drsmooth wrote: specific ways ACA "hinders delivery of quality care".

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:If indeed that is the case, all the more reason to move away from policies - like ObamaCare - that hinder delivery of quality care.

right.

what?

identify, in detail, the specific ways ACA "hinders delivery of quality care". Remember, spelling counts, and you are being timed

this gives me a great idea for a thread: "Drunk Health Policy"

sydnor wrote:This is economics and I work in healthcare so I'm jumping in:

1. I think there is some reasonable evidence that in areas of healthcare where insurance/government doesn't intervene, we've seen some gains in quality and lower cost - specifically cosmetic surgery and LASIK. You don't "need" either so insurance won't underwrite it and the consumer is on the hook for the whole cost. The results are that prices for boob jobs and LASIK are lower than ever while gains in quality have improved. This supply and demand thing is the same thing that's occurred with consumer goods like TVs, air travel, etc.

It's not surprising why people who believe in that would like to see it implemented for other areas of healthcare and certainly, whatever side you fall on, you should oppose the lack of transparency in pricing that currently goes on by hospitals. It's scandalous and it doesn't help people make decisions. Without people baring the full price, plus the whole mistaken assumption that quality equals high costs, there's likely not going to be a lot of pushing down prices going on.

2. The problem with TP is that healthcare isn't every other good for two reasons:

a. when the chips are down and somebody has opted out of healthcare, we're not a society that I (and a whole lot of other people) want to live in where we say "sorry, you opted out, we're not fixing your broken body from the car accident or your cancer with this chemo". So yeah, I don't mind making the young people pay for catastrophic care and maybe not even that catastrophic care.
b. while it goes on, I don't want to make it official that if you're rich, you get the best care and if you're poor you get the worst care. Again it happens, but we don't need to sanction it.

TomatoPie wrote:ObamaCare prohibits insurers to deny coverage to anyone for any reason. Healthy people can drop insurance until they actually need it without incurring any risk. It’s like allowing homeowners to buy fire insurance after their houses burn down.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Bucky wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:
I can choose the things I want to insure, or not, in all other aspects of my life.

not if you want to operate your motor vehicle on the streets

My wife prefers to do so on the sidewalk.

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote: specific ways ACA "hinders delivery of quality care".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspecul ... wont-work/

ObamaCare prohibits insurers to deny coverage to anyone for any reason. Healthy people can drop insurance until they actually need it without incurring any risk. It’s like allowing homeowners to buy fire insurance after their houses burn down.

Schiff, in Forbes wrote:In other words, he thought the law was constitutional because it will be ineffective

During a January 2014 appearance on The Daily Show Schiff remarked that the "mentally retarded" might be willing to work for $2 an hour if there was no minimum wage, for which he received widespread criticism

pacino wrote:Peter Schiff is the guy that couldn't beat out Linda McMahon for the right to lose the CT Senate race. A Ron Paul adviser.

During a January 2014 appearance on The Daily Show Schiff remarked that the "mentally retarded" might be willing to work for $2 an hour if there was no minimum wage, for which he received widespread criticism

drsmooth wrote:b) almost purely transactional. They aren't about moving a person from a less than their optimally healthy state to their optimal health state. They are to health care as an oil change is to rebuilding a transmission (I don't know anything about cars so fix that if you do, wouldja).

pacino wrote:where was the ad hominem in my post? i offered background.

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:where was the ad hominem in my post? i offered background.

With intent to discredit the guy who wrote the piece

pacino wrote:this Israel/Palestine conflict is decidedly one-sided. I'm not sure what is being gained here by Israel. They can bat the 'rockets' down like flies but are killing what mostly amounts to innocent civilians. this is bad news.

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:Peter Schiff is the guy that couldn't beat out Linda McMahon for the right to lose the CT Senate race. A Ron Paul adviser.

During a January 2014 appearance on The Daily Show Schiff remarked that the "mentally retarded" might be willing to work for $2 an hour if there was no minimum wage, for which he received widespread criticism

There's little to be gained by ad hominems on the guy who offered the criticism, unless you want to rehash Nancy Pelosi's argument that 'we have to pass ACA so we can find out whats in it"

If you wanna refute, focus on the points, not the talker

swishnicholson wrote:

drsmooth wrote:b) almost purely transactional. They aren't about moving a person from a less than their optimally healthy state to their optimal health state. They are to health care as an oil change is to rebuilding a transmission (I don't know anything about cars so fix that if you do, wouldja).

I refuse to be drawn any further into this discussion, but I couldn't let this pass. I think "paint job" is the analogy you're looking for.

dajafi wrote:Maybe it's my sources, but the evidence thus far seems to be that the ACA is doing what it's supposed to do--expand coverage and improve health outcomes--at, if anything, lower cost than its proponents projected. This despite the initial self-inflicted wound of the website and ongoing republican sabotage.

Has Schiff written on this since it actually went into effect?

Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system has kept the country safe from the hundreds of Hamas rockets flying toward its major cities from the Gaza Strip. With fighting intensifying, Congress seems poised to give Israel and one of the United States' largest defense contractors a jolt of good news: $175 million in new American aid that will help fund an expansion of the program.

The additional money for Iron Dome cleared one of its final hurdles Tuesday, when a key Senate appropriations subcommittee unanimously voted to double the Pentagon's $175 million request for fiscal year 2015. The full committee will consider the defense appropriations bill on Thursday. Meanwhile, three other panels have already signed off on the funding expansion, making it all but certain the additional money will be provided. Iron Dome has received $720 million in American funding since 2011, when the United States became directly involved in the program.