Obamacare, Healthcare, etc.

[Komm Suesser Tod]

Those that had a problem with it only did so because the law did not go far enough.

This is why the bill polls poorly. You have the people that want it repealed, but you also have people that don't think it goes far enough. If the polls were changed to include the latter in the supporters it would have more supporters than not.

I saw a gallup poll earlier that had that as an option and repeal still won out, just slightly.

[ringthree]

I saw a gallup poll earlier that had that as an option and repeal still won out, just slightly.

I know it was close, but I am sure that it would vary based on the polling organization. Gallup currently has a Republican house effect, so that might also influence the outcome of the poll also.

[Tyche]

Maddow had a fair point last night. We are implementing this so slowly that it's hurting its popularity. When MA rolled out their mandate, they implemented everything within a year. They rolled out a sweeping ad campaign stating all the good shit it did for you. With Obamacare, implementation is going to take several years and there's been 200 million dollars worth of ads running constantly with a 24 hour news outlet saying why it's bad. If we could roll this out quickly where people could start to see its benefits sooner, it would poll much better.

[Komm Suesser Tod]

Maddow had a fair point last night. We are implementing this so slowly that it's hurting its popularity. When MA rolled out their mandate, they implemented everything within a year. They rolled out a sweeping ad campaign stating all the good shit it did for you. With Obamacare, implementation is going to take several years and there's been 200 million dollars worth of ads running constantly with a 24 hour news outlet saying why it's bad. If we could roll this out quickly where people could start to see its benefits sooner, it would poll much better.

Personally, I'd prefer it if it were rolled out by the end of the year.

[Vendog]

[Callisto]

I also read it as something that would cut deep into insurer profitability, but that it was intentional to eventually phase insurance companies out of the healthcare sector in favor of a government-run system.

[Ragnus]

That's essentially what's going to happen eventually. Either the megafirms are going to break down in to smaller, more efficient ones or they're going to crumble and leave the door wide open for a single payer system.

[Outlaw]

Of course they don't like someone looking over their shoulder. It means they have to actually diagnose and treat a patient to get paid instead of sending the nurse in to say "Yep, it looks like you have the flu. The doctor will be in to write you a perscription". Then the Doctor comes in with the script already written and doesn't even do an exam.

I meant that some doctors (the good ones) are worried that some bureaucrat will say they didn't do a good job when they actually did.

[Drex]

I meant that some doctors (the good ones) are worried that some bureaucrat will say they didn't do a good job when they actually did.

My sister is a doctor, and she says a lot of her colleagues are worried in part that the public school model will be applied to hospitals. If "outcome based education" becomes "outcome based treatment", doctors will have even less incentive to do high-risk procedures for fear of gouging their own paychecks. There's already disincentive because of how easy it is to sue for malpractice, but throwing into the mix clueless government officials that analyze performance based on standardized success rates would make it even worse. Also, a lot of what goes on during and after treatment is beyond the doctor's control, but very few people understand that besides the doctors themselves. We would just need some idiot politician on TV blaming doctors for shit the patients did against their doctor's advice, and doctors get fucked in the ass.

Lastly, even private insurance companies can't build bureaucracies as inefficient and bloated as the US government's. Even single payer wouldn't fix that issue. I hope I'm wrong.

[Drex]

Of course they don't like someone looking over their shoulder. It means they have to actually diagnose and treat a patient to get paid instead of sending the nurse in to say "Yep, it looks like you have the flu. The doctor will be in to write you a perscription". Then the Doctor comes in with the script already written and doesn't even do an exam.

Or another instance where the doctors write prescriptions that are unnecessary but "harmless" just to get the kick back from the pharmaceutical rep that takes him on a quarterly cruise in the Bahamas.

The doctors that are doing it right have nothing to worry about. It's the ones that stretch the rules or outright break the rules for their own personal gain.

Yes because no one is more qualified to tell doctors how to do their jobs than government stooges who probably got a C in their high school bio class. It's like saying invasions of privacy are okay as long as you have nothing to hide. Doctors waste more than enough of their time filling out paper work and covering their asses from lawsuits as it is, they don't need some jackass with a sheet of statistics grilling them on why their procedural success rate is only 82% instead of 85%.

[hey]

imo the only truly valid issue I've seen in all this is the number of insurance industry employees who would be rendered unemployed by us shifting to a single-payer system, assuming the bulk of them could not secure similar positions within the government bureaucracies set up to handle the new system, that seems like a very real economic concern to me.

That is not at all a valid issue. Over the last few hundred years, 99% of farmers lost their job. And guess what? That was one of the best things that could have happened to the world. Things become obsolete when we have something better. That isn't a bad thing; it's great.

[Alarial]

Yes because no one is more qualified to tell doctors how to do their jobs than government stooges who probably got a C in their high school bio class. It's like saying invasions of privacy are okay as long as you have nothing to hide. Doctors waste more than enough of their time filling out paper work and covering their asses from lawsuits as it is, they don't need some jackass with a sheet of statistics grilling them on why their procedural success rate is only 82% instead of 85%.

Actually, reviewing medical practices and offering changes in procedures have resulted in drastic improvements to patient safety. There was a time when doctors didn't even wash their hands between patients. There is also still an obscene level of malpractice in the medical field, which can be fixed by some more education, oversight, and funding.

[archibaldcrane]

That is not at all a valid issue. Over the last few hundred years, 99% of farmers lost their job. And guess what? That was one of the best things that could have happened to the world. Things become obsolete when we have something better. That isn't a bad thing; it's great.

This. Worrying about the poor insurance employees is the definition of a broken window fallacy.

[BaneTheBrawler]

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE INSURANCE AGENTS?!

[Plow]

My sister is a doctor, and she says a lot of her colleagues are worried in part that the public school model will be applied to hospitals. If "outcome based education" becomes "outcome based treatment", doctors will have even less incentive to do high-risk procedures for fear of gouging their own paychecks. There's already disincentive because of how easy it is to sue for malpractice, but throwing into the mix clueless government officials that analyze performance based on standardized success rates would make it even worse. Also, a lot of what goes on during and after treatment is beyond the doctor's control, but very few people understand that besides the doctors themselves. We would just need some idiot politician on TV blaming doctors for shit the patients did against their doctor's advice, and doctors get fucked in the ass.

None of this has any kind of meaningful relation to the aca, though. All it does is get people insured.

[Tyche]

Actually, it does. Medicaid payouts are moving toward an evidence/quality based care model in the ACA for providers. Right now, jcaho and the cms regulate only hospital payouts but it's going to extend to single provider payouts beginning in 2015.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

That is not at all a valid issue. Over the last few hundred years, 99% of farmers lost their job. And guess what? That was one of the best things that could have happened to the world. Things become obsolete when we have something better. That isn't a bad thing; it's great.

It's only great b/c you think it is. There's no tangible economic benefit/efficiency. There's complete difference b/w people losing their jobs b/c the car came along, and people losing their jobs b/c the govt. artificially destroyed them.

[Restrat]

their jobs exist in the first place because of inefficiency.

[Acturus]

Quality based medicine is ALREADY coming down from Medicare, starting next year. That's independent of the ACA.

[Demosthenes11]

It's only great b/c you think it is. There's no tangible economic benefit/efficiency. There's complete difference b/w people losing their jobs b/c the car came along, and people losing their jobs b/c the govt. artificially destroyed them.

no tangible economic benefit of all people receiving health insurance?

joke?