Introducing... the next step for conservative thinking on healthcare!

[angus]

What if your goal isn't to cut costs for its own sake and absent all other considerations?

Then you take your argument up with somebody else.

If I say "if p, then q" and you start in with "well, what about r?" I'd have to respectfully label your arguments irrelevant to my point.

These folks only suggest a way to cut costs.  Anything more you're reading into it must be between the lines.  Don't focus on the poetry.  It's just an economic analysis. 

[Vosem]

The American Right is a weird microcosm.

I'm hesitant to ask, but a microcosm of what? From where I'm standing, it looks like it's doing its own thing and being true to itself. Just not in a good way.

Some on the Right think it at least prudent for the sake of good order, and to keep the peace, and forestall revolution, to at a minimum accept some degree of a social safety net even if it be a necessary evil, with some considering it a moral imperative because they have some communitarian instincts, and some feel free to just go Ayn Rand whole hog into the abyss of "objectivism," secure in the knowledge that their dysuptopian utopia has no chance at all of ever coming to pass. Balancing tests are just too much mental work for some to parse.

Torie, do you ever feel lonely in your party these days? I'm not asking to be snide or passive-aggressive, it just seems like you might and I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not it's so.

He is by no means alone when it comes to members of the GOP that are looking for balanced approaches based on conservative principles. However, in the media there is little money in that, whether news or opinion. Simple points that create a story pay better.

Hah...I was trying to remember when I wrote that until I realized it was you!

[asexual trans victimologist]

What if your goal isn't to cut costs for its own sake and absent all other considerations?

Then you take your argument up with somebody else.

If I say "if p, then q" and you start in with "well, what about r?" I'd have to respectfully label your arguments irrelevant to my point.

These folks only suggest a way to cut costs.  Anything more you're reading into it must be between the lines.  Don't focus on the poetry.  It's just an economic analysis. 

That's a way of reading that ignores the context and tone of the text, which make it clear that Fischer's plan is something that he intends for his audience to perceive as desirable by the end of his explanation of it.

Then again, this is Bryan Fischer. I'm familiar with his work. None of us should be surprised, believe me.

[angus]

Nathan, it seems to me that it's the inhumanity that rubs.  That's a fair criticism, but unrelated to the OP.  (Also, the odd and distracting foray into metaphysics should be criticized.  God's gonna pick where the ER leaves off?  What's he smoking?  But let's leave that aside for the moment.)  At face value, all the excerpt that Joe posted says is that if you stop compelling, by law, a service to any and all comers, then the price of that service is likely to decrease.  It makes for a nice debate.  I have yet to see any post in this thread try to engage in that debate, on either side.

I'd start, but I have no arguments against it.  

Here's how a logical progression in such a thread may go:  Okay, if you stop compelling service, then you potentially have greater economic problems.

Oh, how's that?

Well, if I cannot be guaranteed treatment for the finger that I cut while halving a bagel this morning, then it becomes infected, and that infection gets spread in the public restrooms I visit to many others, becoming an epidemic.  This epidemic causes a lack of productivity which results in millions of laid off workers, exacerbating the current economic crisis.

Now, that's how you want to attack Fischer.  All you guys are doing is spouting unrelated platitudes and the occasional personal insult.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Meanwhile, they're perfectly happy with the $750 billion a year military budget.

[anvi]

Angus, I referred to EMTALA in my first response because that's the law I think Fischer is alluding to, and his characterization of it is quite misleading.  The law doesn't require hospitals to take any and all comers who can't pay.  It only requires them to treat people in immanent danger of death or who are in active labor, and even then only until the condition becomes stable.  Occasionally hospitals do treat more than that, but they're not legally obligated to.  If Fischer wants to cut out the latter entirely, then that's one thing.  But that's not what he wrote.  He wrote that we should repeal the law requiring hospitals to "do business" with people who can't pay, but that law is speaking about people who are in immediately dire need of medical attention.  Speaking for myself, I'd rather have those uncompensated care costs be picked up by the rest of us as they are now than see these people pitched out on the street in the name of merely "cutting costs." 

[angus]

Angus, I referred to EMTALA in my first response because that's the law I think Fischer is alluding to, and his characterization of it is quite misleading.  The law doesn't require hospitals to take any and all comers who can't pay.  It only requires them to treat people in immanent danger of death or who are in active labor, and even then only until the condition becomes stable.  Occasionally hospitals do treat more than that, but they're not legally obligated to.  If Fischer wants to cut out the latter entirely, then that's one thing.  But that's not what he wrote.  He wrote that we should repeal the law requiring hospitals to "do business" with people who can't pay, but that law is speaking about people who are in immediately dire need of medical attention.  Speaking for myself, I'd rather have those uncompensated care costs be picked up by the rest of us as they are now than see these people pitched out on the street in the name of merely "cutting costs." 

I have to admit that I was ignorant so your post went over my head.  I have since figured out what EMTALA is--not the polynesian god volcanoes and the harvest, despite the name--by visiting www.emtala.org/faq.  Very helpful website, by the way.  Now, that I think about it, I'm reminded that there was some outrage on the left about this, with emergency medical conditions being defined as, among other things, anything that threatens the life of "an unborn child." 

What's the hippocratic oath?  Do no harm?  Something like that.  I think you're right that folks who take it ought to be bound by it.  I'm just analyzing the economic impact.  I don't know much about Fischer, but that's what I thought he was doing.  Clearly cutting costs is a big issue now, and he has suggested one way.  I can also think of others. 

[Link]

He wrote that we should repeal the law requiring hospitals to "do business" with people who can't pay, but that law is speaking about people who are in immediately dire need of medical attention.  Speaking for myself, I'd rather have those uncompensated care costs be picked up by the rest of us as they are now than see these people pitched out on the street in the name of merely "cutting costs." 

The way it works now every poor person with a cold shows up at the ER.  ERs do not tell people, sorry you have a cold no one will see you.

[Insula Dei]

@Angus:

I'd like to debate one of these days with you on the question whether we, if we all agree that the infliction of the highest amount of pain conceivable on toddlers should be the supreme goal of government, should take the step of having all kindergarten workers visit Guantanamo at least once during their training to more effectively teah them what can be done to an unwitting victim with no more than some water, a hose, and a bunch of towerls. Might be cost-effective, too.

(Or more generally, and slightly less plastically, said: you can't start a debate by throwing your own opinion on the floor as a given, and then go on to accuse the other side of begging the question. You may want to frame this proposal as a mere academical exercise, but on themes like this there's no such thing as a merely academical exercise of the brain muscle, and if there were such a thing, it would be a highly useless thing.)

[angus]

if we all agree that the infliction of the highest amount of pain conceivable on toddlers should be the supreme goal of government, should take the step of having all kindergarten workers visit Guantanamo at least once during their training to more effectively teah them what can be done to an unwitting victim with no more than some water, a hose, and a bunch of towerls. Might be cost-effective, too.

(Or more generally, and slightly less plastically, said: you can't start a debate by throwing your own opinion on the floor as a given, and then go on to accuse the other side of begging the question. You may want to frame this proposal as a mere academical exercise, but on themes like this there's no such thing as a merely academical exercise of the brain muscle, and if there were such a thing, it would be a highly useless thing.)

Were we to agree upon that, I'm sure Guantanamo would make the short list, although I'd prefer to go with some biochemicals.  Infect them with HIV or force them to have emphysema and watch them die slowly.  Maybe even teach them to do Mengele-style medical experiments on one another.

Of course, I'm not sure we'd all agree upon that to begin with.

What most of us in this country do agree upon, however, and what is imminently more germane to the thread, is that our medical expenditures (or health care costs, to use the broader term), at about one-sixth of our aggregate GDP, is rather expensive.  Now, maybe we're comfortable with that.  On some level, I rather think I am.  We sat down and figured out exactly how much our family spends on bandaids, insurance premia, medicare deductions, chamomile tea, neosporin, X-rays, and the like--not including alcohol, of course, as I regard my drinking as recreational, not medicinal--and we figured that we spend something like 12% of our family income each year on such things.  And we're quite satisfied with the service we receive.  There's a clinic about four blocks away.  It's clean.  It's open seven days a week.  We don't have any co-payment.  Walk in, tell 'em what's wrong.  See a nurse.  See a physician a few minutes later.  Maybe get a shot.  Maybe get a prescription.  Walk out.  A few weeks later we get a bill that asks us to pay seven dollars and sixty cents.  (Of course, the bill is unnecessarily complicated.  How many man-hours do they invest to arrive at the conclusion that I owe $7.60?  All the rows and columns of data showing that hundreds of dollars are being charged to somebody.  Nevertheless, it's not charged to me.  So overall, it's a good deal.

Still, I'd wager that you'd sooner get us all to agree upon the idea that the costs are too high before you'd get us to agree that we want to show children how to inflict as much pain as possible on one another.  And on the issue of costs, there are a number of suggestions out there--some good, some not so good--about cutting costs.  As far as I can tell, Fischer just added another suggestion to the pile.  You may or may not think it a good suggestion.  I'm not taking a position either way, simply suggestion how you might intelligently debate it in a reasonable matter.  Any policy debate should focus on economic (utility) aspects and avoid normative propositions and personal insults. 

And of course it's an academic exercise, my man.  Every post in every thread in every political forum is an academic exercise.  At least to me they are.  If you take any of this too seriously you'll make many enemies, go mad, or, more likely, both.

[Platypus]

It starts with just one blog post from the American Family Association...

Bringing down health care costs so easy a caveman could do it

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:53 AM
By Bryan Fischer

If we want to bring down the cost of health care, it’s easy. What we lack is not the way but the will.

The way is simple.

First, eliminate the federal requirement that hospitals have to treat any patient who shows up. That’s the place to begin. Get government out of telling hospitals who they have to do business with. There is simply no way to control the cost of health care if hospitals are obligated to provide healthcare to all regardless of their ability to pay.

How long would a mechanic last if he was required to fix every automobile anybody brought to his shop, regardless of ability to pay? He’d be broke and out of business in a week, and pretty soon there would be no mechanics for anybody. We’d all be riding bikes to work.

People need medical care, you will say. Right. People need to eat, too. How long would a grocer stay in business if he was required to offer food to everyone who walked in the door regardless of their ability to pay? He’d be broke in a week, and then nobody would have food.

(contd.)

The article then goes on to say that the poor will still be taken care of, because God and Christians will help out of the goodness of their hearts.  Also, another strategy for lowering costs is for people to take out low-premium, high-deductible policies, to discourage them from getting sick so often.

You heard it here first!  Coming soon to a talk radio show and Republican-controlled legislature near you!

I haven't read the thread, but let me get this straight: The American Family Association is spruiking 100% free market capitalism in healthcare? There are a lot of misnomers out there, but that's a bit disgusting.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[Simfan34]

Angus, you're trying to think in a vacuum, which is impossible. All these other concerns return as economic externalities.

[a Person]

To be fair, the American Family Association doesn't exactly represent the Republican Party.

[angus]

All these other concerns return as economic externalities.

I agree that this is possible.  My example of a debate point was obviously exaggerated, but this is exactly what I meant.  There is a debate to be made in terms of economic externalities.  My only concern is that no one is trying to do just that.  At least not in this thread. 

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I've been saying that for years, although with a little bit of a twist to it.  I said that in response to Republicans opposed to the individual mandate.  If you're not going to require everyone to have insurance, then how is it fair to require hospitals to take everyone?  You either need to get rid of regulations keeping hospitals from turning people away or allow the individual mandate to go through.

[I left.]

I've been saying that for years, although with a little bit of a twist to it.  I said that in response to Republicans opposed to the individual mandate.  If you're not going to require everyone to have insurance, then how is it fair to require hospitals to take everyone?  You either need to get rid of regulations keeping hospitals from turning people away or allow the individual mandate to go through.

Leave it to private charity, right?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I've been saying that for years, although with a little bit of a twist to it.  I said that in response to Republicans opposed to the individual mandate.  If you're not going to require everyone to have insurance, then how is it fair to require hospitals to take everyone?  You either need to get rid of regulations keeping hospitals from turning people away or allow the individual mandate to go through.

Leave it to private charity, right?

Well, I'd argue that no politician in his right mind would pass a bill like that, so until that happens, I support a Romney-care type mandate.  At that time, I hadn't thought of the whole "Obamacare is a tax" thing, and I'll still have to read the opinion, so I still haven't reached a conclusion on if I agree with a federal mandate.  But at least it solves that problem.

[memphis]

It should come as a suprise to nobody that a substantial segment of the GOP base enjoys the concept of people being denied healthcare. We saw some of this death cheering during the debates. I'll leave the psychoanalysis of why this may be so to the mental health folks, but there is no doubt that this fetish goes far beyond the political.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

It should come as a suprise to nobody that a substantial segment of the GOP base enjoys the concept of people being denied healthcare. We saw some of this death cheering during the debates. I'll leave the psychoanalysis of why this may be so to the mental health folks, but there is no doubt that this fetish goes far beyond the political.

Oh, come on - that's harsh.  Nobody's advocating they be denied healthcare, just that it should be the work of charities.  The GOP don't actually want to see people die, contrary to what the Alan Graysons of the world say.

[memphis]

It should come as a suprise to nobody that a substantial segment of the GOP base enjoys the concept of people being denied healthcare. We saw some of this death cheering during the debates. I'll leave the psychoanalysis of why this may be so to the mental health folks, but there is no doubt that this fetish goes far beyond the political.

Oh, come on - that's harsh.  Nobody's advocating they be denied healthcare, just that it should be the work of charities.  The GOP don't actually want to see people die, contrary to what the Alan Graysons of the world say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao

[shua]

I've been saying that for years, although with a little bit of a twist to it.  I said that in response to Republicans opposed to the individual mandate.  If you're not going to require everyone to have insurance, then how is it fair to require hospitals to take everyone?  You either need to get rid of regulations keeping hospitals from turning people away or allow the individual mandate to go through.

or, the government could reimburse the hospitals.

[I left.]

It should come as a suprise to nobody that a substantial segment of the GOP base enjoys the concept of people being denied healthcare. We saw some of this death cheering during the debates. I'll leave the psychoanalysis of why this may be so to the mental health folks, but there is no doubt that this fetish goes far beyond the political.

Oh, come on - that's harsh.  Nobody's advocating they be denied healthcare, just that it should be the work of charities.  The GOP don't actually want to see people die, contrary to what the Alan Graysons of the world say.

You really have much too mich faith in your party, for whatever reason.

[bore]

Maybe saying that part of the GOP base enjoys people not having healthcare is a bit harsh, but there is certainly a large portion which just does not give a damn.