Tonik Posted March 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 gotta love the alarmist republican talking points... Yea, kind of like you earlier in the thread raising the alarm about people switching employers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Yea, kind of like you earlier in the thread raising the alarm about people switching employers. it's a far cry from "death panels" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Death panels, or not....All government assistance is rationed on some level. If you disagree, you're an idiot. Yes, and that's not just true with government assistance, it's true with EVERYTHING especially PRIVATE healthcare insurance. Any mention of Death Panels is the pinnacle or fucktardness - it intentionally paints a picture of tribunals of steel-faced penny-pinchers who don't care about grandma, and would rather watch her die than pay for her life-saving procedure. Except that they don't exist. It demonstrates fundamental ignorance about insurance underwriters having actuaries to determine 1) what they will and won't pay for, 2) how much they'll pay in the form of negotiated rates, 3) deductable limits, 4) per-claim limits, 5) per-individual out-of-pocket maximums and 6) per family out-of-pocket maximums. They do this based upon Risk Pools I've been prattling on about, as well as recorded treatment efficacy rates and predominant medical studies. That's how it works, and that's how insurance companies make their money - they play the game like any casino house, except that their game mechanics are far more complicated than a casino ever will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted March 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Just remember, you or your heirs can sue the private insurance companies death panels, you can also sue their IT Departments when you shit gets hacked. Neither is true of the Federal Government. In fact they don't even have to tell you when your shit gets hacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Yes, and that's not just true with government assistance, it's true with EVERYTHING especially PRIVATE healthcare insurance. Any mention of Death Panels is the pinnacle or fucktardness - it intentionally paints a picture of tribunals of steel-faced penny-pinchers who don't care about grandma, and would rather watch her die than pay for her life-saving procedure. Except that they don't exist. It demonstrates fundamental ignorance about insurance underwriters having actuaries to determine 1) what they will and won't pay for, 2) how much they'll pay in the form of negotiated rates, 3) deductable limits, 4) per-claim limits, 5) per-individual out-of-pocket maximums and 6) per family out-of-pocket maximums. They do this based upon Risk Pools I've been prattling on about, as well as recorded treatment efficacy rates and predominant medical studies. That's how it works, and that's how insurance companies make their money - they play the game like any casino house, except that their game mechanics are far more complicated than a casino ever will be. I'm trying to follow the logic, they don't exist because they have always existed? Hmm.... Ok, then lets call them "Politically Organized Risk Assessment and Disbursement Panels" The point is not that there is no decisions made but that they will be politically based instead of actuarial based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Ok, then lets call them "Politically Organized Risk Assessment and Disbursement Panels" The point is not that there is no decisions made but that they will be politically based instead of actuarial based. I agree with your term, and certainly any time humans are involved, there's room for political motivation. But that said, the potential for political motivation in analyzing risk and determining disbursement is far less likely than that of financial motivation in both private and public insurance markets. Heck, it's done every day by hospital administrators, private practitioners and public entitlement offices in the opposite direction, but where are your guys calling them "Life Panels?" Tonik, I hear what you're saying, but have you successfully sued Target yet? Or ExactTarget, Citi or any one of a dozen firms who have leaked your info? How many cases like that have you seen in 1st-world state-run healthcare systems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) I agree with your term, and certainly any time humans are involved, there's room for political motivation. But that said, the potential for political motivation in analyzing risk and determining disbursement is far less likely than that of financial motivation in both private and public insurance markets. Heck, it's done every day by hospital administrators, private practitioners and public entitlement offices in the opposite direction, but where are your guys calling them "Life Panels?" Tonik, I hear what you're saying, but have you successfully sued Target yet? Or ExactTarget, Citi or any one of a dozen firms who have leaked your info? How many cases like that have you seen in 1st-world state-run healthcare systems? I have to dis-agree. Financial motivation is just that. It's based on money as obvious as that sounds it is a single track. It is it's own self interest which by definition is based on market sources. Politically appointed panels can and will be made up of special interest groups. Lets imagine the panel is made up from former corporate officers from GlaxoSmithKline, or AstraZeneca. (which are not USA companies for added intrigue) And lets throw in some lobbyists and the not at all corrupt FDA. The result is a total lock on the USA pharmaceutical industry. Before you say it couldn't happen ask yourself if you had a billion dollar industry would you pass up that opportunity? How much would that be worth to you? How many politicians would you have to buy to get a forever monopoly on that market? Would you pass up that opportunity? Remember there is no oversight in picking the members. It is a system designed to be corrupted. Edited March 14, 2014 by Strictly Street Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 How is that different from companies that hire former regulators? I've been in the financial industry for 15 years, and while it's not the evil that some make it out to be, industry outplays government like a boss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted March 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 Tonik, I hear what you're saying, but have you successfully sued Target yet? Or ExactTarget, Citi or any one of a dozen firms who have leaked your info? How many cases like that have you seen in 1st-world state-run healthcare systems? There will be no successful suit until there are damages. So far Visa has reversed the charges and no one has had their identity stolen. So there have been no damages. Should there be any you can bet they will pay for them, one way or the other. Part of why they are offering credit monitoring is to mitigate the damage that they know they will be responsible for. AS to your second question: http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/30247/bc-healthcare-breach-affects-5-million-canadians/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/laptop-stolen-with-health-information-of-620-000-albertans-1.2507161 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 Well, Target's breach is just one example of course, and it's indicative of both a level of InfoSec incompetence and alternatively how hard it really is to truly secure personal information in the information age, no matter who you you work for... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/14/target_failed_to_act_on_security_alerts/ And I don't think we need a race to the bottom between government and corporate data stewardship - I'm pretty sure private industry is winning this decade... http://www.csoonline.com/article/700263/the-15-worst-data-security-breaches-of-the-21st-century My sustained point is that Ayn Randian worshipers of pure-profit motive should be far more sanguine about its effect throughout history. Those very folks with key financial interests are once again actively co-opting libertarian sentiment into demonizing government for the purposes of free reign (except when protectionism serves them of course - ahem HD during the mid 80s). I can say with direct experience, Government is no more or less designed for corruption than corporations are. Frequently both align through collaboration or mutually-agreed exclusion to truly screw the public. On a philosophical level, there is tremendous good that both industry and government provide - something both sides forget again and again. As it pertains to health care, it's ridicuous to demonize either one in moronic cable-tv-and-scream-radio false diadic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Street Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) I can say with direct experience, Government is no more or less designed for corruption than corporations are. Frequently both align through collaboration or mutually-agreed exclusion to truly screw the public. I think we are going to agree on this part. The only quibble I would offer is that Corporations operate under the rules set up by the Government. Which may be a chicken-egg kinda statement on a case-by-case basis. The difference seems to be that I think the ACA is one of the things that is going to screw us all in the long term and you don't. Fair enough, we see things differently. Edited March 14, 2014 by Strictly Street Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccrory Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 You may be right. I hope not. I just want it better than it was. I believe that a fundamental obligation and success criteria for humanity is basic care of our brothers and sisters. Not extravagant, but basic. I think the ACA brings us closer to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.