The Glade 4.0

So basically, you aren't interested in conversation. You just want a soap box. There is no merit at all to your refusal to address parts of the issue that seem detrimental to your position.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I don't see that getting enforced effectively, but a lot of changes regarding that particular clause.


Just about this particular issue with the coming massive changes to insurance plans, types and sources.

The changes to FSAs that require you to have a prescription to be reimbursed for OTC medicine, was that in the bill?

_________________

Liberals hate HSA's, and undermining their value has already started to occur. They won't eliminate them directly, just make them completely worthless so there is no value in saving for medical emergencies/care.

Yeah - that's been a big reason why I've held off on starting one. Once our current President was elected, I figured they'd become a losing investment.

_________________
The Dude abides.

To be clear, I'm not interested in conversation with DFK! on this particular topic.

Why, then, did you respond to him at all?

_________________

Aizle:

Seeing as how DFK! actually holds a terminal degree in precisely the area of medical regulation and operation the bill covers, I figured you would like his professional and educated opinion on how it pans out.

_________________

I only responded as a courtesy to let him know that I wouldn't be.

Khross,

While that may be true, I've found his posts here to be alarmist and rhetorical. It's been my experience that attempting to engage people who post in that manner on a topic to be an exercise in futility.

Except, he's asking legitimate questions. But, I'll start with a simpler question. Why do you think the Healthcare Reform Act is a workable piece of legislation?

_________________

Really it boils down to this.

I believe that Healthcare is the right of anyone in a civilized society. This bill puts that on the table finally. Like all legislation it's imperfect, and in many respects VERY imperfect or even un-tenable as written. However, by definition no legislation is unworkable, because we have the ability to change and amend it as we come across issues.

Frankly, I'm not interested or concerned with the details at this point. I'm sure there will be many stumbling blocks that we'll need to address and unintended consequences that will need to be corrected. However, those are all surmountable problems and I have confidence that the population will force congress to make the appropriate changes over time so that the long term end result will be a solid healthcare system.

I should note, that it's not the route I would have liked to have taken. I would have much prefered a more bi-partisan effort, but given the complete unwillingness of the republicans to play there wasn't much more that could be done from my viewpoint.

If you feel this way, I presume you have put your money where your mouth is, and donated all of your discretionary capital to this end.

_________________

No it is the Liberal view that taxation = donation. And are not prepared to take that step unless everyone is forced lock step to do it with them.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

That also doesn't answer Khross's question.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Replace "is" with "should be" and I don't have a problem with that statement.

I will state that Obama's bill does nothing to ensure that "right," and will, in fact, inhibit it.

Let's put aside any arguments over whether Universal Health Care is a good idea or not. Let's assume that it is. Let's assume that it can be done effectively, and with economic responsibility. I'd argue that this is a proven assumption, because I've seen it, but that's not the point here and I'm not going to get into a discussion with Elmarnieh or Khross or Rynar or DFK about the workability of universal health care in general. What I do want to discuss is Obama's method of trying to implement it. To do this, we're going to have to take a brief walk through what was (and compare it to another country with working and effective (if not perfect) universal health care) before we get to what is.

Let's start with where you were, before Obama's health care bill.

In the USA, before Obama's bill, you had a multitiered system of health coverage. Most people will agree it was not working. Private health insurance was bloody expensive. Hospitals and doctors overcharge for their services in comparison with many other countries with equal levels of medical technology and expertise. Many people will argue the reasons for this, and I think the more credible of them involve being forced to treat patients without coverage or funding and therefore no chance of reimbursement, but that really doesn't matter. If you had adequate coverage, and/or you had the money, you could get decent health care. If you didn't, you'd get a half-assed bare minimum. In either case, it cost to much (assuming you bothered to pay.) Want to know how much it cost?

In the USA, the federal government alone was spending $3200 per capita per annum on public health care options (like Medicare.) Over 300 million citizens, and $3200 for each one of them, every year, spent by the Fed on their health care. That doesn't even count private spendings, which amounted to another $3300 per anum per capita. So your health care, as a nation, was costing you $6500 per person per year -- and that was without everyone having equal access.

Now, let's compare Canada. You can argue all you want about anecdotes with rare long wait times or other crap, but in the end, Canada's health care treatment results are comparable to (and some evidence shows better, you won't find equal evidence showing the opposite) the United States. Our governments are spending $2200 per capita on actual universal health coverage. Private coverage and costs for procedures not covered by UHC, or for prescription medications (generally not covered at all by UHC) were about $1100 per capita. Canadians as a whole are spending half what americans pay on health coverage, and getting more comprehensive coverage for it.

So in comes Obama to the rescue, with his brilliant plan: We're going to force you to buy health insurance. All of you. If you can't afford it, we'll pay it for you (maybe.) We're going to make it so companies won't bother to pay for it, so everyone will have to get it individually. We're administrating this at the federal level, and basically putting big portions of it in the hands of that o-most-efficient of streamlined departments, the IRS. We're not going to do much to ensure the costs of the procedures, or officially mandate what is covered and what is not. We're going to let the insurance companies decide themselves how to implement this. Basically, we're taking a massively bloated and expensive and flawed system, and shaking it up and hope that makes it work better.

As a comparison, the Canadian system mandates that the provinces insure their citizens. The province gets to decide the specifics of the system, but they run their own insurance. They set the payouts per procedure, etc. It's not perfect, and there are different problems in different provinces, but it is - relative to the USA, cost effective and efficient -- this is even before Obama tries to fix what isn't working by poking it randomly with a stick.

Now, one can argue until they are blue in the face about whether universal health care is a good idea or not. But don't kid yourself into thinking that one can just legislate "HEY! Everyone must have health care!" and somehow make it work. Those countries that do have functioning Universal Health Care would never function under Obamacare.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I was referring to FSA's not sure what changes were made to HSA's.

_________________

Talya, I don't disagree that there are many other better systems out there. The political realities of the US however, precluded any of them being in the least bit possible.

Beyond the fact you did not address my question, I should point out that healthcare is not and cannot be a right. Access to healthcare may be a right, but healthcare itself is not.

_________________

Actually I did answer your question. I'm sorry you don't understand the answer.

Aizle:

Really? I don't understand the following syllogism:

Assumption A: Health Care is a Right.
Assumption B: The Health Care Reform Act exists under the pretense of satisfying said right.

Q.E.D.: The Health Care Reform Act is workable.

I perfectly understand your logic; indeed, I perfectly understand the reasoning in your position. That does not, however, actually answer "why". It is a flawed syllogism, despite quite accurately representing the reasoning in your post.

So, since we know that Assumption A is either untenable or patently false, we can assume that the non-sequitur that constitutes your conclusion is also flawed.

Thus, I asked you again, "why" do you think the Health Care Reform Act is workable?

_________________

Khross,

The above appears to be the text that you aren't reading or understanding.

If you want to get into a symantic dick waving contest, then sure it's quite possible the the existing legislation as written is untennable. However, from my point of view it's a starting point that finally gets the US into the rest of the civilized world with a national healthcare system. I'm sure that the current legislation will not remain exactly as it is, and will be changed and adjusted as it is implemented and we find issues. When I say it's workable, what I mean is that it's that starting point and any of the issues that come up are well within the ability of the congress to address.

In other words, a national health care system is workable if enough concessions are made, regardless of the feasibility of the current law/system/plan?

Not really. Any feasibility issues with the current law/system/plan will be worked out over the course of actually implementing the law/system/plan.

Aizle:

Again, that doesn't answer my question because it provides no meaningful exposition or explanation as "why". We can amend prior legislation, Medicaid and Medicare or EMTALA or what have you, to achieve the same end through the same process you have described. Quite honestly, you're presenting a non-position because the legislative act fulfills some sort of moral equivalent to "civilization" in your world view. In short, your position is nothing short of cognitive bias toward what you view as acceptable while lacking any substantive reasoning or logical foundation.

In other words, your position is bollocks.

_________________

You certainly are entiled to your opinion.

I guess I don't see what so hard to follow or fathom about my statements.