Flying Dutchman
@Radical,
Perhaps they elected a Right-wing party that screwed the system up.
Yes, it is. Healthcare, like any other good, is always rationed, because it is finite.
What the argument that "they'll ration your healthcare!" doesn't comprehend is that capitalistic systems ration healthcare just as much. However, in a capitalist system, instead of having bureaucrats try and direct everything, they just price out all the poor people and they become the ones who lost out.
Hence why countries with nationalized healthcare tend to have lower overall rates of positive outcomes: everyone is included, not just the healthy middle class and upper class people, so you have more sick people actually receiving care and, thus, a higher overall failure rate.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Pretty much, yeah. At least with a government system, they'll actually put people who need urgent care first in line instead of dropping your coverage and forcing you to pay for cancer treatments out-of-pocket.
Yeah, one thing about cancer survival rates in USA is that those metrics measure "those who are treated", which is very bullshit stat to compare to universal healthcare systems. We treat everyone who has cancer and whoever has worse cancer gets treatment first. USA treats those who can pay for it, thus if you pour a literally millions of dollars into your treatment then yes it'll be superior to what you'll receive in Canada. But there's an opportunity cost to it; a hundred poor people with cancer will die without treatment and they aren't counted as part of the statistic.
@ Drunk Girlfriend
I've always felt Forbes was a right-wing magazine overall (or at least very pro free market), so is it a sign that you are the truly most evil person in the world when financial magazines bitch about someone's lack of morals?
edited 25th Jun '12 8:36:28 PM by breadloaf
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Lost in Space
I'm not entirely sure that you can call a system where supply always exceeds or keeps pace with demand a "post-scarcity" system, because you still have to fund said system. TAANSTAFL — someone pays for it, even if the cost is transparent to the users.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
scratching at .8, just hopin'
What'd be a good word for it then?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Flying Dutchman
An effective healthcare system. Very simple, in fact.
Really, all that means is that the supply has equaled the demand and that they're at equilibrium point, if I'm visualizing the system properly.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
It'll be difficult to actually achieve that since once we have a "good" healthcare system (what you've described) then we spend money on increasing the number of services offered to each person to then further extend life times and make people healthier. We can also start spending money on mental health as well (something we don't normally measure is the stress that medical treatment causes mentally/psychologically).
Role Model
I don't really follow this thread, but I'm stopping in to say that the United States Affordable Care Act, "Obamacare", will stand, on the grounds that the power of congress to enforce it, while not eligible under the US constitution's commerce clause, is eligible under the penalty for it being part of Congress' taxing power.
The sad, REAL American dichotomy
shit, that's brilliant
You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!
YESSSSSSS. VICTORY.
Well, they don't exactly get to the Supreme Court by being idiots. They pretty much have to be legal geniuses to even come up for consideration.
But yes. VICTORY. Now to all the other stuff come into effect and see how much people get pissed when or if Romney and other Repubs try to get rid of it.
Surprised to see Roberts being the key swingvote, but its nice to see any Justice not voting along party lines in this day and age.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Role Model
It's a pyrrhic victory, though, because prepare for a long argument about taxing, tax-and-spend Democrats, and flip-flopping. President Obama did say this wouldn't be a tax. Maybe his original intent was that it wouldn't, but the watered down version that got through congress is. Incidentally, the original intent, the employer mandate, wouldn't/shouldn't have been a Supreme Court level case at all, as it should've been constitutional.
Right, the votes for the important majority votes were the 4 left-leaning judges and Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Kennedy, who people thought might be the swing vote, voted against those grounds.
edited 28th Jun '12 8:27:08 AM by wanderlustwarrior
The sad, REAL American dichotomy
Seems like it's only a pyrrhic victory if Obama doesn't get another term as president. At this point I think it will be much more difficult to get rid of it, and if Obama remains president for the next four years we'll see all the other stuff going into effect, making it difficult for subsequent presidents and conservative office holders to get rid of the thing. At this point we pretty much expect bitching as a matter of course.
The show I'm watching also compared this whole thing to car insurance. Or said Roberts did. Makes sense to call it a tax on that grounds. But the thing is we'd end up paying more taxes for this anyway, and still end up paying far less money than we would for private insurance.
Can I just say how ridiculously happy I am about this? I actually did some work on President Obama's election campaign and volunteered at a few rallies to help this get pushed through. Nice to wake up to some good news for once.
Lost in Space
Wow. I'm floored. I admit that I expected part or all of it to be overturned. Go Roberts!
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Role Model
I was so ready to get deflated today. I'm glad for it. Sooooo not looking forward to the standard arguing, though.
But the most important thing on this page: someone has a Waspinator avatar. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesss.
edited 28th Jun '12 8:42:23 AM by wanderlustwarrior
The sad, REAL American dichotomy
Does anyone know how much of this plan has to be implemented or carried out on the state level? Because depending on that there might actually still be problems.
Lost in Space
States can't arbitrarily decide to ignore federal law. The overturning of the Arizona immigration law proved that. Now if states want to start seceding over healthcare... that's too stupid to even contemplate for one thing and also suicidal for those attempting it. So whatever. They're committed now.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Role Model
That was a part of the ruling they specifically talked about. If a state decides to disagree, the law said the Federal govenment could withhold all federal funding for health care. The ruling says they can now just withhold new/additional funding, not anything already allocated.
The sad, REAL American dichotomy
Yeah, individual States can choose to op out of the Medicaid expansion... though I doubt that would go over well with their electorate.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
They're already withholding funding over Rick Perry deciding to defund Planned Parenthood. (That may have been cleared up by now, but I haven't heard anything more. As it is, it's going to suck for at least a year here in Texas on that front.) So yeah, there's consequences for not abiding by federal regulations. Some states have been dragging their feet on implementing the provisions of the act, on the basis of this lawsuit. But now there's no excuse.
To be honest I can see several states attempting to play Loophole Abuse to get out of setting up the exchanges. I really don't think this is as set in stone as some people think.
*Checks out that list* Whoah, Canada actually beats one of the Nordic countries on healthcare quality? The hell did we pull that off?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.