And nothing about single payer necessarily dictates this. You don't tell doctors they can't practice under a single payer system. However, the private insurance approach DOES dictate this.
it certainly might. the government would be paying the bills. they can dictate whatever they want.
good lord. you have a yesman following practically every one of your posts :roll:
The power of logic and persuasion I note the keyword in your response is MIGHT. Sure it might. Congress might pass a law tomorrow saying airplanes no longer need wings that might cause a lot of crashes. The fact that it might happen is not an argument against the system itself, it's an argument to make sure that the system is aware of and addresses that problem if it decides to adopt this approach.
well of course I have to say might. it hasnt happened yet. that doesnt make the problem go away. Congress has no problem dictating where costs go. they can put in a few cost controls and budget cuts and my choice of circuit city is gone. or the MRI on my knee that i might need.
If you go to Best Buy and get a tv and then hand me the bill and I pay it, does that mean that I dictated who you bought the tv from, what kind it was, how you got it home, and what you do with it once it's in your home? Payment by government does not mean they control the health care system.
I'm not sure...let's try it!
BUt, instead of me getting the bill and having the hassle of getting it to you (red tape/paperwork) just pm me your credit card number and we'll see if this works!
it certainly might. the government would be paying the bills. they can dictate whatever they want.
good lord. you have a yesman following practically every one of your posts :roll:
The power of logic and persuasion I note the keyword in your response is MIGHT. Sure it might. Congress might pass a law tomorrow saying airplanes no longer need wings that might cause a lot of crashes. The fact that it might happen is not an argument against the system itself, it's an argument to make sure that the system is aware of and addresses that problem if it decides to adopt this approach.
well of course I have to say might. it hasnt happened yet. that doesnt make the problem go away. Congress has no problem dictating where costs go. they can put in a few cost controls and budget cuts and my choice of circuit city is gone. or the MRI on my knee that i might need.
The problem can't "go away" because it's not a problem in existence. You're arguing that just because something might happen, it inevitably will happen. Because there is a potential for this one particular problem we should just shelve any discussion of the whole system rather than talking about ways to make sure this problem does not occur in the system? That makes no sense.
I don't think you get what I'm saying. Under the system I'm proposing, doctors are not employees of the state, so the government can't just close down their offices to save money because they don't pay their salary anyway. Hospitals and doctor's offices would have whatever equipment they can afford based on the income they attract by getting a reputation that encourages people to choose them. How is that different from what we have now? If you run a shit doctor's office and nobody comes, you go out of business. The only difference is that instead of paying money to an insurance company, you pay it via taxes. And instead of having your choice of doctors and the costs of procedures dictated by the deals that insurance company can secure to guarantee their profits, you go to whatever doctor you want, get whatever procedures they recommend, and you send the bill to the single payer office, which sends money from the fund to the doctor. Closing doctor X is not an option for saving money because the government would just be paying doctor Y instead and it saves nothing. Consumers dictate who gets paid via their patronage. Denying an MRI machine to hospital Y is not an option because the hospital runs itself and buys whatever equipment it thinks it needs and can afford based on its ability to attract patients via reputation for good work. The only role of the government is that when the hospital provides a service, the bill is sent to the single-payer fund, instead of to the private insurance company.
If you go to Best Buy and get a tv and then hand me the bill and I pay it, does that mean that I dictated who you bought the tv from, what kind it was, how you got it home, and what you do with it once it's in your home? Payment by government does not mean they control the health care system.
I'm not sure...let's try it!
BUt, instead of me getting the bill and having the hassle of getting it to you (red tape/paperwork) just pm me your credit card number and we'll see if this works!
No dice. For one thing, you don't need a tv. People do need to see doctors. For another, giving someone a credit card is not the same as their bill. If I offer to pay for your tv, and you send me a tv, I'll pay for the tv. But I won't give you my credit card so that you can buy a stereo instead. That's not remotely the same situation. The red tape costs of checking the bill to make sure it's actually a doctor's bill are minimal and a helluva lot cheaper than the red tape you have to go through with a private insurance company.
The problem can't "go away" because it's not a problem in existence. You're arguing that just because something might happen, it inevitably will happen. Because there is a potential for this one particular problem we should just shelve any discussion of the whole system rather than talking about ways to make sure this problem does not occur in the system? That makes no sense.
so potential problems don't exist in your world? man I wanna live there.
and of course we shouldn't shelve the discussion. the system need reform, no question about it.
I don't think you get what I'm saying. Under the system I'm proposing, doctors are not employees of the state, so the government can't just close down their offices to save money because they don't pay their salary anyway. Hospitals and doctor's offices would have whatever equipment they can afford based on the income they attract by getting a reputation that encourages people to choose them. How is that different from what we have now? If you run a shit doctor's office and nobody comes, you go out of business. The only difference is that instead of paying money to an insurance company, you pay it via taxes. And instead of having your choice of doctors and the costs of procedures dictated by the deals that insurance company can secure to guarantee their profits, you go to whatever doctor you want, get whatever procedures they recommend, and you send the bill to the single payer office, which sends money from the fund to the doctor. Closing doctor X is not an option for saving money because the government would just be paying doctor Y instead and it saves nothing. Consumers dictate who gets paid via their patronage. Denying an MRI machine to hospital Y is not an option because the hospital runs itself and buys whatever equipment it thinks it needs and can afford based on its ability to attract patients via reputation for good work. The only role of the government is that when the hospital provides a service, the bill is sent to the single-payer fund, instead of to the private insurance company.
its a shame your proposals don't mean shit
you are assuming the government will have a very hands off approach to this whole this if there is a single payer system. I disagree.
If you go to Best Buy and get a tv and then hand me the bill and I pay it, does that mean that I dictated who you bought the tv from, what kind it was, how you got it home, and what you do with it once it's in your home? Payment by government does not mean they control the health care system.
I'm not sure...let's try it!
BUt, instead of me getting the bill and having the hassle of getting it to you (red tape/paperwork) just pm me your credit card number and we'll see if this works!
No dice. For one thing, you don't need a tv. People do need to see doctors. For another, giving someone a credit card is not the same as their bill. If I offer to pay for your tv, and you send me a tv, I'll pay for the tv. But I won't give you my credit card so that you can buy a stereo instead. That's not remotely the same situation. The red tape costs of checking the bill to make sure it's actually a doctor's bill are minimal and a helluva lot cheaper than the red tape you have to go through with a private insurance company.
Are you saying a TV wasn't a good analogy...or just that you don't trust me with your credit card number.
Certainly the governement COULD limit choice. See, they speak to Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart, etc before you even think about needing a TV. They tell them what they are willing to pay for, if the store disagrees, then they don't cover people going ot that store for a TV. In addition, they specify just the size TV they are willing to pay for and then the store only stocks that. So, yes, you limited my choice, but I didn't even know it.
This happens now, so certainly it will happen in a Gov't system unless bigger changes are made. That's why as jlew said, we need BIGGER, out-of-the-box thinking. We need to solve the issues, not just have more people covered with the same issues as before. Anyhow, I'm all for figuring out a cost-effective way to get reasonable care for all.
cincy, thats nonsense. there are no problems under soul's plan. its flawless besides, you can't talk about what COULD happen. because its hasn't happened. :roll:
I don't think you get what I'm saying. Under the system I'm proposing, doctors are not employees of the state, so the government can't just close down their offices to save money because they don't pay their salary anyway. Hospitals and doctor's offices would have whatever equipment they can afford based on the income they attract by getting a reputation that encourages people to choose them. How is that different from what we have now? If you run a shit doctor's office and nobody comes, you go out of business. The only difference is that instead of paying money to an insurance company, you pay it via taxes. And instead of having your choice of doctors and the costs of procedures dictated by the deals that insurance company can secure to guarantee their profits, you go to whatever doctor you want, get whatever procedures they recommend, and you send the bill to the single payer office, which sends money from the fund to the doctor. Closing doctor X is not an option for saving money because the government would just be paying doctor Y instead and it saves nothing. Consumers dictate who gets paid via their patronage. Denying an MRI machine to hospital Y is not an option because the hospital runs itself and buys whatever equipment it thinks it needs and can afford based on its ability to attract patients via reputation for good work. The only role of the government is that when the hospital provides a service, the bill is sent to the single-payer fund, instead of to the private insurance company.
its a shame your proposals don't mean shit
you are assuming the government will have a very hands off approach to this whole this if there is a single payer system. I disagree.
:? :? :?
It's not HIS proposal; it's THE proposal. Show me one proposal where anyone has ever suggested that the government actually run the healthcare delivery systems.
It's not HIS proposal; it's THE proposal. Show me one proposal where anyone has ever suggested that the government actually run the healthcare delivery systems.
It's not HIS proposal; it's THE proposal. Show me one proposal where anyone has ever suggested that the government actually run the healthcare delivery systems.
I'm saying I don't think anyone has proposed a single-payer plan that includes the government being in charge of the provision of care. It's not like SS just made that up on his own. I don't know how many various single-payer proposals have been made out there, but I think they all fall in line with what SS said.
By the way, here's the main single-payer proposal I know of:
why not leave the decision of uhc up to each individual state?
certainly possible, but what do you see as the advantage of that?
what about when i travel and cross state borders? would one state pay the other for my care? it would add an extra layer of administration, tho i do believe it could be doable...i am just unsure what the benefits would be, b/c it could well still leave some people without healthcare. also, what about when i retire and possibly move to another state? a lot to consider there. and sure, some states more highly populated, more of a tax base for care....others not so much, might suffer in quality due to lack of funds and accesds to facilities, etc. i personally find a broader, universal approach more appealing but certainly interested in alternates.
so potential problems don't exist in your world? man I wanna live there.
and of course we shouldn't shelve the discussion. the system need reform, no question about it.
No, I'm saying a problem can't "go away" if it doesn't exist currently. My flu can't go away if I never had a flu to begin with. A potential problem simply means it is something that needs to be considered before pursuing a course of action... ie. I could potentially get a flu if I come to Chicago in winter, but does that mean I should skip all the benefits of going to Chicago just because one potential problem might arise? Or that I should dress warm and make sure I get vitamin c and wash my hands when I do go to Chicago?
you are assuming the government will have a very hands off approach to this whole this if there is a single payer system. I disagree.
Indeed it is, but the same can be applied to your arguments against health care reform. I assume nothing. I am saying that this is what we should do and how it should be done. I don't know the future so I can't say how it would play out. What I can say is that that is a workable system that would benefit us all, assuming we are willing to work towards it and hold our reps accountable. But that requires sustained interest and attention, which doesn't work for most Americans. There's NASCAR on.
why not leave the decision of uhc up to each individual state?
certainly possible, but what do you see as the advantage of that?
what about when i travel and cross state borders? would one state pay the other for my care? it would add an extra layer of administration, tho i do believe it could be doable...i am just unsure what the benefits would be, b/c it could well still leave some people without healthcare. also, what about when i retire and possibly move to another state? a lot to consider there. and sure, some states more highly populated, more of a tax base for care....others not so much, might suffer in quality due to lack of funds and accesds to facilities, etc. i personally find a broader, universal approach more appealing but certainly interested in alternates.
i think it would be beneficial to have several test sites.........say for example it is working great in kansas, but not good in colorado.......then we have a means to compare what is working and not working.
as for traveling across borders.......again, some states may allow coverage and some may not. i think each state should decide.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
Are you saying a TV wasn't a good analogy...or just that you don't trust me with your credit card number.
Certainly the governement COULD limit choice. See, they speak to Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart, etc before you even think about needing a TV. They tell them what they are willing to pay for, if the store disagrees, then they don't cover people going ot that store for a TV. In addition, they specify just the size TV they are willing to pay for and then the store only stocks that. So, yes, you limited my choice, but I didn't even know it.
This happens now, so certainly it will happen in a Gov't system unless bigger changes are made. That's why as jlew said, we need BIGGER, out-of-the-box thinking. We need to solve the issues, not just have more people covered with the same issues as before. Anyhow, I'm all for figuring out a cost-effective way to get reasonable care for all.
The TV thing was a fine analogy. But no I don't trust you with my credit card, which is why I have never proposed that we give people credit cards to do with as they please and tell them only to use them for doctors. Where have I ever said anything approaching this? Do you truly not see a difference between reimbursement/bill payment after the fact and handing people money up front and hoping they spend it well?
The government also could NOT limit choice. What is your point? As I've acknowledged, there will need to be people holding reps accountable to ensure that the government doesn't overstep itself. That is our duty as citizens. Step one of this is getting special interests out of governance, which is a whole other issue I've touched on before elsewhere. I haven't said my plan is perfect, but there are ways to design it to protect abuse.
And JLEW is the out-of-the-box thinker here? He's been advocating small scale tinkering under the same broken system since this debate started. Cover the uninsured, but leave the rest intact. Private health care is fine, just add the uninsured to unemployment benefits and tell people with jobs to buy health care on their own. I'm here saying outlaw private insurance, make doctors answerable to patients and create a national health care fund that covers everyone while still operating on free market principles on the individual transaction level... and you say HE is the one thinking out-of-the-box? My whole argument against jlew this whole time has been that he's only proposing ideas that treat the symptoms, not the underlying issues of our health care system... which is a for-profit industry dictating costs and coverage that leaves citizens and doctors at the mercy of people who have no interest in providing good care, only maximizing their profit.
Of course, out of the box for you is whatever delusion you can sell yourself that profiting off people's sickness is a good thing and an American tradition... anything that threatens private profit is too outside the box for your liking... you want people safely inside that profit-dominating box.
so potential problems don't exist in your world? man I wanna live there.
and of course we shouldn't shelve the discussion. the system need reform, no question about it.
No, I'm saying a problem can't "go away" if it doesn't exist currently. My flu can't go away if I never had a flu to begin with. A potential problem simply means it is something that needs to be considered before pursuing a course of action... ie. I could potentially get a flu if I come to Chicago in winter, but does that mean I should skip all the benefits of going to Chicago just because one potential problem might arise? Or that I should dress warm and make sure I get vitamin c and wash my hands when I do go to Chicago?
you are assuming the government will have a very hands off approach to this whole this if there is a single payer system. I disagree.
Indeed it is, but the same can be applied to your arguments against health care reform. I assume nothing. I am saying that this is what we should do and how it should be done. I don't know the future so I can't say how it would play out. What I can say is that that is a workable system that would benefit us all, assuming we are willing to work towards it and hold our reps accountable. But that requires sustained interest and attention, which doesn't work for most Americans. There's NASCAR on.
well one thing is certain....you love analogies, saying how things "should" be done, and rednecks
so potential problems don't exist in your world? man I wanna live there.
and of course we shouldn't shelve the discussion. the system need reform, no question about it.
No, I'm saying a problem can't "go away" if it doesn't exist currently. My flu can't go away if I never had a flu to begin with. A potential problem simply means it is something that needs to be considered before pursuing a course of action... ie. I could potentially get a flu if I come to Chicago in winter, but does that mean I should skip all the benefits of going to Chicago just because one potential problem might arise? Or that I should dress warm and make sure I get vitamin c and wash my hands when I do go to Chicago?
you are assuming the government will have a very hands off approach to this whole this if there is a single payer system. I disagree.
Indeed it is, but the same can be applied to your arguments against health care reform. I assume nothing. I am saying that this is what we should do and how it should be done. I don't know the future so I can't say how it would play out. What I can say is that that is a workable system that would benefit us all, assuming we are willing to work towards it and hold our reps accountable. But that requires sustained interest and attention, which doesn't work for most Americans. There's NASCAR on.
well one thing is certain....you love analogies, saying how things "should" be done, and rednecks
Another thing is certain, you obviously have no legitimate logical response to my my point here.
He's been advocating small scale tinkering under the same broken system since this debate started. Cover the uninsured, but leave the rest intact. Private health care is fine, just add the uninsured to unemployment benefits and tell people with jobs to buy health care on their own. I'm here saying outlaw private insurance, make doctors answerable to patients and create a national health care fund that covers everyone while still operating on free market principles on the individual transaction level... and you say HE is the one thinking out-of-the-box? My whole argument against jlew this whole time has been that he's only proposing ideas that treat the symptoms, not the underlying issues of our health care system... which is a for-profit industry dictating costs and coverage that leaves citizens and doctors at the mercy of people who have no interest in providing good care, only maximizing their profit.
thats fucking bullshit. and I'm not in the mood right now to deal with more of your asshole moments. man you sure can be a complete dick sometimes. maybe you can go on telling us all how it should be and we'll just follow all your posts and tell you how fucking all knowing god like you are.
cincy, thats nonsense. there are no problems under soul's plan. its flawless besides, you can't talk about what COULD happen. because its hasn't happened. :roll:
I have not said this, I have said you cannot talk about what might happen as if it is a foregone conclusion. I have also said there are plenty of potential problems with my ideas, but that by being aware of them we can take steps to prevent them and minimize their impact. I have also said that just because there is a potential problem is not a reason not to do something, especially if there are ways to avoid those pitfalls. That is where naysayers like you come in handy... since you are incapable of any original contributions to the solution, you can sit there safely and pick at all the problems you want to make yourself feel smarter and more right, while those of us willing to work towards a workable solution will take that awareness and find ways to solve those problems before they become manifest.
He's been advocating small scale tinkering under the same broken system since this debate started. Cover the uninsured, but leave the rest intact. Private health care is fine, just add the uninsured to unemployment benefits and tell people with jobs to buy health care on their own. I'm here saying outlaw private insurance, make doctors answerable to patients and create a national health care fund that covers everyone while still operating on free market principles on the individual transaction level... and you say HE is the one thinking out-of-the-box? My whole argument against jlew this whole time has been that he's only proposing ideas that treat the symptoms, not the underlying issues of our health care system... which is a for-profit industry dictating costs and coverage that leaves citizens and doctors at the mercy of people who have no interest in providing good care, only maximizing their profit.
thats fucking bullshit. and I'm not in the mood right now to deal with more of your asshole moments. man you sure can be a complete dick sometimes. maybe you can go on telling us all how it should be and we'll just follow all your posts and tell you how fucking all knowing god like you are.
Maybe I am. What's your excuse? You can't deny that all of the things I mentioned are solutions you advocated, none of which is an out of the box solution and all of which are very much "let's keep the same system because I can't think of anything better."
cincy, thats nonsense. there are no problems under soul's plan. its flawless besides, you can't talk about what COULD happen. because its hasn't happened. :roll:
I have not said this, I have said you cannot talk about what might happen as if it is a foregone conclusion. I have also said there are plenty of potential problems with my ideas, but that by being aware of them we can take steps to prevent them and minimize their impact. I have also said that just because there is a potential problem is not a reason not to do something, especially if there are ways to avoid those pitfalls. That is where naysayers like you come in handy... since you are incapable of any original contributions to the solution, you can sit there safely and pick at all the problems you want to make yourself feel smarter and more right, while those of us willing to work towards a workable solution will take that awareness and find ways to solve those problems before they become manifest.
dude, take a fucking break from studying and chill the fuck out. I've offered many ideas and potential solutions and discussion.
just because you think you are some intellectual superior to everyone here doesnt make you right and me wrong.
cincy, thats nonsense. there are no problems under soul's plan. its flawless besides, you can't talk about what COULD happen. because its hasn't happened. :roll:
I have not said this, I have said you cannot talk about what might happen as if it is a foregone conclusion. I have also said there are plenty of potential problems with my ideas, but that by being aware of them we can take steps to prevent them and minimize their impact. I have also said that just because there is a potential problem is not a reason not to do something, especially if there are ways to avoid those pitfalls. That is where naysayers like you come in handy... since you are incapable of any original contributions to the solution, you can sit there safely and pick at all the problems you want to make yourself feel smarter and more right, while those of us willing to work towards a workable solution will take that awareness and find ways to solve those problems before they become manifest.
dude, take a fucking break from studying and chill the fuck out. I've offered many ideas and potential solutions and discussion.
just because you think you are some intellectual superior to everyone here doesnt make you right and me wrong.
No, what makes me right is that you see a problem with something and say "there's a potential problem, let's just give up on this idea because it will never work." I say "yeah, that's a problem, let's figure out a way to get around that."
No, what makes me right is that you see a problem with something and say "there's a potential problem, let's just give up on this idea because it will never work." I say "yeah, that's a problem, let's figure out a way to get around that."
who are you quoting? because I never said that. I never said give up on anything. I want a system that works best, provides best care, and is cost effective. based on my research, I believe it can be done without the government controlling the show. and you take that as giving up. well I have news for you, there are more ways to do something, then your way.
[The TV thing was a fine analogy. But no I don't trust you with my credit card, which is why I have never proposed that we give people credit cards to do with as they please and tell them only to use them for doctors. Where have I ever said anything approaching this? Do you truly not see a difference between reimbursement/bill payment after the fact and handing people money up front and hoping they spend it well?
The government also could NOT limit choice. What is your point? As I've acknowledged, there will need to be people holding reps accountable to ensure that the government doesn't overstep itself. That is our duty as citizens. Step one of this is getting special interests out of governance, which is a whole other issue I've touched on before elsewhere. I haven't said my plan is perfect, but there are ways to design it to protect abuse.
And JLEW is the out-of-the-box thinker here? He's been advocating small scale tinkering under the same broken system since this debate started. Cover the uninsured, but leave the rest intact. Private health care is fine, just add the uninsured to unemployment benefits and tell people with jobs to buy health care on their own. I'm here saying outlaw private insurance, make doctors answerable to patients and create a national health care fund that covers everyone while still operating on free market principles on the individual transaction level... and you say HE is the one thinking out-of-the-box? My whole argument against jlew this whole time has been that he's only proposing ideas that treat the symptoms, not the underlying issues of our health care system... which is a for-profit industry dictating costs and coverage that leaves citizens and doctors at the mercy of people who have no interest in providing good care, only maximizing their profit.
Of course, out of the box for you is whatever delusion you can sell yourself that profiting off people's sickness is a good thing and an American tradition... anything that threatens private profit is too outside the box for your liking... you want people safely inside that profit-dominating box.
#1) I was joking about getting you to buy a TV for me, it was all just a joke, I thought you would see that. When you didn't, I added a winky. Since that didn't work, I'll add this text. Done now?
#2) For my out-of-the box comment, if you read back, jlew used "out-of-the-box" in a post and I agree with him that we need more change then just covering evryone and letting the gov't run it while taking more and more tax $.
#3) I hope you have health care, because you need to be seen for your bi-polar disorder. You can be one of the best posters on the board, with some really interesting points and certainly well-thoughtout...and then you do stuff like this..
"Of course, out of the box for you is whatever delusion you can sell yourself that profiting off people's sickness is a good thing and an American tradition... anything that threatens private profit is too outside the box for your liking... you want people safely inside that profit-dominating box"
cincy, thats nonsense. there are no problems under soul's plan. its flawless besides, you can't talk about what COULD happen. because its hasn't happened. :roll:
I have not said this, I have said you cannot talk about what might happen as if it is a foregone conclusion. I have also said there are plenty of potential problems with my ideas, but that by being aware of them we can take steps to prevent them and minimize their impact. I have also said that just because there is a potential problem is not a reason not to do something, especially if there are ways to avoid those pitfalls. That is where naysayers like you come in handy... since you are incapable of any original contributions to the solution, you can sit there safely and pick at all the problems you want to make yourself feel smarter and more right, while those of us willing to work towards a workable solution will take that awareness and find ways to solve those problems before they become manifest.
dude, take a fucking break from studying and chill the fuck out. I've offered many ideas and potential solutions and discussion.
just because you think you are some intellectual superior to everyone here doesnt make you right and me wrong.
actually it does
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
#1) I was joking about getting you to buy a TV for me, it was all just a joke, I thought you would see that. When you didn't, I added a winky. Since that didn't work, I'll add this text. Done now?
#2) For my out-of-the box comment, if you read back, jlew used "out-of-the-box" in a post and I agree with him that we need more change then just covering evryone and letting the gov't run it while taking more and more tax $.
#3) I hope you have health care, because you need to be seen for your bi-polar disorder. You can be one of the best posters on the board, with some really interesting points and certainly well-thoughtout...and then you do stuff like this..
"Of course, out of the box for you is whatever delusion you can sell yourself that profiting off people's sickness is a good thing and an American tradition... anything that threatens private profit is too outside the box for your liking... you want people safely inside that profit-dominating box"
And then your attacks on Jlew. Relax.
1. Missed that, figured you were trying to lure me into some classic "lazy welfare abuser" statement. My apologies.
2. The entire point I and others have been making, which you and jlew continue to willfully ignore is that government funding does not inevitably mean government control. While you talk about out of the box thinking, you refuse to step out of the "anything government does is bad" box and consider any solution that does not protect the possibility of a private, for-profit insurance industry. We have proposed a number of ideas involving little to no government involvement in health care at all, other than writing checks, and others have addressed the cost issues endlessly.
3. Otherwise reasonable people responding to "really interesting points and certainly well-thought out" ideas with dismissive regurgitations of "I will not consider or respond to any suggestion that involves the government because it is inherently wrong" causes a lot of frustration. And my attack was on you, not jlew, for the absurdity of dismissing out of the box solutions without a thought while saying you want to hear them and giving props to someone who has offered no out of the box solutions yet.
2. The entire point I and others have been making, which you and jlew continue to willfully ignore is that government funding does not inevitably mean government control.
but it can, can it not? typically the person paying the bills gets to the call the shots. with UHC, thats the US government. excuse our utter ignorance for not having such enthusiasm trusting the government to run things how we expect them
While you talk about out of the box thinking, you refuse to step out of the "anything government does is bad" box and consider any solution that does not protect the possibility of a private, for-profit insurance industry. We have proposed a number of ideas involving little to no government involvement in health care at all, other than writing checks, and others have addressed the cost issues endlessly.
3. Otherwise reasonable people responding to "really interesting points and certainly well-thought out" ideas with dismissive regurgitations of "I will not consider or respond to any suggestion that involves the government because it is inherently wrong" causes a lot of frustration. And my attack was on you, not jlew, for the absurdity of dismissing out of the box solutions without a thought while saying you want to hear them and giving props to someone who has offered no out of the box solutions yet.
neither cincy or myself are claiming to be the know all out of the box thinkers. all I said is we NEED out of the box thinking for the best solution. cincy agreed. calm the fuck down with this already.
but it can, can it not? typically the person paying the bills gets to the call the shots. with UHC, thats the US government. excuse our utter ignorance for not having such enthusiasm trusting the government to run things how we expect them
neither cincy or myself are claiming to be the know all out of the box thinkers. all I said is we NEED out of the box thinking for the best solution. cincy agreed. calm the fuck down with this already.
Just as long as that out of the box thinking doesn't involve government and stays safely in the private, for-profit insurance box, right?
I have acknowledged that it can, if we do not take steps to ensure that it does not. But rather than even considering that such steps might be possible, you latch onto the possibility that government could end up in control and refuse to entertain another thought. It's not a lack of enthusiasm, which is justified, it's a complete unwillingness to consider it as an even remotely viable option under any circumstances.
Comments
well of course I have to say might. it hasnt happened yet. that doesnt make the problem go away. Congress has no problem dictating where costs go. they can put in a few cost controls and budget cuts and my choice of circuit city is gone. or the MRI on my knee that i might need.
I'm not sure...let's try it!
BUt, instead of me getting the bill and having the hassle of getting it to you (red tape/paperwork) just pm me your credit card number and we'll see if this works!
The problem can't "go away" because it's not a problem in existence. You're arguing that just because something might happen, it inevitably will happen. Because there is a potential for this one particular problem we should just shelve any discussion of the whole system rather than talking about ways to make sure this problem does not occur in the system? That makes no sense.
I don't think you get what I'm saying. Under the system I'm proposing, doctors are not employees of the state, so the government can't just close down their offices to save money because they don't pay their salary anyway. Hospitals and doctor's offices would have whatever equipment they can afford based on the income they attract by getting a reputation that encourages people to choose them. How is that different from what we have now? If you run a shit doctor's office and nobody comes, you go out of business. The only difference is that instead of paying money to an insurance company, you pay it via taxes. And instead of having your choice of doctors and the costs of procedures dictated by the deals that insurance company can secure to guarantee their profits, you go to whatever doctor you want, get whatever procedures they recommend, and you send the bill to the single payer office, which sends money from the fund to the doctor. Closing doctor X is not an option for saving money because the government would just be paying doctor Y instead and it saves nothing. Consumers dictate who gets paid via their patronage. Denying an MRI machine to hospital Y is not an option because the hospital runs itself and buys whatever equipment it thinks it needs and can afford based on its ability to attract patients via reputation for good work. The only role of the government is that when the hospital provides a service, the bill is sent to the single-payer fund, instead of to the private insurance company.
No dice. For one thing, you don't need a tv. People do need to see doctors. For another, giving someone a credit card is not the same as their bill. If I offer to pay for your tv, and you send me a tv, I'll pay for the tv. But I won't give you my credit card so that you can buy a stereo instead. That's not remotely the same situation. The red tape costs of checking the bill to make sure it's actually a doctor's bill are minimal and a helluva lot cheaper than the red tape you have to go through with a private insurance company.
so potential problems don't exist in your world? man I wanna live there.
and of course we shouldn't shelve the discussion. the system need reform, no question about it.
its a shame your proposals don't mean shit
you are assuming the government will have a very hands off approach to this whole this if there is a single payer system. I disagree.
Are you saying a TV wasn't a good analogy...or just that you don't trust me with your credit card number.
Certainly the governement COULD limit choice. See, they speak to Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart, etc before you even think about needing a TV. They tell them what they are willing to pay for, if the store disagrees, then they don't cover people going ot that store for a TV. In addition, they specify just the size TV they are willing to pay for and then the store only stocks that. So, yes, you limited my choice, but I didn't even know it.
This happens now, so certainly it will happen in a Gov't system unless bigger changes are made. That's why as jlew said, we need BIGGER, out-of-the-box thinking. We need to solve the issues, not just have more people covered with the same issues as before. Anyhow, I'm all for figuring out a cost-effective way to get reasonable care for all.
:? :? :?
It's not HIS proposal; it's THE proposal. Show me one proposal where anyone has ever suggested that the government actually run the healthcare delivery systems.
what is THE proposal?
I'm saying I don't think anyone has proposed a single-payer plan that includes the government being in charge of the provision of care. It's not like SS just made that up on his own. I don't know how many various single-payer proposals have been made out there, but I think they all fall in line with what SS said.
By the way, here's the main single-payer proposal I know of:
“Proposal of the Physicians’ Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance,” JAMA 290(6): Aug 30, 2003. http://www.pnhp.org/publications/proposal_of_the_physicians_working_group_for_singlepayer_national_health_insurance.php
certainly possible, but what do you see as the advantage of that?
what about when i travel and cross state borders? would one state pay the other for my care? it would add an extra layer of administration, tho i do believe it could be doable...i am just unsure what the benefits would be, b/c it could well still leave some people without healthcare. also, what about when i retire and possibly move to another state? a lot to consider there. and sure, some states more highly populated, more of a tax base for care....others not so much, might suffer in quality due to lack of funds and accesds to facilities, etc. i personally find a broader, universal approach more appealing but certainly interested in alternates.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
No, I'm saying a problem can't "go away" if it doesn't exist currently. My flu can't go away if I never had a flu to begin with. A potential problem simply means it is something that needs to be considered before pursuing a course of action... ie. I could potentially get a flu if I come to Chicago in winter, but does that mean I should skip all the benefits of going to Chicago just because one potential problem might arise? Or that I should dress warm and make sure I get vitamin c and wash my hands when I do go to Chicago?
Indeed it is, but the same can be applied to your arguments against health care reform. I assume nothing. I am saying that this is what we should do and how it should be done. I don't know the future so I can't say how it would play out. What I can say is that that is a workable system that would benefit us all, assuming we are willing to work towards it and hold our reps accountable. But that requires sustained interest and attention, which doesn't work for most Americans. There's NASCAR on.
as for traveling across borders.......again, some states may allow coverage and some may not. i think each state should decide.
i think it has to do with life choices.
The TV thing was a fine analogy. But no I don't trust you with my credit card, which is why I have never proposed that we give people credit cards to do with as they please and tell them only to use them for doctors. Where have I ever said anything approaching this? Do you truly not see a difference between reimbursement/bill payment after the fact and handing people money up front and hoping they spend it well?
The government also could NOT limit choice. What is your point? As I've acknowledged, there will need to be people holding reps accountable to ensure that the government doesn't overstep itself. That is our duty as citizens. Step one of this is getting special interests out of governance, which is a whole other issue I've touched on before elsewhere. I haven't said my plan is perfect, but there are ways to design it to protect abuse.
And JLEW is the out-of-the-box thinker here? He's been advocating small scale tinkering under the same broken system since this debate started. Cover the uninsured, but leave the rest intact. Private health care is fine, just add the uninsured to unemployment benefits and tell people with jobs to buy health care on their own. I'm here saying outlaw private insurance, make doctors answerable to patients and create a national health care fund that covers everyone while still operating on free market principles on the individual transaction level... and you say HE is the one thinking out-of-the-box? My whole argument against jlew this whole time has been that he's only proposing ideas that treat the symptoms, not the underlying issues of our health care system... which is a for-profit industry dictating costs and coverage that leaves citizens and doctors at the mercy of people who have no interest in providing good care, only maximizing their profit.
Of course, out of the box for you is whatever delusion you can sell yourself that profiting off people's sickness is a good thing and an American tradition... anything that threatens private profit is too outside the box for your liking... you want people safely inside that profit-dominating box.
well one thing is certain....you love analogies, saying how things "should" be done, and rednecks
Another thing is certain, you obviously have no legitimate logical response to my my point here.
are you having one of your studying for the bar asshole moments?
thats fucking bullshit. and I'm not in the mood right now to deal with more of your asshole moments. man you sure can be a complete dick sometimes. maybe you can go on telling us all how it should be and we'll just follow all your posts and tell you how fucking all knowing god like you are.
I have not said this, I have said you cannot talk about what might happen as if it is a foregone conclusion. I have also said there are plenty of potential problems with my ideas, but that by being aware of them we can take steps to prevent them and minimize their impact. I have also said that just because there is a potential problem is not a reason not to do something, especially if there are ways to avoid those pitfalls. That is where naysayers like you come in handy... since you are incapable of any original contributions to the solution, you can sit there safely and pick at all the problems you want to make yourself feel smarter and more right, while those of us willing to work towards a workable solution will take that awareness and find ways to solve those problems before they become manifest.
Maybe I am. What's your excuse? You can't deny that all of the things I mentioned are solutions you advocated, none of which is an out of the box solution and all of which are very much "let's keep the same system because I can't think of anything better."
dude, take a fucking break from studying and chill the fuck out. I've offered many ideas and potential solutions and discussion.
just because you think you are some intellectual superior to everyone here doesnt make you right and me wrong.
No, what makes me right is that you see a problem with something and say "there's a potential problem, let's just give up on this idea because it will never work." I say "yeah, that's a problem, let's figure out a way to get around that."
who are you quoting? because I never said that. I never said give up on anything. I want a system that works best, provides best care, and is cost effective. based on my research, I believe it can be done without the government controlling the show. and you take that as giving up. well I have news for you, there are more ways to do something, then your way.
#1) I was joking about getting you to buy a TV for me, it was all just a joke, I thought you would see that. When you didn't, I added a winky. Since that didn't work, I'll add this text. Done now?
#2) For my out-of-the box comment, if you read back, jlew used "out-of-the-box" in a post and I agree with him that we need more change then just covering evryone and letting the gov't run it while taking more and more tax $.
#3) I hope you have health care, because you need to be seen for your bi-polar disorder. You can be one of the best posters on the board, with some really interesting points and certainly well-thoughtout...and then you do stuff like this..
"Of course, out of the box for you is whatever delusion you can sell yourself that profiting off people's sickness is a good thing and an American tradition... anything that threatens private profit is too outside the box for your liking... you want people safely inside that profit-dominating box"
And then your attacks on Jlew. Relax.
actually it does
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
1. Missed that, figured you were trying to lure me into some classic "lazy welfare abuser" statement. My apologies.
2. The entire point I and others have been making, which you and jlew continue to willfully ignore is that government funding does not inevitably mean government control. While you talk about out of the box thinking, you refuse to step out of the "anything government does is bad" box and consider any solution that does not protect the possibility of a private, for-profit insurance industry. We have proposed a number of ideas involving little to no government involvement in health care at all, other than writing checks, and others have addressed the cost issues endlessly.
3. Otherwise reasonable people responding to "really interesting points and certainly well-thought out" ideas with dismissive regurgitations of "I will not consider or respond to any suggestion that involves the government because it is inherently wrong" causes a lot of frustration. And my attack was on you, not jlew, for the absurdity of dismissing out of the box solutions without a thought while saying you want to hear them and giving props to someone who has offered no out of the box solutions yet.
but it can, can it not? typically the person paying the bills gets to the call the shots. with UHC, thats the US government. excuse our utter ignorance for not having such enthusiasm trusting the government to run things how we expect them
neither cincy or myself are claiming to be the know all out of the box thinkers. all I said is we NEED out of the box thinking for the best solution. cincy agreed. calm the fuck down with this already.
Just as long as that out of the box thinking doesn't involve government and stays safely in the private, for-profit insurance box, right?
I have acknowledged that it can, if we do not take steps to ensure that it does not. But rather than even considering that such steps might be possible, you latch onto the possibility that government could end up in control and refuse to entertain another thought. It's not a lack of enthusiasm, which is justified, it's a complete unwillingness to consider it as an even remotely viable option under any circumstances.