New health care is good economics

[caryalsobrook]

Well this Obama care is creating change in the health care system which is badly need. It will occur slowly but as I suggested sometime ago it must change. When the cost of health care is greater than our GNP we all lose.
I hope Idaho can reach a model or for that matter any state can develop a new model that will impove our health care system.
For your information a friend of mine in Pocatello just got his bill for a heart value replacement $145,000. He is very thankful for Medicare!
Here is a question that I have debated with my right wing friends: The fact that if you don't have health care insurance you face imprisonment or a fine. How is that different that if you don't have auto insurance you face the same results at least here in Coloraado?

I think tht I have heard your example claiming that requiring auto insurance was the same as the health insurance mandate. Not only is it increditable that so many cite this but it is more incredible that it is believed.
Leet me make it as PLAIN as possible. YOUR ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE AUTOMOBLIE INSURANCE JUST BECAUSE YOU OWN ONE. A simple example is a truck that is used on PRIVATE LAND ONLY, such as a farm. States can reequire you to maintain auto insurance as well as license tags if they choose by law. If you don't use the government roads then you don't have to have insurance. Let's take another example. Say you own a restaurant and you require all men to wear a coat and tie(there are some restaurants that do), then you must wear a coat and tie to be served in that restaurant. That doesn't mean that you can't choose another restaurant.

Take a look at your state's laws to drive on the roads. I think that you will see not only the requirement of insurance but other regulations such as weight, length, maybe emissions inspection ect. All of these do not apply unless you WANT THE USE THE ROADS. nOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE??

[dnf777]

I think tht I have heard your example claiming that requiring auto insurance was the same as the health insurance mandate. Not only is it increditable that so many cite this but it is more incredible that it is believed.
Leet me make it as PLAIN as possible. YOUR ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE AUTOMOBLIE INSURANCE JUST BECAUSE YOU OWN ONE. A simple example is a truck that is used on PRIVATE LAND ONLY, such as a farm. States can reequire you to maintain auto insurance as well as license tags if they choose by law. If you don't use the government roads then you don't have to have insurance. Let's take another example. Say you own a restaurant and you require all men to wear a coat and tie(there are some restaurants that do), then you must wear a coat and tie to be served in that restaurant. That doesn't mean that you can't choose another restaurant.

Take a look at your state's laws to drive on the roads. I think that you will see not only the requirement of insurance but other regulations such as weight, length, maybe emissions inspection ect. All of these do not apply unless you WANT THE USE THE ROADS. nOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE??

You're implying that if you don't want to use the health system, then you shouldn't be required to buy insurance. This means we as society and as individuals must be willing to "stay off the road" of life, if you don't want to have health insurance? So should we turn away people who can't show a card or cash? Let people die on the doorsteps of hospitals?

I know you're not saying that, and I'll stop putting words in your mouth...but it serves to highlight the question......what should we do?

I don't think comparing auto insurance to health insurance is valid on either side of the debate. Yes, you can choose not to drive on public roads. But you can't always choose not to get sick or injured. Driving a car, you can inflict much pain and suffering on others, that you can be held liable for. Getting yourself sick likely won't affect others...at least financially....unless you ask them to pay for your bills.

[caryalsobrook]

You're implying that if you don't want to use the health system, then you shouldn't be required to buy insurance. This means we as society and as individuals must be willing to "stay off the road" of life, if you don't want to have health insurance? So should we turn away people who can't show a card or cash? Let people die on the doorsteps of hospitals?

I know you're not saying that, and I'll stop putting words in your mouth...but it serves to highlight the question......what should we do?

I don't think comparing auto insurance to health insurance is valid on either side of the debate. Yes, you can choose not to drive on public roads. But you can't always choose not to get sick or injured. Driving a car, you can inflict much pain and suffering on others, that you can be held liable for. Getting yourself sick likely won't affect others...at least financially....unless you ask them to pay for your bills.

His question was not on healthcare but asked the DIFFERENCE between requining health insurance and auto insurance. That is what I answered. Previously I offered to discuss healthcare issues both form the practical effects of govern controled healthcare and also healthcare ethics. Each time you refused giving me reasons privately. Whether I agreed with you or not, they were your reasons and they were private. That is the way I left it>

[dnf777]

[QUOTE=caryalsobrook;758996]His question was not on healthcare but asked the DIFFERENCE between requining health insurance and auto insurance.

Right. Perhaps we agree?

I don't think its valid to compare auto insurance to health insurance, especially in regards to mandating participation, as the two root activities are vastly different.

[caryalsobrook]

[QUOTE=dnf777;759001]

His question was not on healthcare but asked the DIFFERENCE between requining health insurance and auto insurance.

Right. Perhaps we agree?

I don't think its valid to compare auto insurance to health insurance, especially in regards to mandating participation, as the two root activities are vastly different.

I offered to discuss government effects of healthcare and healthcare ethics you chose not to do so. Yet you interject these issues but preclude a response and discussion. Reminds me of my sister who I dearly love who is a retired college economics professor, and tries to set the same ground rules. No discussion of her "facts", just listen to her lectures.

[dnf777]

[QUOTE=caryalsobrook;759015]

I offered to discuss government effects of healthcare and healthcare ethics you chose not to do so. Yet you interject these issues but preclude a response and discussion. Reminds me of my sister who I dearly love who is a retired college economics professor, and tries to set the same ground rules. No discussion of her "facts", just listen to her lectures.

I don't know why you keep harping on that. It is an entirely different discussion, not even remotely related to this issue.

First of all, I have contractual limitations and HIPAA regulations that I do not feel comfortable pressing up against by discussing specifics of physician credentialling. And, in my professional judgement, I just don't think its a good idea.

I am not pressing the issue by discussing auto vs. health insurance, so why are you? You seem to be intent on mandating that I participate in a discussion of YOUR choosing. I don't want to, for the reasons above. I'm not setting any "ground rules" other than for myself. Is that ok with you?

respectfully,
Dave F

[caryalsobrook]

[QUOTE=dnf777;759023]

I don't know why you keep harping on that. It is an entirely different discussion, not even remotely related to this issue.

First of all, I have contractual limitations and HIPAA regulations that I do not feel comfortable pressing up against by discussing specifics of physician credentialling. And, in my professional judgement, I just don't think its a good idea.

I am not pressing the issue by discussing auto vs. health insurance, so why are you? You seem to be intent on mandating that I participate in a discussion of YOUR choosing. I don't want to, for the reasons above. I'm not setting any "ground rules" other than for myself. Is that ok with you?

respectfully,
Dave F

I answered his question stating the diffeerence between healthcare insurance and auto insurance. YOU BROUGHT UP HEALTHCARE ETHICS NOT I. You are the one who started talking about ethics of treating or not treating patients who may not have insurance. NOT I! You are the one who asked the question as to the ethics of letting one die if they had no insurance. NOT I! Then when pressed as a result you hide behind excuses. I won't say with absolute certainty that HIPPI restricts discussion concerning credentialling of doctors but I am sure that the HIPPA regulations apply the same to me as they do to you. My first reaction was that that statement was so much BS. Both your and my credentials are open to the public.

[sinner]

His question was not on healthcare but asked the DIFFERENCE between requining health insurance and auto insurance. That is what I answered. Previously I offered to discuss healthcare issues both form the practical effects of govern controled healthcare and also healthcare ethics. Each time you refused giving me reasons privately. Whether I agreed with you or not, they were your reasons and they were private. That is the way I left it>

I don't disagree about the two insurance issues but the mandated auto insurance vs health care insurance is a philosophical issue.
Ethics in medicine is a totally different topic. I have been health care for over 50 years and if the medical industry would police the bad apples our torte system would have less impact on the economics.
Now on this same "channel” the carry permits has come up. The right leaning folks want a “universal” law to allow state permits to be accepted across the nation but don’t want universal health care law.
Yea, I know tow difference issues don’t confuse them but philosophically they are similar to me.
Our country needs health care change or its cost will impact our ability to compete international.
It is a crazy world!.

[dnf777]

[QUOTE=caryalsobrook;759047]

I answered his question stating the diffeerence between healthcare insurance and auto insurance. YOU BROUGHT UP HEALTHCARE ETHICS NOT I. You are the one who started talking about ethics of treating or not treating patients who may not have insurance. NOT I! You are the one who asked the question as to the ethics of letting one die if they had no insurance. NOT I! Then when pressed as a result you hide behind excuses. I won't say with absolute certainty that HIPPI restricts discussion concerning credentialling of doctors but I am sure that the HIPPA regulations apply the same to me as they do to you. My first reaction was that that statement was so much BS. Both your and my credentials are open to the public.

Sorry Cary, that was not the discussion I was referring to. I have no problem discussing insurance issues or ethics in general. I have no issues discussing my credentials either. Again, that was not the discussion that I respectfully declined to participate in.

Moving on....

[Granddaddy]

Any time you use statistics to "prove" a position, the statistical assumptions have to be evaluated very closely. In the CO study, like virtually every such study on health care, the result is always that the insurance premium goes down. In the case of MA, where Romney presided over implimentation, the premiums or rates also went down for those who previously had insurance but also the actual coverages were diminished when the find print was analyzed. Coverages for procedures and medicines that were not board certifed became unavailable over night - just to name one important change in available coverage. Next, & most important from a total cost prospective, when the previously uninsured were added to the rolls, the total costs to the MA gov (& ultimately the taxpayer/premium payer) went up directly proportional to the percentage of previously uninsured in MA. The same will apply in CO or anywhere else where approximately 40% of the population is uninsured & not paying. Someone will have to pay for the coverage now extended to those 40%. And as is always the case, it will eventually be those who already pay the bill, the taxpayers. The Obamacare proponents know this & that is why the mandated insurance coverage is the key provision to the plan. They must dramtically expand the number of payers to make the plan even closely conceivable in terms of financing. They also must cut medicare funding dramatically to help pay for Obamacare. But the numbers don't work because they never include the uninsured whose costs will drive the plan & the country to bankruptcy. Instead the gov statistics include the taxpayer payments in over the next 10 yrs but don't include the costs for those same taypayers (who already have coverage) until some 14 yrs after implimentation. So the numbers, as presented seem reasonable. But reality doesn't change, just like in MA & now CO, someone has to pay for those 40% who don't presently have coverage & who won't have to pay.