Health care provisions in H.R. 1

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Democrats in Washington are lucky that their Republican opponents are so stupid.

H.R. 1 contains provisions having nothing whatsoever to do with economic stimulous, but involving rationing of treatment per Cost Effectivenesss according to standards to be set by a Federal Council.

It seems likely that those most likely to find their health care reduced by such rationing are the elderly, who have some of the highest rates of voting by age demographics.

If the elderly turn on the Democrats, boy, they can kiss the 2010 elections good-bye.

[CARLHAYDEN]

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

Just remembering how Rostenkowski was attacked a few years ago when he suggested reductions in ss.

If the Republicans had any brains (well, they wouldn't have nominated McCain), but they would send out a mailer to all registered voters who are over 55 telling them about this.

[CARLHAYDEN]

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

I'm curious -- what would she prefer?  Increased federal spending with no rationing at all, or a rationing system that artificially gave credit to the elderly due to their age, at expense of the young?  Would she/you be furious at any sort of cut, because of support for universalized healthcare?

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy.

Alcon,

I will take this slow, so that there is a chance you might understand it.

First, can you comprehend no "(i)ncreased federal spending"? 

Second, why do you want government bureaucrats making health care decisions?

Third, yes I understand that you favor "universal" government controlled health care, but have you ever considered that there are people who don't share your belief?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon,

First, no increased federal spending doesn't require any "zero-sum cuts."  Can't you understand no increased federal spending?

Second, I notice you still didn't answer my question about why you want bureaucrats making health care decision.

Third, I understand you don't like having your biases illustrated, but I will continue to do so as long as you continue to try to deceive.

Finally, sorry you have such a lack of ethics. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

I'm curious -- what would she prefer?  Increased federal spending with no rationing at all, or a rationing system that artificially gave credit to the elderly due to their age, at expense of the young?  Would she/you be furious at any sort of cut, because of support for universalized healthcare?

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy.

     She would prefer more the former. She sees this as the equivalent of the Inuit putting their elderly out on an ice floe to die.

     FTR, I don't support universal health care (anymore) so much as I support a change to the system. By its nature, the health care industry seems useless if it cannot be trusted to serve its customers. Doesn't mean that I believe in getting rid of the system.

I thought you had more sense than Alcon. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARL, I haven't expressed my personal views in this topic at all.  Strawman #3.  Well-done.

     I heard this from my mother earlier today. Believe me, she was furious.

I'm curious -- what would she prefer?  Increased federal spending with no rationing at all, or a rationing system that artificially gave credit to the elderly due to their age, at expense of the young?  Would she/you be furious at any sort of cut, because of support for universalized healthcare?

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy.

     She would prefer more the former. She sees this as the equivalent of the Inuit putting their elderly out on an ice floe to die.

     FTR, I don't support universal health care (anymore) so much as I support a change to the system. By its nature, the health care industry seems useless if it cannot be trusted to serve its customers. Doesn't mean that I believe in getting rid of the system.

But if funding is limited, you have to put someone else on the ice floe.  Is putting a 24-year-old with 60 years to live out to pasture worse than cutting care to a 75-year-old?  Lower treatment efficacy, just to avoid "age discrimination"?

I'm not understanding what you're advocating in this situation.

Alcon takes a central tenant of collectivism and uses it as his base for argument.

Collectivists assume the the supply of goods/services will not improve, nor will their efficiency or price.

All of those assumptions are wrong!

First, improved diagnostics have significantly increased the effectiveness of medical treatment.

Second, many medical conditions which were untreatable sixty years ago, are not largely resolved (can you imagine a President today with polio?)

Third, research is opening up new perspectives on the treatment of a variety of medical conditions.  They don't call it the "practice" of medicine without reason.

We need to increase the genius of free enterprise to improve medical care (quantity, quality, effectiveness and price) rather than ration existing medical care.

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARL, for the fourth time, I have never expressed an opinion on this situation.

My assumptions weren't from a "collectivist" stance.  Here's the crux of my construct:

Do you have studies to support your contention that it is unreasonable to assume that increased demand for medical treatment (Baby Boomers, etc.) will be outpaced in every sphere by improvements in medical technology?  I find that contention improbable in, say, government-subsidized care for the demented elderly.  Stuff like that is not really affected by technology.  How would you maintain care without increasing federal funding, in a case like that?  Do you have evidence to show that medical improvements in treating other conditions will be enough to nullify the baby boomer "health boom" that is starting now?

Yes, you assume no significant changes in the treatment of a variety of medical conditions.

The simple truth is that treatment modalities have significantly changed over the past few decades.

Now, it is impossible to accurately prognosticate when/if a cost effective treatment for say, cancer may occur.

If you have your way, merely distributing existing levels (quantity, quality, effectiveness and cost) then there may never be improvements as you are committed to distributing existing resources rather than improving medical care resources.

When a collectivist looks at a pie, his first thought is how to distribute it (while insuring a disproportionate slice for himself) while an advocate of free enterprise thinks about how we really ought to bake more pies so that everyone will have a decent slice.

The provisions in the bill I cited at collectivist/distributionalist, as are its supporters, like you.