TomAiello

Have you read this article yet? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I changed the word "companies" to "industry". Does that clear up the confusion as to the meaning? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yep. And the only way to change that is to reduce the power it holds. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

But guilty of what? I've run from the police after a BASE jump. Does that make me worthy of being shot? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes. I've got no problem with someone making a profit quickly and closing up shop. Without delivering the product to their customers? That would be fraud, which I would have a problem with. By damaging other (non-consenting) parties, for example with pollution? I think they should have to fix the damage. Without paying their employees? They should have to honor their contracts. I'd want the courts to enforce them. If you're a consenting party, it's ridiculous to claim that you were harmed unless there was real fraud involved. If we're not talking about fraud, then you should have done your due diligence, and you ought to face the consequences of your actions. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

No, my point was that it would force you to buy it. Any idea what percentage of insurance companies didn't lobby congress on this bill? What percentage of policies are currently written by the ones who did? Any expectation as to what percentage of the new policies required by this bill will be written by those companies? I don't think I ever said big, scary socialism was responsible for it. It's more like big, scary fascism. At least, that was how Benito Mussolini defined the union of business and government, working for each other's benefit. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If they are still doing "paper work" than that is part of the problem. Continuing to use paper and complaining about admin costs is somewhat akin to driving an antique as a daily driver and complaining about the upkeep. Have you ever tried to use an EMR? Just wondering, because it seems like many of the people touting the efficiency advantages of EMR's are people who've never had to actually try to use one. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Amen. I think that very few people actually understand the lives of doctors. Their lifestyle sucks in many, many ways. I know I posted about this in another thread recently, so I'm not going to belabor the point, aside from saying that the people pointing fingers at "those rich doctors" probably aren't living anywhere as difficult a life. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Nope. But I am saying that I'm aware there are risks there, and I've chosen not to more fully educate myself about them. And that means that I'm responsible for my own decision not to learn more, and ought to face any consequences of that decision. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's already a growing trend among doctors. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it appears to be reducing the cost of medical care for those patients whose doctors use this model. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Same reasons they decide not to take any other insurance, or medicare. They don't like the pay rate, or they don't want to deal with the paperwork headaches. Or any other reason they decide to. They are, after all, free human beings, and like you and I, they can decide who they wish to do business with (or not). Any idea how many medicare claims get returned to the doctor unpaid because of paperwork issues? Or how hard it is to get medicare to explain what they want on that paperwork? Or how many full time employees an average medical practice has dedicated just to that paperwork, driving up costs and taking energy away from actual patient care? You ought to look into that again. I don't think it's relevant to this debate, but the hippocratic oath (which I think is what you are referencing) is not mandatory at any stage of medical education or licensing. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Which "general public" is that? The specific individuals who chose to deposit funds in those banks? The specific individuals who chose to take out loans from them? The specific individuals who purchases shares in them? I'm not seeing any innocent members of the "general public" here. Just a bunch of individuals who've made decisions that put them in a bad position. Why should they be rewarded with billions of taxpayer dollars? Shouldn't they face the consequences of their own bad decisions? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

At this point, I'm sure you're being intentionally obtuse. At risk of falling into your trap: It doesn't have to lay out _who_ you have to buy it from. It says you _must_ buy it. That means you _are_ going to have to buy it from someone who actually sells it. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, the only people selling health insurance policies are (big surprise) health insurance companies. The "they" you're putting in quotes is "Health Insurance Companies". You know, the same companies that pay their executives hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and spend much more than that lobbying congress to shape the laws, so that you will be forced to purchase their product. Huh? At this point I've got to say you're intentionally misreading my words. I'm not saying any particular list, or specific companies. I'm talking about the sum total group of all health insurance companies selling policies in the US. In general, the term most often applied to such a grouping is the "industry," as in the "auto industry" or the "banking industry." In this case the "health insurance industry," that being, specifically, the group of all health insurance companies offering policies in the USA, are on the verge of passing a law forcing every single American to purchase their products. Now, as a thought problem, imagine if we replaced "health insurance" before "industry" with any other type of industry. For example, what if the "auto industry" got Congress to pass a law requiring that every American purchase a car. Or if the "gun industry" pushed through a law requiring every American to purchase a firearm. What if the "hotel industry" managed to make it mandatory that you spend at least two nights in a hotel every week? How about if the "banking industry" got a law made requiring you to have a checking account? You seem awfully eager to defend an industry which has successfully lobbied Congress to abuse it's power on their behalf, rewarding them with a massive windfall of profit from new customers who are the very people least able to afford it. This seems very out of character from your other views. Let me be the first to say "WTF?" Are you just blinded by the fact that the industry lobbyists have bought the democrats this time around? Seriously: are you really not understanding what I'm saying, or are you just trying to create an argument? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Excellent job on their part then. In fact, they did so good that I think we ought to encourage them to do it over and over again. How could we do that? Hey, I've got an idea, let's funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to them as a reward! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

According to the forecasts made by President Obama's economic team, the stimulus actually made things worse--not better. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

"Apocalypse? We've all been there, It's do or die, why should we care?" -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Honestly, I think the percentages are about the same. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Please explain further. How do I know this? Has he been in the situation before, and not paid? Did Mr. Spock come along and join our minds together? Does he have some kind of religious aversion to modern medicine? If I know for certain he doesn't want the care enough to pay for it, then I'm going to respect his wishes. In the hypothetical case where we have experienced a Vulcan mind meld and I know fore certain, then why would I contradict his wishes? But unless I am absolutely certain of that, I'm going to move to help him, and sort out his payment later. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Apologies. I was basing that statement on the (apparently erroneus) information provided by CornishChris. I made the (apparently incorrect) assumption that he was accurately presenting the UK training scheme. The 7 years pf training figure was drawn only from his post. FWIW, I do not regard additional schooling at the pre-University level to be equivalent to additional training at the post-M.D. level. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It's also a position he "paid" to be in, by rendering services to an employer who offered him those benefits as part of his compensation package. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

How do you get that? Because if you already have one of their plans, you need not buy another? You are required to buy a health insurance plan. You must buy it from someone who sells one. The only people currently selling them are the insurance companies. There is some possibility (looking increasingly unlikely) that you'll have the option of buying a government subsidized plan. But you would be forced to buy a plan. Unless you are already buying their product. In which case they'll let you off the hook because you're already paying them. Your argument seems to be "if you are already buying one of their products, then you'll be allowed to keep doing that--ergo, you are not required to buy one." That's pretty nonsensical, don't you think? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Text of the bill is here. The relevant part: This section imposes a financial penalty (an extra income tax) on anyone who fails to purchase health insurance. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Sure. I'd also expect him to pay (over time, if need be). Or to refuse treatment. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

No, it's not. You can call 911 and still expect them to pay their own bill. Simply calling for help does not establish that you don't think the person should pay for their own care. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's your proposal. But you interject your hypothetical into discussions about the actual proposals being considered by Congress, which look nothing like your proposal. You're basically shifting the meaning of the terms (like "universal coverage") in mid-stream. It looks like an effort to hide what you are really arguing for, because you use your argument in discussions about a much larger coverage, while claiming "but I just meant basic emergency care". Again, I think you're over-exaggerating in an effort to prove your point. Calling 911 when you see an accident doesn't mean that you don't want the injured person to pay for their care. It means that you recognize that they need help, and want to help. Calling 911 is not morally equivalent to volunteering to pay a half million dollar hospital bill. The vast majority of Americans carry health insurance, so it's actually a fair assumption to think this hypothetical person has it, in which case you're not trying to obligate anyone (aside from him and his insurance company) to pay for his care. Wanting people to pay for their care is not morally equivalent to wanting them to die if they can't pay up front. It's possible for people to arrange payment over a longer period of time, for services rendered (or goods received) immediately. It happens all the time in other areas (vehicle loans and home mortgages being two very common examples). Yet you seem unwilling to wrap your mind around the idea that it could apply here, too, and keep returning to your idea that an unwillingness to provide services for free is somehow going to eliminate medical care. Do you think that people who take out mortgages for their homes are somehow not actually being housed? Are people who take out loans to buy cars unable to drive to work? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com