All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Real Opinions? Who Do You Vote For And Why?
11/2/2012 12:50 PM
Behavior and costs.

When I said that long run costs were controlled if people obtained treatment for small problems before the small problems became big expensive problems, what did you think I was talking about?

JOHN STAMOS! Did we just become best friends?
11/2/2012 12:51 PM
Get a room, you two.
11/2/2012 1:12 PM (edited)
Posted by toddcommish on 11/2/2012 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:19:00 PM (view original):
You're off the rails.

Your exact argument was that people going to the doctor for small problems is the problem with health care.
WOW.

A sudden influx of insurance-covered population would lead to a brand new problem with health care(the one you just mentioned that I inferred).  Know what would cause a sudden influx of insurance-covered population?  Obamacare.

Just wow.
30 million people are uninsured. A large percentage of them are going to stay uninsured even with Obamacare.

A huge percentage of that 30 million are young and healthy.

So, what's this sudden influx of people?

Ummm, if they are "young and healthy", WHY AREN'T THEY WORKING AT JOBS WITH BENEFITS?

This is the biggest problem with ObamaCare.  It's throwing trillions of dollars at a SYMPTOM.  Why not focus those dollars on job creation, training programs, or tax incentives to small businesses that hire "young and healthy" people?

Back to my original statement:  It doesn't solve a ******* thing.
There's always going to be a portion of the population that don't work at a job with benefits, because there's never going to be enough of those jobs to go around.

You've made a good point here: more people working at jobs with benefits will, by definition, have health care.  Create more jobs, you now have more people with health care.  You also have a larger tax base which can cut into the deficit, and also less people depending on government handouts to live on, which also reduces the deficit.  But that's fodder for a different topic (the economy).

But that's not the main reason why Obamacare doesn't solve the health care problem in the U.S.  The main reason is that it doesn't address the economic inefficiencies that have permiated the health care industry from providers, insurance companies, etc.  There are the things that make health care so expensive (which is the real problem),  Address the inefficiencies and fix them, and the costs come down.  Costs come down, and more employers can offer benefits to employees.  Or individuals who previously could not afford it on their own now will be able to.

Problems are fixed by identifying the root cause of the problem and specifically fixing those root causes.  Not by throwing trillions of dollars and government bureaucracy at it and saying "OK, we're done!".
11/2/2012 1:03 PM (edited)
I always thought the North was the righteous party in the civil war.....  

now I'm not so sure I agree... I think the federal government has grown too big and the states need to take the power back.  I'm really becoming a believer that the Federal Government should only involve itself in Upholding the Law (that does not mean making the law), the Central bank, and to Upholding our country's Defense.  The states should do everything else... (welfare, education, infrastructure, etc).  The fed should not be picking winners and losers like wind and solar energies.... or providing for planned parenthood.... or big oil loop holes.... or healthcare.  Leave it to the states.  The competition among the states would only drive pricing down and efficiency up in order to lure more residents and businesses to the area.  Shame on this federal government and shame on us for letting it get in over its head,  
11/2/2012 12:58 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Behavior and costs.

When I said that long run costs were controlled if people obtained treatment for small problems before the small problems became big expensive problems, what did you think I was talking about?

JOHN STAMOS! Did we just become best friends?
I knew you were an advocate of regular check-ups.  I agreed.  But the topic changed at that point because regular check-ups offer no guarantee that the big, expensive problem would be avoided.   That was the "7000 hangover headache cures to maybe catch one brain aneurysm" moment.

Unlikely.  I'm sure our viewpoints on almost everything is different. 
11/2/2012 12:59 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Behavior and costs.

When I said that long run costs were controlled if people obtained treatment for small problems before the small problems became big expensive problems, what did you think I was talking about?

JOHN STAMOS! Did we just become best friends?
I knew you were an advocate of regular check-ups.  I agreed.  But the topic changed at that point because regular check-ups offer no guarantee that the big, expensive problem would be avoided.   That was the "7000 hangover headache cures to maybe catch one brain aneurysm" moment.

Unlikely.  I'm sure our viewpoints on almost everything is different. 
I don't know, opposites attract.
11/2/2012 1:01 PM
Should MikeT and bad_luck just get a room and get it over with?

Votes: 4
(Last vote received: 11/2/2012 1:05 PM)
11/2/2012 1:07 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:50:00 PM (view original):
Behavior and costs.

When I said that long run costs were controlled if people obtained treatment for small problems before the small problems became big expensive problems, what did you think I was talking about?

JOHN STAMOS! Did we just become best friends?
I knew you were an advocate of regular check-ups.  I agreed.  But the topic changed at that point because regular check-ups offer no guarantee that the big, expensive problem would be avoided.   That was the "7000 hangover headache cures to maybe catch one brain aneurysm" moment.

Unlikely.  I'm sure our viewpoints on almost everything is different. 
I don't know, opposites attract.
My guess, in about two weeks, is that our paths will not cross again until you tout WAR as the be all of stats. 
11/2/2012 1:08 PM
MikeT is playing hard-to-get!
11/2/2012 1:10 PM
He just doesn't want to get locked down. I get that. But I need a commitment.

Have I ever touted WAR as the be all of stats?
11/2/2012 1:12 PM
Bad_luck is now stalking MikeT!
11/2/2012 1:14 PM
OK, you're learning.   Just saying, when I quote someone's post, I want them to read my reply.   Their point is the one I'm agreeing/disagreeing with.

That's what YOU mean to do when you quote someone. I already told you how I am different.
Ummm, if they are "young and healthy", WHY AREN'T THEY WORKING AT JOBS WITH BENEFITS?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to address it anyway.

I'm sure many people would love to have a great job with wonderful health benefits. The fact of the matter is that it is not easy to obtain those kinds of jobs for many people. There are far more people than there are quality jobs with good healthcare.
Obama is a socialist, so he advocates government social programs. 
 
As a socialist, I can tell you that Obama is NOT a socialist - at the very least, not nearly to the extent real socialists like myself would like him to be.


?Most poor people won't use even a discounted $25 co-pay as incentive to visit the doctor for preventative care... they will use it to buy their next pack of smokes, a few items off the Mickey D's $1 menu, and some lottery tickets.

This is one of the major problems with America: Those who aren't poor seem to think everyone who is poor must be wasting the money they do have or save, which simply isn't true in many cases.

To attack poor people this way tells me you have probably never been poor or faced significant financial struggle in your life - because if you had, you wouldn't think like this.

The fact of the matter is that not all poor people waste money. Not all poor people smoke. If they do eat at "Mickey D's", it's only because they can't afford something nicer like you probably can. They don't all play the lottery, and if they do, it's only because they dream of not being poor (something you may take for granted).

11/2/2012 1:32 PM (edited)
so bistiza you would suggest MOST poor people would indeed use a 'discounted $25 co-pay as incentive to visit the doctor for preventative care... [rather than] use it to buy their next pack of smokes, a few items off the Mickey D's $1 menu, and some lottery tickets'... I will disagree.  I've worked with a lot of them.  Many have overdrawn bank accounts but they have SSI money for smokes. 

BTW I never said 'ALL poor people'.... right?

nothing in life is easy.. especially making money.  discipline is hard.  thats the truth.  


I've been around both the impoverished and the ultra-high net worth.  one major difference between the two is their work ethic.  instead of buying that lottery ticket for a 'dream' use that $1 to take the bus to a job interview... and if you don't get that one... keep your head up and interview with another company... then another.  Took me 2 years to find a good job after getting my MBA.... was it easy.. no.  was it hard work and a passion to succeed so I could provide for my family.... yes. 
11/2/2012 1:48 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 1:10:00 PM (view original):
He just doesn't want to get locked down. I get that. But I need a commitment.

Have I ever touted WAR as the be all of stats?
Trout for MVP.

But, back on point, when the market is flooded(in this case people who've never had insurance), your historical numbers mean nothing.   The situation hasn't existed.    My theory is people who've had "a sore thumb" for years will line up to see a doctor because it will be cheap.    I could be wrong but I doubt it.  People will stand in line for a free sippy cup.    
11/2/2012 1:57 PM

I agree with moy23.  Bistiza, beware of where you're treading.  I can't speak for moy, MikeT, tec, or bad_luck, but I've worked my *** off, through financial trouble to reasonable comfort.  I've stood in line at job fairs, taken a train 50 miles for a job interview, worked retail at ToysRUs, and took jobs below my education/skills to put food on the table for my family, keep the insurance going, and keep a roof over our heads.

It takes WORK.  Obama wants to give the **** away.  If you want to argue whether he genuinely thinks it HELPS, or whether it is merely a political ploy to garner votes from the impoverished, fine.  But the reality is that jobs are out there IF YOU'RE WILLING TO WORK and work hard. 

of 18
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Real Opinions? Who Do You Vote For And Why?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.