Pages

Thursday, April 04, 2013

Sequester is a Pimple Compared to What Obamacare Will Be

Here are my random thoughts.

-Those who have Obamacare will be turned away because clinics will not be paid enough by the government.

-America will learn a new meaning of "shortage."

-Rationing will be as certain as I am writing this.

-We will have to wait a month or two months or longer to see a doctor.

-Hospitals, starting with non-profit, will refuse more medicare patients.

-Health care companies are eliminating spouse coverage.

-Premiums in my home state of Wisconsin is going up 80%.

-More people will be on Medicare, and Obama just came out and actually said that he will lower disbursements.

-Doctors will leave the business because they will not be able to afford to stay in business.

-The red tape/bureaucracy for Obamacare will skyrocket costs.

-There was no health care crisis before Obama became president, but there will be now.

-For liberals this is not about providing health care, it is about controlling people's lives.

-Nobody will have health care in the near future.

-Socialism never works.

-This disaster is intentional by Obama.

-All you senior citizens who voted for Obama will be turned away when you have cancer, you were warned, but you did not listen.

WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE SCREWED!

42 comments:

  1. Yup. All the saps who voted for Obama and thought things would turn out otherwise are in for a rude awakening. They probably don't expect Lucy to yank the football away from Charlie Brown every time, either.

    It galls me to think that my vote was canceled out by the vote of a stupid person.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All attempts to "stick it to the Man" end up being a de facto tax on the rest of us. Funny how that works out. Yet people are still stupid enough and gullible enough to fall for it. You'd be hard pressed to find as much gullibility at a Todd Bentley "revival" as in any gathering of typical libprog zombies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What do you think of the euphemism, low-information voter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the fact that we have so many of them is a sign of the urgency we have of the need to disseminate huge amounts of information across broad swaths of the population. Of course, politicians and the "sound-bite" media are (tacitly or otherwise) complicit in the creation of this need.

      Life in a technological age is becoming far more complex, far more quickly, than anyone could have dreamed. We are at a point at which we ourselves need quickly to discern and understand what is going on, to craft "high-information", educational messages, and then to disseminate this information as best as we possibly can.

      Delete
  4. Here in Canada (Toronto, to be specific), waiting in the emergency room can take hours before you get to see a nurse. Then it's an even longer wait for the doctor if the nurse can't fix your problem. This is even with hospitals that aren't in the core downtown area. A lot of the family doctors kind of treat you like you're on some sort of assembly line, too. Sure, there are exceptions but most of the doctors I've had over the years seem like they're in a hurry to prescribe you something or refer you to a specialist (which takes months, of course).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like where I live in the USA (except for the specialists, whom you can see quite quickly, IF you can pay).

      Delete
  5. The problem that exists here is that on one hand, the Left has been warning us of the effects of Obamacare (see comments made by Chomsky and Hedges for example) but on the other hand the claim here is that Obamacare is socialism, which it isn't. Leaving the paying of healthcare in the hands of the private sector is not socialism. Some kind of universal single-payer system is socialism. But if you are going to make the latter system work, you cannot, as Canada has been doing, underfund it. To underfund it is to consign it to failure.

    With trying to make every need met by the market while the business world embraces the reductionistic philosophy of maximizing profits will, not just in healthcare, spell doom. The Scriptures are clear, "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" and yet we are trying rely on the market for every need is a recipe for disaster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The great irony of Obamacare is that it takes money from young liberals and gives it to old conservatives.

      Delete
  6. With trying to make every need met by the market while the business world embraces the reductionistic philosophy of maximizing profits will, not just in healthcare, spell doom.

    The American healthcare system is thoroughly a mixed market--with the worst of both government and market elements. It is not anywhere near a free market, however, and so its current state cannot be condemned as a failure of capitalism.

    I am also wary of systems that promote greed, but, so far, capitalism is the best of several terrible policy options; at least in capitalism the greedy people compete with each other, whereas in most other systems they solidify power and use the rest of the populace to further their own goals.

    Let's not forget that selfish ambition can be just as destructive as a love of money--and for many politicians, these are tied together, with one leading to the other. Healthcare is often just another type of control for big government types.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I am also wary of systems that promote greed, but, so far, capitalism is the best of several terrible policy options; at least in capitalism the greedy people compete with each other, whereas in most other systems they solidify power and use the rest of the populace to further their own goals."

      Exactly. Socalism merely creates a monopoly that cannot be corrected, since it has the force of law behind it. It is unaccountable and persistent (ie. persistent in that unless a useless govt program or bureaucracy becomes an election issue, which they rarely do, it is there to stay. They accumulate like barnacles on a ship and remain forever. I'm surprised it was so easy to allow unneeded USPS services to atrophy so easily).

      I've often thought, why do liberals go for the non-sequitur of "Problem X exists, therefore to solve it, you must give all your money and cede your rights to government". That doesn't follow, whether X is gun violence, healthcare or Detroit's bankruptcy.

      In particular, this society has so many degrees of freedom, so many wealthy limousine liberals (compared to, say, Dickensian England), that surely if liberals really cared to address social issues, they could do so using alternative organizations to government. They can do what they want more effectively without enslaving the rest of us, which goes back to Alan's point taht this isn't really about helping people, it's about control.

      I don't endorse Rick Warren's theology, but supposedly he's done remarkable things in Rwanda recently (lifted 10% of the population above the poverty level). I suspect this is because he changes attitudes of the people he supposedly cares about, he's not just throwing money at the problem. Liberals would be more open to alternative solutions if they really wanted to solve the problems they claim to.

      But most liberal government programs are run like an industrty. The product they sell, their inventory if you will, is human misery. Their programs perpetuate that misery, and this is by design. They aren't really interested in getting people back on their feet. Why would they do that? That would be drying up their inventory, and no good business would do that, and it would eliminate their constituency, who is too dense to see that they are being conned. This is why Obama eliminated Clinton's welfare reforms and is encouraging people to apply for food stamps.

      Delete
  7. Matthew,
    How is capitalism the best of several terrible policy options? And how is it in our current capitalistic economy that power and wealth are not being consolidated?

    BTW, I fully agree with your comment on self ambition. Thank you for writing that. However, the world of gov'ts is larger than big gov't vs small gov't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Capitalism pits selfish people against each other in competition, much like how divided government creates gridlock, which (in theory) should prevent a monopoly on power. Most other policy options consolidate power in a few experts, which never ends well unless the experts are both altruistic and competent. Most people who want to work on such prestigious government boards are one or the other, and it takes a certain level of cunning to make it that far.

      Our economy has far too many restrictions to be truly capitalistic. Right now power is consolidated in Wall Street and Washington, with some extended to the tech industry and Hollywood. Many of the most well-established and politically connected industries and groups work with DC to protect their own businesses while excluding newer, more efficient companies from taking their market share, all under the guise of "safety" or "fairness" regulations. Healthcare in the US is in the same boat.

      I'm not suggesting a loosening of these restrictions will bring about a utopia, but it could improve our situation somewhat.

      Delete
    2. "Most other policy options consolidate power in a few experts, which never ends well unless the experts are both altruistic and competent. Most people who want to work on such prestigious government boards are one or the other, and it takes a certain level of cunning to make it that far."

      Government regulation tends to be a con, in general, since they are adjudicated by committees stacked with industry insiders, who give breaks to their cronies (which is also bad for small businesses, who are not as able to deal with regulation).

      An example of this would be John Corzine, who was exonerated in the Hedge fund scandal at Goldman-Sachs by a former colleague of his who happened to be on the right committee.

      Delete
    3. Matthew,
      Your second paragraph is excellent but the results there are from Capitalism pitting selfish people against selfish people. The powerful continue to grow and the less powerful disappear.

      C. Andiron,
      Your paragraph on gov't regulation is true now but not in principle. Part of the problem rests with the voters who continue to be content with the 2-party system though there are third parties available. Since most change is incremental, voters have to sacrifice and stay with 3rd parties until they start to overcome the two major parties.

      To both,
      The problem rests with elite-centered gov't. A more participatory economic and political system could alleviate the consolidation of power and wealth that we currently see.

      Delete
    4. I am sympathetic to third parties, but the two-party system, for all its faults, allows politics to remain relatively the same from administration to administration. It provides a good measure of stability and prevents radicalization of governance.

      Delete
  8. If Canada's problem is that its health care system is underfunded, then it should be said that socialized health care is unfundable - this is because both Federal and Provincial governments have sunk billions of dollars in healthcare spending. If hospitals and medical staff are short of money, it certainly isn't due to a lack of handouts. The government steadfastedly refuses to consider a private tier of health care because that would be "too American." Canada's health care system is simply a black hole that voraciously consumes taxpayer dollars.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Matthew,
    Radical is a relative term. Martin Luther was a radical. And what if, like the Roman Church of Luther's day, the status quo was self-destructive. Would stabilization be a desirable trait?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Revolutions can end disastrously as well. The status quo is better than some alternatives.

      Delete
    2. Matthew,
      I have a friend who was in the Iranian Revolution, I know this very well.

      We are not ready for a nonviolent revolution here. Why? Because there are not enough people willing to change from a people's laissez-faire gov't to a more participatory gov't. But the real question is not necessarily the immediate end, after all, the Egyptian Revolution is ongoing, but whether we want to remain complicit in the immorality of the status quo?

      Delete
  10. I might comment further later, but for now, and at least insofar as I understand things (which might not be a whole lot so please feel free to correct me):

    1. There is and will continue to be a shortage of primary care physicians as well as specialists around the nation overall. But the real shortage is in primary care physicians, and particularly those in (shall we say) less affluent areas. For example, I doubt coastal California will be suffering as badly for doctors compared to small border towns across from Canada or Mexico.

    2. Physicians in smaller practices are being pushed out or bought out. The trend is toward large managing companies or group practices or the like. Not to mention hospital employment. In essence, the trend is toward physicians becoming employees (of other bigger businesses or hospitals or so on) rather than working with other physicians in independent practice. I don't think Obamacare is to blame entirely. But I think it is exacerbating these trends.

    3. An increase in patients (due to mandatory health insurance for all) might seem to indicate an increase in revenues for physicians. That's how Obamacare proponents are at least publicly selling it to healthcare professionals like doctors. But it's quite a bit more complicated.

    For instance, the single most important factor in most physician salaries is payer mix. But Medicare and Medicaid reimburse at rates considerably lower than private insurance. If, say, someone is an emergency physician, and 90% of their patients are covered by Medicare or Medicaid alone, then that's too bad for the physician because they probably won't be making a lot of money at the rates Medicare or Medicaid reimburse. Given there's only 24 hours in a day, and given how mentally, emotionally, and physically exhausting it could be to see patients, there's only so much volume of patients one can see per day. Plus, according to EMTALA, emergency physicians can't turn away any patient, unlike other specialties. By law, they have to accept every patient that walks in through the door of the ED.

    4. All these years studying and training in order to make far less than say hospital administrators or other business people who didn't have to run through the gauntlet that is medical education would seem to be a disincentive to pursue medicine. Or at least certain specialties such as the most needed ones like primary care.

    5. This is a bit of a slippery slope argument, so it's possible it's mistaken. But in turn the gov't may have to start offering incentives to students who sign a contract to work as primary care physicians in under-served areas of the country after graduation from med school (e.g. admissions to med school, scholarships, better loans). This is precisely what happens in other nations. If it happens, then it'd continue to involve the gov't more deeply into the lives of healthcare professionals

    6. I suspect Obamacare is a preamble to a single payer healthcare system.

    7. Doctors who don't have to accept Medicare or Medicaid may start turning away Medicare and Medicaid patients. Actually, as I understand it, many doctors are already doing this. They're focusing primarily on privately insured patients or at least not accepting any new Medicare or Medicaid patients. If the doctors who turn away Medicare and Medicaid patients are the higher quality doctors, then this may hurt patients in that they can't have access to higher quality doctors.

    8. If doctors are flooded with patients that they can't turn down, then one would think less time will be able to be spent with patients, and I would think patient care would suffer at least somewhat from hurried appointments.

    9. I might have more to say later.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Patrick,
    Regarding number 6 in your list, my guess is you think that because you think Obama is a Socialist. I don't know of any Socialist who agrees with you. And his offer to cut Social Security, though not cutting implies nothing, is further proof he isn't a Socialist.

    I am a Socialist myself. And what I find is that most Conservative Americans have been educated to think of Socialism in both a monolithic and stereotypical way.

    BTW, not all who favor socialized medicine are socialists. I have heard a few business owners who think it is an idea worth considering.

    Finally, the Capitalist problem with either Obamacare or with any universal health care system is that the increased number of patients will mean a longer wait for care. But such is an admission that healthcare under Capitalism shares a problem with any universal healthcare. That problem is establishing and maintaining enough healthcare resources. This problem is not apparent to anyone who can afford good insurance for healthcare though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curt Day said:

      Regarding number 6 in your list, my guess is you think that because you think Obama is a Socialist.

      Guess again, Curt, for you're quite mistaken (as usual). I don't think he's a socialist. Nor have I ever claimed he was. He shares tendencies with socialists though (e.g. his vision for the role of the state in healthcare).

      More to the point, you're admitting you think Obamacare or a single payer healthcare system reek of socialism. After all, I myself have not yet claimed Obamacare or a single payer healthcare system was socialist or even socialized medicine.

      Of course, if you want to know what I think, then you'll have to start by defining what you mean by socialism or socialized medicine.

      I don't know of any Socialist who agrees with you.

      Okay, you don't know of any socialist who agrees with me that Obama is not a socialist. This could mean the socialists you know disagree with me that Obama is not a socialist, which in turn implies the socialists you know are at least open to considering Obama is a socialist. You have a fascinating mind, Curt, although perhaps not in the way you would like!

      I am a Socialist myself. And what I find is that most Conservative Americans have been educated to think of Socialism in both a monolithic and stereotypical way.

      This is irrelevant since this isn't what I happen to think. And, as a former Democract with socialist proclivities who supported and voted for Democrats and other liberals back in high school and college, I'm not uninformed or naive about socialism.

      BTW, not all who favor socialized medicine are socialists.

      Once again, this is irrelevant since I never made such a claim.

      You have a bad habit of putting words in our mouths and then taking us to task for what you ascribed to us even though we never made the claim. Interested readers can see Curt Day do this in other threads here and here.

      And what I find is that Socialist Curt Day has been educated to think of conservative Christianity in both a monolithic and stereotypical way.

      Delete
    2. I have heard a few business owners who think it is an idea worth considering.

      Why don't you stop wasting our time with your irrelevant anecdoates. Instead you could present an argument for why you think "it is an idea worth considering."

      Finally, the Capitalist problem with either Obamacare or with any universal health care system is that the increased number of patients will mean a longer wait for care.

      Did you even bother to read Alan's post? Or the whole of my comment? Or are you just cherry-picking?

      But such is an admission that healthcare under Capitalism shares a problem with any universal healthcare.

      You should learn to be more subtle when appropriate. This is too obvious. Given your socialism, it's not hard to see why you would oppose healthcare under capitalism. In other words, your real dispute isn't with universal healthcare, per se. Rather, your real dispute is with capitalism.

      That problem is establishing and maintaining enough healthcare resources.

      As always, you have a bad habit of speaking in vague generalities. Why don't you specify what you mean by "healthcare resources."

      Besides, it's not as if socialism didn't also have this problem of "maintaining enough healthcare resources."

      This problem is not apparent to anyone who can afford good insurance for healthcare though.

      Now, who could that be? Certainly not the working classes! Oh yeah, that's right, it's the bourgeoisie (in their various historical iterations)!

      I hate to break it to you, but since you teach computer science in a community college in America, this would include you. According to you, this problem isn't apparent to you either. Strange how that works.

      Delete
  12. Patrick,
    Have you noticed the hostility in your notes that starts from within? Is that hostility a reformed trait? Though not proof, realize that the data is nothing more than the plural of anecdote. And though their weight is far less than systematic studies, they have value and thus are not a waste of time. The value of mentioning the business owners I know who consider single-payer universal health care a possibly viable option is that we cannot speak of the business community as a monolith. If out of the few business owners I know, there are some who would consider a socialist approach to healthcare, then isn't reasonable to assume that there might be a significant number who feel that way.

    Next, again, why the hostility? I didn't see Alan's post but this is a topic that I have thought about and studied for a while and even participated in a panel discussion on and making the same point. And yes, Socialism is no utopia and one of its problems is providing enough healthcare resources. But at the same time, those countries that do practice any number of Socialist approaches to healthcare pay far less per capata costs, sometimes even 1/2 while providing healthcare for a higher percentage of its citizens. People who argue back that our healthcare industry must pay for research do not realize that most medical research is already tax funded through the National Institute of Health (I think that is the name).

    Finally, out of a 19 and 1/2 year career of teaching computer science and math in college, I have only taught 2 or 3 classes at a community college.

    So again, why the hostility? I can guess that it relates to what I wrote before in another thread. American Christians are subject to tribalism, to having a high degree of loyalty to groups outside of the Gospel and this loyalty sometimes moves them to compromise their following the Gospel. This is an insidious temptation to every Christian who belongs to other groups, to Christians who favor one of the forms of Capitalism as well as one of the forms of Socialism.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curt Day said:

      Have you noticed the hostility in your notes that starts from within?

      1. Actually, I'm not hostile, per se. I'm blunt and direct. But I suppose you read hostility into my comments.

      2. I'm also sarcastic, but sarcasm isn't wrong, in and of itself.

      3. Besides, have you read the Bible? The Bible is quite "hostile" in tone. For example, it's "hostile" toward false teachers.

      4. Also, none of this is said for no reason. You're deceptive, you're evasive, you don't argue in good faith. Others have likewise pointed this out about you. Maybe I wouldn't be so "hostile" (as you claim) if I weren't dealing with someone of your character.

      5. Rather than worry about my tone, why don't you worry your support for same-sex marriage and socialism. Why don't you worry about your reliance upon people like Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, etc. Why don't you worry about what God will think of you.

      Though not proof, realize that the data is nothing more than the plural of anecdote.

      Wrong. A bunch of anecdotes that homepathic medicine works to cure cancer does not mean homeopathic medicine works to cure cancer.

      Also, a lot of data don't include anecdotes. How is the "data" of someone's vital signs like blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature, and so forth anecdotal?

      And though their weight is far less than systematic studies, they have value and thus are not a waste of time.

      I never claimed anecdotes in general are worthless or a waste of time. Rather, your continuous stream of anecdotes are a waste of time, because they're often irrelevant and because they're often without reasoned argumentation.

      The value of mentioning the business owners I know who consider single-payer universal health care a possibly viable option is that we cannot speak of the business community as a monolith.

      And the irrelevance of your anecdote is that I never claimed the business community was a monolith.

      If out of the few business owners I know, there are some who would consider a socialist approach to healthcare, then isn't reasonable to assume that there might be a significant number who feel that way.

      No, it's not reasonable to assume this. For starters, there could be all sorts of biases involved in your informal little survey. There could be bias in that the business owners you know are all within a certain local area or region so at best it couldn't even be extrapolated beyond this area or region. There could be measurement bias which refers to the human tendency to inadvertantly nudge results in the direction that they are predicted to go. It could be sample size was far too small to have any sort of statistical significance. We could go on.

      Next, again, why the hostility?

      See above.

      I didn't see Alan's post

      Thanks for the admission.

      but this is a topic that I have thought about and studied for a while and even participated in a panel discussion on and making the same point.

      Your studied thoughts are so evident in your comments and responses here.

      And yes, Socialism is no utopia and one of its problems is providing enough healthcare resources.

      Thanks for conceding the point.

      Delete
    2. But at the same time, those countries that do practice any number of Socialist approaches to healthcare pay far less per capata costs

      Say the US spends more per capita on healthcare than these socialist nations you speak of. This could be due to several different reasons which don't necessarily imply anything negative about our healthcare system.

      You'll have to get specific if you want to debate this point further. Which socialist countries do you have in mind?

      sometimes even 1/2 while providing healthcare for a higher percentage of its citizens.

      "Providing healthcare for a higher percentage of its citizens" does not necessarily mean quality healthcare is provided.

      But again you'll have to get specific and name countries you're attempting to compare and contrast with ours.

      And, BTW, I've criticized our healthcare system before. I hardly think it's perfect. But I think your arguments so far have all been pretty dumb.

      People who argue back that our healthcare industry must pay for research do not realize that most medical research is already tax funded through the National Institute of Health (I think that is the name).

      Yes, the NIH. But "Institutes" is plural, not singular as you have it since it includes all the institutes (e.g. National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute). I believe Francis Collins is its director.

      As I recall, the NIH is responsible for approximately one-third of all biomed research funding. (Don't forget about the NSF for other sciences and engineering.) The other two-thirds is funded by industry. Yes, this would fall under capitalism. Since you bring it up, why don't you explain to us how you think Obama's policies such as Obamacare will effect funding from industry and the like.

      But anyway I never "argued back that our healthcare industry must pay for research" so once again this is irrelevant to anything I've said.

      Finally, out of a 19 and 1/2 year career of teaching computer science and math in college, I have only taught 2 or 3 classes at a community college.

      How does help your case? This would only reinforce my point.

      So again, why the hostility?

      Again, see above.

      I can guess that it relates to what I wrote before in another thread. American Christians are subject to tribalism, to having a high degree of loyalty to groups outside of the Gospel and this loyalty sometimes moves them to compromise their following the Gospel. This is an insidious temptation to every Christian who belongs to other groups, to Christians who favor one of the forms of Capitalism as well as one of the forms of Socialism.

      Yes, in fact, one of the most tribal-minded American Christians I've met so far is a guy named Curt Day. And yes this evidenced in his rantings and ravings in previous threads here and here.

      Delete
  13. Patrick,
    First, I believe the last time I looked at the stats, the NIH was doing more than 50% of the research.

    Second, we have a for profit healthcare system in an economic climate that demands that we maximize profits. And even doctors are being cut out of the financial loop by hospital administrators.

    Third, you claimed I only taught community college. Your claim false. How does a false claim reinforce your point especially since the purpose of your claim was to discredit me?

    Finally, tell me whether your hostility is being inspired by your Reformed faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Finally, tell me whether your hostility is being inspired by your Reformed faith.

      Patrick already told you where this so-called "hostility" is coming from. Like many on this blog, he's blunt and forward. That's a cultural preference that has nothing to do with faith identity. Maybe your Western tribalism prevents you from appreciating the various ways in which diverse people communicate. Patrick and I are both Asian and we both have familiarity with urban culture, which tends toward a blunter communication style. Don't take it personally, let alone conflate it with Reformed beliefs.

      Delete
    2. Matthew,

      He is more than blunt and forward, he insults and tries to put people who disagree down.

      BTW, when did I ever exhibit Western tribalism in my writings? Tribalism isn't the same as being a member of a group. None of us can escape being members of multiple groups. Tribalism comes into play when loyalties are so strong that they embrace moral relativity. Moral relativity says right and wrong depends on who does what to whom.

      BTW, I do thank you for your note and your attempt here to explain. I just respectfully disagree with your analysis.

      Delete
    3. Curt Day said:

      First, I believe the last time I looked at the stats, the NIH was doing more than 50% of the research.

      1. Why don't you document your source then.

      2. Here is mine. Published in 2010 by The Journal of the American Medical Association, which is one of the premier journals in medical science. It says: "In 2007, industry (58%) was the largest funder, followed by the federal government (33%)."

      3. Here is another source. This is from The New England Journal of Medicine, which is another premier journal. Look under the heading "Biomedical Research in 2011." This is what the NEJM says: "Biomedical research in the United States is a $100 billion enterprise, with approximately 65% supported by industry, 30% by government (predominately the NIH), and 5% by charities, foundations, or individual donors."

      Second, we have a for profit healthcare system in an economic climate that demands that we maximize profits.

      1. Is this meant to be a dig at capitalism, or is this another loose assertion devoid of supporting argumentation?

      2. At best, you're just stating a fact. But again do you have a point?

      3. What parts of our "healthcare system" are you talking about? There are parts of our healthcare system that are for profit, there are parts that are not, and there are parts that are more mixed.

      a. Take Obamacare. How is Obamacare meant to "maximize profits"? Maybe for the gov't! But not for doctors or insurance companies. If anything, Obamacare looks like a huge strike against insurance companies and their profits. Likewise reimbursements for doctors across many if not most specialties will arguably drop. Primary care might be okay but that's because their reimbursements are fairly low anyway. They're hoping it make it up with volume of patients.

      b. Take Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare provides gov't health insurance for the elderly (65 and older) and people under 65 with certain disabilities, whereas Medicaid is a federal gov't partnership with state gov'ts that provide gov't health insurance for those who meet the low-income criteria. Currently it's estimated 50 million Americans are covered under Medicare and 60 million Americans are covered under Medicaid. Explain how federal and state sponsored health insurance funded by federal and state taxes administered at the state level meant to "maximize profits." (Of course, Obamacare will make some changes to these, many of which will start to go into effect in 2014.)

      c. Take Graduate Medical Education. This refers to residency training to train new physicians in their chosen specialty. There are approximately 10,000 residents currently being trained. GME funding comes primarily from the CMS thru Medicare. How is this meant to "maximize profits"?

      d. Take our hospitals. According to the American Hospital Association, there are approximately 5724 hospitals in the entire nation. This includes community hospitals (~4973), federal gov't hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, long-term care hospitals, and others like prison hospitals. Obviously the most numerous type of hospitals are community hospitals. Of community hospitals, 2903 are not-for-profit, 1025 for-profit, and 1045 gov't hospitals. As such, not-for-profit community hospitals make up approximately 51% of all hospitals. If we throw in gov't hospitals, then not-for-profit community hospitals and gov't hospitals make up approximately 69% of all hospitals. Given this, explain how "we have a for profit healthcare system."

      Delete
    4. 4. What do you mean by "economic climate," for there may be significant differences in the "economic climate" from, say, state to state (e.g. California, Texas).

      5. Also, when you say "maximize profits," what's wrong with "maximiz[ing] profits" if a business also happens to provide a needed service? What's wrong with a doctor setting up shop in an underprivileged area for a fraction of the average salary he could make in a lush suburban private practice because he wants to help the underprivileged seeking to "maximize profits" so he can stay afloat and continue to serve in such an area?

      And even doctors are being cut out of the financial loop by hospital administrators.

      Once again, it's evident you didn't even bother to read my comment, for I've already alluded to this above.

      Third, you claimed I only taught community college. Your claim false. How does a false claim reinforce your point especially since the purpose of your claim was to discredit me?

      1. Actually, there are plenty of times when you discredit yourself. So I don't have to do the job for you since you've done a fine job yourself.

      2. Since you're slow on the uptake, let's walk you thru it. You said "This problem is not apparent to anyone who can afford good insurance for healthcare though" (which in context was meant to be a criticism against healthcare under capitalism).

      I said this includes you since you teach computer science in a local community college in America.

      Now you say you don't teach in a community college but in a college. Well, generally speaking, 4-year colleges tend to provide better pay, benefits, and other perks than community colleges. Of course this isn't true in every case, and maybe you're one of the exceptions (and if you are you could say), but it's true generally. So the fact that you work in a 4-year college rather than a community college would only reinforce my point that you are someone "who can afford good insurance for healthcare."

      Sure, you can try to weasel out of this by saying that's not what you meant by "good insurance" and in turn say something like, I can't afford the same insurance a CEO of a Fortune 500 company can afford and so on and so forth. But the fact is you're hardly working class given your background with a masters degreee, teaching computer science, for a 4-year college.

      Finally, tell me whether your hostility is being inspired by your Reformed faith.

      Short answer: no.

      Longer answer: I've already responded to you "hostility" charge. See above.

      Likewise Matt added another good point with which I'd agree.

      BTW, all this is a better response than you've given me for most of my questions to you. Thus far you've ignored most of my questions, yet here I am responding to each and every one of yours.

      Delete
    5. Curt Day said:

      He is more than blunt and forward, he insults and tries to put people who disagree down.

      You can call me whatever you like. But when will you deal with the arguments?

      Also, it's ironic you're more concerned with appropriate tone and playing nice and so forth at the same time you support sexual immorality. It's like someone standing in the midst of a concentration camp surrounded by Jews and Nazis, debating whether it's legal to exterminate Jews, but then getting more upset over the Jewish person yelling and screaming at you not to exterminate them because they're yelling and screaming at you than over the polite and civil Nazi.

      Delete
    6. Originally Curt Day said:

      People who argue back that our healthcare industry must pay for research do not realize that most medical research is already tax funded through the National Institute of Health (I think that is the name).

      Later Curt Day said:

      First, I believe the last time I looked at the stats, the NIH was doing more than 50% of the research.

      Here's another example of your ignorance, your sloppy use of language, or your duplicity. But the truth is there's a relevant distinction between funding research and doing research.

      Delete
    7. Curt Day said:

      Tribalism comes into play when loyalties are so strong that they embrace moral relativity.

      That's your highly idiosyncratic definition of tribalism.

      But okay let's work with your definition. Someone could just as well say your loyalties to your homosexual friends (whom you've mentioned several times already) are so strong that they embrace moral relativity with regard to marriage.

      As such, I could ask you a paraphrase of what you've asked me: tell me whether your hostility toward me is being inspired by your loyalty to your homosexual friends and same-sex marriage.

      Delete
  14. Alan

    Health care is already rationed. If you don't have insurance, your care is rationed if you don't have enough money to pay for it. If you have a pre-existing condition, your care is rationed since you won't get care for that condition. If you exceed your insurance dollar limits your health care is rationed. Which is really interesting since Obamacare does away with all of this rationing while you claim Obamacare will lead to rationing :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're playing dishonest word-games. A ration is an externally imposed limit. Naturally, most things are limited in that you must pay for them. But that isn't the artificially imposed limit that the term "ration" refers to.

      Try again. :)

      Also, answer this: to what limit do you have the right to inflict your personal woes on other people? Do they have the right to be free from the consequences of your personal actions? Do they have that inalienable right?

      I eagerly anticipate your thoughts on that. I honestly do not understand how socialists can think the way they do.

      Delete
  15. Patrick,
    For a more official definition of tribalism, please see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tribalism.

    I put in the part about moral relativity because it is implied and easily observed. But how am I embracing moral relativity with regards to same-sex marriage?

    Also, much of the medical research in this country is done outside the domain of commercial companies. But if the NIH is funding the research, how does location, whether the place where research is done, make a difference in my statement. The point is that while some justify our highest per capita health costs in the world on research, if most of that research is funded by the government, how is their justification valid?

    BTW, you balk at the idea that you are hostile and yet you describe yourself as one who consistently uses sarcasm and bluntness. Both sarcasm and bluntness are ways hostility is expressed.

    Finally, to address some past points. Single-payer universal healthcare can be a socialist approach. That is why I said my guess is that you think Obama is a socialist. But having a single-payer universal healthcare system does not imply you have socialism. The economy is larger than just the healthcare sector.

    In addition, when you write:

    "More to the point, you're admitting you think Obamacare or a single payer healthcare system reek of socialism."

    you are making a claim, rather than a guess. And your guess is wrong here. I wrote from the very beginning that the Left has been criticizing Obamacare? Why? It is a corporate giveaway. It garners business for the health insurance companies and transfers public wealth, tax funds, to these companies that are based on profit. Corporate-centered Obamacare is very far away from any kind of socialistic approach. A socialistic approach here would make the gov't the administrator and its running would not be based on profits. The primary beneficiaries of Obamacare is the healthcare industry and is based on increasing corporate profits. With Obamacare, as well as before it, the healthcare insurance industry acts as a middleman. And, as a middleman, it seeks to maximize profits. The drive to increase corporate profits has led to practices such as delaying payments, denying claims, and dropping policies (for some documentation, see http://www.naturalnews.com/032789_health_insurance_claims.html, http://www.naturalnews.com/023313_health_insurance.html, http://www.naturalnews.com/000203_health_care_costs.html). BTW, there are other sources.

    Both capitalist and socialist healthcare systems have problems especially in providing enough healthcare resources for the public. The capitalist system answers this problem by using a financial filter, only those who can pay or afford insurance receive certain healthcare services. The socialist system can producing waiting lists. But the difference is in the motivation of those who provide the different areas of service. The socialist system motivation is based on providing a public service. The current capitalist system is based on maximizing profits. Obamacare fits in with the latter because it is corporate centered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curt Day said:

      For a more official definition of tribalism, please see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tribalism.

      Thanks, but I don't need an official definition since I know what it means. I was pointing out you had an idiosyncratic definition.

      I put in the part about moral relativity because it is implied and easily observed.

      1. Moral relativity is not part and parcel of the standard definition for tribalism. Hence your highly idiosyncratic definition. That's my point.

      2. Nor is moral relativity necessarily "implied and easily observed." It's not like you've provided any evidence here. You just assert it's "implied and easily observed."

      3. I'll provide some counterevidence. For example, there are tons of tribes in Papua New Guinea. Traditionally these tribes are immensely loyal to one another against outside tribes. Take the Asaro mudmen. Traditionally they believe in spirits or ghosts. As I understand it, they have various rites and rituals involving appeasing spirits and the like. Traditionaly they're also a patriarchal tribe. They have specific roles for men and women. If a woman offends a man, or does something perceived to be improper to him, then the woman can be punished. All this assumes a certain moral code within the tribe. Hence there's no moral relativity implied or observed.

      But how am I embracing moral relativity with regards to same-sex marriage?

      I didn't say you were. Rather I'm taking your idiosyncratic definition of tribalism and applying it to you and same-sex marriage in order to show how absurd your definition is. That's the point.

      Also, much of the medical research in this country is done outside the domain of commercial companies.

      Uh, I never claimed otherwise.

      It was you who claimed: "most medical research is already tax funded through the National Institute of Health" and "the NIH was doing more than 50% of the research" (emphasis mine).

      I corrected you above.

      But if the NIH is funding the research, how does location, whether the place where research is done, make a difference in my statement.

      1. Why can't you keep track of your own argument? This point isn't related to your (incorrect) NIH funding claim. It's a separate point that you brought up. Here's your original statement: "If out of the few business owners I know, there are some who would consider a socialist approach to healthcare, then isn't reasonable to assume that there might be a significant number who feel that way." And I already corrected you above. In short, you can't infer from "the few business owners I know" that therefore it's "reasonable to assume there might be a significant number who feel that way."

      2. Seriously, dude, if you can't even do something as simple as keep track of your own argument, maybe you should bow out of this debate.

      3. Anyway, if you want a quick and (very) dirty overview of how biomedical research works, check out my thoughts here.

      The point is that while some justify our highest per capita health costs in the world on research, if most of that research is funded by the government, how is their justification valid?

      1. Well, since I'm not one of those people who "justif[ies] our highest per capita health costs in the world on research," then this doesn't apply to me, and there's no good reason for me to respond to it.

      2. Plus, I've already corrected you on your unsupported claim that "most of that research is funded by the government." I've also provided sources above. Just scroll up and re-read since you evidently didn't bother to do so in the first place. (No surprise there.)

      Delete
    2. BTW, you balk at the idea that you are hostile and yet you describe yourself as one who consistently uses sarcasm and bluntness.

      1. Actually, I don't "balk at the idea." I simply think you're wrong in your assessment of me.

      2. I think you're reading my words with your heart and emotions more so than with your brain and intellect.

      3. However, even if I am hostile, I don't mind. It's not like as if there's anything ipso facto wrong with being hostile. As I already pointed out to you above, the Bible could be hostile. Jesus was hostile to the Pharisees. Moses was hostile to Pharaoh. Elijah was hostile to the prophets of Baal. Paul was hostile to false teachers. Peter was hostile to apostates. John was hostile to the impenitent. Etc.

      Both sarcasm and bluntness are ways hostility is expressed.

      No, not necessarily. Sure, sarcasm and bluntness can be ways by which to express hostility. But sarcasm can also be a way to express humor. Bluntness can also be a way to express truth in love.

      Single-payer universal healthcare can be a socialist approach.

      I never denied this.

      That is why I said my guess is that you think Obama is a socialist.

      As I said above, you guessed wrong. Sorry I don't fit into your scripted talking points regarding "conservative Christians" as you would put it.

      But having a single-payer universal healthcare system does not imply you have socialism.

      Yes, that's exactly what I was alluding to above. Once again, why do you just blow past everything we say and start rattling off your talking points? This isn't at all respectful to someone you're attempting to dialogue with or debate.

      The economy is larger than just the healthcare sector.

      Obvious.

      you are making a claim, rather than a guess. And your guess is wrong here.

      How can my "guess" be wrong if you say I'm not making a "guess" but a "claim"! ;-)

      I wrote from the very beginning that the Left has been criticizing Obamacare? Why?

      I guess you're just dialoguing with yourself here. Ho hum.

      It is a corporate giveaway. It garners business for the health insurance companies and transfers public wealth, tax funds, to these companies that are based on profit.

      Your interpretation is hardly the mainstream one. Generally speaking, insurance companies would rather Obama didn't do this. They see it as Obama waging a war against the insurance companies.

      Corporate-centered Obamacare is very far away from any kind of socialistic approach.

      I never said otherwise.

      You can read my bird's-eye view of Obamacare here.

      Delete
    3. A socialistic approach here would make the gov't the administrator and its running would not be based on profits.

      Irrelevant to anything I've said.

      The primary beneficiaries of Obamacare is the healthcare industry

      Another vague statement. There are many parties in "the healthcare industry." It's not a homogenous entity.

      and is based on increasing corporate profits. With Obamacare, as well as before it, the healthcare insurance industry acts as a middleman. And, as a middleman, it seeks to maximize profits.

      As if there's anything wrong with that even if it were true. At least you certainly haven't made a case for why you think so. You just make assertions sans argumentation.

      The drive to increase corporate profits has led to practices such as delaying payments, denying claims, and dropping policies (for some documentation, see http://www.naturalnews.com/032789_health_insurance_claims.html, http://www.naturalnews.com/023313_health_insurance.html, http://www.naturalnews.com/000203_health_care_costs.html).

      1. For starters, Natural News is known for their shoddy science, to put it mildly (e.g. denying germ theory). Not to mention they take a lot of crazy stances (e.g. they encourage people not to visit doctors for legitimate maladies) and are into all sorts of conspiracy theories (e.g. I don't agree with everything but this is a start). This doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong on a particular topic like Obamacare. But since they've been debunked many times over, they have a fairly strong presumption against them.

      2. I don't have the time to sift thru each of these articles. There's some truth mixed with falsehoods and exaggerations. So let's do this instead. I can agree with what you've said about the desire to increase corporate profits leading to the aforementioned practices. But this doesn't at all imply we should ditch capitalism and bring on socialism.

      3. BTW, I wouldn't necessarily oppose getting rid of insurance companies. In fact, I can see many good reasons for doing so.

      The socialist system motivation is based on providing a public service. The current capitalist system is based on maximizing profits.

      1. That's a tendentious and oversimplified characterization of both socialism and capitalism.

      2. The best laid schemes of mice and men often go awry.

      Delete
  16. Patrick Chan: "And, as a former Democract with socialist proclivities who supported and voted for Democrats and other liberals back in high school and college, I'm not uninformed or naive about socialism."

    Out of curiosity, what changed your heart and mind away from voting and supporting Democrats and other liberals?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey TUAD,

      Well, short answer: I became a Christian! :-)

      Longer answer: I actually started thinking thru a lot of the issues (e.g. abortion) and seeing how morally wrong they were and stuff like that.

      Delete