CBS news story on ACA cost debunked by...Fox News? What?

[chalupa]

Assuming that people getting emergency care and not paying really is the driving force in the cost of healthcare, EMTALA produced a lot of unintended consequences that made healthcare less available, not more available. Assuming that the ACA is a solution is wrong. The problem of people dying on the mats outside of the ER is a problem of not enough healthcare to go around. The ACA will not increase the supply of healthcare, it will increase the demand.

PREVENTIVE CARE.

That is the crux of the plan, based on other industrialized countries' experience! We actually WILL reduce the demand for the most expensive care as we increase the demand for faster, cheaper care. In the meantime, the pool of recipients is increased, so the cost of the cheaper care goes down even further. The cost per person should drop.

The problem, fender, is that people are not making the right choice currently, nor were they making the right choices prior to the EMTALA. Therefore, the burden on society was so great that society had to act to solve it. Now, society, and this is the beauty of nothing being chiseled in stone, is attempting to further improve the system.

Argue about taxes and subsidies being stealing and immoral all you want, you have not proffered an alternate answer other than "repeal and let the market sort it out" except the market never sorted it out in the first place.

 

[Nocturnal]

^One can argue that the market DID sort it out.

US consumers/taxpayers decided they didn't want people dying in the streets from being denied medical attention (especially if those people actually could pay somehow) so the EMTALA was passed. People have been unable to self insure at reasonable costs, people with pre-existing conditions were SOL, and the #1 cause of bankruptcy among families was due to medical bills. A solid majority of our congress passed the ACA and it was signed into law by the President, affirmed by SCOTUS as well.

The citizens of our Democracy decided that this was a solution or a step in the right direction.

 

[FenderBender]

PREVENTIVE CARE.

That is the crux of the plan, based on other industrialized countries' experience! We actually WILL reduce the demand for the most expensive care as we increase the demand for faster, cheaper care. In the meantime, the pool of recipients is increased, so the cost of the cheaper care goes down even further. The cost per person should drop.

The problem, fender, is that people are not making the right choice currently, nor were they making the right choices prior to the EMTALA. Therefore, the burden on society was so great that society had to act to solve it. Now, society, and this is the beauty of nothing being chiseled in stone, is attempting to further improve the system.

Argue about taxes and subsidies being stealing and immoral all you want, you have not proffered an alternate answer other than "repeal and let the market sort it out" except the market never sorted it out in the first place.

The solution is not government it's the healthcare they're receiving. Why didn't we have the ACA in 1821? People were dying from lack of care back then, according to you the ACA would solve the problem. Nobody dying in the streets. People had to work to produce healthcare so that we could even think about seeing a doctor when we had health problems. Now you're saying that the ACA is a solution because it's determining who actually gets the solution. That is no different than saying our solution is to steal it.

The problem is there isn't enough healthcare to go around. The ACA doesn't solve this problem. It just changes who gets the healthcare we have to offer. Your insistence that this is a solution doesn't make it one.

 

[chalupa]

The solution is not government it's the healthcare they're receiving. Why didn't we have the ACA in 1821?

Because the internet wasn't invented yet.

What the fuck are you attempting to do here? That was funny, though.

The problem is there isn't enough healthcare to go around.

What? That isn't the problem. There actually is enough healthcare to go around, and all of the happy horseshit about there not being enough doctors is exactly that; when people start using preventive care, the need for doctors will balance out.

The ACA doesn't solve this problem.

You're right, because it is not intended to solve an imaginary problem.

It just changes who gets the healthcare we have to offer.

No, it adds EVERYONE to who gets healthcare.

Your insistence that this is a solution doesn't make it one.

Irony overload. Your insistence that there is somehow not enough healthcare doesn't make it so.

Note that I never claim this is the "solution." I claim that it has a theoretical proposition that has merit, and right now is better than the clusterfuck that exists.

 

[FenderBender]

Irony overload. Your insistence that there is somehow not enough healthcare doesn't make it so.

If there was enough to go around it wouldn't be this expensive, the cost would be arbitrarily low.

 

[chalupa]

If there was enough to go around it wouldn't be this expensive, the cost would be arbitrarily low.

I can't even...you literally are treating health care like it is a commodity.

 

[FenderBender]

Enlighten me please. What is it?

 

[chalupa]

Health care is NOT a commodity. It is a highly complex and variable service, tailor-made for each individual user based on uncountable variables. You don't go up and ask for "6 health cares, please," but you already know that.

It isn't a finite supply juxtaposed against overwhelming demand; if anything, it is people demanding too much of the wrong items (attempting to phrase it as though it is a commodity, which it is not) at the wrong times and paying more than they should.

Preventive medicine is shown in numerous studies, analyses, and real-world applications to not only cost less, but to take less time, resources, and most importantly, to have more successful outcomes. The problem is the average plumber Joe is too short-sighted to avail himself of the system. So, in the past he ended up dying on the mat outside the automatic doors of the ER because he couldn't afford to pay for the emergency or end-of-life care, as opposed to those who actually, you know, were proactive. By the way, don't compare medicine today to anything pre-dating like the 1950s, and even that is a stretch, again, or you'll just make yourself look foolish. Anyway, people were sick, people were dying, people were going bankrupt because of health care costs, and that became a SOCIETAL problem.

The EMTALA was a societal solution to this problem, and while good-intentioned, it left major issues unresolved. The ACA is an attempt to address some of those issues in one comprehensive plan, while keeping the end goal of the original plan in place (health care for all).

So, maybe you disagree with the means, but you keep saying we aren't going to let those people die. I ask again, what is your better plan? Free market already failed, so that is out as an option.

 

[Nocturnal]

If there was enough to go around it wouldn't be this expensive, the cost would be arbitrarily low.

The only supply component of health care that is relatively fixed in terms of quantity would be doctors and even those can be increased over time. Let's provide medical students with zero interest student loans. Done, an extra 10% of students will now move into that field.

Things like medicine, blood tests, MRIs all have almost zero marginal cost. Once a hospital buys one of my wife's blood analyzyers they only pay between 10cents and maybe a couple bucks per test. Most of the work involved is automated, and what isn't only relies on a pretty cheap lab tech. Healthcare isn't expensive due to a supply problem.

Personally I'd like to address the huge amount of money spent on extending the lives of elderly people by a few short years or even just months. Sure, little Jimmy can't get in to see a doctor because it's too pricy but let's spend a few hundred grand bringing grandpa back to life so he can die in 4 months. This was discussed at some point but people lost their heads and screamed about death panels.

 

[FenderBender]

Health care is NOT a commodity. It is a highly complex and variable service, tailor-made for each individual user based on uncountable variables. You don't go up and ask for "6 health cares, please," but you already know that.

And luckily goods and services are not subject to the effects of supply and demand.

It isn't a finite supply juxtaposed against overwhelming demand; if anything, it is people demanding too much of the wrong items (attempting to phrase it as though it is a commodity, which it is not) at the wrong times and paying more than they should.

Ok much clearer now. It's not supply and demand. It's demand and supply.

Preventive medicine is shown in numerous studies, analyses, and real-world applications to not only cost less, but to take less time, resources, and most importantly, to have more successful outcomes. The problem is the average plumber Joe is too short-sighted to avail himself of the system. So, in the past he ended up dying on the mat outside the automatic doors of the ER because he couldn't afford to pay for the emergency or end-of-life care, as opposed to those who actually, you know, were proactive. By the way, don't compare medicine today to anything pre-dating like the 1950s, and even that is a stretch, again, or you'll just make yourself look foolish. Anyway, people were sick, people were dying, people were going bankrupt because of health care costs, and that became a SOCIETAL problem.

Well then people should want preventive care always. If it's always better then what possible reason could people possibly have not to want it? If it's people being stupid then do what you can to raise awareness. If we can't get through to people then why even bother debating the issue.

I guess the only possible solution is to stick a gun to people's heads. Doctors have only ever treated under threat of force. The only possible solution is to make it clear that people's bad decisions are everybody else's responsibility, and failure to take care of them will result in punishment against the people who are not responsible.

The EMTALA was a societal solution to this problem, and while good-intentioned, it left major issues unresolved. The ACA is an attempt to address some of those issues in one comprehensive plan, while keeping the end goal of the original plan in place (health care for all).

Yeah, EMTALA was a big mistake. Our bad. But this new idea is flawless.

So, maybe you disagree with the means, but you keep saying we aren't going to let those people die. I ask again, what is your better plan? Free market already failed, so that is out as an option.

How did the free market fail again? The free market is the reason we have the treatments we have today.

 

[chalupa]

You don't do sarcasm very well, youre at your best when you are being myopic and obtuse at the same time.

And I can't help you if you just cannot understand the difference between a commodity and a skilled service, but supply and demand this ain't.



You know what's great? You still have not offered any other solution.

The free market failed because there was a need to enact the EMTALA in the first place. Do you think someone woke up one day and went, "Well fuck me sideways, I think we should just make every hospital give their services to anybody, even if they can't afford it!" There were people who couldn't get the care, who were going bankrupt, or who were dying on the mat outside the automatic doors. There were enough of those people that the society had to address the problem, in order to maintain a society.

So now, you have a fucked up health care system because the incentives are out of step with what is needed, and the ACA is an attempt to address that. I get that you just cannot stomach having to help try to fix the problem through taxation/subsidies, but the good thing is we are in a republic and we will drag you along, kicking and screaming, while we try new things to figure this out.

 

[FenderBender]

You don't do sarcasm very well, youre at your best when you are being myopic and obtuse at the same time.

I don't know what these words mean and I'm not going to bother to look it up.

And I can't help you if you just cannot understand the difference between a commodity and a skilled service, but supply and demand this ain't.

I want to be clear on this. Supply and demand aren't determining the price of healthcare?

You know what's great? You still have not offered any other solution.

My solution is repeal EMTALA and the ACA and let hospitals, doctors and medical researchers continue to grow the quality and supply of healthcare products and services. Hey, I know it's no theft and bondage but it's the best I can offer. And on the plus side if every hospital in the world shut down tomorrow, we would still have EMTALA and the ACA to keep us healthy and safe.

The free market failed because there was a need to enact the EMTALA in the first place. Do you think someone woke up one day and went, "Well fuck me sideways, I think we should just make every hospital give their services to anybody, even if they can't afford it!" There were people who couldn't get the care, who were going bankrupt, or who were dying on the mat outside the automatic doors. There were enough of those people that the society had to address the problem, in order to maintain a society.

We had no healthcare. People spent time and effort to provide healthcare. They didn't have enough for everyone. Therefore the market failed. Laws forcing doctors to treat people who showed up at the door regardless of cost or time, have fixed all our problems (except for the cost in money and time placed on uncompensated hospitals). Now we've fixed that problem by taking everyone's money.

 

[chalupa]

I don't know what these words mean and I'm not going to bother to look it up.



I want to be clear on this. Supply and demand aren't determining the price of healthcare?



My solution is repeal EMTALA and the ACA and let hospitals, doctors and medical researchers continue to grow the quality and supply of healthcare products and services. Hey, I know it's no theft and bondage but it's the best I can offer. And on the plus side if every hospital in the world shut down tomorrow, we would still have EMTALA and the ACA to keep us healthy and safe.



We had no healthcare. People spent time and effort to provide healthcare. They didn't have enough for everyone. Therefore the market failed. Laws forcing doctors to treat people who showed up at the door regardless of cost or time, have fixed all our problems (except for the cost in money and time placed on uncompensated hospitals). Now we've fixed that problem by taking everyone's money.

This is not a question of adding "more health care" because you can't define what that means.

I don't know how to say it any clearer. You just don't have 75 health cares laying around, and lo and behold, 62 people have need for one each, five people need 2 each, and that last guy needs 3.

Not only that, but the training, schooling, and technology/facilities required drive the cost up through the roof anyway, making your incorrect commodity start out with a high incorrect commodity price. You can't "just add more" supply and bring the price down.

You're wrong so many ways I don't know how to make the explanation simpler.

 

[FenderBender]

This is not a question of adding "more health care" because you can't define what that means.

I don't know how to say it any clearer. You just don't have 75 health cares laying around, and lo and behold, 62 people have need for one each, five people need 2 each, and that last guy needs 3.

Not only that, but the training, schooling, and technology/facilities required drive the cost up through the roof anyway, making your incorrect commodity start out with a high incorrect commodity price. You can't "just add more" supply and bring the price down.

You're wrong so many ways I don't know how to make the explanation simpler.

Healthcare is a collection of goods and services. Technology has brought new medical devices in to the market, and made the production of medical supplies cheaper and safer. Doctors can use technology to provide more information and services to more people, they can also use IT technology to limit administration overhead. Technology can also be used to better train doctors for less money. All of these things combined affect healthcare. And this is exactly why healthcare is better today than it was in the 50's You're right that we don't bundle 'healthcares' and sell them but only someone myopic and obtuse would fail to understand that technology and innovation are what made the term "healthcare" a thing.

 

[chalupa]

Fantastic!

Not a commodity.