Obamacare “repeal”
Mar. 7th, 2017 03:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ny_quant
А где-нибудь в ЖЖ уже обсуждают какой это прекрасный план и как Трамп быстро выполнит очередное предвыборное обещание? Кстати, уважуха консерваторам которые против.
ny_quantny_quant
Profile
ny_quant
Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
Re: there is no law.
Date: 2017-03-10 07:36 pm (UTC)I’m guilty of the same “error” as I speak of access and unaffordability interchangeably. I appreciate the distinction but I’ll laugh if you tell me that Manhattan townhouses are available to me and other members of my economic strata. If I can never afford it, they are as good as unavailable.
My daughter’s BF probably has not seen a doctor in his adult life. If something serious happens he goes straight to bankruptcy, no doubt. Ditto my uninsured friend. You can continue claiming that they have access but I’ll say it’s a rather technical point. Maybe it’s better be alive and bankrupt rather than the other way around but I don’t think this argument supports your view. My view is that they should drink less and buy insurance but they have other preferences, nothing can be done about it. Your solution is for the nanny-state to step in and administer a dose of socialism to compensate for individual responsibility. I’m against it philosophically and (I suspect, pending sound cost estimates) fiscally as well.
Vouchers may be a joke although I don’t see why. It’s not my original idea. Milton Friedman suggested it (maybe he wasn’t the first as well) and he’s not known to be an idiot.
* If you look at ongoing global warming debate, nobody (and I mean it literally) is concerned that the opponent is better positioned and thus may have sounder judgment. I suppose you can just as well get used to it.
Re: there is no law.
Date: 2017-03-11 12:48 am (UTC)i changed my mind not about access or availability of care, but about how to make this care less expensive and universal.
i am not sure the manhattan touwnhouse analogy stands, either. please consider 1.2.3.4. again, 1. probably does not need any care, though if a funny-looking mole appears on his back and nobody picks up on it , not so good. the percentage of such cases is unknown to me or anyone else, really. 2. NOBODY ever went with pneumonia untreated or a broken leg unfixed because of money. do they face, in some cases, unpleasant bills and have to argue them down? yes. but this is not a townhouse.... 3. a SOMEWHAT shady group, some members of which probably go without proper care. i can elaborate on them. 4. ALWAYS get standard of care. no matter what.
so, your friend mishab is indeed .. well, let me not kick him anymore. but he is annoying.
as to your boys who won't get ACA or quasi-ACA - i don't call them irresponsible. it is their decision. they made a choice and i respect it.
it would make more sense if they had a "nanny-state" minimal program to fall back on, to avoid the fate of 2. who might need to go into debt, or 3. who might be in bad shape unless cared for adequately.
but you have NO IDEA - you and the milton friedman, for whom i cannot have much respect despite, i am sorry, i have trouble respecting someone because others respect them and nothing else - about the actual daily expenditures.
what VOUCHERS? the care of truly irresponsible people is what is chokiong the system. "vouchers" may help0 a few good citizens, maybe 10 million, okay 20, but there are 335 million of us here, and the most expensive customers won't reach for a voucher.
arbart and his dezhurnye mandavoshki would say "their problem, let them die" - but they are idiots. WE CAN'T LET THEM DIE.
so we need a nanny state and a nanny program.
re poteplenie - what do you mean? i did not get it. there are so many special interests there that it is better not to venture an UNINFORMED opinion. so i don't.
Re: there is no law.
Date: 2017-03-11 01:49 am (UTC)2. Nobody? The same friend of mine worked, for more than a week, thru what was later diagnosed as a "walking pneumonia" and quickly cured by antibiotics. I know him all too well: if his woman didn't kick his ass he'd never go to see a doctor. I'll also mention mention a class-mate who died when we were 18. Whatever went untreated after that strep
3. Imagine someone with asthma or diabetes or something dermatological or back pain that is so bad that requires a surgery. It's either you cough up the money that you don't have or you suffer the rest of your life. Maybe not too long.
4. Maybe but if you're not destitute you'll get a bill that you can't pay.
Voucher as something that can be spent only on medical care. If you don't need it then it's gone but if you do it's there to help w/o destroying the rest of your life. Even an otherwise irresponsible person would use it. My hunch is that it'd be a lot cheaper than universal insurance.
I didn't mean special interests nor you personally. I meant so many bloggers who feel that their opinion is as good as any.
not quite touche
Date: 2017-03-11 05:29 am (UTC)2.... it is very human but misleading to use individual examples. the "walking pneumonia", akak "community-acquired pneumonia", often mycoplasma pneumonia - is okay untreated. says i. a sufferer back in 2013, i worked through it for weeks. not a good idea - people need rest when they are ill. but the miraculous response to macrolides or tetracycline group or quinolones - does not mean that without them your friend would die or be worse for wear. and mark, it was HIS CHOICE to go untreated, unlikely due to his lack of funds. cynically - he was just NOT SICK ENOUGH.
so i reject this argument. 2. is well-served, even if they occasionally have to take out a loan.
3. i cannot imagine someone with asthma who requires a surgery...diabetes - insulin pumps are not recommended for everybody, and SQ insulin still works fine... something dermatological is either a 2. or a 4. if it is psoriasis - it is borderline. kike i said, 3 is the only iffy part of my argument. back pain - like my former friend Ninazino used to say, ne smeshite moi tsapochki.
4. does happen that a catastrophically ill person GETS a bill. i have never seen that person PAY that bill.
the problem with you, milton fr, and vouchers - they will take care of a repsonsibel or kinda responsible 10 million. i shudder to try and estimate the IRRESPONSIBLES.
like i said - we cannot not treat them, and vouchers for them are toilet paper. or worse.
my opinion on? global warming? is NO GOOD. as in. i don't have a right to an opinion. like your mishab, i "feel" there is somethign to it, but i am too shy to voice something i know nothing about.
Re: not quite touche
Date: 2017-03-11 05:13 pm (UTC)I agree that completely irresponsible people won't be helped even with vouchers. But universal insurance won't help them either. Both ways they need to go and see a doctor when something is wrong and both ways they don't have to pay out of pocket. Same situation, same outcome.
No, not YOUR opinion, forget it...
Re: not quite touche
Date: 2017-03-11 05:45 pm (UTC)a LOT of what we ( collective we) do - is stupid, futile, and.. expensive.
just as Yucca suggests a surgery for asthma, you think that back surgery might be an end to one's trivial (myofascial plus discs) back issues, but it is more commonly the beginning. unless the disc is "fresh" or very small, surgery (discectomy) makes sense only if there is impingement on the canal and (not or) neurological impairment such as paralysis. anterior discs that manifest with pain only do worst with surgeries. myofascial back inury (most common) is not amenable to surgery.
thus taochki.
you consumers of medical care have lots of anger but talk like.. "uneducated people", which you are, actually, in those areas. buit so much self=assurance, so much entitlement, it is amazing every time.
as to completely irresponsible people - tehy presently are free customers when they get in trouble. so, universla insurance would provide perhaps nothing to them - htey will be treated either way - but to us as a society. to you, who is now paying out of pocket for those people and the illegals BTW. but that's a different story. as you know i favor legalization and a "path to citizenship" for all but criminals and welfare users. teh reason is not takinetish - the illegals weigh very heavily on medical expenditure, and if legalized, they would be covered with universal insurance which is i am afraid going to remain a fantasy.
Re: not quite touche
Date: 2017-03-11 07:55 pm (UTC)No, nobody thought the surgery would be the end of the pain. The hope was to reduce the pain from unbearable to manageable and that's what ultimately happened. Of course we, the consumers, lack formal medical education. But we compensate by sourcing multiple medical opinions, by reading everything that is available on internet (and that's a lot) and by thinking a lot. We know how to process information and there's nothing so special about medicine that we cannot handle if we try hard enough. And when it comes to life-changing decisions we do.
You keep talking about irresponsible poor (and I don't care too much about them b/c they'll be taken care of, as you say) but I'm concerned about people like my friends who will run out of luck one day.
YES indeed
Date: 2017-03-11 09:45 pm (UTC)teh late m_p became a lymphoma expert, an NIH trial expert, and in general a cancer expert far better than some oncologists i know.
i don't question that.
i am just annoyed at the stream of anecdotes meant to illustrate something too complicated for generalization.
as far as your concern, I share it - i already told yo that group 2 may turn into group 3 then 4 - and your friend and daghter's BF may fall under 3 and 2 respectively.
the people in group 3 when they go from milder chronic condition to more severe but NOT QUITE 4 - are most vulnerable within the current medical system.