6 ms·

While it's true that a handful of states have health plans, it would be advantageous to have a federal health plan, due to economies of scale. Furthermore, a fe

by asnyder 16y ago

While it's true that a handful of states have health plans, it would be advantageous to have a federal health plan, due to economies of scale. Furthermore, a federal health plan would ensure some consistency from state to state, making it easier to choose between health care, or your livelihood. Remember, some of us were cursed with poor genetics and are a guaranteed loss for any health insurance company. Your statement suggesting that the government is more liberal than the population is unfounded. Recall, in the last Presidential election Barack Obama won on the currently enacted platform by a significant percentage. Furthermore, if people were actually aware and educated in political issues, it's my opinion that the country would lean more leftward. The only reason why any network or news source can possibly suggest the country is a center-right country is due to the vast perpetual amounts of mis-information and political propaganda. It's also my opinion that the "Tea Party" are bogeyman. Their entire platform is empty of anything constructive, instead the platform seeks to incite, destroy, and push people apart. One need only look at Tea Party donor records to see who the Tea Party truly represents.

anamax 16y ago
> One need only look at Tea Party donor records to see who the Tea Party truly represents. How about a link?
- asnyder 16y ago
  I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was necessary to make it so convenient for you. I expect the readers of HN are capable of doing Google searches or browsing through http://www.opensecrets.org/ http://www.opensecrets.org/. Next time I'll be sure to include a complete list of references.
  - natep 16y ago
    While you have been around HN longer than I have, I believe the general feeling of HN is that the burden of proof is on the claimant, which would be you. So yes, please do include a list of references next time.
    - asnyder 16y ago
      You don't find it a little odd that you feel it necessary that I provide the links and resources to easily findable information, but the commenter who I replied to need not substantiate his claims in a similar way? Especially when the burden of proof for those statements are much higher? In any event, downvote away. Let your prejudices rein supreme.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > You don't find it a little odd that you feel it necessary that I provide the links and resources to easily findable information, but the commenter who I replied to need not substantiate his claims in a similar way? Most of what he posted was his opinion. How would he substantiated that what he posted is actually his opinion? You made a readily verifiable claim and got it wrong. In doing so, you actually provided evidence supporting one of his points.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > I expect the readers of HN are capable of doing Google searches or browsing through http://www.opensecrets.org/ http://www.opensecrets.org/. I've done the searches - they don't show what you claimed. I asked because I could have missed something. So let's use your link and see what we find. http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=tea+party http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=tea+party shows three organizations, all local, which have raised $150k, $13k, and less than $1k. That pretty much disproves your claim.
    - asnyder 16y ago
      What sort of nonsense is this? You do a search for tea party, which yields some small local organizations, with relatively no donations. When I refer to tea party, I'm referring to actual candidates. For example, Sharron Angle, Mark Rubio, Rand Paul. Look at the PAC donations to these people. Look at the sort of people who contribute. You do a poor search and then conclude that I'm wrong based on your poor research ability.
      - sigstoat 16y ago
        it isn't clear to me how he was supposed to realize that by "tea party" you were actually referring to a specific list of politicians you had in mind, but had not named. would a different list of tea party-connected politicians suffice, or did he specifically need to guess those three in order to have good "research ability"?
anamax 16y ago
> While it's true that a handful of states have health plans, it would be advantageous to have a federal health plan, due to economies of scale. Umm, the federal govt already runs a couple of massive health care systems. They don't do what single payer advocates promise, so why do you think that obamacare will? I think that we should have given obama free reign wrt the healthcare of folks who currently get their healthcare from govt. Yes, military, state, local, and federal employees, Indian Health Service, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on. We give him 2 years at the current budget then we cut 5% per covered person in the next four years. That's just over 20% which should be trivial given the promises of 30% savings. If the covered population is better off at the end of that time, we can talk about expanding it.
- asnyder 16y ago
  Umm, the federal govt already runs a couple of massive health care systems. They don't do what single payer advocates promise, so why do you think that obamacare will? What are you talking about? Members of VA, Medicare and Medicaid love their programs. You'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to give up their Medicare or VA benefits. Medicare would do what a single payer advocates, if only we didn't include sweetheart deals. For example, Medicare Advantage, signed into law by Bush, and lobbied heavily for by the Insurance industry, did nothing but funnel money into private companies for the same benefits Medicare was already offering. These programs would do what they're suppose to, if they weren't manipulated by corporate lobbyists or gutted by party partisans. So it's not surprising that when a program is legislated into the ground, those most responsible for those changes are the first ones to advocate the program's end. Interesting how that works. Unfortunately, I'm not a member of the armed forces, don't qualify for Medicare, and not impoverished enough for Medicaid. If it wasn't for the recently passed health reform legislation my only option would be to crawl in some corner and die. Thankfully my President helped to change that, and for the first time in over a year I'll finally be able to see my Neurologist and get that MRI I desperately need.
  - shasta 16y ago
    > "Unfortunately, I'm not a member of the armed forces, don't qualify for Medicare, and not impoverished enough for Medicaid." I think you mean, "unfortunately, I don't have insurance." Getting sick without insurance is a bummer, but if you're trying to get "insurance" after you get sick, that's not "insurance", it's "charity." Not that I know your circumstances or would necessarily mind chipping in my part to your getting the medical help you need.
jerf 16y ago
"economies of scale" What economies of scale kick in at a hundred million that you don't have at ten million? Economies of scale have diminishing returns and those diminishing returns kick in long before the size of an American state, let alone at the national scale. The very real costs of having no competition will utterly dominate your economies of scale anyhow. And by dominate, I mean, utterly dominate.
- falien 16y ago
  Only 22 states have more than 5 million people. They have even fewer households. The whole idea of economies of scale is that they work better the bigger they are. Depending on the application there will usually be an equilibrium point, but your definition seems to be inverted. (And what serious politician was arguing for an immediate single payer system? Public option is just a government competitor to private companies)
  - jerf 16y ago
    "The whole idea of economies of scale is that they work better the bigger they are." You just blipped over my point and did nothing to address it. Economies of scale aren't magical. They have diminishing returns. What economy of scale do you get at 100 million that you don't get at 10 million? That's a real question. If you can't answer it, or you answer it with something that just boils down to "Uh, something", you haven't countered my point. But you know, even that's beside the point. People have completely lost the ability to understand freedom nowadays, which is why we're going to lose it. The alternative isn't "Federal plan or nothing", it's not even "Federal plan or 50 state plans", it's "Federal plan or States acting on their own". Believe it or not, and I realize this may be a cognitive shock which I recommend you actually think on for a moment, if poor little Rhode Island doesn't want to strike out on its own, it can actually form a partnership with, say, Delaware. Or nowadays for all geography matters, with California. If that doesn't work out, it can leave, it isn't stuck. Or it can choose to go on its own. Or it can leave it up to its counties. Or it can say "stuff it" and stick with a regulated private system. If the economies of scale are so all-important, than you shouldn't need to force people to take advantage of them at the point of a gun, they should choose it on their own! (The real problem is that there almost certainly aren't any hidden economies of scale left. Where would they be hiding? Big Medicine is pretty Big already. "Economies of scale" is just an argument people make and hope you don't think about the argument too hard.) It's never a choice between "the Feds do it" or "we sit on our hands", unless you've become so helpless that that really is your only choice. (And "you have to do everything on your own" isn't the other choice either. There's a ton of other options.) And then we can find out what really works, because no plan survives contact with the enemy. Not even Federal plans.

by asnyder 16y ago

anamax 16y ago

> One need only look at Tea Party donor records to see who the Tea Party truly represents. How about a link?

asnyder 16y ago
I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was necessary to make it so convenient for you. I expect the readers of HN are capable of doing Google searches or browsing through http://www.opensecrets.org/ http://www.opensecrets.org/. Next time I'll be sure to include a complete list of references.
- natep 16y ago
  While you have been around HN longer than I have, I believe the general feeling of HN is that the burden of proof is on the claimant, which would be you. So yes, please do include a list of references next time.
  - asnyder 16y ago
    You don't find it a little odd that you feel it necessary that I provide the links and resources to easily findable information, but the commenter who I replied to need not substantiate his claims in a similar way? Especially when the burden of proof for those statements are much higher? In any event, downvote away. Let your prejudices rein supreme.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > You don't find it a little odd that you feel it necessary that I provide the links and resources to easily findable information, but the commenter who I replied to need not substantiate his claims in a similar way? Most of what he posted was his opinion. How would he substantiated that what he posted is actually his opinion? You made a readily verifiable claim and got it wrong. In doing so, you actually provided evidence supporting one of his points.
- anamax 16y ago
  > I expect the readers of HN are capable of doing Google searches or browsing through http://www.opensecrets.org/ http://www.opensecrets.org/. I've done the searches - they don't show what you claimed. I asked because I could have missed something. So let's use your link and see what we find. http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=tea+party http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=tea+party shows three organizations, all local, which have raised $150k, $13k, and less than $1k. That pretty much disproves your claim.
  - asnyder 16y ago
    What sort of nonsense is this? You do a search for tea party, which yields some small local organizations, with relatively no donations. When I refer to tea party, I'm referring to actual candidates. For example, Sharron Angle, Mark Rubio, Rand Paul. Look at the PAC donations to these people. Look at the sort of people who contribute. You do a poor search and then conclude that I'm wrong based on your poor research ability.
    - sigstoat 16y ago
      it isn't clear to me how he was supposed to realize that by "tea party" you were actually referring to a specific list of politicians you had in mind, but had not named. would a different list of tea party-connected politicians suffice, or did he specifically need to guess those three in order to have good "research ability"?

anamax 16y ago

> While it's true that a handful of states have health plans, it would be advantageous to have a federal health plan, due to economies of scale. Umm, the federal govt already runs a couple of massive health care systems. They don't do what single payer advocates promise, so why do you think that obamacare will? I think that we should have given obama free reign wrt the healthcare of folks who currently get their healthcare from govt. Yes, military, state, local, and federal employees, Indian Health Service, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on. We give him 2 years at the current budget then we cut 5% per covered person in the next four years. That's just over 20% which should be trivial given the promises of 30% savings. If the covered population is better off at the end of that time, we can talk about expanding it.

asnyder 16y ago
Umm, the federal govt already runs a couple of massive health care systems. They don't do what single payer advocates promise, so why do you think that obamacare will? What are you talking about? Members of VA, Medicare and Medicaid love their programs. You'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to give up their Medicare or VA benefits. Medicare would do what a single payer advocates, if only we didn't include sweetheart deals. For example, Medicare Advantage, signed into law by Bush, and lobbied heavily for by the Insurance industry, did nothing but funnel money into private companies for the same benefits Medicare was already offering. These programs would do what they're suppose to, if they weren't manipulated by corporate lobbyists or gutted by party partisans. So it's not surprising that when a program is legislated into the ground, those most responsible for those changes are the first ones to advocate the program's end. Interesting how that works. Unfortunately, I'm not a member of the armed forces, don't qualify for Medicare, and not impoverished enough for Medicaid. If it wasn't for the recently passed health reform legislation my only option would be to crawl in some corner and die. Thankfully my President helped to change that, and for the first time in over a year I'll finally be able to see my Neurologist and get that MRI I desperately need.
- shasta 16y ago
  > "Unfortunately, I'm not a member of the armed forces, don't qualify for Medicare, and not impoverished enough for Medicaid." I think you mean, "unfortunately, I don't have insurance." Getting sick without insurance is a bummer, but if you're trying to get "insurance" after you get sick, that's not "insurance", it's "charity." Not that I know your circumstances or would necessarily mind chipping in my part to your getting the medical help you need.

jerf 16y ago

"economies of scale" What economies of scale kick in at a hundred million that you don't have at ten million? Economies of scale have diminishing returns and those diminishing returns kick in long before the size of an American state, let alone at the national scale. The very real costs of having no competition will utterly dominate your economies of scale anyhow. And by dominate, I mean, utterly dominate.

falien 16y ago
Only 22 states have more than 5 million people. They have even fewer households. The whole idea of economies of scale is that they work better the bigger they are. Depending on the application there will usually be an equilibrium point, but your definition seems to be inverted. (And what serious politician was arguing for an immediate single payer system? Public option is just a government competitor to private companies)
- jerf 16y ago
  "The whole idea of economies of scale is that they work better the bigger they are." You just blipped over my point and did nothing to address it. Economies of scale aren't magical. They have diminishing returns. What economy of scale do you get at 100 million that you don't get at 10 million? That's a real question. If you can't answer it, or you answer it with something that just boils down to "Uh, something", you haven't countered my point. But you know, even that's beside the point. People have completely lost the ability to understand freedom nowadays, which is why we're going to lose it. The alternative isn't "Federal plan or nothing", it's not even "Federal plan or 50 state plans", it's "Federal plan or States acting on their own". Believe it or not, and I realize this may be a cognitive shock which I recommend you actually think on for a moment, if poor little Rhode Island doesn't want to strike out on its own, it can actually form a partnership with, say, Delaware. Or nowadays for all geography matters, with California. If that doesn't work out, it can leave, it isn't stuck. Or it can choose to go on its own. Or it can leave it up to its counties. Or it can say "stuff it" and stick with a regulated private system. If the economies of scale are so all-important, than you shouldn't need to force people to take advantage of them at the point of a gun, they should choose it on their own! (The real problem is that there almost certainly aren't any hidden economies of scale left. Where would they be hiding? Big Medicine is pretty Big already. "Economies of scale" is just an argument people make and hope you don't think about the argument too hard.) It's never a choice between "the Feds do it" or "we sit on our hands", unless you've become so helpless that that really is your only choice. (And "you have to do everything on your own" isn't the other choice either. There's a ton of other options.) And then we can find out what really works, because no plan survives contact with the enemy. Not even Federal plans.