| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Ben Stein at Cruz Event: Obamacare ‘Doesn’t Bother Me at All, Sorry’ |
| 2013-10-26 |
| ...is the Conservative tent of a size to include Ben...? |
| Posted by:Uncle Phester |
| #36 The government isn't a charity, Rambler. Charities use money cheerfully donated (not confiscated at gunpoint) to |
| Posted by: Barbara 2013-10-26 21:36 |
| #35 I work for an insurance company, and Pappy is exactly right. Insurance companies are not charities. The government really shouldn't be either. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2013-10-26 20:19 |
| #34 Here I always thought that the Canadians were oh so polite. Until Jerkface showed up, eh. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2013-10-26 20:11 |
| #33 No, Jackass Jerk, the "health care system" and health insurance are two different things. And neither has anything to do with cars, except that insurance of any kind needs to take in more money than it pays out, or it ceases to exist. At least in this world. What color is the sky in lefty we-think-math-shouldn't-apply-to-us world? Idiot. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2013-10-26 18:41 |
| #32 So now you are equating the health care system with car insurance. No, he's equating health care insurance with car insurance. I've included the Wiki for Insurance, so that we are all on the 'same page'. Healthcare insurance is not healthcare, just as car insurance is not a car. What the ACA is, is a mandate that insurance be purchased, hence creating a 'risk pool', i.e., a fund for transferring or distributing risk among those mandated to buy insurance. In world ruled by mathematics, the insured are therefore protected from a specific risk event, or risk events for a fee, with the fee being dependent upon the frequency and severity of the event(s) occurring. Example: A cargo from Singapore bound for Amsterdam in the hull of a ship certified by a host nation whose flag it flies, sailing with a competent and certified crew, traveling on safe route, will have a lower risk-level than a cargo traveling from Singapore to, say, Mombasa, in the hull of a ship flying a flag-of-convenience, with a pick-up crew, with the route traversing down the coast of Somalia. Hence the people that are shipping the cargo on the latter ship will pay higher fees for insurance against loss of the cargo than would the shippers on the former vessel (the shippers in the latter instance would likely pay lower shipping costs, but that's for another time.) In order for an insurer (private or governmental entity) to not lose their metaphorical shirt paying out on claims, they attempt to manage the risk. That could be done by increasing the risk pool (the Affordable Care Act (ACA)) using statistics to determine the risk of loss or an event, or establishing loss or event parameters up front - suicide not being covered by life insurance, for example. Additionally, certain items may either be not covered or reimbursement schedules will be at the insurer's discretion. The "tweak" here with the ACA is that the risk pool has deep-shallow payment. Low-risk insurance purchasers will pay more for their low risk of incurring a medical event (pay more for being in the shallow end), in order to subsidize the insurance of those with high risk (being in the deep end.) The need for healthy young people with low health risks and good personal incomes to purchase health insurance is thus required in order to financially cover the health care costs of their statistical opposites. It essence, it is a perversion of what would normally and sanely be defined as "insurance." Additionally there is a social engineering aspect applied to the ACA. There is a high healthcare risk among pregnant lower-income women both prepartum and postpartum due to many economic and even more social factors. In order to cover this tragic problem and to standardize policies (as a way to keep administrative costs low) people are mandated to pay for insurance features they may not or will not need, i.e., a post-menopausal woman required to pay for maternity care features provided in her policy. The other problem with this so-called healthcare reform is that it has the same issues as Medicaid and Medicare. It is payment-reimbursement driven. Obstetrics is a high-risk medical field; factor in the conditions of increased risks from social conditions (lack of or ignoring prenatal care, use of drugs during the pregnancy, poor physical health, etc.) and the risks become higher. However, the legal system does not necessarily take that into account when a malpractice suit is filed. Insurance fees for insuring against malpractice claims in fields like obstetrics and cardiology are astronomically high. Practitioners in those fields will then take steps to mitigate the risk of a lawsuit and adding to healthcare costs. Another issue is that nowhere in the ACA (so far) is a list of defined costs for medical procedures, tests, treatment, etc. In fact, medical costs for the same procedure vary widely across the United States. That too is based on risks, on how expensive it is to "do business" and also socially-imposed costs that have to be absorbed until reimbursement is made (if it ever is made.) The mandate that treatment must be provided at emergency rooms regardless of ability to pay, for example. Southern California, particularly the Los Angeles area, have had hospitals close because the costs of operating them are not reimbursed or covered by incoming payments for treatment. What is covered and not covered, or covered and the quantity and quality also varies widely. Taking the maternity care cost issue, for example, is partially addressed by standardization, but imposes costs on those insured that will never use it. It also leaves open what is covered and not covered, and what will be paid for and not paid for. We haven't even touched on reimbursement. That too varies widely and there is no, nor are there transparent and publicly available defined reimbursement definitions and schedules . A nationalized health care plan also adds in healthcare management, but it does not remove managing the risks. Two things must be controlled: expenses and income. I'll leave it to the reader to elaborate on both, but demographics and social engineering factor still play a role. To repeat: A healthcare system is not healthcare insurance. What is being called healthcare insurance under the Affordable Care Act, is, for the most part, presently neither. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-10-26 18:09 |
| #31 Nice. So now you are equating the health care system with car insurance. Way to go, Stevie. Nice to know The Tea Party wannabes think of us humans as just a bunch of Ford Pintos.... Even nicer: Don't like the facts? Change the subject |
| Posted by: badanov 2013-10-26 17:46 |
| #30 11A5S Whoa! Flashbacks are fun! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-10-26 17:08 |
| #29 Bingo, SteveS. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2013-10-26 16:30 |
| #28 "You are conflating 'insurance' with 'prepaid health care'. Try calling up an auto insurer and tell them you just wrecked your car and want to get insurance coverage for the damage" Nice. So now you are equating the health care system with car insurance. Way to go, Stevie. Nice to know The Tea Party wannabes think of us humans as just a bunch of Ford Pintos.... |
| Posted by: Jerkface Killa 2013-10-26 16:30 |
| #27 I have two relatives in Canada. Both had cancer. One was seen and treated very quickly, the other is on a long waiting list. One will survive, the other most likely won't. One had a very easily treatable cancer, the other is a stage IV. I'll leave you guys to guess which one the system treated and who's fate was decided by a "Health" panel. It isn't good or evil, it just is part of the system they chose. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2013-10-26 15:12 |
| #26 denying insurance to those with 'pre-existing' conditions, is the sickest, cruellest, most disgusting, fucked-up policy You are conflating 'insurance' with 'prepaid health care'. Try calling up an auto insurer and tell them you just wrecked your car and want to get insurance coverage for the damage. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2013-10-26 14:56 |
| #25 el matador de carne seco Matador of cilantro beef stew? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-10-26 14:55 |
| #24 miss .com |
| Posted by: Frank G 2013-10-26 14:35 |
| #23 In olden times, PD and I would have made short work of el matador de carne seco. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2013-10-26 14:29 |
| #22 The reason why new insurance policies are so high is because pre existing conditions are covered. That's what makes those policies so expensive. Investors do not invest in insurance programs unless they either can get out with a profit, or continue making money. And to the individual who said not covering pre existing condition a "cruel policy", there is a solution: Don't buy the insurance. |
| Posted by: badanov 2013-10-26 14:25 |
| #21 The Canadian system isn't perfect, but in the US system, denying insurance to those with 'pre-existing' conditions, is the sickest, cruellest, most disgusting, fucked-up policy perhaps in human history. |
| Posted by: Glarong Sneart4734 2013-10-26 14:13 |
| #20 I know Nova Scotians who had extreme problems with the health service there, but no offfshore surgery boats happened. They'd defined her treatment as elective even though she couldn't work, stand or sit. Nice way to save on medical costs, don't cha think? Coming to a clinic near you. Business opportunity? International waters, procedure then R&R, stabilized surgical room, nurses, helicopter pads, room service, shuffleboard, bingo. True story: I once knew this fellow who would go about picking fights with people. No idea why, maybe because their jeans were not skinny enough because who in real life does that? At any rate, this fellow would start the arguement talking down to the unfortunate audience using story after personal story and whenever the target would tell their own story or experience this fellow would clap his hands really loud and go La La La La! |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2013-10-26 14:10 |
| #19 What should we do, quote their names so you and yours can harrass or otherwise disenfranchise them? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-10-26 14:06 |
| #18 One of the ways Canada cuts costs is by playing with the definition of "elective treatments." When I was up in BC on business there was a case of an Inuit woman with back pain. She could not sit or stand (and obviously could not work). After 2 years her turn came up and she flew down to Vancouver for back surgery. Unfortunately, the had an influx of emergency surgeries, and she was told she'd lost her place in line and try again in 6 months. They'd defined her treatment as elective even though she couldn't work, stand or sit. Nice way to save on medical costs, don't cha think? Coming to a clinic near you. Al |
| Posted by: frozen Al 2013-10-26 13:35 |
| #17 Hey, Jerkface. You really live up to your name, don't you. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2013-10-26 13:35 |
| #16 "Why no, Mr. Killa. I grew up in Buffalo...".... That explains a lot...my condolences.... |
| Posted by: Jerkface Killa 2013-10-26 13:28 |
| #15 It's funny that y'all have all these anecdotes about the 'evils' of the 'socialist' Canadian health care system and y'all know this guy and that guy, yet I'm a Canadian and I know of nobody who EVER went to the 'America' to get treatment for anything other than the sticker shock of actually needing health care while in Florida on vacation...in other words, I call BULLSH*T on ever comment in this section (except mine of course)... |
| Posted by: Jerkface Killa 2013-10-26 13:26 |
| #14 And exactly WHAT evidence do you have that the Canadian health care system is all bad and broken?? Oh yes, what you read in the NY Post and ogle on Fox News(LOLs). Why no, Mr. Killa. I grew up in Buffalo, where my father was a department head for the oversized cancer institute that served so many Canadian patients. A lot of my parents' friends were doctors there. My husband did research there in his youth, and my sister programmed their supercomputer. Besides, I never claimed the Canadian system was broken, as it manifestly is not. It's just that y'all may find things a bit different without the southern pressure valve taking care of those willing to spend their own money for faster service, especially for unusual conditions. Or as a formerly Canadian friend of mine commented, "In Canada I can have treatment for my MS quickly and inexpensively, once the diagnostic tests are complete. It's just that I will only be prescribed the old standard medications, and never even know that there are new possibilities to try that work better and have fewer side effects." |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2013-10-26 11:46 |
| #13 Oops. Meant to reference comment # 10. It was a long day at work. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-10-26 11:38 |
| #12 Re: # 11: I know Nova Scotians who had extreme problems with the health service there, but no offfshore surgery boats happened. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-10-26 11:38 |
| #11 Ben Stein has a conscience… I’d have to say referring to something as not the “end of the world” is less than a hardy endorsement. Speaking of ambivalence, at a reunion I recently spoke with Canadian relatives about their national health insurance. All agreed that the coverage is so minimal that it was essential to purchase supplemental private policies. Also, two of the five had medical procedures performed in the States with a third traveling for elective surgery scheduled next month. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2013-10-26 11:35 |
| #10 That my money is better spent on abotions and gender surgery in California rather than bad backs and work injuries locally is why I don't take advice from people with a Kindergarten taunt handle. That I should pay for the oral surgery of meth heads who got caught robbing my neighbors and then pay their disability and grocery bills so they have spare income to buy more drugs is moral? For all I know pa pa is doing elective surgery on his knee to get the pain pills. Then again, if I had to work the basement stairs five times a day to tell my kid to go get a life, I'd understand. And by the time the collectivists are done with it, it is more likely a Canadian with the wealth to do so will be more likely to visit a medical platform offshore Nova Scotia than jumping the lakes. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2013-10-26 09:56 |
| #9 The long waits and multiple tests can be explained easily, it's to jack the price up, (You want to be certain, don't you) thereby putting the fault on YOU, not them, (Hey you authorized it) Umm, did you? |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2013-10-26 08:54 |
| #8 death panels are already in place in America's Hat™. Hope Jerk needs some expensive care and can't cross into the hated America |
| Posted by: Frank G 2013-10-26 08:54 |
| #7 The US system was broken, but the Obamacure is worse than the disease. The Canadian system isn't terrible, but it is subsidized by US consumers paying all the R&D costs on most drugs and devices. And, Jerkface, there must be some truth to the anecdotes about long wait times for a lot of tests and services to explain the oversized medical complexes that have grown up in Buffalo and Cleveland. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2013-10-26 08:38 |
| #6 And exactly WHAT evidence do you have that the Canadian health care system is all bad and broken?? Oh yes, what you read in the NY Post and ogle on Fox News(LOLs). Seems to me that the US system is the one on life-support, pardon the pun.... |
| Posted by: Jerkface Killa 2013-10-26 08:12 |
| #5 And jerkface's anecdotal example proves all is well with Canadian healthcare |
| Posted by: Beavis 2013-10-26 08:07 |
| #4 Well, my father just had an MRI done on a bad knee and had to only wait 3 days...and he didn't have to get a second mortgage on his house...funny that...Tea Party wannabes should really stop drinking the neocon Koolaid and try a little Tetley's... |
| Posted by: Jerkface Killa 2013-10-26 07:58 |
| #3 So what has been happening with Canadian healthcare, Mr. Killa? Any plans to increase the number of MRI and ultrasound machines, so that your countrymen can get tests done at home, instead of coming south to find out what's causing their problems? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2013-10-26 07:42 |
| #2 There's a whole catalog of 20th Socialist who's bodycount demonstrates the utter lack of conscience about anything but power to impose one's will without regard to human life. For the Left, it is it's own god. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-10-26 07:41 |
| #1 Ben Stein has a conscience, unlike the rest of the Conservative zombies... |
| Posted by: Jerkface Killa 2013-10-26 06:09 |