ACA, "No thanks I'll just pay the penalty"

[Greywolf2375]

Because, as soon as it is mentioned, a large pack of loons start shrieking, "socialized medicine", at everyone and people are too stupid to realize it is a good idea.

ROBIN SUPPORTS DEATH PANELS!!!111!!!!

ZOMG!!

as an example of the linear thought process of what socialized medicine tends to get labelled like.

[Summah]

I am sure there will be problems, but every big government program that we know and love - Medicare, Medicare Part D - has had the same. We'll all get through this, assuming of course that Republicans eventually accept reality and cooperate in fixing the hiccups. If not...well, I don't know.

Medicare part D still sucks. That's my only real issue with Medicare. I entered the donut hole after about 4 months and had to discontinue some medications, because I can't afford things that cost $300+ a month.

[awesome possum]

Because, as soon as it is mentioned, a large pack of loons start shrieking, "socialized medicine", at everyone and people are too stupid to realize it is a good idea.

Why do you want to kill my grandma? What did she ever do to you?

[Robin Of House Hill]

ROBIN SUPPORTS DEATH PANELS!!!111!!!!

ZOMG!!

as an example of the linear thought process of what socialized medicine tends to get labelled like.

The problem is that the lies are left unchallenged because everyone is so afraid of being called a socialist.

Everyone is entitled to a reasonable level of healthcare because healthy people tend to be more productive and that benefits everyone. Everyone who requires it should be entitled to hospice care, because no one deserves to die in pain.

ETA: spelling correction.

[Shryke]

Why do you want to kill my grandma? What did she ever do to you?

Helped make you!!!!!

Seriously though, I'm sure she's a nice lady.

It's not her fault you turned out like you did. :P

[awesome possum]

Just you wait until we bring our death panels to Canadia!

[awesome possum]

Don't they already have them? Doesn't all socialized medicine? Is there not some Canadian healthcare brownshirt army to enforce teh death panels?

Yeah, but its Canadian. We 'Muricans would show them the right way to death panel.

[Sci-2]

I've never heard anyone actually make this argument. "Behaving in a way that is financially foolish" is not anywhere near the same thing as "deluded". Most of the players at any given poker table are behaving in a way that is fiscally foolish. That doesn't make them deluded, it just makes them not very good at poker.

Perhaps I should have said deceived. I'd prefer asking people who might benefit from the ACA why they'd be in favor of its repeal.

Sure, I'm guessing some people are just convinced Obama is a communist Anti-Christ, but I'm also guess[ing] some people have considered the pros and cons to themselves and the country and made a decision. Not the decision I'd go with, but debate is better if we take a charitable viewpoint on our opponents' positions.

[Robin Of House Hill]

I oppose privatizing death panels.

[Phaing]

I oppose privatizing death panels.

Like the Bureaucrat that denied adult lung-tissue transplants to that 11 year old girl a couple of months ago?

Kathleen ... Sebilias (sic)?

(for you Libs, sic means I'm uncertain about the spelling, just like it did last time)

She would be dead now if it weren't for the national outcry.

Why do you want to kill my grandma? What did she ever do to you?

Besides her part in bringing you into the world, you mean?

JOKING.

Oh, yeah, no humor allowed on this board, eh?

[SkynJay]

Like the Bureaucrat that denied adult lung-tissue transplants to that 11 year old girl a couple of months ago?

Kathleen ... Sebilias (sic)?

(for you Libs, sic means I'm uncertain about the spelling, just like it did last time)

She would be dead now if it weren't for the national outcry.

Gallop, gallop, gallop. Once again, you toss random stuff out that doesnt actually fit in anywhere in the debate. Of course I am thrilled she is living and apperently doing well. But this was not a "death panel bureaucrat" that denied her, but rather existing policies based on medical based decisions at the time. She then recieved a set a lungs that failed before getting a second that has worked (ahead of 1600 others on the list). This case has so little to do with the ACA that it is laughable, but as you pointed out, no humor allowed.

But perhaps you are right, it would be much better for a profit driven company to decide to not allow the transplant because she had a pre existing condition. DOWN WITH ACA!

[Merentha]

Like the Bureaucrat that denied adult lung-tissue transplants to that 11 year old girl a couple of months ago?

Kathleen ... Sebilias (sic)?

(for you Libs, sic means I'm uncertain about the spelling, just like it did last time)

Hey, so I know a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand transplants and queues, and why the transplant teams generally do what they do, but I'm going to step in here. I do not work, directly, with transplants, but I am very interested in moving in that direction and working with organ procurement agencies when I tire of bedside nursing. So I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions you appear to have. First, lung transplants are very, very rare. They are very tricky to do, and lungs are some of the hardest organs to harvest, for many reasons. On the other hand, they're one of the organs we most need, immediately. This creates a huge supply and demand issue, and the ethical issues involved in assigning who gets what are monstrously difficult. I do not know this case in particular (the name is Sebelius, by the way) but I can immediately see why assigning adult lung tissue to an 11 year old girl presents problems. First, there are guidelines in place to ensure that the very rare lungs that are transplantable are going to be transplanted into a candidate that will have viable lungs. These rules are there for good reasons, to reduce bias in the system, otherwise the organ procurement agencies would basically be picking and choosing at whim. One of those is that the organs will actually fit in the chest cavity. Like I said, lung transplantation is tricky. Adding a significant risk with the lungs not fitting is a problem, because then you've wasted a good set of lungs that could have gone to someone who needed them. I'm guessing she had cystic fibrosis, because, iirc, that's the most common cause of lung transplants in children. Now, back when I was a nursing assistant, I helped take care of a teen with cystic fibrosis waiting for a lung transplant. She was eligible for adult lungs. We fought desperately hard to keep her off a ventilator, because, at that time, transplanting lungs into ventilator-dependent individuals was largely a losing battle. They were highly prone to infection and often do not come off the ventilator at all, necessitating further transplants. Now, while I am not the most up to date on the current literature, it is my understanding that we appear to be doing better at this. Some early pilot studies seem to show that while vent-dependent lung transplants stay on the ventilator longer, they can recover and actually have similar outcomes to non-vent-dependent changes. These are early pilot studies, and are cautionary, and medical research as a whole is a giant clusterfuck that takes forever to make decisions about best practice, which is ultimately a good thing.

I don't envy the people involved, but to say that the "bureaucracy" decided to deny this girl lungs for nefarious reasons is wrong. They prioritize based on the best outcome possible, and its a godawful job and I have the utmost respect for the people who do it. I honestly don't know if I can do that later in life, but I want to try. I find it disgusting that you are willing to denigrate some damn fine human beings to score political points, because every member of an organ procurement organization I have ever met or had the pleasure of working with have been some of the most caring people in a profession full of them.

Yes, she would be dead. But you know what? Someone else wouldn't be, because that's how lung transplants work. That's how prioritization of medical resources work. And without the bureaucracy you fear so much, you know who would get the lungs? The people who can pay the most, and that concept sickens me.

edit: Looking at the post above, and glancing very quickly through an article about her, her first lung transplant didn't take. That's one person who might have been saved over a girl who was too young for the lungs. Do I know that she rejected the first set because of the discrepancy? No. Is it a significant risk factor? Absolutely. So while you score political points, maybe try being the person that has to tell the 16 year old that s/he can't get a transplant because an 11 year old who isn't eligible gets to have the rules bent for her. While you're at it, you can get yourself onto an ethics board or join an ethics agency and try to do that for a living, instead of armchair quarterbacking from the sidelines while cheerleading the same profit-driven enterprise that would have completely written the girl off as someone who can't pay, rather than making a decision based on the best practices for everyone with the very few medical resources we have.

[Sci-2]

Yeah, it is a weird case to bring in as I'm not sure about the comparison to the ACA.

I don't see how privatized healthcare would have ensured a better outcome. And likely someone will, or has, died due to her being placed at the top of the list. Not that I blame the parents, as their concern IIRC was she was denied being put on the list in the first place?

[thecryptile]

I think she was on a list to get organs from a child, then she was given lungs from an adult because there weren't any children's lungs available. The rule was that kids under 12 don't get adult organs. Or something like that.

@OP Many people I work with have told me that they will be forgoing the insurance because it's cheaper to pay the penalty. They look on both the insurance and the penalty as throwing money away. There's a lot of confusion about Obamacare. I'm lucky that I'm on my wife's insurance, but worry that the ACA might affect that in a negative way.

[Merentha]

Kids under 12 do not get adult organs, that is correct. Child lung donations are incredibly rare, for what should be obvious reasons. Adult lung donations are also rare, but less so.

[Sci-2]

There's a lot of confusion about Obamacare. I'm lucky that I'm on my wife's insurance, but worry that the ACA might affect that in a negative way.

I had an ex whose mom was worried that needing to pay the penalty or get the insurance was going to eat into her business, as she's a seamstress/dressmaker who doesn't have a lot of room to give in terms of cost.

Thankfully her daughters are all out working and have the means to take care of her, but I do think it's important to consider not everyone who's worked hard is 100% certain to benefit from Obamacare.

Then again, maybe her mom was wrong as I'm not going to contact an ex's mom to find out.

[TrackerNeil]

@OP Many people I work with have told me that they will be forgoing the insurance because it's cheaper to pay the penalty. They look on both the insurance and the penalty as throwing money away.

Those people are free to do so, but they'll be paying for the care they will nonetheless receive instead of free-riding on the system, as was previously the case.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Like the Bureaucrat that denied adult lung-tissue transplants to that 11 year old girl a couple of months ago?

Kathleen ... Sebilias (sic)?

(for you Libs, sic means I'm uncertain about the spelling, just like it did last time)

She would be dead now if it weren't for the national outcry.

Are you talking about the first transplant which failed, thereby depriving someone else of a needed transplant where the lung might actually have been viable, or the second which is still not a sure thing? The rules about transplants are based on the best medical knowledge available, not some bureaucrat's whim.

[thecryptile]

Those people are free to do so, but they'll be paying for the care they will nonetheless receive instead of free-riding on the system, as was previously the case.

Their argument is "I never need to go to the doctor, so why buy something I'll never use?"

ETA: Which I guess the counter-argument is, with the penalties "You're going to pay for it anyway."

[TrueMetis]

Their argument is "I never need to go to the doctor, so why buy something I'll never use?"

ETA: Which I guess the counter-argument is, with the penalties "You're going to pay for it anyway."

Technically true of all insurance, yet it's still illegal in most places to drive without car insurance.