The Sad State of the Modern GOP

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby GreenDay » Wed Apr 15, 2015 5:49 am

Willink wrote:Drank quite a bit @ happy hour today, thought I'd add that in spite of the terse language of past few pages let me say that despite my disagreement with Waldo and Pckfn they are still much preferable to anyone who roots for Minnesota sports. I don't take any of this personally and I know political arguments can prove very infuriating for people. I'll gladly drink with either of you. :banana


Hear hear! Love Walso and Pckfn in the Packer forum. Certain if we were all in a bar having drinks we would get along just dandy. Sorry if I seem petulant at times. This stuff animates me, but I don't mean to be a jerk, even if sometimes I just act that way. Cheers!
YoHoChecko wrote: Anyone who can't understand this doesn't deserve the platform that literacy has granted them.
User avatar
GreenDay
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Trudge » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:04 am

GreenDay wrote:
Willink wrote:Drank quite a bit @ happy hour today, thought I'd add that in spite of the terse language of past few pages let me say that despite my disagreement with Waldo and Pckfn they are still much preferable to anyone who roots for Minnesota sports. I don't take any of this personally and I know political arguments can prove very infuriating for people. I'll gladly drink with either of you. :banana


Hear hear! Love Walso and Pckfn in the Packer forum. Certain if we were all in a bar having drinks we would get along just dandy. Sorry if I seem petulant at times. This stuff animates me, but I don't mean to be a jerk, even if sometimes I just act that way. Cheers!


Agreed! :BEER
Image
User avatar
Trudge
 
Posts: 5219
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby raptorman » Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:48 pm

Willink wrote:Drank quite a bit @ happy hour today, thought I'd add that in spite of the terse language of past few pages let me say that despite my disagreement with Waldo and Pckfn they are still much preferable to anyone who roots for Minnesota sports. I don't take any of this personally and I know political arguments can prove very infuriating for people. I'll gladly drink with either of you. :banana
I won't take that personally. :D
Someone stole my car last night. I was going to call the police but I said "Screw it, let him explain the bodies in the trunk".
User avatar
raptorman
 
Posts: 6280
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: Sunny east coast of FL.

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby APB » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:10 pm

Terse? Petulant? I must have accidentally skipped the page with the good stuff.

IMO this has been one of the tamer discussions - and enlightening - that I can remember for this sub-forum, considering the scope and length of this thread. Perhaps I'll take a page from willink and pour myself a cocktail or six before jumping into the fray. Seems like legit advice...
User avatar
APB
 
Posts: 8794
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Waldo » Thu Apr 16, 2015 4:00 pm

wallyuwl wrote:So you're saying that now, vs. 5 years ago, there are MORE free market controls on health care? :NUTS


Actually, yes. Quite a bit more.

With a greater % of people insured and insurance plans converging somewhat in scope, and more gov't insurance, the prices of services are fixed more than ever before. Which means the path to profit for medical professionals is via efficiency, not charging more; a positive market force for consumers.

The other market force acting is the exchanges, where people are able to shop for insurance. These exchanges are no different than utility exchanges, which are replacing the regulated natural monopoly system in place before; increasing options to the consumers means that those that can deliver their services most efficiently (hence the cheapest) are the ones who attract the most customers.

Cost growth in the US healthcare system has dramatically changed since OCare passed, it fundamentally changed the health system from one where capitalizing on a natural or temporary monopoly was the path to greatest profits to one where efficiency is the path to profits. The transition is still ongoing and will be for a long time, but there is a TON of inefficiency in the US healthcare system, for its entire existence until very recently there was zero motivation to reduce ineffiency; just charge more. This is obvious simply by looking at technology, no industry is further behind in the modern information age than the medical industry, and it really isn't even close.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4983
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby GreenDay » Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:38 pm

Waldo wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:So you're saying that now, vs. 5 years ago, there are MORE free market controls on health care? :NUTS


Actually, yes. Quite a bit more.

With a greater % of people insured and insurance plans converging somewhat in scope, and more gov't insurance, the prices of services are fixed more than ever before. Which means the path to profit for medical professionals is via efficiency, not charging more; a positive market force for consumers.

The other market force acting is the exchanges, where people are able to shop for insurance. These exchanges are no different than utility exchanges, which are replacing the regulated natural monopoly system in place before; increasing options to the consumers means that those that can deliver their services most efficiently (hence the cheapest) are the ones who attract the most customers.

Cost growth in the US healthcare system has dramatically changed since OCare passed, it fundamentally changed the health system from one where capitalizing on a natural or temporary monopoly was the path to greatest profits to one where efficiency is the path to profits. The transition is still ongoing and will be for a long time, but there is a TON of inefficiency in the US healthcare system, for its entire existence until very recently there was zero motivation to reduce ineffiency; just charge more. This is obvious simply by looking at technology, no industry is further behind in the modern information age than the medical industry, and it really isn't even close.


'Delivering' insurance inexpensively is not the same as delivering care inexpensively. See for example car insurance. And healthcare, though sold as 'insurance' isn't insurance. It's a service that people use all the time, not only when rare 'accidents' happen. that drives up costs, except when there is a penalty for use. Thus, the same way to 'efficiency' as docs use: denial of coverage. Except that when people are turned away, as they are from coverage - by docs and by insurers from uncovered services, they just go to the ER - as they are doing MORE since Obamacare.

When another party pays the bills, and the service is seen as a free right, both those things confound market controls.

Denial of service. Third party bill payer. 'Free'/right to service. All these things are distortions of a free market due to government intervention. There is no free market, and less so than before Obamacare. What there is is an increased incentive to deny care, especially for the poorest and those with the worse policies or coverage. The crap will hit the fan once Medicare reimbursements aren't enough to keep the lights on in the county hospitals.

But I agree that there are tons of inefficiencies in Healthcare, and tons of docs who waste dollars (there are reasons for this other than what you suggested), and tons of improvements that tech can make. But it isn't gonna happen with reduced reimbursement.
YoHoChecko wrote: Anyone who can't understand this doesn't deserve the platform that literacy has granted them.
User avatar
GreenDay
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby raptorman » Sun Apr 19, 2015 6:40 am

Waldo wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:So you're saying that now, vs. 5 years ago, there are MORE free market controls on health care? :NUTS


Actually, yes. Quite a bit more.

With a greater % of people insured and insurance plans converging somewhat in scope, and more gov't insurance, the prices of services are fixed more than ever before. Which means the path to profit for medical professionals is via efficiency, not charging more; a positive market force for consumers.

The other market force acting is the exchanges, where people are able to shop for insurance. These exchanges are no different than utility exchanges, which are replacing the regulated natural monopoly system in place before; increasing options to the consumers means that those that can deliver their services most efficiently (hence the cheapest) are the ones who attract the most customers.

Cost growth in the US healthcare system has dramatically changed since OCare passed, it fundamentally changed the health system from one where capitalizing on a natural or temporary monopoly was the path to greatest profits to one where efficiency is the path to profits. The transition is still ongoing and will be for a long time, but there is a TON of inefficiency in the US healthcare system, for its entire existence until very recently there was zero motivation to reduce ineffiency; just charge more. This is obvious simply by looking at technology, no industry is further behind in the modern information age than the medical industry, and it really isn't even close.
I just want someone to explain to me how I can use my sons maternity benefits. Since he has to pay for them, we should be able to use them. Oh wait, he can't get pregnant. Any other thing that you would have to pay for and couldn't use would fall under some form of discrimination. Not this.
Someone stole my car last night. I was going to call the police but I said "Screw it, let him explain the bodies in the trunk".
User avatar
raptorman
 
Posts: 6280
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: Sunny east coast of FL.

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Trudge » Sun Apr 19, 2015 9:44 am

raptorman wrote:
Waldo wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:So you're saying that now, vs. 5 years ago, there are MORE free market controls on health care? :NUTS


Actually, yes. Quite a bit more.

With a greater % of people insured and insurance plans converging somewhat in scope, and more gov't insurance, the prices of services are fixed more than ever before. Which means the path to profit for medical professionals is via efficiency, not charging more; a positive market force for consumers.

The other market force acting is the exchanges, where people are able to shop for insurance. These exchanges are no different than utility exchanges, which are replacing the regulated natural monopoly system in place before; increasing options to the consumers means that those that can deliver their services most efficiently (hence the cheapest) are the ones who attract the most customers.

Cost growth in the US healthcare system has dramatically changed since OCare passed, it fundamentally changed the health system from one where capitalizing on a natural or temporary monopoly was the path to greatest profits to one where efficiency is the path to profits. The transition is still ongoing and will be for a long time, but there is a TON of inefficiency in the US healthcare system, for its entire existence until very recently there was zero motivation to reduce ineffiency; just charge more. This is obvious simply by looking at technology, no industry is further behind in the modern information age than the medical industry, and it really isn't even close.
I just want someone to explain to me how I can use my sons maternity benefits. Since he has to pay for them, we should be able to use them. Oh wait, he can't get pregnant. Any other thing that you would have to pay for and couldn't use would fall under some form of discrimination. Not this.


I thought the maternity benefits to men were similar to women because of the increasing shared duties of men and women in the household. Little vague on this part if you could expand what is going on...
Image
User avatar
Trudge
 
Posts: 5219
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby raptorman » Sun Apr 19, 2015 5:27 pm

Trudge wrote:
I thought the maternity benefits to men were similar to women because of the increasing shared duties of men and women in the household. Little vague on this part if you could expand what is going on...

It's simple. There used to be two types of policies. One for men, and one for women. There is now only one. And every policy has to carry maternity benefits. Now, there is no way a man or a boy can ever use these benefits. But they have to be in our policy and we get to pay for them. Look at what your policy says it covers. It will be in there. Now, try to make a claim using those benefits. You can't as a male.
Someone stole my car last night. I was going to call the police but I said "Screw it, let him explain the bodies in the trunk".
User avatar
raptorman
 
Posts: 6280
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: Sunny east coast of FL.

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Waldo » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:15 pm

raptorman wrote:
Trudge wrote:
I thought the maternity benefits to men were similar to women because of the increasing shared duties of men and women in the household. Little vague on this part if you could expand what is going on...

It's simple. There used to be two types of policies. One for men, and one for women. There is now only one. And every policy has to carry maternity benefits. Now, there is no way a man or a boy can ever use these benefits. But they have to be in our policy and we get to pay for them. Look at what your policy says it covers. It will be in there. Now, try to make a claim using those benefits. You can't as a male.

Men can be sued to pay for the medical care of children they fathered. The obligation to support legally does not begin at birth.

Women have to pay for hardon pill coverage.

Either way, women shouldn't have to carry a larger medical burden because they are capable of gestating children. It isn't like men don't have a role in childbirth, it takes both sexes to make a baby.

Fortunately maternity care is one place insurance gets right. Once you have that positive test on file (ours just went through a week ago :8) ), medical care for all things maternity related is free, right on to past birth. With as much stress as having kids brings (and the utter lack of sleep at first), the fact that medical bills aren't a part of it is a huge relief. This will be our second, first since OCare went into effect; our insurance now has to provide a breast pump and lactation consulting, neither were covered for our last kiddo, given our first day home experience last time around, this will be huge.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4983
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby wallyuwl » Tue Apr 21, 2015 1:49 am

Waldo wrote:Men can be sued to pay for the medical care of children they fathered. The obligation to support legally does not begin at birth.


You are confusing liability insurance with health insurance. The situation you are describing would fall under the umbrella of, well, an umbrella policy.

You go ahead and try to submit a claim for yourself, not your wife, for everything related to the birth of your child and then show receipts for how much you get covered. Yet, as Raptor stated, you are required to have and pay for coverage you can never use under Obamacare. That's apparently one of the things we needed to implement it for to see, as Pelosi famously said.

Or maybe it was just a crappy and poorly thought out bill to give the federal government near total control over health care that was rushed through using backdoor deals and kickbacks and had to be voted on in the dead of the night on Christmas Eve because Democrats were losing their Senate supermajority with the election of Scott Brown. No, that couldn't have been it.
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 12155
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby yoop » Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:29 am

wallyuwl wrote:
Waldo wrote:Men can be sued to pay for the medical care of children they fathered. The obligation to support legally does not begin at birth.


You are confusing liability insurance with health insurance. The situation you are describing would fall under the umbrella of, well, an umbrella policy.

You go ahead and try to submit a claim for yourself, not your wife, for everything related to the birth of your child and then show receipts for how much you get covered. Yet, as Raptor stated, you are required to have and pay for coverage you can never use under Obamacare. That's apparently one of the things we needed to implement it for to see, as Pelosi famously said.

Or maybe it was just a crappy and poorly thought out bill to give the federal government near total control over health care that was rushed through using backdoor deals and kickbacks and had to be voted on in the dead of the night on Christmas Eve because Democrats were losing their Senate supermajority with the election of Scott Brown. No, that couldn't have been it.


right, that couldn't have been it, that was a result of the GOP throwing every monkey wrench they could come up with to try and make it fail, or simply go away, just like they do with any socialist program, they acted as though blind to rising premiums for the last 20 years, I guess the thought was/is that if I can afford it to hell with everyone else, quite typical of your party by the way.

Insurance CO's need to be reeled back in, premiums go up to cover the uninsured is what we hear them say, just look at there gross profits though, what they pay CEO's and share holders, then what they show as net, millions are not even taxed, these private insurance Co's have held this country hostage for years, you bet I want the Government involved in curbing there corruption, there the ones that drug out slowing this process, and Insurance CO's pay out more money to Lobbyist than any other corporate business and those lobbyist are republicans.
Image
User avatar
yoop
The Al Davis of PN.net
 
Posts: 19304
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:38 pm
Location: Yooperopolis

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Papa John » Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:47 am

I guess the thought was/is that if I can afford it to hell with everyone else, quite typical of your party by the way.


"If someone else can afford to pay for me, then they should, and if they don't want to pay for me, then they're greedy."

When it comes down to it, nobody really gives a rip about anyone else besides themselves and their family- and why should they? Whether you want to admit it or not, this applies to you too. A man who spends his life acquiring resources in order to support his family does not exhibit greed when he decides that he does not want to spend those resources on a stranger. Also, there is absolutely nothing noble about forcing the man to spend them on someone else via governmental coercion.
Image
User avatar
Papa John
 
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:41 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Pckfn23 » Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:56 am

When it comes down to it, nobody really gives a rip about anyone else besides themselves and their family

Thank You for exemplifying the hypocrisy of the far right, especially the more religious right.
Image
No, every post is not secretly about wanting Capers fired.
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 39656
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby yoop » Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:21 am

Papa John wrote:
I guess the thought was/is that if I can afford it to hell with everyone else, quite typical of your party by the way.


"If someone else can afford to pay for me, then they should, and if they don't want to pay for me, then they're greedy."

When it comes down to it, nobody really gives a rip about anyone else besides themselves and their family- and why should they? Whether you want to admit it or not, this applies to you too. A man who spends his life acquiring resources in order to support his family does not exhibit greed when he decides that he does not want to spend those resources on a stranger. Also, there is absolutely nothing noble about forcing the man to spend them on someone else via governmental coercion.


your taking it to extremes now, I don't like this any more than you, but whether we have a NHCP or not you and I are still paying for them and always will, at least now it's forcing them to get insurance, in the long haul it will stabalize your premiums, and you have been getting coerest by insurance co.s your entire life just like I have, I don't see how the gov will be any worse, do you think a private co. would have done better with SS? I sure don't.
Image
User avatar
yoop
The Al Davis of PN.net
 
Posts: 19304
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:38 pm
Location: Yooperopolis

PreviousNext

Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest