4 of 5
4
ACA
Posted: 30 October 2013 12:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4413
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 30 October 2013 11:15 AM
VYAZMA - 30 October 2013 10:56 AM

Forget all that though….just address how MSAs will work in your book.

Because if I address that it means you addressed it?

Is that how this works?

No it means you explain how you think MSAs should work.
Stop being childish. You don’t just get to say MSAs are a better alternative, and then not explain what you mean by MSAs.

McGeyver suggested that MSAs be fueled by employer or Govt contributions.
You said(paraphrasing) that wouldn’t be your ideal method. So obviously you have an idea of how you think MSAs should work.

McGeyver on how MSAs could work-Usually the first $5,000 is contributed to by the patient and the employer or the government with any unused funds remaining at the patients disposal for future medical costs or as an auxiliary retirement fund. This way the patient has some skin in the game for minor medical issues and they have the choice of going where ever they want, but they are covered for the big ones and have to stick to a program within their plan that has been vetted properly.

Bryan’s response-Also reasonable.  I don’t necessarily agree with the proposal, but it’s a long way off from silliness.

There, I went back and got the exact quotes…

Explain how you think MSAs should work. Because you brought up MSAs as a better alternative.  You proposed MSAs earlier in the thread.
And later on in the thread too.
So tell us about MSAs and how they work.

[ Edited: 30 October 2013 12:18 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2013 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 30 October 2013 12:12 PM
Bryan - 30 October 2013 11:15 AM
VYAZMA - 30 October 2013 10:56 AM

Forget all that though….just address how MSAs will work in your book.

Because if I address that it means you addressed it?

Is that how this works?

No it means you explain how you think MSAs should work.
Stop being childish. You don’t just get to say MSAs are a better alternative, and then not explain what you mean by MSAs.

In like manner, you don’t get to “address” MSAs by questioning how they work.  If you want to know how they work, start with Google.  Perhaps your reading will inspire an intelligent question or two.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2013 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4413
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 30 October 2013 12:22 PM
VYAZMA - 30 October 2013 12:12 PM
Bryan - 30 October 2013 11:15 AM
VYAZMA - 30 October 2013 10:56 AM

Forget all that though….just address how MSAs will work in your book.

Because if I address that it means you addressed it?

Is that how this works?

No it means you explain how you think MSAs should work.
Stop being childish. You don’t just get to say MSAs are a better alternative, and then not explain what you mean by MSAs.

In like manner, you don’t get to “address” MSAs by questioning how they work.  If you want to know how they work, start with Google.  Perhaps your reading will inspire an intelligent question or two.

If I read Google, what would I need you for?
Do you not want to explain MSAs now because you realize how paltry they may seem in the context of this discussion?
Or because you really don’t know how the money would get into the accounts?

Here’s you talking about MSAs earlier.

Bryan-Both systems could easily fix the problem with rationing (using the term loosely, since price rationing isn’t the same as gov’t rationing).  The ultimate reform (which admittedly is highly unlikely) involves minimizing third-party payment and publicizing health care prices so that health-care consumers can make informed decisions about spending their money.  HSAs(Health Savings accounts) are great concept, one which the ACA has greatly damaged.

There is no specific MSA.  There are MSAs that are voluntary and are put in place to let an employee save money that can be used to cover deductibles and co-pays.  Is that what you are referring to?

You brought up MSAs as a great alternative.  The least you could do is explain how they would be a better alternative to the ACA.
Explain how they would fit into an over all healthcare system that ensures everyone has access to medical treatments.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2013 01:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 30 October 2013 12:32 PM

If I read Google, what would I need you for?

I’ll be here to answer the intelligent question(s) I alluded to earlier.  Assuming any of those occur.

(Though I suppose the shorter and more direct answer is “Exactly.”)

[ Edited: 30 October 2013 01:50 PM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2013 01:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4413
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 30 October 2013 01:18 PM
VYAZMA - 30 October 2013 12:32 PM

If I read Google, what would I need you for?

I’ll be here to answer the intelligent question(s) I alluded to earlier.  Assuming any of those occur.

(Though I suppose the shorter and more direct answer is “Exactly.”)

This is my favorite part of your cyclical routine(that you use in all of the threads you participate in.) 
It’s the part where you avoid the questions posed to you.

How do you see MSAs becoming an integral part of United States HealthCare?
How would they work?

I’m starting to think you didn’t really have any plan or ideas.
HSAs, the deficit, and Insurance Regulations were just standard 2 dimensional boiler plate you can throw up
as better alternatives to the ACA.
But woes to you if somebody actually investigates your propositions.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2013 04:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
VYAZMA - 30 October 2013 12:32 PM
Bryan - 30 October 2013 12:22 PM
VYAZMA - 30 October 2013 12:12 PM
Bryan - 30 October 2013 11:15 AM
VYAZMA - 30 October 2013 10:56 AM

Forget all that though….just address how MSAs will work in your book.

Because if I address that it means you addressed it?

Is that how this works?

No it means you explain how you think MSAs should work.
Stop being childish. You don’t just get to say MSAs are a better alternative, and then not explain what you mean by MSAs.

In like manner, you don’t get to “address” MSAs by questioning how they work.  If you want to know how they work, start with Google.  Perhaps your reading will inspire an intelligent question or two.

If I read Google, what would I need you for?
Do you not want to explain MSAs now because you realize how paltry they may seem in the context of this discussion?
Or because you really don’t know how the money would get into the accounts?

Here’s you talking about MSAs earlier.

Bryan-Both systems could easily fix the problem with rationing (using the term loosely, since price rationing isn’t the same as gov’t rationing).  The ultimate reform (which admittedly is highly unlikely) involves minimizing third-party payment and publicizing health care prices so that health-care consumers can make informed decisions about spending their money.  HSAs(Health Savings accounts) are great concept, one which the ACA has greatly damaged.

There is no specific MSA.  There are MSAs that are voluntary and are put in place to let an employee save money that can be used to cover deductibles and co-pays.  Is that what you are referring to?

You brought up MSAs as a great alternative.  The least you could do is explain how they would be a better alternative to the ACA.
Explain how they would fit into an over all healthcare system that ensures everyone has access to medical treatments.

Yes,and without one glitch as they get it up and running for 300 million people. George Bush had at least as much trouble with his Medicare Part D and we didn’t hear one peep out of Republicans then, did we?

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2013 04:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5487
Joined  2010-06-16
Bryan - 30 October 2013 09:49 AM
Occam. - 30 October 2013 09:35 AM

I wonder if in a couple of years we’ll be having people say about ACA the equivalent of the TV scene where the old woman at one of the first Tea Parties rallies said something like, “Get the government out of my life, and don’t touch my Medicare”?  smile

Occam

You mean “history” based on unverified legend?

There’s a good chance.  You already believe that an early tea party rally featured a lady opposing government involvement in her Medicare (either that or your spinning the legend yourself, though I’m eager to offer the benefit of the doubt).

  Sorry Bryan, but I recall seeing a TV shot of an older woman at a Tea Bagger (as it was called then) rally with a sign saying just that. 

Now it’s your turn to claim that she was a plant and not a real Tea Party person.  Ah yes, conspiracy theories abound.  LOL

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2013 07:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5995
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 30 October 2013 11:15 AM
VYAZMA - 30 October 2013 10:56 AM

Forget all that though….just address how MSAs will work in your book.

Because if I address that it means you addressed it?

Is that how this works?

Well, we know this does not work, as so clearly explained by Bill Maher. IMO, the principles can be extended to most social programs.
https://www.upworthy.com/a-summary-of-mcminimum-wages-and-mcwelfare-in-one-hilarious-clip?c=upw1

At a fundamental level, an unbalanced system of sharing (access to means of survival) inevitably leads to conflict and ever greater competition for limited resources. In the Humanist view a symbiotic relationship (fair distribution of available resources) between all living things seems to be the least problematic as compared to a continually and exponentially rising competition to have it all, “one side against the other”. This is global stuff and a positive image of cooperation seems a wise course to take, no?

[ Edited: 30 October 2013 07:39 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2013 07:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5995
Joined  2009-02-26
Occam. - 30 October 2013 04:15 PM
Bryan - 30 October 2013 09:49 AM
Occam. - 30 October 2013 09:35 AM

I wonder if in a couple of years we’ll be having people say about ACA the equivalent of the TV scene where the old woman at one of the first Tea Parties rallies said something like, “Get the government out of my life, and don’t touch my Medicare”?  smile

Occam

You mean “history” based on unverified legend?

There’s a good chance.  You already believe that an early tea party rally featured a lady opposing government involvement in her Medicare (either that or your spinning the legend yourself, though I’m eager to offer the benefit of the doubt).

  Sorry Bryan, but I recall seeing a TV shot of an older woman at a Tea Bagger (as it was called then) rally with a sign saying just that. 

Now it’s your turn to claim that she was a plant and not a real Tea Party person.  Ah yes, conspiracy theories abound.  LOL

Occam

I have seen it also,
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=keep+your+government+hands+off+my+Medicare&FORM=HDRSC2

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 01:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 30 October 2013 07:42 PM

I have seen it also,
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=keep+your+government+hands+off+my+Medicare&FORM=HDRSC2

Occam will need to do better than that. 

You need a photo from 2009, and not one from after Democrats started to float a health care reform bill that used cuts to the growth of Medicare to lessen the impact of the health care law on the budget.

Some of the signs that superficially meet Occam’s description actually apply to the Democrats’ proposal (now part of the health care law) to set a soft cap on Medicare spending, limiting it to a percentage of GDP.  That’s under the expected growth of the program.  Chronologically, it’s just wrong, because the earliest tea party protests occurred in response to the bailouts and stimulus bill.  Nothing in either of those programs affected Medicare.

So that’s why I’m skeptical. I seen it on Teevee! won’t do.  It passes for hearsay without proper supporting evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 01:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Occam. - 30 October 2013 04:15 PM

Sorry Bryan, but I recall seeing a TV shot of an older woman at a Tea Bagger (as it was called then) rally with a sign saying just that. 

Now it’s your turn to claim that she was a plant and not a real Tea Party person.  Ah yes, conspiracy theories abound.  LOL

Occam

I don’t trust your memory.  I’ve heard the allegation before.  There should be convincing evidence of it on the Web if you’re correct.  Shall I bear your burden of proof for you?

The Democrats had proposed slowing Medicare growth to help finance health care reform no later than August 20.

http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=10

[ Edited: 31 October 2013 02:11 AM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 02:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5995
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 31 October 2013 01:51 AM
Write4U - 30 October 2013 07:42 PM

I have seen it also,
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=keep+your+government+hands+off+my+Medicare&FORM=HDRSC2

Occam will need to do better than that. 

You need a photo from 2009, and not one from after Democrats started to float a health care reform bill that used cuts to the growth of Medicare to lessen the impact of the health care law on the budget.

Some of the signs that superficially meet Occam’s description actually apply to the Democrats’ proposal (now part of the health care law) to set a soft cap on Medicare spending, limiting it to a percentage of GDP.  That’s under the expected growth of the program.  Chronologically, it’s just wrong, because the earliest tea party protests occurred in response to the bailouts and stimulus bill.  Nothing in either of those programs affected Medicare.

So that’s why I’m skeptical. I seen it on Teevee! won’t do.  It passes for hearsay without proper supporting evidence.

Again, you do get caught up in details which do not affect the substance of the message.  It is not where or when, but how is it possible to be so ill-informed about the functions of government.

[ Edited: 31 October 2013 02:21 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 02:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 31 October 2013 02:18 AM
Bryan - 31 October 2013 01:51 AM
Write4U - 30 October 2013 07:42 PM

I have seen it also,
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=keep+your+government+hands+off+my+Medicare&FORM=HDRSC2

Occam will need to do better than that. 

You need a photo from 2009, and not one from after Democrats started to float a health care reform bill that used cuts to the growth of Medicare to lessen the impact of the health care law on the budget.

Some of the signs that superficially meet Occam’s description actually apply to the Democrats’ proposal (now part of the health care law) to set a soft cap on Medicare spending, limiting it to a percentage of GDP.  That’s under the expected growth of the program.  Chronologically, it’s just wrong, because the earliest tea party protests occurred in response to the bailouts and stimulus bill.  Nothing in either of those programs affected Medicare.

So that’s why I’m skeptical. I seen it on Teevee! won’t do.  It passes for hearsay without proper supporting evidence.

Again, you do get caught up in details which do not affect the substance of the message.  It is not where or when, but how is it possible to be so ill-informed about the functions of government.

You ought to pay some attention to detail.  The text of the message matters a bunch when the government is proposing a cap on Medicare spending to finance a health care reform law.  In a case like that, taking the sign to mean that the person doesn’t understand the function of government (doesn’t understand that Medicare is a government-controlled program) is a form of dishonesty.  Don’t go there.

Edit to add:
Just noticed that the first hit looks like a pretty obvious Photoshop.

keep-your-government-hands-off-my-medicare.jpg


Heh.  Found the original version at RWNJ.org:

http://www.rwnj.org/2009/03/15/cincinnati-tea-party-pictures/img_1055/

[ Edited: 03 November 2013 10:02 AM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2013 05:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
VYAZMA - 26 October 2013 12:41 PM
Bryan - 26 October 2013 12:22 PM

Who pays for it?

The fundamental problem here is an economic one.  Third-party payment (insurance or gov’t single-payer) strongly encourages increased demand for services.  Turning the system into single-payer does not solve the fundamental problem unless you set limits on payment (yes, that’s called rationing).

And the system that we used to have was by largely Laissez-faire capitalism.  That had fundamental problems too.
Millions and millions of people were uninsured because they couldn’t meet the demand for payment.
Yes, that’s called rationing!!!
At least under this system everyone get’s insurance.  We’ll see what if any rationing takes place.
Under the old system, rationing did take place.  Millions and millions of people didn’t get insurance period. That’s rationing out the supply
so that only those who can afford insurance get insurance.

Is this going to be a segue into “Death Panels” for you Bryan?
I’d love to hear you bloviate about Death Panels.  That would be entertaining!

As long as we have a capital driven health care plan there is no need for death panels. The market itself acts as an overall death panel. Whoever can’t afford care dies, often after a long period of suffering. What could be more simple, efficient and Republican than that?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2013 10:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Lois - 02 December 2013 05:54 AM

As long as we have a capital driven health care plan there is no need for death panels.

Somebody admits it.  wink
Okay, it comes with a misguided assumption that “death panels” already exist, but we can deal with that.

The market itself acts as an overall death panel. Whoever can’t afford care dies, often after a long period of suffering. What could be more simple, efficient and Republican than that?

No, it’s not “whoever can’t afford care dies.”  It’s whoever individuals and charities elect not to treat for lack of payment.  And that’s not called “rationing” except by equivocators.  It’s called “price rationing” because the modifier makes a big difference conceptually.  There’s no central planner making the decisions that ultimately determine who lives and who dies.  Individuals decide.  And that’s called freedom.

And I had hoped that pointing out how the regulated insurance system largely enshrines third-party payment would forestall uninformed talk about how we’re leaving behind “laissez-faire.”  Oh, well.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 5
4