Dear Liberal...

[Ben]

I thought this essay, especially the last part, nicely summed up many of my own feelings about the progressive agenda.

http://sufficient-reason.tumblr.com/post/26781491317/dear-liberal-heres-why-im-so-hostile

[Sawdust]

That wasa awesome.

Thanks for posting that.

Sawdust

[Nick1911]

Nailed it right on the head.

[brimic]

It at least scratches the surface.
Its wasted bits and pixels though, no liberal will ever read it.

[Devonai]

Every pixel is sacred, every pixel is great.  If a pixel is wasted, God gets quite irate.

[brimic]

 

[grampster]

Read some of the remarks.  A liberal chimes in and gets in a discussion with a conservative.  My view is the liberal missed the whole point about the rant.  For those of you in La La Land, the point being that conservatives have warm hearts just as much as liberals do.  We just think we have better answers to the warm fuzzies than government bumbling and oppression.

[MillCreek]

Third, as people who might actually have to avail ourselves of a doctor’s services at some point in our lives, we are just as concerned with the condition of America’s healthcare system as you are.  While we believe that America has the world’s most capable physicians, has the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect.  However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service.  There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.

Working in healthcare as I do, I must have missed the memo about the Government running healthcare. Last time I checked, we were a private business.

[TommyGunn]

Working in healthcare as I do, I must have missed the memo about the Government running healthcare. Last time I checked, we were a private business.

Keep believing that.....    the black helicopters are still searching for you. 

[grampster]

Working in healthcare as I do, I must have missed the memo about the Government running healthcare. Last time I checked, we were a private business.

Private business.  Yeah.  Maybe that's why a medication I have taken for around 10 years I no longer am able to get through my Rx coverage through my Medicare Advantage policy.  They tell me that some bureaucrat in DC has determined that the med is prohibited.  No reason.  Just prohibited.  There are only 2 meds for my condition, both generic and about equal in price.  One med doesn't work very well.  That one is OK.  The more effective one is the prohibited one.

[Hutch]

Working in healthcare as I do, I must have missed the memo about the Government running healthcare. Last time I checked, we were a private business.

SWMBO works in healthcare as well, in a for-profit.  Medicare controls >70% of the purse strings.  "He that pays the piper, calls the tune".  Millcreek, reckon what percentage of your org's income come from tax dollars?  I'd bet that whatever it is, that percentage is going waaaaay up, unless you're cosmetic surgery.

[White Horseradish]

One problem I have with this is the idea that a conservative is never a threat to anyone else's liberty. History shows us that just isn't so. Or, that there aren't any significant numbers of conservatives in the Republican party.

[TommyGunn]

One problem I have with this is the idea that a conservative is never a threat to anyone else's liberty. History shows us that just isn't so. Or, that there aren't any significant numbers of conservatives in the Republican party.

Government is the "threat." 
I will say that IMHO conservatives are generally less of a threat -- over all -- than progressive/libs/demcrats but any ideology, when taken to an extreme, is bad.

[MillCreek]

SWMBO works in healthcare as well, in a for-profit.  Medicare controls >70% of the purse strings.  "He that pays the piper, calls the tune".  Millcreek, reckon what percentage of your org's income come from tax dollars?  I'd bet that whatever it is, that percentage is going waaaaay up, unless you're cosmetic surgery.

Yes, but the statement in the original essay intimated that the Government is controlling the actual delivery of healthcare; not the payment or reimbursements systems.  And I can assure you that the majority of healthcare workers in this country are not Government employees.  If you want to talk about administration of Government medical payment reimbursement systems, like Medicare or other state or Federal benefit programs, we can talk about that.  But if the essayist is one of the people claiming that the ACA means that the healthcare delivery system is going to be controlled and run by the Federal Government, than again, my very large private business healthcare system did not get that memo.

[TechMan]

Millcreek,
Are you referring to this statement:

However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service. There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.

[MillCreek]

Millcreek,
Are you referring to this statement:

Correct.  And the sentence following that one.

[TechMan]

Correct.  And the sentence following that one.

Okay. I added the second statement to my post.  The way I read it is that the .gov doesn't control healthcare yet and that he believes that the ACA is a step towards a single payer system.

[Ben]

Okay. I added the second statement to my post.  The way I read it is that the .gov doesn't control healthcare yet and that he believes that the ACA is a step towards a single payer system.

That's how I read it - that he doesn't want the gov to run health care, not that it already does.

[MillCreek]

Okay. I added the second statement to my post.  The way I read it is that the .gov doesn't control healthcare yet and that he believes that the ACA is a step towards a single payer system.

This is the key point I am trying to make: there is quite a difference between the healthcare delivery system (the facilities and staff who provide care) and the healthcare reimbursement system (the private and public insurers who pay for care).  It may well be that the ACA is rightfully considered a step towards a government-run reimbursement system, but to think that the ACA is going to lead to the nationalization of the healthcare delivery system is ludicrous.  

And I also like to point out that the insurance plans provided through the ACA exchanges are private insurance companies: the Blue Cross/Blue Shield and other large regional and national private insurance companies.  In my view, the ACA is a corporate welfare gift to many of the private insurance companies.  Don't kid yourself that these private insurers will not end up making a profit.  And it will be done by controlling care and limiting reimbursements, just as the healthcare insurance companies do now.  But I am amazed at the number of people who think this will be OK, since it not 'The Government' making these utilization review decisions, but private industry, whom we can surely trust to have our best interests at heart.  It is an unpopular opinion to voice in a forum like this, but there is a lot of data showing that many of the Government payors, like straight Medicare, have far less corruption, profit skimming and lower administrative overhead than private healthcare insurers.  But this would mean admitting that the Government can do something better than private industry, an anathema to many Rugged Individualists.

PS: I would also point out that in my opinion, the optimum healthcare reimbursement system would be a mix of appropriately-regulated private and public payors.  I know that either type of payor has one main goal: to provide the minimum-amount of care necessary at the lowest possible cost.  Neither the free market nor Big Government has your best interests at heart when it comes to paying for your health care.

[TommyGunn]

This is the key point I am trying to make: there is quite a difference between the healthcare delivery system (the facilities and staff who provide care) and the healthcare reimbursement system (the private and public insurers who pay for care).  It may well be that the ACA is rightfully considered a step towards a government-run reimbursement system, but to think that the ACA is going to lead to the nationalization of the healthcare delivery system is ludicrous.

Really?   Why is it so many people are finding out that their insurance premiums are increasing 2X, and their deductibles are skyrocketing?   The system is designed for people up to 26 to stay on their parents' programs, yet it also depends on a lot of healthy young people signing    up to pay for the costs of the older more sick-prone patients.  This appears very contradictory to me!  I mean, why WOULD I sign up if I could stay on my parents' insurance?
Also, forcing companies to take pre-existing conditions?  Fine, it sounds humane and all, but that too will jack up the rates.  No longer will ACME Life Insurance be taking a risk Robert Sickman who is applying won't get sick...he'll already be sick, so they will be paying for his treatment.
Again, costs go up.   
The whole thing will begin to make these companies far more unpopular than they are now, and gues what?  Government will have to ONE  MORE TIME  solve a healthcare problem IT CAUSED.
So, then, along atlast comes single payer -- and viola'  the government takes over.   
I could relate to everyone my parents' experience with the British system as they lived over there for three years, and learned a lot.   I wouldn't wish THAT system on my worst enemy.
But I wouldn's wanna be called an alarmist, or an Obama-basher.....NO  I ain't fallin' for THAT TRAP!!



 

And I also like to point out that the insurance plans provided through the ACA exchanges are private insurance companies: the Blue Cross/Blue Shield and other large regional and national private insurance companies.  In my view, the ACA is a corporate welfare gift to many of the private insurance companies.  Don't kid yourself that these private insurers will not end up making a profit.  And it will be done by controlling care and limiting reimbursements, just as the healthcare insurance companies do now.  But I am amazed at the number of people who think this will be OK, since it not 'The Government' making these utilization review decisions, but private industry, whom we can surely trust to have our best interests at heart.  It is an unpopular opinion to voice in a forum like this, but there is a lot of data showing that many of the Government payors, like straight Medicare, have far less corruption, profit skimming and lower administrative overhead than private healthcare insurers.  But  this would mean admitting that the Government can do something better than private industry, an anathema to many Rugged Individualists.

 
Seriously?
 

[MillCreek]

^^^ I am not seeing your point, TG.  It is basic insurance economics that the broader the scope of coverage, the more expensive the policy.  I deal with this every day at the office when I am placing my liability coverage for my system.  The primary reasons why so many of the ACA exchange insurance programs are more expensive is that they offer broader coverage, no lifetime caps, coverage of preventative care and most importantly of all, no exclusion for pre-existing conditions.  

Anyone with a grasp of insurance finances could have easily predicted that private payor insurance coverage with these broad coverages would be more expensive than private payor insurance coverage with more restrictive coverage.  And I actually applaud the higher deductibles.  It is intended to shift more of the cost of care onto the individual, and hopefully make them more prudent in their healthcare purchasing decisions.  I know that for me, the prospect of paying the first few thousand dollars of healthcare costs makes me think about whether I really need to do to the doctor or not.  So from that standpoint, the system is a success: they are not paying costs on my behalf and still collecting a premium from my insurer.  This gives them a very good loss ratio on me.  And any healthcare insurance payor system depends upon collecting a premium from many, and only spending costs on a few.  Otherwise, you run out of other people's money right quick.

And as to your highlighted text, I know!  Anyone knows that the Tommy Gunn Air Force would be way more effective, efficient and Rugged Individualist-friendly than those stinkin' Feds who run the darn thing!

[TommyGunn]

I am not seeing your point, TG.

You will. Give it time.   

....And as to your highlighted text, I know!  Anyone knows that the Tommy Gunn Air Force would be way more effective, efficient and Rugged Individualist-friendly than those stinkin' Feds who run the darn thing!

Glad you like higher deductibles -- but don't tell me that tell it to the head of a family working his butt off to make ends meet that his deductible is going up.   

As for your snarky remark about the "Tommy Gunn" Air force, the USAF runs itself, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, and the army and navy also run themselves.  They just happen to be under the command of the President, since he is CinC.

If you really think the Feds are  the greatest thing since sliced bread, please tell me how we wound up $17 trillion in DEBT?
On second thought, don't.



Those saturdaynight movies on the SY Fy channel stretch my credulity enough......

[Scout26]

Just to square the circle.   While the ACA/Obamacare does not bring us a single payer system.  It does, according to Obama, Pelosi, Reid and several other prominent democrats bring us closer to their stated goal of a single payer system.   

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Just to square the circle.   While the ACA/Obamacare does not bring us a single payer system.  It does, according to Obama, Pelosi, Reid and several other prominent democrats bring us closer to their stated goal of a single payer system. 

Bingo!!
ans even when shown video of beloved leader saying just that the
true believer denies it

damn phone

[Tallpine]

I've never had any love for insurance companies, especially so called "health insurance."

But before ACA they couldn't force you to buy their "product" at the point of a gun.