kallend 2,027
Quote
OK, I did that.
Now tell us which division and title FORCES medics to accept govt. insurance.
You read ALL the pages of the bill?
He'd be the only one in the country to have done so.
Quotenope somebody did and this is even more scary. especially if you are older.
http://fredthompsonshow.com/premiumstream?dispid=320&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD03MzUxJnBsYXlsaXN0PXRydWUmY2hhcnR0eXBlPWNoYXJ0JmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzIwJnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT01
please listen to the whole interview and it will answer the question that the bill will force all doctors to take Obama's insurance program by eliminating private insurance programs.
The bill does nothing of the sort.
You should try reading the ACTUAL bill instead of believing a right wing podcast.
I'll buy you a case of beer if you can find the division, title and subtitle in the bill where elimination of private programs is proposed.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
TomAiello 26
QuoteI'll buy you a case of beer if you can find the division, title and subtitle in the bill where elimination of private programs is proposed.
Ah, so clever, I see.
Hey, if I start a competing company and give it a trillion dollar subsidy, that's not going to put anyone out of business is it?
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotei don't have to find one because i never claimed it was in there. i threw out a hypothetical for discussion. surely you realize that and are just trying to be difficult.
OK, just so long as we all know that the thread you started during discussions in Congress on health care reform has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.
if you don't think it is a valid question, then by all means feel free not to participate in this discussion.
So when you wrote "let say that obama gets what he wants when it comes to healthcare reform" in the OP it wasn't context for the thread, it was just a meaningless throwaway line. If you say so
what exactly are you getting at? are you intentionally mis-understanding my words or do i need to clarify them. i thought my original post was pretty clear. do i need to expand on the "get what he wants" part? i'm sure you know what he wants just as i do, he tells us just about every couple of days. is forcing doctors to accept govt insurance what he wants? i don't know, he hasn't said. i also never claimed that he did want to force it on doctors. the "if obama gets what he wants..." line certainly isn't a throw away line, it is the pretext for the entire discussion. if you need further clarification, just ask me what you want clarified.
btw, i realize you understand perfectly what i'm talking about, you're just amusing yourself and i'm taking the bait.
OK, so this "hypothetical" discussion is indeed set in the context of what Obama wants Congress to do. So asking if force is included in the congressional bill IS a relevant question. Thanks for the clarification.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteI'll buy you a case of beer if you can find the division, title and subtitle in the bill where elimination of private programs is proposed.
Ah, so clever, I see.
Hey, if I start a competing company and give it a trillion dollar subsidy, that's not going to put anyone out of business is it?
Sorry, that argument won't wash.
As Wendy pointed out a page or so back, no doctor is FORCED to accept insurance patients anyway - not even in the UK. Many only take private patients.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
wmw999 2,452
It would be interesting to hear what percentage of doctors are, in fact, private only (or that accept both NHS and private insurance) in GB. Wikipedia doesn't provide that information, and I'll admit to being too lazy to go look.
Wendy P.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
QuoteOK, so this "hypothetical" discussion is indeed set in the context of what Obama wants Congress to do. So asking if force is included in the congressional bill IS a relevant question. Thanks for the clarification.
the question itself is a valid question, if you would just come out and ask it, although as it pertains to this discussion, the answer isn't quite so relevant. i'll give you a straight answer. i don't honestly know if its in the bill. whether it is or isn't at this time (while maybe relevant to this discussion) doesn't have any bearing on the answer to my question. can we move on now?
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteI'll buy you a case of beer if you can find the division, title and subtitle in the bill where elimination of private programs is proposed.
Ah, so clever, I see.
Hey, if I start a competing company and give it a trillion dollar subsidy, that's not going to put anyone out of business is it?
Sorry, that argument won't wash.
As Wendy pointed out a page or so back, no doctor is FORCED to accept insurance patients anyway - not even in the UK. Many only take private patients.
And as the OP pointed out in the thread starter, this is about the doctors that *DO* take insurance.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuoteI'll buy you a case of beer if you can find the division, title and subtitle in the bill where elimination of private programs is proposed.
Ah, so clever, I see.
Hey, if I start a competing company and give it a trillion dollar subsidy, that's not going to put anyone out of business is it?
Depends. You seem to be referring to the effects of competition in the marketplace. OK. Seems to me, if the "subsidized" company delivers shitty service - the way all the nay-sayers say will happen with a proposed universal health care service - then customers who choose to vote with their feet will continue to patronize the other companies, keeping those other companies quite
TomAiello 26
How is your reply relevant?
If I start a government insurance company, and give it a huge subsidy, that's not going to put private insurers out of business?
If I start a government insurance company, and give it a huge subsidy, that's not going to put private insurers out of business?
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
TomAiello 26
QuoteYou seem to be referring to the effects of competition in the marketplace. OK. Seems to me, if the "subsidized" company delivers shitty service - the way all the nay-sayers say will happen with a proposed universal health care service - then customers who choose to vote with their feet will continue to patronize the other companies, keeping those other companies quite
healthy, I'd think.
Because there's a level playing field between a private company and one that receives a huge government subsidy? So they each charge relatively similar rates for what you get?
How does that work?
Imagine that I started giving out Yugos for free. And suddenly, Toyota saw a huge drop in their market share, because all those people buying $20,000 Camry's suddenly realized they could get a (not as nice) Yugo, for free. Would that show, somehow, that the Yugo was a better product than the Camry?
You can't claim that your company is "better" or even "more efficient" if the device it uses to "win" in the competitive market is a government subsidy.
I realize that you, Kallend, and Rahm Emmanuel (who I heard make the same argument) all realize your argument is fallacious. I just can't believe that people keep making it, over and over.
How can the competition be "fair" if one side gets a huge government subsidy and the other doesn't?
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
TomAiello 26
QuoteIt would be interesting to hear what percentage of doctors are, in fact, private only (or that accept both NHS and private insurance) in GB. Wikipedia doesn't provide that information, and I'll admit to being too lazy to go look.
It would also be interesting to see the percentages (and change over time) of US doctors who do and don't take medicare and private insurance. I'll see if I can find some.
Anecdotally, I'd guess that the number of US doctors who've gone to a purely cash (not taking any insurance) practice has risen steeply in the lat 10 years.
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuoteYou seem to be referring to the effects of competition in the marketplace. OK. Seems to me, if the "subsidized" company delivers shitty service - the way all the nay-sayers say will happen with a proposed universal health care service - then customers who choose to vote with their feet will continue to patronize the other companies, keeping those other companies quite
healthy, I'd think.
Because there's a level playing field between a private company and one that receives a huge government subsidy?
How does that work?
You can't claim that your company is "better" or even "more efficient" if the device it uses to "win" in the competitive market is a government subsidy.
I realize that you, Kallend, and Rahm Emmanuel (who I heard make the same argument) all realize your argument is fallacious. I just can't believe that people keep making it, over and over.
How can the competition be "fair" if one side gets a huge government subsidy and the other doesn't?
Aside from the fact that you don't know my mind - let's you and I not do that, ok? - the argument is not fallacious. The only way the subsidized plan can use its money to win in the competitive marketplace is by offering competitively quality services. If its quality is reasonably good, but at a much lower cost, then it deserves to win. But if its quality, despite the subsidy, winds up being as shitty as the nay-sayers all direly predict it will, then consumers will choose other available options.
kallend 2,027
QuoteHow is your reply relevant?
If I start a government insurance company, and give it a huge subsidy, that's not going to put private insurers out of business?
No - we have a good example of co-existence already: Public universities have not put private universities and liberal arts colleges out of business. Last time I checked Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cornell, Grinnell, Beloit, Brown ... and about 2,000 others were doing fine.
University of Chicago (private) tuition $38,000
University of Illinois (state subsidized) tuition $9,000
By your reckoning, U of C should have gone out of business long ago. Well, it didn't.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'll buy you a case of beer if you can find the division, title and subtitle in the bill where elimination of private programs is proposed.
Ah, so clever, I see.
Hey, if I start a competing company and give it a trillion dollar subsidy, that's not going to put anyone out of business is it?
Sorry, that argument won't wash.
As Wendy pointed out a page or so back, no doctor is FORCED to accept insurance patients anyway - not even in the UK. Many only take private patients.
And as the OP pointed out in the thread starter, this is about the doctors that *DO* take insurance.
I do not read it that way, and anyway, they STILL have the option of going to private practice. The operative word here is FORCED, and nowhere in any proposal is FORCE explicitly or implicitly present.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
TomAiello 26
QuoteThe only way the subsidized plan can use its money to win in the competitive marketplace is by offering competitively quality services.
Not true at all!
Competition in the marketplace is determined by (chiefly, there are other factors) two things: Price and Quality. If the Quality is the same, but the price is lower, you'll sell more. If the quality is lower, and the price is lower, you might still sell more (and put people with a higher quality, but more expensive product out of business).
Which do you want, the free Yugo or the $20k Camry? If you pick the Yugo, that doesn't mean it's better.
If I give something away for free, it doesn't have to be better, or even of the same quality, or even of close quality, to compete. It's free. People will take it for just that reason. Even if it's a bit worse than the alternative (which would cost them money).
You can't claim that the competition will be based only on quality when one alternative is priced at zero.
QuoteIf its quality is reasonably good, but at a much lower cost, then it deserves to win.
Not if the reason for the lower cost is a government subsidy.
Let's imagine two products, A and B.
A and B are of identical quality and identical price.
A costs $1000. B costs $1000. They sell about the same.
Now the government steps in, and subsidizes B, providing it for $0 to anyone who wants it.
Unsurprisingly, company A goes out of business, as they have no sales. Company B is now the monopolist in this marketplace, not because they had a better product, or because they had a cheaper product, but because they had a government subsidy.
This is not a result of B being better, or cheaper. It is not a result of fair marketplace interaction. It is purely the result of the government action. The government action has eliminated consumer choice, has cost the taxpayers a load of money, and has driven company A out of business.
Now another example:
Let's imagine the same two products, A and B.
B is priced at $500, but is only about half as good as A. A is still priced at $1000.
The two products sell, at some relation to each other determined by consumer preference and choice.
Again, the government steps in and subsidizes B, so that it is available for purchase at $0.
Again, the balance is shifted, and more people buy B than would have done so at it's original (true) $500 price point. If enough people make that switch, it drives A out of business again.
And we can have the same result as in the first example, despite B's obviously lower quality.
The government intervention has eliminated consumer choice, cost the taxpayers a load of money and reduced the quality of the product available on the market.
All this despite the fact that B could never compete with A on quality--only on price.
A third example:
This time, we've got the same initial conditions as the second example, above. A costs $1000, B costs $500. A is twice as good as B. The two sell in some quantity determined by consumer choice.
Along comes the government again. It wants to make sure that everyone has at least one of this product, either A or B.
Instead of subsidizing either product, the government simply hands out vouchers for $500, redeemable on the purchase of either A or B.
Now, effectively, the price for B is $0 (so we know everyone will get something), but the price for A is $500.
You may or may not drive company A out of business. That depends on consumer preference and choices. The playing field still isn't level and fair, but it's not as steeply sloped as before.
But, you've achieved your goal of having one product or the other available to everyone. And you've done it in a way that is less likely to drive company A out of business.
Here, you've maintained some consumer choice, you've given company A some chance of staying in business, and you've maintained the quality of product available in the marketplace. But you're still reaching your goal of providing the product to everyone.
Personally, I'd prefer that we simply not have the government interfering in the marketplace.
But if your goal is to have the product available to everyone, there is absolutely no reason to go with scenario 1 or 2, above. Scenario 3 makes the most sense on many grounds.
What's the downside to following the third way? Do you see any?
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
TomAiello 26
QuoteLast time I checked Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cornell, Grinnell, Beloit, Brown ... and about 2,000 others were doing fine.
"Doing fine" may be a bit of an overstatement.
Did you not follow the news last year, when all of the private colleges were having huge budget problems, at least partially on account of the economy making people choose the cheaper alternatives?
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteAnd as the OP pointed out in the thread starter, this is about the doctors that *DO* take insurance.
I do not read it that way
There are three explicit mentions of insurance in the title and body of the post, as well as mentions of medicare and tricare.
Your CHOICE of interpretation does not make it fact.
Quoteand anyway, they STILL have the option of going to private practice.
Immaterial to the discussion - as stated, we are discussing doctors that DO take insurance. Feel free to start your own thread on cash-basis doctors, however.
QuoteThe operative word here is FORCED, and nowhere in any proposal is FORCE explicitly or implicitly present.
Show where he said it WAS!!! He asked if it was POSSIBLE, hence the sentence "would congress also have to enact a law requiring all doctors to accept government insurance?".
Evidently reading isn't all that fundamental anymore.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
turtlespeed 221
QuoteIf its quality is reasonably good, but at a much lower cost, then it deserves to win. But if its quality, despite the subsidy, winds up being as shitty as the nay-sayers all direly predict it will, then consumers will choose other available options.
And that is why Walmat succeeds - Right?
Or MAYBE - the public doesn't KNOW what quality really is and willaccept the cheaper, less durable, lower quality goods and serviuces because they are told it is the same, wether it is or not.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd as the OP pointed out in the thread starter, this is about the doctors that *DO* take insurance.
I do not read it that way
There are three explicit mentions of insurance in the title and body of the post, as well as mentions of medicare and tricare.
Your CHOICE of interpretation does not make it fact.Quoteand anyway, they STILL have the option of going to private practice.
Immaterial to the discussion - as stated, we are discussing doctors that DO take insurance. Feel free to start your own thread on cash-basis doctors, however.QuoteThe operative word here is FORCED, and nowhere in any proposal is FORCE explicitly or implicitly present.
Show where he said it WAS!!! He asked if it was POSSIBLE, hence the sentence "would congress also have to enact a law requiring all doctors to accept government insurance?".
Evidently reading isn't all that fundamental anymore.
Well, your LOGIC is clearly faulty here. I'll leave it to you to figure out how you've just faulted your own position.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteLast time I checked Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cornell, Grinnell, Beloit, Brown ... and about 2,000 others were doing fine.
"Doing fine" may be a bit of an overstatement.
Did you not follow the news last year, when all of the private colleges were having huge budget problems, at least partially on account of the economy making people choose the cheaper alternatives?
The publics aren't doing any better - in fact they may well be doing worse.
Fact is, public education has been available for generations and has NOT put private education out of business.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
TomAiello 26
QuoteFact is, public education has been available for generations and has NOT put private education out of business.
Are those public universities free?
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteFact is, public education has been available for generations and has NOT put private education out of business.
Are those public universities free?
Depends on the circumstances of the student and his/her family. Rather like the healthcare proposal.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
turtlespeed 221
QuoteQuoteQuoteFact is, public education has been available for generations and has NOT put private education out of business.
Are those public universities free?
Depends on the circumstances of the student and his/her family. Rather like the healthcare proposal.
Ok what are the circumstances that make it "free"?
As I understand life - NOTHING is free and never has been.
SOMEONE pays, SOMEONE always does. I'm sick and tiered of it being ME that pays.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
what exactly are you getting at? are you intentionally mis-understanding my words or do i need to clarify them. i thought my original post was pretty clear. do i need to expand on the "get what he wants" part? i'm sure you know what he wants just as i do, he tells us just about every couple of days. is forcing doctors to accept govt insurance what he wants? i don't know, he hasn't said. i also never claimed that he did want to force it on doctors. the "if obama gets what he wants..." line certainly isn't a throw away line, it is the pretext for the entire discussion. if you need further clarification, just ask me what you want clarified.
btw, i realize you understand perfectly what i'm talking about, you're just amusing yourself and i'm taking the bait.
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites