Digest for rec.sport.football.college@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

Thursday, May 4, 2017

"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 11:32AM -0700

b/c the GOP health insurance bill actually passed (must admit I'm shocked)
 
which leads me to wonder why they obstructed the first version? You'd think they'd have egged the GOP on....
 
I'll never get politics
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 11:36AM -0700

Because they wanted it to be even more insane and assumed crafting something that would be palatable to winger and centrist alike would hit that mark?
 
They're celebrating because it's a steaming pile of shit that they'll be able to point to when they're out campaigning. Which is itself sort of shitty.
 
Just read that bernie sanders is the most liked politician in america. So there's still hope! :)
 
Cheers.
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 11:41AM -0700

> Because they wanted it to be even more insane and assumed crafting something that would be palatable to winger and centrist alike would hit that mark?
 
> They're celebrating because it's a steaming pile of shit that they'll be able to point to when they're out campaigning. Which is itself sort of shitty.
 
> Just read that bernie sanders is the most liked politician in america. So there's still hope! :)
 
Senator from 3 Houses? That's like saying the fave used car salesman....
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 11:44AM -0700

YER USED CARE SALESMAN IS A CROOK BUT MINE I$ TEH BOM!÷!
 
Cheers.
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: May 04 11:52AM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:32:36 PM UTC-4, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
> b/c the GOP health insurance bill actually passed (must admit I'm shocked)
 
> which leads me to wonder why they obstructed the first version? You'd think they'd have egged the GOP on....
 
> I'll never get politics
 
They have to be able to tell their voters they tried to protect them from the GOP disaster.
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 10:46AM -0700

You'll have to explain this bit to me:
 
"Every other country ends up rationing - which we don't."
 
Pretty sure many or most of those other countries have private options available - if you have the money, you can get whatever expensive procedure you want.
 
Which is all we're guaranteed - emphasis on the if you have the money part.
 
I mean, seriously - give me the low down - how is healthcare rationed in Germany in a way that's different from the US?
 
Cheers.
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 10:54AM -0700

> You'll have to explain this bit to me:
 
> "Every other country ends up rationing - which we don't."
 
> Pretty sure many or most of those other countries have private options available - if you have the money, you can get whatever expensive procedure you want.
 
Right - but there's rationing for everyone *else* - and we're back to square 1 of the rich getting more

> Which is all we're guaranteed - emphasis on the if you have the money part.
 
> I mean, seriously - give me the low down - how is healthcare rationed in Germany in a way that's different from the US?
 
Can't speak to Germany b/c I'm not familiar with it - but England and Canadia have some nice lines - and even here in the US w/ our "state insurance" parts - aka the VA system, we see this.
michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com>: May 04 10:56AM -0700


> Pretty sure many or most of those other countries have private options available - if you have the money, you can get whatever expensive procedure you want.
 
> Which is all we're guaranteed - emphasis on the if you have the money part.
 
> I mean, seriously - give me the low down - how is healthcare rationed in Germany in a way that's different from the US?
 
when my uncle needed a rather technical(and semi-urgent but not "have this now or die immediately" eye surgery) he was seen by a retina subspecialist within a couple days and surgery was scheduled and done on very short notice.
 
My guess is that those sorts of things in the european models you adore don't work like that.
 
 
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 11:23AM -0700

And if your uncle was poor he would have just made due without the surgery in the conservative US model you adore.
 
Hmm. Have to wait too long or have to wait forever... hold on, I'm weighing those options carefully.
 
Cheers.
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 11:30AM -0700

Dude the rich will always get more. That doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and say - hey, they're gonna get more, so why change a system where they get waaaay more?
 
Just don't see that as a valid criticism - don't see "well the rich will still get more" as being back to square 1 - the if you're poor you get next to nothing square.
 
Lol - it always comes back to that increasing gap between the really rich and the rest of us - either you see that as a problem or you don't. (I feel like I could do a pretty good job of predicting a whole range of political opinions for a person just by showing them that graph and asking - "cause for concern, yea or nay?")
 
Cheers.
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 11:37AM -0700

> Dude the rich will always get more. That doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and say - hey, they're gonna get more, so why change a system where they get waaaay more?
 
> Just don't see that as a valid criticism - don't see "well the rich will still get more" as being back to square 1 - the if you're poor you get next to nothing square.
 
> Lol - it always comes back to that increasing gap between the really rich and the rest of us - either you see that as a problem or you don't. (I feel like I could do a pretty good job of predicting a whole range of political opinions for a person just by showing them that graph and asking - "cause for concern, yea or nay?")
 
But that's what this has all been about! The "rich" having better health insurance than everyone else....
 
so where we do draw the line? What is the "minimum acceptable standard" for healthcare for everyone?
 
this is not a simple question, is it?
 
Should it be unlimited and unfettered or should it be limited - and to what/where? And where do "life style" choices come into play? When do we account for certain conditions being far more costly to pay for than others?
 
etc etc etc etc
 
I could easily say we HAD this prior to gov't insurance - everyone has the right to health care limited only by either their willingness to pay for it and/or have an insurer pay for it. That' pretty far in one direction - so.....what's "acceptable"? heart surgery for all infants? free diabetes care for fat rednecks sucking down sonic limeades? free cancer treatment for smokers?
darkstar7646@gmail.com: May 04 11:42AM -0700

> Do you think that dude making 10k a year just doesn't want to make 200k a year? But once their child is sick that'll be enough motivation?
 
> I interpret what he's saying a little differently. Like "imagine a society where a schoolteacher doesn't have to go 100k in debt (which we're never gonna recover anyways, which results in higher hc costs for you and I and said teacher filing for bankruptcy) and pick up night shifts at piggy wiggly because their child was born with a heart condition".
 
> Also "and that child won't spend the rest of their lives paying 10x what you or I spend on insurance because they happened to be born with a heart condition".
 
There's an easy solution, say animals like Irish Mike and Hugh: The kid never lives outside the hospital, and is properly disposed of so we don't have to pay for them.
 
Mike
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 11:52AM -0700

I could easily say we HAD this prior to gov't insurance - everyone has the right to health care limited only by either their willingness to pay for it and/or have an insurer pay for it. That' pretty far in one direction - so.....what's "acceptable"? heart surgery for all infants? free diabetes care for fat rednecks sucking down sonic limeades? free cancer treatment for smokers?
 
 
No, though. Not limited by their *willingness* to pay for it. In most cases, limited by their *means*.
 
But yeah to your general point. That's exactly it. We should be working out where those lines are, not throwing our hands up and saying we can't afford for everyone to get three mris a month, so fuhgeddaboudit.
 
I'm seriously searching for what the argument here is, but I keep coming back to "we can't get to 100% so we should stick with zero".
 
Cheers.
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 11:42AM -0700

That state is still around? I was assured by rsfcons years ago that it was a giant ponzi scheme on the verge of collapsing. And here it is still around, chugging along, accounting for a huge percentage of our nation's economic growth.
 
Hmmm. I'm coming dangerously close to supporting the whole "spend more, tax less, let economic growth pay for it" deal.
 
(Backing away from the ledge - sorry, the context was getting my annual trip plans to go out to pleasanton for work - love going out there, thus humblebrag).
 
Cheers.
darkstar7646@gmail.com: May 04 11:44AM -0700

Give it three more years.
 
You'll get either CalExit or an Article V which throws California out of the Union.
 
Mike
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 11:45AM -0700


> Hmmm. I'm coming dangerously close to supporting the whole "spend more, tax less, let economic growth pay for it" deal.
 
> (Backing away from the ledge - sorry, the context was getting my annual trip plans to go out to pleasanton for work - love going out there, thus humblebrag).
 
> Cheers.
 
While you're there, check out some affordable housing in Palo Alto, say....
 
Not gonna lie - Cali is doing fantastically where it's doing fantastically - SV, Bay Area, parts of LA
 
Be sure to take a spin thru Richmond or Fresno while you're there.
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 11:45AM -0700

> Give it three more years.
 
> You'll get either CalExit or an Article V which throws California out of the Union.
 
> Mike
 
Naw - it'll take until tech moves out en masse - the cluster effect around Stanford is waaaaaaaay too strong still.
darkstar7646@gmail.com: May 04 11:40AM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 9:50:08 AM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
 
> >Welfare is not a form of slavery.
 
> Welfare recipients are as dependent on government as slaves were to
> their masters. The difference is merely technical.
 
Not really. You and your idiots would just like to see that Amendment eliminated, as it's the only way you'd be able to get most of the country back to work in any capacity.
 
Mike
darkstar7646@gmail.com: May 04 11:39AM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 9:44:37 AM UTC-7, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
 
 
> I expect some of the parents of kids in the public school our
> granddaughter attends receives unearned welfare but I don't know them.
 
> But I am obviously naive because we don't frequent the same places.
 
And that naviete will see you dead. Wake up.
 
Mike
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 04 10:42AM -0700

> How is healthcare any more / less collective in utilization than roads? Some people use public roads a lot. Some very little. A few not at all.
 
> Seems the same as hc to me...
 
Not really - we don't use HC the same nor do we use if for ourselves the same.

> To me, your analogy of steaks would be more like someone expecting us to pick up the costs for their calf, butt, and breast implants. Or demanding they get a private room at the hospital on our dime.
> You don't have to eat *steak* or have your own room to live - plenty of cheaper alternatives.
 
Ahhhhhhhh yes - there's the rub. Cheaper alternatives. Okay then - so you're cool then with "quality of care caps" for those receiving state insurance?
 
(Not meaning that super snarky like "you're cool with..." usually does - just more asking is this a line in the sand?)
 
IMO, that's what we're eventually going to end up with - some terrible "gov't insurance" plan which covers not all that much - "Sorry, you've had your one MRI for the year" - and then private insurance for the rest of us - and very little will have changed - the empathy crowd can still bay about unfairness of health care while the math crowd gets to bitch about costs.
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 11:20AM -0700

Can you give me some specifics on what differentiates government provided infrastructure (roads, bridges) from government provided healthcare? Not a leading queation, I'm genuinely curious where you're going with that.
 
 
 
"Ahhhhhhhh yes - there's the rub. Cheaper alternatives. Okay then - so you're cool then with "quality of care caps" for those receiving state insurance?
 
(Not meaning that super snarky like "you're cool with..." usually does - just more asking is this a line in the sand?)
 
IMO, that's what we're eventually going to end up with - some terrible "gov't insurance" plan which covers not all that much - "Sorry, you've had your one MRI for the year" - and then private insurance for the rest of us - and very little will have changed - the empathy crowd can still bay about unfairness of health care while the math crowd gets to bitch about costs."
 
I think almost everyone is cool with quality of care caps, in you're looking at in in some binary form. We all might have different ideas about where the lines should be drawn, but I doubt many folks support using our taxes to pay for elective surgeries, or even some experimental but highly expensive procedure or drug.
 
I don't see us eventually ending up where you see us ending up. Did you happen to catch the link I poasted in another thread about automated brain surgery.
 
I have pretty good insight into this at work. We're a lot further along on automation and ai than folks presume. Training a concept identify tumors in scans more accurately than a trained tech is something anyone with a couple hundred dollars and an aws/azure/cloud compute account can do, if they have enough labeled scans.
 
HC costs - the real cost, not necessarily the charge - are going to plummet over the next several decades.
 
And don't get me started on smart toilets.
 
Anyhow - two main points - again I see all these concerns being based on a scarcity condition that's already sort of illusionary and is only going to get moreso over time. Two - what we've been doing is so stupid it's painful. The current system has soooooo much waste and inefficiency. Half the procedures / orders are unnecessary - either padding a bill or playing cya because of ridiculous litigation.
 
But I do think we'll have some form of what you're talking about (except the public option won't be terrible) before abundance overtakes any need for private options.
 
I think I mentioned Germany in another related thread - they have something similar to that, but again I don't think most people find the public option to be inadequate.
 
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/04/what-american-healthcare-can-learn-from-germany/360133/
 
Note their efficiency, effectiveness, and accessibility. Better than us on the point "can you get a next day or same day appt", for instance.
 
(Usually when I bring up something like this I get some argument about how americans are different and foreign models don't apply. That's stupid - we base an entire system on compete and copy success but don't believe in copying successes beyond our borders? That's a general point, we've spent enough time talking about places like Singapore for me to know you're not shy about doing that sort of thing).
 
Cheers.
Futbol Phan <sgzphd@gmail.com>: May 04 10:42AM -0700

> Shitty for regular americans but a big political win for the left.
 
> If you thought "you can keep your doctor" got a lot of play, wait till "pre-existing conditions will be covered" hits the charts.
 
> Cheers.
 
Given that the 11 states with the most residents over 65 with pre-existing conditions all voted for Trump, let's see how they like Trumpcare. Should be interesting.
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 04 10:57AM -0700

Man, don't brand it trumpcare! Trumps here today, gone tomorrow.
 
I want to hang this thing on the entirety of the gop for as long as we can (until the inevitable pendulum swing and public option).
 
Cheers.
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>: May 04 10:54AM -0700

At this point, I believe a judge should grant America
a restraining order against Hillary Clinton for stalking.
— Rob Schneider
 
--
Michael Press
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: May 04 12:46PM -0500

> Man, we're slipping
 
No, I think it's the standards of political discourse that
are slipping.
 
--
Some people have twenty years of experience, some people have
one year of experience twenty times over. -- Anonymous
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.football.college+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment