Back to School for Me

[wbcoleman]

I do see the economics of the scheme you describe. It's just not reality, that's all.

You don't think the premia of younger drivers rise to offset the mandatory, meaningless discounts offered to older ones?  Naive.

Call me naive for not recognizing a delusion, and I raise you one and call you delusional for your delusion.

I guess you don't believe that Obamacare's mandate to insure sick people will be paid for by increasing premia for healthy people.

Indeed I do not because increased premia already pays for the indigent to go to the hospital emergency room at top dollar. A cheaper method of health care will mean lower premia instead.

So you don't believe that Obamacare will increase the demand for medical services, it'll just shift the financing.  Backers of the scheme claimed that 30 million previously uninsured people would be covered, but you think they are already covered by ER writeoffs.  Why weren't we told???

You WERE told. You just weren't listening because you dismiss the messenger as lying libs, that's why.  You'll get a whole lot further along in solving the nation's problems when you recognize facts as facts regardless of who it is that's telling you the facts.

FACT: the demand won't increase because it's always been there and it's always gone to the ER and it's a cost that the hospital eats.

FACT: the hospital won't eat the cost and so charges more on the insurance companies of the insured. This is the redistribution of wealth your side has always been blind to because it's a medical corporation that's redistributing wealth.

FACT: redistribution of wealth = redistribution of wealth whether it's the corporation or the government that does it.

clara, I am so sorry, your knowledge of the economics of the scheme appears close to nil, which is probably why you support it.

[clistensprechen]

coleman translated: acceptance of the con's view of reality is next to nil.

Actually, it IS nil.  It's exactly nil. Because it's exactly rejected.

My knowledge of the hospitals' side of the story is more to the point.  Hospitals are prohibited from turning anyone away from the ER on basis of ability to pay because it's an emergency room. Hospitals won't go broke handing out free ER treatment and thus cover their costs by billing the people who are able to cover operating costs....known as "transfer of wealth". People who are insured are already paying for it, and it's not called a "tax" because it's not the government who's picking your pockets to cover the uninsured--it's the hospital and insurance system taxing you for that.

Unelected health care providers are already taxing you and taxing you big even though they have no legal ability to levy taxes.  Now then--the choice boils down to whether you prefer to have your pockets cleaned out by the insurers who cover the hospitals which pick their pockets, or do you prefer an actual tax at a lower rate.

[Ted S]

Unelected health care providers are already taxing you and taxing you big even though they have no legal ability to levy taxes.

Yes; they are virtual taxing arm of the government because as you said:

Hospitals are prohibited from turning anyone away from the ER on basis of ability to pay because it's an emergency room.

Which is the real source of the problem.  If hospitals weren't forced by law to perform services for patients who won't pay then their costs would or could be lower.

[wbcoleman]

coleman translated: acceptance of the con's view of reality is next to nil.

Actually, it IS nil.  It's exactly nil. Because it's exactly rejected.

My knowledge of the hospitals' side of the story is more to the point.  Hospitals are prohibited from turning anyone away from the ER on basis of ability to pay because it's an emergency room. Hospitals won't go broke handing out free ER treatment and thus cover their costs by billing the people who are able to cover operating costs....known as "transfer of wealth". People who are insured are already paying for it, and it's not called a "tax" because it's not the government who's picking your pockets to cover the uninsured--it's the hospital and insurance system taxing you for that.

Unelected health care providers are already taxing you and taxing you big even though they have no legal ability to levy taxes.  Now then--the choice boils down to whether you prefer to have your pockets cleaned out by the insurers who cover the hospitals which pick their pockets, or do you prefer an actual tax at a lower rate.

OK, adding 30 million non-paying customers to the system will bend the cost curve down.  That's what O claimed and, after all, he's The One.

[clistensprechen]

Unelected health care providers are already taxing you and taxing you big even though they have no legal ability to levy taxes.

Yes; they are virtual taxing arm of the government because as you said:

Hospitals are prohibited from turning anyone away from the ER on basis of ability to pay because it's an emergency room.

Which is the real source of the problem.  If hospitals weren't forced by law to perform services for patients who won't pay then their costs would or could be lower.

So right to lifers don't believe in a right to life, huh.  Just what I figured.

Here's the deal, though. People who die due to lack of medical treatment gives you corpses that the government has to bury and can't tax anymore, which means that cons are in favor of the U.S. becoming a banana republic. Yeah, I know.
But we're coming full circle to Typhoid Mary here. One corpse in the street that died from something contagious is a public threat, even to the insured.

[clistensprechen]

coleman translated: acceptance of the con's view of reality is next to nil.

Actually, it IS nil.  It's exactly nil. Because it's exactly rejected.

My knowledge of the hospitals' side of the story is more to the point.  Hospitals are prohibited from turning anyone away from the ER on basis of ability to pay because it's an emergency room. Hospitals won't go broke handing out free ER treatment and thus cover their costs by billing the people who are able to cover operating costs....known as "transfer of wealth". People who are insured are already paying for it, and it's not called a "tax" because it's not the government who's picking your pockets to cover the uninsured--it's the hospital and insurance system taxing you for that.

Unelected health care providers are already taxing you and taxing you big even though they have no legal ability to levy taxes.  Now then--the choice boils down to whether you prefer to have your pockets cleaned out by the insurers who cover the hospitals which pick their pockets, or do you prefer an actual tax at a lower rate.

OK, adding 30 million non-paying customers to the system will bend the cost curve down.  That's what O claimed and, after all, he's The One.

^^^^^^^^ one of many reasons I won't call myself a Republican in public. 100% fantasy, 0% fact.

[Ted S]

Here's the deal, though. People who die due to lack of medical treatment gives you corpses that the government has to bury and can't tax anymore...

Somebody dies because they cannot afford medical treatment and we're supposed to believe that we lost a taxpayer? I don't think so.  We lost a taker, not a maker, and I'm okay with the government picking up the tab for the indigent who up-and-die on the street although I'd place the burden on the city, county, or state.

Actually, I'm not opposed to a government run safety net for the truly needy but it has to produce a crappy enough lifestyle so that the able-bodied don't decide to live their entire lives in the net. Or the government has to get a whole lot better at figuring out who are the truly needy.  I have more confidence in the former than the latter.

Might be a worthy discussion; how does society provide a decent lifestyle for those who cannot help themselves without attracting a passel of people who simply won't provide for themselves?

[clistensprechen]

When you become disabled you're a taker, not a maker.  But before you became disabled, you were a maker who earned your keep.
Same is true for the elderly.

Any pretense that everybody should be a shopkeeper is further evidence of divorce from reality.

So despite all the whining about right to life, disabled kids deserve to die too because they'll never grow up to be makers.  Got it. FAIL

[Ted S]

When you become disabled you're a taker, not a maker.  But before you became disabled, you were a maker who earned your keep.

True.  Also true is the fact that some people fake disability so that they can go through life reaping the benefits of somebody else's labor.  I've met people with real disabilities and I've met people with fake disabilities and I'm sure you have too.  I have no problem helping those who are truly needy, I have a big problem with able-bodied people who feel that they are entitled to life's goodies at somebody else's expense.

Same is true for the elderly.

Not exactly. The elderly knew they were going to become elderly their entire lives. Kids can't prepare for a disability but being old is something individuals should prepare for.  In my opinion it should be the responsibility of individuals to save for their own retirement. It should not be the job of the federal government to take resources from grand children of your neighbors so that you can live well in your retirement years. People have 60 years to get ready for retirement, they should do it.

Any pretense that everybody should be a shopkeeper is further evidence of divorce from reality.

I'm not sure what you mean.  I don't think everybody should or ever will own a business but I do think that the default position should be to become self-sufficient.

So despite all the whining about right to life, disabled kids deserve to die too because they'll never grow up to be makers.  Got it. FAIL

Nope.  Disabled kids should be cared for by people who love them preferably.  If that is not possible then the state should do it.  Healthy kids who grow up to become adults too lazy to provide for themselves should be given many forms of a-kick-in-the-ass.

[Don Houston]

As someone with a disability (a real one Cerebral Palsy) I would like to weigh in on this discussion.  Being disabled has it's negative side.  Take me for example:  I am able enough to work but can't get a job at my local McDonald's.  Why you ask?  Most employers see people with a disability as an insurance risk.  Trust me I have been told that numerous times.  So while I would like to get off the system, I can't because then I can not pay my bills.  What the Fed's give me to live on each month does not last me two weeks.  After paying all my bills, I am lucky if I have $50 to live on for 30 days.  So before people start going on those who have disability are weighing down our economy, know that I make less than most who are on welfare.

[Ted S]

Don, I'd like to say that I feel your pain but you know better than I that I truly can't.  I'm pretty much an average white guy pushing 60 and cannot even begin to relate to the kind of trouble that your condition brings to you.  I don't think there is any gray area with Cerebral Palsy. In my mind it easily clears the "true needs" bar.

A hard libertarian would say that the government has no business being in the safety net business, ever, but in all honesty, I'm not that hard of a libertarian.  I'd like to think that everybody who truly needed help, could and would be helped by private charities and organizations, but that I'm afraid is a dream.  So I am in favor of a government safety net for the truly deserving.

Don, I understand your frustration with employers.  Do you think things are getting better though?  A hundred years ago the employment options for somebody with a serious physical disability must have been almost non-existent but in the information age aren't the opportunities a bit more available?

[Don Houston]

That is just the problem.  I am not seriously disabled Ted.  I mean I was married for 9 years and I owned my own home, but I could not find a job.  People just thought I was an insurance risk.  I can walk, talk well, drive a car, and do most things that people can I just have a limit to how much I can lift.  Cerebral Palsy has so many forms degrees.  I have a minor degree of CP but it still limits me

[Ted S]

Good to hear that you have a minor form of CP Don.

So if I understand you correctly, you're not getting rejected by employers because they don't think you can do the job, you're being rejected because they think you will be too much of a burden on their health insurance.

This seems to make the case for either:

1. Full government provided health care or
2. Decoupling health insurance from employers.

For many reasons I prefer that latter.

[Ted S]

Good to hear that you have a minor form of CP Don.

WOW! I come back a few hours later and read what I wrote and realize just how awful that sentence is with the word ONLY missing and without context.

I meant to say: Good to hear that you ONLY have a minor form of CP Don. When I originally wrote the sentence I avoided the word ONLY because I didn't want to appear like I was saying "Hey, you only have CP, what's the big deal."  Of course I wouldn't wish Cerebral Palsy on anyone.

This goes to show how one missing or poorly chosen word can change the whole flavor of one intended to say.

[Don Houston]

Ted I took no context to it, you're fine.  Why do you choose the latter of the two.  If I can not find work, employer mandated health care means nothing to me