Originally Posted by The Rani

I was talking about definitions, not diagnoses.

No, you were talking out of your rear end.

The point was that millions of women are going to get expanded health insurance, many for free, that will provide them with health care that they previously could not get.

You want to distract from that fact because it doesn't sit well with your ideology.

Real nice for a health care provider.

Your headline is interesting, pw (even if your link is broken). But if you'd actually read the thing I wrote, you'd see that the contrast I drew was between government insurance and private insurance. And most explicitly not between government insurance and "private" corporatist insurance. The headline of the article you linked strongly hints that its text agrees with what I said.

Which leads to the question, why were you saying 'bullshit' when your source supports the claim too?

Originally Posted by playwrite

The point was that millions of women are going to get expanded health insurance, many for free, that will provide them with health care that they previously could not get.

Why is it so hard to wrap some heads around simple facts? Health insurance is not, nor does it provide, health care. The two are different things with only the most strained tenuous link -- and that only under a set of circumstances themselves acting against the provision of health care.

The bait-and-switch, while inspired back in its day, is getting a little stale. I wonder to what extent creatures of the status quo like yourself are prepared for what's going to happen as people catch on...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Why is it so hard to wrap some heads around simple facts? Health insurance is not, nor does it provide, health care. The two are different things with only the most strained tenuous link -- and that only under a set of circumstances themselves acting against the provision of health care.

The bait-and-switch, while inspired back in its day, is getting a little stale. I wonder to what extent creatures of the status quo like yourself are prepared for what's going to happen as people catch on...

Cool. So you like the British system, then. No insurance, just healthcare for all.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Cool. So you like the British system, then. No insurance, just healthcare for all.

I've never been to Britain or sought medical care there, so I couldn't say. Have you?

On the other hand, I've been anything but coy about my thoughts on non-US health care systems of which I do actually know something other than just "how blurbs describe them".

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Why is it so hard to wrap some heads around simple facts? Health insurance is not, nor does it provide, health care. The two are different things with only the most strained tenuous link -- and that only under a set of circumstances themselves acting against the provision of health care.

The bait-and-switch, while inspired back in its day, is getting a little stale. I wonder to what extent creatures of the status quo like yourself are prepared for what's going to happen as people catch on...

Man, magic pony land can be an ugly place.

This is like saying the fire hose didn't put the fire out, the water did.

Ask someone with health insurance if they'd give it up.

Most people are not stupid and most have to actually live in the real world and while obviously appealing they have had to grow out of magic pony land.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'm a health care provider who is interested in the truth, not false promises.
If someone out there is really pushing free BCPs as a cure for cancer ... we might as well forget medical licensing and go with Eric's magic crystals.

Let's make this real simple for you -

Does the ACA bring down the costs of medical care for millions of women?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I've never been to Britain or sought medical care there, so I couldn't say. Have you?

On the other hand, I've been anything but coy about my thoughts on non-US health care systems of which I do actually know something other than just "how blurbs describe them".

Ah but anyone's individual experience is still no better than any other anecdote. Which is why we try to compile data on systems.

If we look at the data, the NHS is definitely cheaper in terms of Healthcare-GDP% per capita. Are patients happier and do they get better quality care? That is a little harder to say, but the difference there is much smaller than the difference in costs.

There's a good argument to be made that healthcare operates best as a utility. There's a universal need for the service, it is fairly standardized from one shop to the next, and there are a lot of positive externalities associated with a healthy populace. In most situations, when you really need it, you don't have time to comparison shop - or even ask the ambulance to take you to the next hospital because this one nearby has a bad reputation for being expensive/ineffective/whatever.

I don't think the NHS is a good target though, because the people there are definitely much less satisfied with their healthcare than those in say, France or Germany. The difference in health outcomes starts to become apparent, too. The real difference in the systems is that France & Germany take a pretty hands-off approach to any private practice that wants to operate outside the rules of the public system. "You can play by our set of rules and we'll take care of the costs, or you can do whatever the heck you want as long as you don't come asking for a handout."

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's not making it simple, it's changing the subject.
So did you make a mistake, or is some moron really telling people on some left-wing website that BCPs are used to treat ovarian cancer?

Here was the original post that kicked off the discussion -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...444#post443444

with the key statement being -

The ranks of the uninsured are shrinking, and it’s thanks to Obamacare and Medicaid

and here's the first response to that -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...449#post443449

and the key statement -

And yet the quality of care for which they are spending their money has not increased a whit,

and the response to that -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...504#post443504

with the key statement being -

I recognize that there's an argument to be made about the quality of care provided, but it is little silly to suggest that a few million people who did not have insurance before but do now will not be getting care, regardless of quality, than they didn’t get before.

Now explain to me how that is not related to the question of the ACA bringing down health care to millions.

I tried to alert you to your silly attempt to take the discussion into a tangent here -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...915#post443915

You want to distract from that fact ....

and why

because it doesn't sit well with your ideology.

But now I realize I was wrong about the reason.

I would suggest you pick up the P. Handbook and look up "narcissism."

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I don't think the NHS is a good target though, because the people there are definitely much less satisfied with their healthcare than those in say, France or Germany. The difference in health outcomes starts to become apparent, too. The real difference in the systems is that France & Germany take a pretty hands-off approach to any private practice that wants to operate outside the rules of the public system. "You can play by our set of rules and we'll take care of the costs, or you can do whatever the heck you want as long as you don't come asking for a handout."

Really? That's one of the main points in favor of the Russian system, too. It's nice to know they're not the only place that has that figured out.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Really? That's one of the main points in favor of the Russian system, too. It's nice to know they're not the only place that has that figured out.

Yeah, as far as policy analysts are concerned, there's overwhelming consensus on this one. Even the once-pure single-payer systems of the Commonwealth are drifting toward a more open private sector.

You'd never know it from American political theater, though, where one part argues for single payer, another argues for social darwinism - and almost everyone agrees that those are the only two choices. But hey, like you pointed out, boilerplate and political theater isn't designed to encourage rational debate!

Charles P. Pierce documents life in Massachusetts under Romneycare -

http://www.esquire.com/features/life...?src=longreads

They called it Romneycare. It was his signature achievement as governor of the commonwealth — a market- based solution to the problem of access to quality health insurance that included an individual mandate requiring that people be insured. If it was determined that you could afford health insurance and you didn’t buy it, you were assessed a penalty on your income taxes. The law has succeeded so well that six years into its implementation, 97 percent of the working-age adults in Massachusetts are covered by one form of health insurance or another, as are 99.8 percent of the children in the state. Before the law was passed, 67 percent of the businesses in the state offered health insurance to their employees. That number is up to 77 percent now. The program consistently polls at about 63 percent in its public approval. It has made thousands of lives easier, including my own…A popular bipartisan solution was devised to a vexing social problem, and Romney would be justified fully in basing his campaign purely on the fact that, in an era of gridlock and paralysis, he could get something like health-care reform done. Instead, he has run away from it headlong. He has looked ridiculous in doing so, especially to many of the people in Massachusetts with whom he worked to get it passed

Imagine same results with Obamacare by 2016. No wonder the GOP is fight so hard in 2012 to remain relevant.

Originally Posted by playwrite

For your first issue of going to get a check up, you do realize what that was about don't you? If not, the insurance company was trying to determine if there was enough high-risk people at your place of employment to justify dropping you and your co-workers, en mass. Once out, those dropped would have pre-existing conditions and no longer eligible. The insurer would then tell you employer who they would and would not cover. The combined results would be available to every other insurer so your employer would be over a barrel. Given that the ACA stops preclusion based on pre-existing conditions, the situation you describe will likely never happen again - what would be the point?

Oh this happened long after your precious ACA was passed. Have no fear there. Nice try though.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Second issue - do you have any idea what an insulin pump and catheters costs let alone the costs of all the strips etc? That all gets paid for under Medicare and you're complaining that your dad has to go for a check up a few more times a year? Something that most people in the world can't even dream as a possibility. Also, diabetes in middle to late stages of life and his doctor says come around once a year??? I think if you want your dad around for a few more years, you might want to explore some alternatives.

Given what the ACA is bringing to millions of people for the first time, sorry, your complaints are some pretty silly self-centered carpola.

I do. Around $10,000 TCO.

Now can you tell me how much of that cost is added to cover bureaucracy? It's not just enough to pay for the equipment is it? I mean we gotta pay for the system of surplus humanity that surrounds it too. Good for the economy and all that. Keep in mind this is a piece of equipment that is somewhat less technologically advanced than your average IPod.

Oh and I'll be sure to tell my Dad and his doctor that some dried-up writer with spelling and grammar issues is on the internet is handing out free diabetes advice. Everyone likes a good laugh once in a while.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Oh this happened long after your precious ACA was passed. Have no fear there. Nice try though.

Perhaps you should try reading for comprehension? I recognized that the incident you spoke of occurred before the ACA. What I said was that POST-ACA that situation would not happen again. If you didn't like what happen, then you should be thrilled that the ACA will keep it from happening again.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I do. Around $10,000 TCO.

Now can you tell me how much of that cost is added to cover bureaucracy? It's not just enough to pay for the equipment is it? I mean we gotta pay for the system of surplus humanity that surrounds it too. Good for the economy and all that. Keep in mind this is a piece of equipment that is somewhat less technologically advanced than your average IPod.

iPod or not, that's the price. Ask your dad if he would pay the $10K (and that's just the machine) to avoid those extra doctor visits. Now that should get a good laugh.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Oh and I'll be sure to tell my Dad and his doctor that some dried-up writer with spelling and grammar issues is on the internet is handing out free diabetes advice. Everyone likes a good laugh once in a while.

Okay, I'm big enough to take the butt of your joking. Maybe after you two stop laughing you might actually engage your combined brain power and think about a doctor who suggest a single visit a year for a elderly diabetic. I'm okay with that.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Perhaps you should try reading for comprehension? I recognized that the incident you spoke of occurred before the ACA. What I said was that POST-ACA that situation would not happen again. If you didn't like what happen, then you should be thrilled that the ACA will keep it from happening again.

Oh dear... The irony! I can't stand it! Everyone do me a favor. Don't let him know why he looks like an ass on this one.

Originally Posted by playwrite

iPod or not, that's the price. Ask your dad if he would pay the $10K (and that's just the machine) to avoid those extra doctor visits. Now that should get a good laugh.

I'm sure he would if he wanted. The pumps are actually quite a luxury item. Syringes work pretty well too for a steep discount. It would all depend on if he wanted to visit Disney once a year instead of the ususal twice.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Okay, I'm big enough to take the butt of your joking. Maybe after you two stop laughing you might actually engage your combined brain power and think about a doctor who suggest a single visit a year for a elderly diabetic. I'm okay with that.

Well that's great Doctor Write! I'm sure all three of us actually will!

Originally Posted by The Rani

I won't. Yearly visits for a patient who is stable on meds is standard protocol.

But, but, there are bureaucrats who rely on managing the health care of others to make a living! Think of the children Rani.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Oh dear... The irony! I can't stand it! Everyone do me a favor. Don't let him know why he looks like an ass on this one.



I'm sure he would if he wanted. The pumps are actually quite a luxury item. Syringes work pretty well too for a steep discount. It would all depend on if he wanted to visit Disney once a year instead of the ususal twice.



Well that's great Doctor Write! I'm sure all three of us actually will!

Disney for $10K, wow, he must ride Space Mountain like, really, a lot. No wonder the doc only wants to see him once a year.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I know. I caught it.

I won't. Yearly visits for a patient who is stable on meds is standard protocol.

Standard protocol for an elderly diabetic? You got a reference for that or is this another one from your rear end?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

But, but, there are bureaucrats who rely on managing the health care of others to make a living! Think of the children Rani.

AAHHHH, the death panels are coming, the death panels are coming!!! Sarah Palin can see them from her front porch!!!

Originally Posted by The Rani

An elderly diabetic who has been stable on the same meds for several decades? Absolutely.
There are no "references" for these things. It's called medical judgment. Something that (as Copperfield has pointed out) bureaucrats don't have.

Ah, another Internet doc pulls one out of her....

Originally Posted by The Rani

Well, this is true.
People don't have to believe my credentials if they don't want to, and I'm certainly not going to post a photo of my medical degree online.
Maybe I'm the one who went to med school with Dr. Nick.

FWIW, the Canadians seem happy to post rather detailed papers on the treatment of almost everything, and they note that older diabetic patients need to be managed by a team, since maintenance of general physical health is critical. For Type 1, they indicate the use of an insulin pump is preferred, and this requires adidtional management. That's about all a neophyte layman should say on the subject. Try material from this page for more ... in French if you prefer.

Originally Posted by playwrite

AAHHHH, the death panels are coming, the death panels are coming!!! Sarah Palin can see them from her front porch!!!

Why would bureaucrats want to manage death? Fewer people would lead to fewer jobs for bureaucrats. Oh no, much better to micromanage the entire life-cycle from cradle to grave and extend it as long as humanly possible.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, another Internet doc pulls one out of her....

Which is precisely why dear old Dad listens to his doctor and not the internet. The point again though is that bureaucrats then meddle in the process (patient/doctor relationship) and add unnecessary cost. This added cost is not for the benefit of the patient of course, but instead for the benefit of the system.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Disney for $10K, wow, he must ride Space Mountain like, really, a lot. No wonder the doc only wants to see him once a year.

Resort condos at Disney ain't cheap. Who knew?

Apologies to both Copper and Rani on this. I shouldn't put myself in the middle of a family matter particularly medical and Rani certainly knows her biz better than myself.

I just found in odd, the once-a-year; I would likely do something different, but that is my family not yours.

From there, it was just my usual orneriness. Again, my apologies.

Moving on.