Rationing Medicare

[Trajan]

Let's try this again.

Is rationing Medicare inevitable? Who do we want making those decisions?

read my sig.


I have it there for a reason..

 

[Polk]

Funny thing.

Go back through all my posts and you will not find one where I said medical care is not rationed. Everything is rationed, yours is rationed at the front end where people have to wait months for care. Ours is rationed by price. Guess which system most sane people prefer?

So, shorter version of your argument: "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is crazy"

You could say that, but I did not. I said that most sane people prefer something, not all. Not wanting the same thing does not make you insane.

I will, however, point out that Quebec, which has had single payer insurance since the dawn of time, recently had a court case that ruled the government actually has to allow private insurance because the waiting times for doctors were so long that they were effectively denying people health care, which is a violation of the Quebec charter. Yet, for some reason, you look at the facts and say the solution to our health care crisis, which I am still waiting for concrete evidence of, is to get the government involved so that they can ration health care by some standard that has nothing to do with price.

FYI, the DSM IV classifies delusions and the inability to deal with reality as symptoms of being bat shit crazy. That is not proof you are crazy, but it is something you should be concerned about.

You think these word games are clever, but they don't fool anyone. The clear implication of your post was that anyone who disagrees with you is crazy.

As for Quebec, that's a really weird example to use, as no one involved in this discussion is advocating banning private health insurance.

 

[Trajan]

Look guys, we've got millions of boomers reaching the years when they'll need healthcare the most, and not enough providers to go around. There cannot and will not be any system that can change that, and so rationing is going to be a fact of life from now on.

It's always been a fact of life. The question is about priorities. Do we care about who actually needs care, or whoever has cash to throw around?

see my sig.

 

[Trajan]

Look guys, we've got millions of boomers reaching the years when they'll need healthcare the most, and not enough providers to go around. There cannot and will not be any system that can change that, and so rationing is going to be a fact of life from now on.

It's always been a fact of life. The question is about priorities. Do we care about who actually needs care, or whoever has cash to throw around?

What is your solution to the fact that the Medicare actuaries say that the fund will be bankrupt in less than 30 years? Why hasn't Obama presented a plan to maintain the solvency of Medicare? Are you aware that he is actually required to by law, or does this also fall under the blanket that you throw over most of his actions and words? Sooner or later you will learn that saying everyone does it is not a defense, I do not even think it rises to the level of excuse.

thomas sowell starts out his primer on economics thus; economics is basically the management of scarcity.

see; you me and those like minded, believe management of scarcity is best left to free market mechanisms that can manage it best, via pricing, competition etc. ......

then there are folks who believe a 15 member panel pretty much free of congressional restraint can.....and add to that despite all of the decades of proof that gov. managing, well, just about anything, is folly....

*shrugs* I don't think the gov. has earned its place in managing this market.... quite the contrary.

 

[Polk]

Build those strawmen higher and higher.

 

[boedicca]

Medicare is 3% of GDP. Health Care is nearly 18%. Using "Emergency Rooms" as health care costs this nation untold amounts of money.

Let's put everyone on Medicare and call it the "public option", then, get rid of Health Care companies. Since Medicare is a measly 3% of GDP, they must be doing something right.

And yet, under RomneyCare, with its universal coverage, actual emergency room use has increased.

Why?

It only increased demand, not supply. ObamaCare will just Super Size this problem.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, shorter version of your argument: "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is crazy"

You could say that, but I did not. I said that most sane people prefer something, not all. Not wanting the same thing does not make you insane.

I will, however, point out that Quebec, which has had single payer insurance since the dawn of time, recently had a court case that ruled the government actually has to allow private insurance because the waiting times for doctors were so long that they were effectively denying people health care, which is a violation of the Quebec charter. Yet, for some reason, you look at the facts and say the solution to our health care crisis, which I am still waiting for concrete evidence of, is to get the government involved so that they can ration health care by some standard that has nothing to do with price.

FYI, the DSM IV classifies delusions and the inability to deal with reality as symptoms of being bat shit crazy. That is not proof you are crazy, but it is something you should be concerned about.

You think these word games are clever, but they don't fool anyone. The clear implication of your post was that anyone who disagrees with you is crazy.

As for Quebec, that's a really weird example to use, as no one involved in this discussion is advocating banning private health insurance.

Build those strawmen higher and higher.

Irony personified.

 

[Polk]

You could say that, but I did not. I said that most sane people prefer something, not all. Not wanting the same thing does not make you insane.

I will, however, point out that Quebec, which has had single payer insurance since the dawn of time, recently had a court case that ruled the government actually has to allow private insurance because the waiting times for doctors were so long that they were effectively denying people health care, which is a violation of the Quebec charter. Yet, for some reason, you look at the facts and say the solution to our health care crisis, which I am still waiting for concrete evidence of, is to get the government involved so that they can ration health care by some standard that has nothing to do with price.

FYI, the DSM IV classifies delusions and the inability to deal with reality as symptoms of being bat shit crazy. That is not proof you are crazy, but it is something you should be concerned about.

You think these word games are clever, but they don't fool anyone. The clear implication of your post was that anyone who disagrees with you is crazy.

As for Quebec, that's a really weird example to use, as no one involved in this discussion is advocating banning private health insurance.

Build those strawmen higher and higher.

Irony personified.

Where is the strawman? You keep thinking that if you don't make a claim directly, it's as if you didn't make it. When you say sane people agree with my position, you're also implying that people who don't agree with my position are insane. When you compare the American healthcare system to Quebec, you're implying that I'm advocating to make our system like the one in Quebec.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You think these word games are clever, but they don't fool anyone. The clear implication of your post was that anyone who disagrees with you is crazy.

As for Quebec, that's a really weird example to use, as no one involved in this discussion is advocating banning private health insurance.

Build those strawmen higher and higher.

Irony personified.

Where is the strawman? You keep thinking that if you don't make a claim directly, it's as if you didn't make it. When you say sane people agree with my position, you're also implying that people who don't agree with my position are insane. When you compare the American healthcare system to Quebec, you're implying that I'm advocating to make our system like the one in Quebec.

I specifically said most. The fact that you that say means all, and then insist that it is not misrepresenting my position, shows how credible you are. Just like the other thread where, even though I did not insist there were only two possible alternatives, you insisted I did.

Enjoy your delusions.

 

[midcan5]

All care in life is rationed unless you are among the elite, sometimes it is an individual choice, sometimes it is the medical plan, and sometimes it is simply cost or availability. Even the best insurance plans don't cover all, I know a few hypochondriacs who would break the bank. Mom past 90 turns down most testing today as she feels it a waste given age and health. The harder questions are what kind of world do we want, surely a nation that spends trillions on useless weapons and wars can take care of its own or can it? The idea that we will run out of qualified medical personnel is comical at best, remember when everyone wanted to be a lawyer, programmer, or whatever? Soon the field is over grown and life changes again.

 

[editec]

Let's try this again.

Is rationing Medicare inevitable?

Yes it is.

Who do we want making those decisions?

Boy! there's THE question, isn't it?

The issue raises big questions about the best way to convince insured Americans to cut back on unnecessary health expenses without forgoing vital treatment. Government cost-cutting provisions like the new Independent Medicare Advisory Board have raised concerns that bureaucrats will end up "rationing" care. But the reality is that someone is going to have to say "no" to excess spending at some point, as I've explained previously. "Rationing is going to go on within the Medicare system. It's a fact of life. … The question's going to be, is that decision going to be made by government and imposed top down under the current system?" the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner told Politico last month. As Tanner points out, Paul Ryan's Medicare plan intends to empower individuals to make such decisions, giving them a subsidy to purchase insurance on their own rather than having the federal government cover all their expenses. But as the recession may show, if individuals have less to work with up front, they could end up "self-rationing" and forgoing important treatment due to financial hardship or poorly informed decisions.
"You want to be changing habits in a good way. A lot of care was not terribly necessary, but you really want to make sure that people are still getting appropriate care," Kate Sullivan Hare, a long-time health policy observer, tells me in an interview. "Is it 'self-rationing' or rational care?"

Rationing care — or rational care? - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post[/QUOTE]

Nice to read something that is based on reality for a change.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All care in life is rationed unless you are among the elite, sometimes it is an individual choice, sometimes it is the medical plan, and sometimes it is simply cost or availability. Even the best insurance plans don't cover all, I know a few hypochondriacs who would break the bank. Mom past 90 turns down most testing today as she feels it a waste given age and health. The harder questions are what kind of world do we want, surely a nation that spends trillions on useless weapons and wars can take care of its own or can it? The idea that we will run out of qualified medical personnel is comical at best, remember when everyone wanted to be a lawyer, programmer, or whatever? Soon the field is over grown and life changes again.

I want a world where people do not force me to pay for holistic medicine, acupuncture, or any other non science based medical treatment. Can I get that if the government suddenly starts making health care decisions, or will I be forced to join a cult like Christian Science in order to exempt myself from government run health care?

The fact that you think doctors magically grow on trees is more than comical, it is absurd. Did you notice how when the government expanded student loans and grants the cost of education suddenly skyrocketed? The reason for that is the demand far exceeded supply, and increasing the demand for doctors will not result in a sudden increase in the supply of doctors unless we also lesson the qualifications and training needed to be a doctor. Should we make it possible to a doctor to start practice with a 4 year degree instead of requiring him to do 4 years of post grad and an internship? That should radically increase the number of available doctors, but it will also radically decrease the quality of medical care available to everyone.

 

[Trajan]

Build those strawmen higher and higher.

if you're a speaking to me, quote me, if not, who are you speaking to?

 

[Trajan]

Let's try this again.

Is rationing Medicare inevitable?

Yes it is.

Government cost-cutting provisions like the new Independent Medicare Advisory Board have raised concerns that bureaucrats will end up "rationing" care. But the reality is that someone is going to have to say "no" to excess spending at some point, as I've explained previously. "Rationing is going to go on within the Medicare system. It's a fact of life

Rationing care — or rational care? - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

Nice to read something that is based on reality for a change.

 

[Polk]

I want a world where people do not force me to pay for holistic medicine, acupuncture, or any other non science based medical treatment. Can I get that if the government suddenly starts making health care decisions, or will I be forced to join a cult like Christian Science in order to exempt myself from government run health care?

Several things wrong with your statement.

1. No one seriously involved in the debate is suggesting the government make health care decisions.
2. Even if that were the case, if we use Medicare as stand-in for likely coverage, CAM would not be covered.

 

[Polk]

Build those strawmen higher and higher.

if you're a speaking to me, quote me, if not, who are you speaking to?

I was referring to your post. You seem to believe that if someone disagrees with your view on the nature of the health care market, they also want government controlling the markets for all other goods.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I want a world where people do not force me to pay for holistic medicine, acupuncture, or any other non science based medical treatment. Can I get that if the government suddenly starts making health care decisions, or will I be forced to join a cult like Christian Science in order to exempt myself from government run health care?

Several things wrong with your statement.

1. No one seriously involved in the debate is suggesting the government make health care decisions.
2. Even if that were the case, if we use Medicare as stand-in for likely coverage, CAM would not be covered.

Correction.

You are not talking about it, but there are plenty of people who are quite serious about it, and lobbying congress to force insurers to cover those things. As usual, you think the world revolves around you. It doesn't, and never will.

 

[Polk]

I want a world where people do not force me to pay for holistic medicine, acupuncture, or any other non science based medical treatment. Can I get that if the government suddenly starts making health care decisions, or will I be forced to join a cult like Christian Science in order to exempt myself from government run health care?

Several things wrong with your statement.

1. No one seriously involved in the debate is suggesting the government make health care decisions.
2. Even if that were the case, if we use Medicare as stand-in for likely coverage, CAM would not be covered.

Correction.

You are not talking about it, but there are plenty of people who are quite serious about it, and lobbying congress to force insurers to cover those things. As usual, you think the world revolves around you. It doesn't, and never will.

You're mixing arguments again. Item 1 was referring to your claim about the government controlling health care decisions.

 

[Trajan]

Build those strawmen higher and higher.

if you're a speaking to me, quote me, if not, who are you speaking to?

I was referring to your post. You seem to believe that if someone disagrees with your view on the nature of the health care market, they also want government controlling the markets for all other goods.

you and sallow can have study hall together.

Reading Comprehension Connection: Home

 

[Polk]

if you're a speaking to me, quote me, if not, who are you speaking to?

I was referring to your post. You seem to believe that if someone disagrees with your view on the nature of the health care market, they also want government controlling the markets for all other goods.

you and sallow can have study hall together.

Reading Comprehension Connection: Home

Argue with your own words...

see; you me and those like minded, believe management of scarcity is best left to free market mechanisms that can manage it best, via pricing, competition etc. ......