Generation X of American Politics

[Mad Monkey]

I keep going over that sentence grammatically, trying to discern whether it requires a response. Hmmmm.

Generally, when someone starts a sentence with "I trust", it's generally a vaguely menacing request that you clarify yourself.

Example: "I trust that you weren't calling me a son-of-a-doodlehead." means "I think that you were calling me a son-of-a-doodlehead; take it back or I'll rip your throat out and feed it to you."

Happy to help!

Such as? And assuming this is a person who doesn't have much money.

If you don't have much money, then the current health care system isn't really giving you many options either. Health insurance isn't really available for the poor either way, is it?

Call them what you will. Any insurance plan that has cost-controls is going to have denials of care at some point. I'm not saying that's a particular feature of government plans -- its a "criticism" equally applicable to private plans as well.

This seems beyond dispute. My only concern was that private health insurance as it currently operates doesn't give significantly more options than the ones that would exist under the exchanges, which would only be available to small businesses and certain individuals according to the recent news coverage. Insurers won't even be required to participate so if they don't like it they can opt out and operate the way they currently are (and give up the government backing).

[Andriy Czarchenko]

If that is true -- and I'm not at all sure it is -- you're saying that we should have government mandates regarding care with which the majority of voters disagree?

Majority of voters don´t know shit about these issues.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Call them what you will. Any insurance plan that has cost-controls is going to have denials of care at some point. I'm not saying that's a particular feature of government plans -- its a "criticism" equally applicable to private plans as well.

I didn't think you were trying to apply it to just the government. It's just that I find the "death panel" moniker in general to be unfair and misleading.

Not true. I'd go through the tedious task of identifying government insurance regulations with which I have no quarrel, but if you can't think of some yourself, I'm not bothering.

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be unfair. My statement was way to broad. You are objecting to government establishing minimal benefits.

The fact is that every benefit mandate is going to increase the cost of insurance. Every cost increase is going to mean that some people are priced out of the market. You can spin that however you want.

Yes, which is where subsidies/tax credits/charity/medicaid come into it.

Such as? And assuming this is a person who doesn't have much money.

Ask for donations? I'm just pointing out that there are other options. Medicare issuing a denial of care is not the same thing as saying you can't get the treatment. Both systems allow for you to pay for things out of pocket if you desire or are able to.

You're correct -- its not a complete one size fits all criteria. But it will be more restrictive at the margins because of the effect of the Exchange on the market. Oh hell, I don't even know why I'm arguing this, because I don't think the point even matters much in terms of whether the government plan is good or bad. It's something that, at this point, we can't say anything more than it will matter at the margins, and that's not even worth the effort to defend.

Yes, it will be more restrictive--I'm not denying that.

I enjoy talking healthcare because I feel like I learn a lot and as someone just entering the field I have an interest it in. Obviously, none of us are going to change what happens in Washington. If you don't want to debate this or don't feel like defending a point than don't. It isn't worth getting worked up about such things on a message board.

[Lord of Rhinos]

No, I don't think it ever was. Well, maybe back before medicine was terribly effective. But when we're talking about "Buy this machine or there's a high probability of your child choking to death on his own secretions", standard market principals won't apply. I think you probably understand this, it's just way to many of my friends/family/pundits seem to think standard free market ideology would fix healthcare.

I'm not against modified free market principals. I'm just saying they will need to be modified . Obama is proposing basing pay on outcomes and the healthcare field in general is moving towards this. We'll see if it works.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Generally, when someone starts a sentence with "I trust", it's generally a vaguely menacing request that you clarify yourself.

Example: "I trust that you weren't calling me a son-of-a-doodlehead." means "I think that you were calling me a son-of-a-doodlehead; take it back or I'll rip your throat out and feed it to you."

Happy to help!

I thought that might be the case. But then I thought that nobody could fairly be interpreting my comments to mean I supported eliminating all insurance completely, which is what 100 percent out of pocket would mean.

If you don't have much money, then the current health care system isn't really giving you many options either. Health insurance isn't really available for the poor either way, is it?

Not if the "cost-control" panels deny coverage.

This seems beyond dispute. My only concern was that private health insurance as it currently operates doesn't give significantly more options than the ones that would exist under the exchanges, which would only be available to small businesses and certain individuals according to the recent news coverage. Insurers won't even be required to participate so if they don't like it they can opt out and operate the way they currently are (and give up the government backing).

I agree, which was why I said the current system had only a marginal advantage. I do think the Exchange may have the effect of pulling other policies into compliance and decreasing alternatives, but we'll have to see how it works out.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I didn't think you were trying to apply it to just the government. It's just that I find the "death panel" moniker in general to be unfair and misleading.

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be unfair. My statement was way to broad. You are objecting to government establishing minimal benefits.

Yes, which is where subsidies/tax credits/charity/medicaid come into it.

Ask for donations? I'm just pointing out that there are other options. Medicare issuing a denial of care is not the same thing as saying you can't get the treatment. Both systems allow for you to pay for things out of pocket if you desire or are able to.

Yes, it will be more restrictive--I'm not denying that.

I enjoy talking healthcare because I feel like I learn a lot and as someone just entering the field I have an interest it in. Obviously, none of us are going to change what happens in Washington. If you don't want to debate this or don't feel like defending a point than don't. It isn't worth getting worked up about such things on a message board.

Actually, thanks for the courteous response. Sorry if I got snarky - given the ideological imbalance, I get a bit thin-skinned sometimes. It is an extraordinarily difficult issue that raises significant moral and analytical issues.

For what its worth, I think plans such as the President's provide greater human benefits in the short term over the current system. It's when you get further out that I think things will get worse.

[Mad Monkey]

I thought that might be the case. But then I thought that nobody could fairly be interpreting my comments to mean I supported eliminating all insurance completely, which is what 100 percent out of pocket would mean.

Two good things about the forum is that (1) you can ignore ridiculously uncharitable interpretations of your comments and decline to respond and (2) you have Mad Monkey Explanation Service; I'll help you understand uncommon conversational conventions and bill your insurance provider directly! :D

Actually, thanks for the courteous response. Sorry if I got snarky - given the ideological imbalance, I get a bit thin-skinned sometimes. It is an extraordinarily difficult issue that raises significant moral and analytical issues.

Remember when we used to have easier moral debates, when a man could point to one side and credibly argue that not only is their position wrong but so incredibly reprehensible that espousing it borders on a capital felony? American politics lost a little something after we all agreed to ratify that Constitution...

[Annelise]

Oops, to the new thread!