, just a question of how many. We still develop new vaccinations, but we're also still manually injecting material into chicken eggs to incubate many of those vaccines because it hasn't been worth anyone's time to develop and commercialize a better method. How much more would we do if that market wasn't essentially single payer as it is today? A lot more, for sure, but hard to say. Same with healthcare, there will always be innovations (and certainly ones that drive down the cost), but the flow will definitely slow down.

[kalm]

So it's impossible to have innovation AND single payer?

No innovations have come from countries with socialized insurance?

It's not an absolute, but a matter of degrees. There will still be innovations, of course, just a question of how many. We still develop new vaccinations, but we're also still manually injecting material into chicken eggs to incubate many of those vaccines because it hasn't been worth anyone's time to develop and commercialize a better method. How much more would we do if that market wasn't essentially single payer as it is today? A lot more, for sure, but hard to say. Same with healthcare, there will always be innovations (and certainly ones that drive down the cost), but the flow will definitely slow down.

The United States Military is single payer too.

[AZGrizFan]

I still think it's lame. Basic banking and basic health insurance don't need to be complicated.

Noob.

[Cap'n Cat]

I still think it's lame. Basic banking and basic health insurance don't need to be complicated.

Noob.

From the same idiot who expresses outrage at a 7,000-page tax code......

[89Hen]

Kalmie,
Conks do not seek positive experiences from outside the borders of the United States. They can't. If America didn't do it, it doesn't warrant a look. Long live Reagan.

Ugh, nevermind.

[kalm]

I still think it's lame. Basic banking and basic health insurance don't need to be complicated.

Noob.

The irony of conks defending over-complexity of defending rules and regulations..... waste....

[Cap'n Cat]

Kalmie,
Conks do not seek positive experiences from outside the borders of the United States. They can't. If America didn't do it, it doesn't warrant a look. Long live Reagan.

Ugh, nevermind.

Damned right, Hen.


"Denmark? What could we possibly learn from DENMARK???"