|
I actually prefer Katy Abram to this sophmoric fuckwit. From a facebook exchange I had today:
Him: IMHO, the current debate on healthcare reform completely misses the mark. Yes, millions of Americans are uninsured; but can get basic care going to an emergency room or somewhere else that cannot turn them away--introducing unnecessary costs. Yes, doctors recommend too many tests . . . just to be sure, so they don't get sued and watch their malpractice insurance premiums skyrocket. Yes, health insurance companies prefer not to pay for unnecessary tests, shifting the cost back to the pool of consumers. Maybe I'm not well enough informed, but it seems to me that neither the proposals being considered nor the national debate have progressed very far beyond two polarized and extreme viewpoints demonizing each other in a cacophony of the self-righteous. It would strike me that TRUE reform would fall somewhere between doing nothing and a government sponsored palliative. Unfortunately, that is clearly NOT where we are headed. Either way, we need to start thinking about the impact either of these two end results are going to have on how our economy allocates talent within the medical profession. If I were 18-24 and thinking about going to med school, I sure as Hell would not want to pick a specialty that would lead me to having to deal with insurance reimbursements. I would pick a highly lucrative specialty (Yay, more tests!!!!!); or become either a dentist or cosmetic surgeon. Since the latter tend to engage in procedures that are largely elective in nature, payment is coming directly from the patient . . . not from any private or public insurance provider. I have nothing against dentists or cosmetic surgeons; but I don’t think that we as a country wish to see our top talent concentrated in these two fields. Rather, we SHOULD prefer to see that talent allocated across the spectrum, for the sake of a diverse and continually innovative healthcare system.
Me: I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by "but it seems to me that neither the proposals being considered nor the national debate have progressed very far beyond two polarized and extreme viewpoints demonizing each other in a cacophony of the self-righteous." For if you really do prefer "TRUE reform (that) would fall somewhere between doing nothing and a government sponsored palliative" you should be very pleased with most of what's coming out of the House and Senate. None propose 'socialized medicine' or doing away with private insurance. They are moderate, and modest, reforms. Don't believe the hype.
Another guy: Splitting the difference politics: You say the earth is flat. I say it isn't. Let's split the difference and say it's like a pizza with a curved crust.
Him: I must apologize for being so obtuse. I disagree that moderate and modest reform makes for good public policy, at least in this case. When you are dealing with a rapidly deteriorating healthcare regime, overlaying it with a moderate, modest (today) government program is toothless when it doesn't address the core issues contributing to escalating costs. Hence, no surprise that Elmendorf's CBO recently criticized these proposals for doing too little to reign in costs. Considering the fact that current entitlement programs (largely comprised of Social Security and Medicare; which also started out as modest, moderate programs) year-by-year digest a larger share of our GDP and our tax-base, this seems eerily like doing more of the same but expecting different results.
(Other guy), I like mine with Canadian bacon and pineapple. If you get a chance check out Joe's near Old Town. I'll buy you a slice.
Me: I have to say that I reject your premise. The reason that SS and Medicare are costing more is quite simple: more people are using them, and for longer. Opponents to those programs have failed to offer an alternative that won't leave millions of grandmas eating dog food. The CBO is right that the proposed health reform plans don't do enough to contain costs, but that's because you still have private insurers skimming 30% of every dollar spent on health care for their profits.
Him: In a roundabout sort of way I think we actually agree on your first point. SS and Medicare were meant to be safety nets, not entitlements. So yes, I would agree on your reasoning as to why SS and Medicare spending is out of control. I don't wish to see today's modest safety net turn into tomorrow's bloated entitlement program. As a country our track record is not too good in this regard. I'm not sure I understand how profit margins amongst private insurers lead to higher costs for healthcare services delivered; as the cost of health care services covered would logically impact premiums, but not necessarily vice-versa.
WHAT THE FUCKING FUCKETY FUCK IS THIS ASSHOLE BLATHERING ABOUT????
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
