http://0utlaw-immortal.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
0utlaw-immortal.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2013-01-29 01:09 am
0utlaw-immortal.livejournal.com) wrote in politicartoons2013-01-29 01:09 am
Die in the street. Merely a reduction of available positive outcomes.
No. That's reality for a lot of people your ideas would throw off the cliff.
All that image needs to represent pre Obama healthcare is a few people who died of chronic conditions hanging off the back of the van.
I don't see how. The issue is a lack of competition. Solving that will open up more avenues for care.
Think about all the stuff that insurers are mandated to carry - we really don't need a lot of that, and it would open the door to low cost insurance, both for general stuff and for catastrophic care. That's a game-changer.
Think about all the stuff that insurers are mandated to carry - we really don't need a lot of that, and it would open the door to low cost insurance, both for general stuff and for catastrophic care. That's a game-changer.
it works now???
i know some poor people you should talk to.
oh wait, you dont believe they exist, or should be having a conversation with the likes of you.
you sicken me when you think things are hunky dory for poor people who lack healthcare.
i know some poor people you should talk to.
oh wait, you dont believe they exist, or should be having a conversation with the likes of you.
you sicken me when you think things are hunky dory for poor people who lack healthcare.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Not sure iof this is sarcastic. If you think Australia and Canada are third-world hell-holes, you need to flip to the international news section.
... Okay, so Australia is a bit of a hell-hole, but an economically stable...ish... one. We can't help the fires, floods, or wildlife.
... Okay, so Australia is a bit of a hell-hole, but an economically stable...ish... one. We can't help the fires, floods, or wildlife.
it works now???
Yes, it clearly works now. The number of people who did not have coverage, could not afford it, and didn't qualify for aid is very small.
you sicken me when you think things are hunky dory for poor people who lack healthcare.
Good thing I didn't say that.
Yes, it clearly works now. The number of people who did not have coverage, could not afford it, and didn't qualify for aid is very small.
you sicken me when you think things are hunky dory for poor people who lack healthcare.
Good thing I didn't say that.
Hah, yeah... sarcastic. Obviously, they're not third world or hell holes.
If it makes you feel better, economists are pretty certain that opening up the "competitive field" would kill the market for insurance.
Wouldn't work for anyone. Open up the competitive market and you get a race to the bottom and most likely a complete collapse of the market via an insurance death spiral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_spiral_%28insurance%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_spiral_%28insurance%29
He's not paying any attention to you.
There isn't aid if you are poor and without insurance.
Medicaid.
Medicaid.
You know as well as I do that not every poor person can get it.
Right. So we need to figure out how to handle that small percentage as opposed to pretending that the system doesn't work.
Most conservatives would like to see it dissipate. It would create even more in need.
Not to mention, wouldn't this be an egregious infringement on States' rights?
Right. Also, this may create jobs for street sweepers, thereby reducing the unemployment rate.
Which is a very small number of the overall pool, and can be addressed in other ways that do not operate as a way to sink the insurers the way the public option does.
I disagree with you on this being a "very small number of the overall pool"--I work in a hospital, nearly every chronically ill person I've met have horror stories about the insurance pre-existing condition nightmare they've been through. And to the other half of your comment, that this pre-existing issue can be addressed in other ways...well, the problem with that is it hasn't been addressed by insurance companies until they were forced to do so by the Obama administration and the PPACA.
Of course. That's why we need to push away from the way we currently do licensing, to keep them from having that sort of control.
I imagine the response from the AMA would be fairly brisk and loud on this matter. But beyond physicians and their financial logic of scarcity, there are more reasons as to why we have so few doctors and surgeons. There is the staggeringly high cost of medical school and the limited number of medical schools for one thing. And reducing the restrictions on licensure will do nothing to alleviate this bottleneck. What reduction of licensure restrictions may well do, however, is make things easier for people of less skill to obtain medical degrees. I'm not sure that's the answer you're looking for when it comes to affordable, quality medical care.
I disagree with you on this being a "very small number of the overall pool"--I work in a hospital, nearly every chronically ill person I've met have horror stories about the insurance pre-existing condition nightmare they've been through. And to the other half of your comment, that this pre-existing issue can be addressed in other ways...well, the problem with that is it hasn't been addressed by insurance companies until they were forced to do so by the Obama administration and the PPACA.
Of course. That's why we need to push away from the way we currently do licensing, to keep them from having that sort of control.
I imagine the response from the AMA would be fairly brisk and loud on this matter. But beyond physicians and their financial logic of scarcity, there are more reasons as to why we have so few doctors and surgeons. There is the staggeringly high cost of medical school and the limited number of medical schools for one thing. And reducing the restrictions on licensure will do nothing to alleviate this bottleneck. What reduction of licensure restrictions may well do, however, is make things easier for people of less skill to obtain medical degrees. I'm not sure that's the answer you're looking for when it comes to affordable, quality medical care.
We really do. We really, really do.
The answer is logical, Jeff. We handle that small percentage by letting them die.
It isn't a small percentage. That's the problem.
At worst, it's about 15-17% of the population. That's an out of context number, however, as it includes illegal immigrants, people who can afford health care and don't purchase it, Medicare/Medicaid undercounts, and people who would qualify for those programs but do not file for them. This is the most recent CPS data (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032012/health/toc.htm), when I saw it broken down the first time, the result was about 10-11m people who fell outside of that group. Or about 3-4% of the population. That's a small percentage.
At worst, it's about 15-17% of the population. That's an out of context number, however, as it includes illegal immigrants, people who can afford health care and don't purchase it, Medicare/Medicaid undercounts, and people who would qualify for those programs but do not file for them. This is the most recent CPS data (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032012/health/toc.htm), when I saw it broken down the first time, the result was about 10-11m people who fell outside of that group. Or about 3-4% of the population. That's a small percentage.
Page 2 of 3