When Mitt Romney becomes president.... *FLUX THREAD!*

[hypehat]

BTW, this is why y'all is f***ed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/24/romney-calls-emergency-room-a-health-care-option-for-uninsured/

[Jason]

Dude, it's been like that for years.

[hypehat]

That doesn't make it ok.

[Jason]

So if the emergency room doesn't treat the uninsured...they should just die? You sound like the type that people accuse me of being.

[hypehat]

Sigh. It's not 'universal healthcare', is it? Which was Mittens' point. I mean, it is in one sense, but it's an extremely simplified sense. And they still have to pay (exorbitantly) so... again, not 'universal healthcare'. Or, to make things simpler for you, Obamacare 

'Uninsured people have healthcare - it's called Emergency Rooms' is absurd!

[Jason]

Sigh. It's not 'universal healthcare', is it? Which was Mittens' point. I mean, it is in one sense, but it's an extremely simplified sense. And they still have to pay (exorbitantly) so... again, not 'universal healthcare'. Or, to make things simpler for you, Obamacare 

'Uninsured people have healthcare - it's called Emergency Rooms' is absurd!

Medical professionals are bound by something known as the Hippocratic Oath. They're not going to just let someone die. Even before this hullabaloo about "YOU'LL JUST LET THEM DIE!!!!111", hospitals didn't turn people away for being unable to pay in full or at all. They worked at discounted rates or for free. Government programs have made it worse for medical professionals because more often than not they're not being paid, even by people who have the insurance...all because the government loopholes and regulations and reforms make the situation a mess.

I always ask the Obamacare crowd why this country didn't have Medicare until 1965. They don't know why. They think Medicare has been around since the days of George Washington (that is, if they even know who George Washington is). Before that time, the United States had a health care system that was envied by the global community. Private insurance was a rarity; people paid with cash for most medical services. Doctors were willing to negotiate.

[guitarfool2002]

It's not absurd, it's a reality and it may seem like an easy flaming arrow to shoot at Romney, but in many areas it's absolutely, 100% correct: For as many people who go to emergency rooms for emergencies, a problem for years was people showing up for treatments and diagnosis of common things like colds or ankle sprains where a family doctor should be the first visit. And there was no "payment" required", if they had an emergency or even had a child with a bad cough, they'd be seen by a doctor.

I'll tell you about that one personally, sometime, if there is any doubt.

Oh, and also keep in mind that when there are cities such as Philadelphia and Chicago where drug and gang related violence are a part of everyday life, multiple times each day, who do you think pays for the various folks that wind up in the emergency rooms after being shot, stabbed, or beaten? Unless the gangs carry a group health plan or HMO as I pay out of my own profits from working every month, it leaves someone with a whopper of a bill, for emergency room care, intensive care, operations/surgery, post-op recovers, transport to and from the hospital including Advanced Life Support (ALS) or even Med-Evac by helicopter for the serious cases...all very costly services.

Who pays for that? Don't think too hard for the answer...

The question becomes who should pay for that?

[hypehat]

Why, a properly implemented healthcare system funded by taxpayers should pay for it, like in most civilized societies! Or, insurance should be so easily accessible and affordable that people don't have to go to the emergency room for minor ailments. Like in the other civilized societies. There's a big gap people are falling inbetween. I don't doubt that it happens, but like you say it's massive drain on resources easily fixed. And when someone tries to fix it one way, the American right (memories hazy, but probably people who should know better too and big pharma etc) goes batsh*t crazy and calls him a socialist who wants to set up death camps where bureaucrats decide whether you live or die. That was perhaps a wee bit overdramatic, no?


I'm not saying ill people should die rather than go to an emergency room- why would you get that idea given everything I've ever said in this thread? I'm just saying the very system  is rotten on a very basic level for that to be his argument against any centralised healthcare... See where I'm coming from?

[Jason]

Why, a properly implemented healthcare system funded by taxpayers should pay for it, like in most civilized societies! Or, insurance should be so easily accessible and affordable that people don't have to go to the emergency room for minor ailments. Like in the other civilized societies. There's a big gap people are falling inbetween. I don't doubt that it happens, but like you say it's massive drain on resources easily fixed. And when someone tries to fix it one way, the American right (memories hazy, but probably people who should know better too and big pharma etc) goes batsh*t crazy and calls him a socialist who wants to set up death camps where bureaucrats decide whether you live or die. That was perhaps a wee bit overdramatic, no?


I'm not saying ill people should die rather than go to an emergency room- why would you get that idea given everything I've ever said in this thread? I'm just saying the very system  is rotten on a very basic level for that to be his argument against any centralised healthcare... See where I'm coming from?

I do think most medical services could be offered outside of insurance. I think most drugs required to be prescribed could be freed of that regulation. I also think there should be more competition in health insurance. There shouldn't be a "few" companies, there should be hundreds. Thousands. More competition equals less chance for monopoly equals lower prices. There's no excuse. Corporatism, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and the welfare state are destroying health care. By welfare state, I mean the corporate welfare state.

[guitarfool2002]

Again I ask who is already paying for those who require immediate emergency care due to violence and daily drug and gang bullshit in major US cities which requires people going to the emergency room? Because unlike me, and those millions of able-bodied folks who actually earn a living through working rather than illegal means, I doubt the local gangs are tapping into an HMO group coverage, yet if they have a shoot-em-up in the streets and end up getting hurt, the medical care is covered and they have no obligation to pay.

Whereas I have to pay not only the insurance costs every month, but also co-pays and any other related costs if I need medical treatment far less serious than repairing a gunshot wound. And I work to pay for what I receive.

Fair or unfair?

[Jason]

It's unfair.

[Dunderhead]

Why, a properly implemented healthcare system funded by taxpayers should pay for it, like in most civilized societies! Or, insurance should be so easily accessible and affordable that people don't have to go to the emergency room for minor ailments. Like in the other civilized societies. There's a big gap people are falling inbetween. I don't doubt that it happens, but like you say it's massive drain on resources easily fixed. And when someone tries to fix it one way, the American right (memories hazy, but probably people who should know better too and big pharma etc) goes batsh*t crazy and calls him a socialist who wants to set up death camps where bureaucrats decide whether you live or die. That was perhaps a wee bit overdramatic, no?


I'm not saying ill people should die rather than go to an emergency room- why would you get that idea given everything I've ever said in this thread? I'm just saying the very system  is rotten on a very basic level for that to be his argument against any centralised healthcare... See where I'm coming from?

A government controlled health care system is socialism whether anyone likes it or not. And just acting like universal health care is basic and that all "civilized" nations have it is ridiculous. If you haven't been following the news for a few year, the "civilized" countries, EU members, Australia, Japan are in perpetual economic collapse. When a country has 30+% unemployment, maybe you shouldn't hold them up as a model...

Supply and Demand is king, you have to be able to think about economic problems in terms of supply and demand. When the government subsidies health care the very basic effect of that is to raise demand for health care believe it or not. In fact payroll taxes funnel 15% of the nations wealth, mostly, into healthcare. When demand goes up, price goes up. On the other side of the coin government regulation has created barriers to entry and prevented the industry from growing to accommodate the bulk of that new demand. Price goes up, and what solution do so many people advocate, "well, um, I dunno like redistribute more money into the health care system? that's what civilized countries do right?"  

No, but I'm sure health care must suck because of the rich or something or whoever we're supposed to be blaming. If only we were like other civilized countries like Greece Spain or Italy!!! Now they have things figured out!

[hypehat]

Wow Fishmonk, and I thought I had the drop on overreactionary hyperbole itt  

I did say 'Or, insurance should be so easily accessible and affordable that people don't have to go to the emergency room for minor ailments. Like in the other civilized societies.' As I also said, there's an unacceptable gap that the people in Guitarfools' posts are falling through somewhere in America's healthcare system (gang health insurance doesn't seem too bad an idea for yr enterprising mobster, mind  ), and under America's system, yeah, he shouldn't be picking up the tab. On that level, and in that context, yeah it's unfair. This is the problem. TRBB's model doesn't offend my sensibilities beyond my usual misgivings about corporate yadda yadda. But that's the model America is going on and, well, it's not going far enough. I suppose you don't care because you've got health insurance.


The world's economy is f***ed, you jackass. That means



Of course, I expect a full reading list of dead political thinkers in return.

[Dunderhead]

Yeah, wouldn't want to read any books now would ya, then you might actually learn something. Better to just randomly guess how things work. Or better yet, to just parrot whatever Obama says, he seems like an honest guy...

[hypehat]

Sigh. The one time I actually agree with TRBB on something and now all this. I knew it was too good to be true....

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

This is getting absolutely pathetic and you're all just going around in circles. One guy points out how awful and unfair things are, another guy tries his best to offend due to some ego/self image merda he's trying to project/cultivate, and another guy just shrugs and explains how it has to be this way because of things that don't actually even exist (economics) but are merely ideas that have been put into practice and that could be replaced by other ideas.... It's like monkey on an island with an unplugged TV set. How many years might it take for the monkey to figure out what the strange object is for, or would he just forget about it because it is of no use to him to begin with?. There is no forward or creative thinking here. Just complaints, name calling and the smug blatherings of armchair economists.....

[Dunderhead]

Sigh. The one time I actually agree with TRBB on something and now all this. I knew it was too good to be true....

Hey man, you're the one being a jerk. It's hard to talk to you when you freak out in every post and insult me, I've just lost patience with you. I was being completely reasonable for most of this thread, but you kept acting like a haughty jerk and I just really don't know why you expect me to just grin my teeth and bare it. If you can't take it don't dish it out. You've also not really effectively responded to the points I've been trying to make, your last post came across as incoherent to me, you're not listening to what others are saying, you're just spouting some tired rhetoric that we've all heard a million times before.

The world is f***ed because of government spending and debt. The world is f***ed because there are literally more debts than corresponding assets. The world is f***ed because civilized countries are caught in a death spiral of 100%+ deficit to GDP spending. There's no ground, we're off floating around in a universe of valueless money. Hell, read your Goethe, it's Mephistopheles who advocates for this type of inflationary spending, because it's bullshit, and everyone knows it except the people who are too arrogant or too impotent to admit it.

[hypehat]

Ok, man. I'm out.

But no hard feelings, seriously. It's just chatting politics on the internet and I'm not exactly taking it seriously. It's nowhere near the reason why I post here!

[Jason]

TRBB's model doesn't offend my sensibilities beyond my usual misgivings about corporate yadda yadda. But that's the model America is going on and, well, it's not going far enough.

I don't know why people would be offended by my model...I mean, I just said that corporate control and welfare state measures in health care have made it more expensive. If universal health care happens, when there's only one buyer, it means that the price will go up. Lots of demand and little supply = higher prices. Little demand and little supply = lower prices.

[hypehat]

TRBB's model doesn't offend my sensibilities beyond my usual misgivings about corporate yadda yadda. But that's the model America is going on and, well, it's not going far enough.

I don't know why people would be offended by my model...I mean, I just said that corporate control and welfare state measures in health care have made it more expensive. If universal health care happens, when there's only one buyer, it means that the price will go up. Lots of demand and little supply = higher prices. Little demand and little supply = lower prices.

I meant 'there should be 1000's of providers' part, which is AOK in the American model. I was trying to suggest I wasn't instantly reacting to your post (as has been my usual OTT form in the thread) by going 'KILL THE LIBERTARIAN SELGISHFVHJZD' or something - I agree with it! An anomaly, I'm sure.

Dammit, I'm out! I'm out!

[Dunderhead]

TRBB's model doesn't offend my sensibilities beyond my usual misgivings about corporate yadda yadda. But that's the model America is going on and, well, it's not going far enough.

I don't know why people would be offended by my model...I mean, I just said that corporate control and welfare state measures in health care have made it more expensive. If universal health care happens, when there's only one buyer, it means that the price will go up. Lots of demand and little supply = higher prices. Little demand and little supply = lower prices.

I don't get what's so difficult about this concept. Price is determined by two things, so I find it baffling when people lack the critical skills necessary to see how different actions affect price. It's not too hard to reason it out.

[Jason]

TRBB's model doesn't offend my sensibilities beyond my usual misgivings about corporate yadda yadda. But that's the model America is going on and, well, it's not going far enough.

I don't know why people would be offended by my model...I mean, I just said that corporate control and welfare state measures in health care have made it more expensive. If universal health care happens, when there's only one buyer, it means that the price will go up. Lots of demand and little supply = higher prices. Little demand and little supply = lower prices.

I meant 'there should be 1000's of providers' part, which is AOK in the American model. I was trying to suggest I wasn't instantly reacting to your post (as has been my usual OTT form in the thread) by going 'KILL THE LIBERTARIAN SELGISHFVHJZD' or something - I agree with it! An anomaly, I'm sure.

Dammit, I'm out! I'm out!

Dude, I WANT market anarchy in health care. I want bargain basement prices for health care. More health care providers means more competition means lower prices. I'm not the bad guy. I'm just saying that there is a way to do it WITHOUT the government and make it not only less expensive, but cheap. Besides, the government is already all over and has been all over the American system since 1965 to begin with, and look how that's turning out. Prices are up, quality is down. What kind of system is that? It's telling that people don't want to become doctors anymore...tort laws are out of control and there's a corporate/lobbyist/bureaucratic STRANGLEHOLD on health care. Big government at its abso-bloody-lute worst.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Free market anarchy is an intriguing idea but I can assume it all goes back to your beloved "personal responsibility" line. What would prevent such a thing from being an absolute predatory disaster? Why would it not be 1000 times worse than Mexico where anyone over eighteen can go and get a prescription for any drug they want, while also getting serious procedures done by quacks with no qualifications whatsoever and dying as a result (yes, many are elective procedures such as breast implants, therefore I can't argue against your logic on that end) .... Once again, we'd be having the economically disadvantaged being preyed upon by quacks and maniacs with white coats while the real health care would be sought out by those with the means....I mean, is a poor woman with breast cancer gonna have to go see some guy in a back alley for consultation??

[Cabinessenceking]

what are people still talking here for? It looks like the end game will be very one sided and another 4 years for Obama. Hopefully BB's will be in White House soon (given that they are finally together again)!!!

what might be more interesting than the election itself at this stage is not the result but the consequences. Will GOP split up? will GOP moderates reclaim the ball from the crazies? for the sake of their party and fiscal conservative politics, I hope they do. Romney was simply the best of the worst. All his adversaries were nobodies. When Reagan won his primary he beat a future president, Bob Dole and other signficants. Romney beat some religious anti-abortion zealots, a Texas gov who couldn't remember his 3 departments, a minor yet disgruntled Libertarian, a disgraced former House Speaker and a foreign dignitary appointed by the Obama administration. Hopefully this rediculous rivalry will result in both Democrats and GOP breaking into smaller parties will resulting coalition politics rather than the rediculous beast two party politics currently in place.

[Jason]

what are people still talking here for? It looks like the end game will be very one sided and another 4 years for Obama. Hopefully BB's will be in White House soon (given that they are finally together again)!!!

what might be more interesting than the election itself at this stage is not the result but the consequences. Will GOP split up? will GOP moderates reclaim the ball from the crazies? for the sake of their party and fiscal conservative politics, I hope they do. Romney was simply the best of the worst. All his adversaries were nobodies. When Reagan won his primary he beat a future president, Bob Dole and other signficants. Romney beat some religious anti-abortion zealots, a Texas gov who couldn't remember his 3 departments, a minor yet disgruntled Libertarian, a disgraced former House Speaker and a foreign dignitary appointed by the Obama administration. Hopefully this rediculous rivalry will result in both Democrats and GOP breaking into smaller parties will resulting coalition politics rather than the rediculous beast two party politics currently in place.

No one here more than myself would love to see the illusory two-party system implode, crumble, and splinter. To be fair, the Ron Paul campaign was the most moderate campaign within the GOP since probably the Robert Taft days; along with Gary Johnson's campaign it brought more people together than any of the other GOP campaigns AND Obama's campaign combined. It brought people of all ages and walks of life together - disgruntled former Obama supporters and all manner of civil and economic libertarians. To say that the man behind the movement was "disgruntled" is indicative of an astounding lack of knowledge amplified by pure ignorance. I'd say the man's been vindicated after thirty-some odd years and the rest of the political landscape is trying to play catch-up.

The rest of the GOP candidates were just liberals who go to church.