Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Obamacare is upheld


wiegie
 Share

Recommended Posts

You should google Germany and Switzerland and see what their times are like (since their systems are much closer to what the US system will be like under Obamacare). [note: I don't know what the answers will be, I only know from my own personal experience in Germany and Switzerland that wait times were low/non-existent]

 

 

I have no expertise in economics. You do. Are Germany and Switzerland comparable economies to the U.S. in other ways? Is this a good comparison or are these uniquely productive economies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the whole thread and don't intend to. I am just curious - given the long standing and well documented record of the Federal government when it intrudes into the private sector, are there seriously people in this country who think that the addition of a Federal layer of beauracracy into the health care system will actually reduce costs, and improve the system? That's just mindnumbing.

 

 

Given the fact that US spends more on health care than any other nation, while the WHO ranks our quality 37th best in the world, effectively dispells the notion that less gubbment always equals better and cheaper.

Edited by bushwacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo mama, have you even reviewed the Act? It would allow for people to remain uninsured for $750 a year penalty, and then sign up immediately sUbsequent to a significant event and be fully covered for treatment of the effects of the event. The system is rigged to be gamed. How do you think that will affect premiums of those who carry insurance full time, especially when the scammers can not be refused by the insurance companies per the law?

 

Further and very importantly, do you think the provisions of the Act listed above promote people signing up for health insurance or dropping their coverage?

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the fact that US spends more on health care than any other nation, while the WHO ranks our quality 37th best in the world, effectively dispells the notion that less gubbment always equals better and cheaper.

 

 

Or it dispells the notion that you are a critical thinkier, if, you know, somebody were to have had that notion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo mama, have you even reviewed the Act? It wouls allow for people to remain uninsured for $750 a year penalty, and then sign up immediately sUbsequent to a significant event and be fully covered for treatment of the effects of the event. The system is rigged to be gamed. How do you think that will affect premiums of those who carry insurance full time, especially when the scammers can not be refused by the insurance companies per the law?

 

 

This is what anyone who can think critically should see - the confluence of the low penalty and no pre-existing condition clause creates a situation whereby insurance companies WILL be bankrupted. And no one thinks this former Harvard Law Review guy gets that?

 

This is about doing what they could politically afford at this time to ensure socialized medicine in the near future. I've been saying that for however long the debate over obamacare has gone on and I haven't seen any credible dispute of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo mama, have you even reviewed the Act? It would allow for people to remain uninsured for $750 a year penalty, and then sign up immediately sUbsequent to a significant event and be fully covered for treatment of the effects of the event. The system is rigged to be gamed. How do you think that will affect premiums of those who carry insurance full time, especially when the scammers can not be refused by the insurance companies per the law?

 

Further and very importantly, do you think the provisions of the Act listed above promote people signing up for health insurance or dropping their coverage?

 

BB - You just don't get it!!

 

Yes you are right people will scam the system. Like soemone else mentioned above - the rich will be taxed more to cover it and that just seems to be OK. Hey why not - just have the rich pay for it. I really don't understand why people are so OK with that???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol gbp. I wonder if anyone has the date handy when this country determined that being wealthy - and aspiring to that by hard work and initiative - became an evil thing in this country. A guy builds a company fron scratch and makes it into a $1M a year profit center for him, in the process employing 50 people full time and paying corporate taxes the whole time for years, and suddenly he's one of the most greedy and loathsome creatures on the face of the planet to progressives. His wealth exists only for the government to take it and pay for others in the name of social justice and fairness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do they not teach southerners how to use teh google? They must be afraid you'd rise again if you gained full power of the interwebs.

 

The US ER might be a little more efficient (so they can cycle through more customers), but I don't believe your numbers.

 

http://en.wikipedia....nada#Wait_times

 

Your Canadian numbers are of average time in the ER (probably for a particular province which can be affected by rurality). So that means there complete time of being triaged and treated until being discharged or admitted is about 7 hours at low (if your numbers are correct which when checked against the first website I found is not the case).

 

Here are a couple stories that say the US average is a little over 4 hours.

 

http://www.upi.com/H...6891280122494/.

 

http://articles.busi...ah-pulse-report

 

Per the Ontario province website (picked for no other reason than it was the first one that came up in google).

 

http://edrs.waittime...ary.aspx?view=1

 

Time Spent in the Emergency Room (9 out of 10 patients)

Current (Hours) -- May 2012

Complex conditions /requiring more time for diagnosis, treatment or hospital bed admission - 10.5

Admitted Patients - 27.9

Non-Admitted Patients - 7.2

Minor or uncomplicated conditions /requiring less time for diagnosis, treatment or observation - 4.2

 

I think those times are reasonable and comparable to the US system. I doubt the majority of Canadians would be interested in giving up their healthcare system for ours. Oh, Canada pays about half per capita as the US. So that money is well spent. Thank god we don't have some socialist single payer system where we could still outspend every other country in the world and save money over the current system while providing healthcare for all along with several other positive side effects of single payer. :usa:

 

 

Your first article states this...

Dr. Angela Gardner, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, who assessed the Press Ganey's Pulse Report 2010, says the report reveals the average length of stay in a U.S. emergency department increased to 4 hours, 7 minutes.

 

But, there is always this from MSNBC:

 

Pitts added that 56 minutes may be the average, but it’s not typical: The average was skewed to nearly an hour because of some very long waits.

“Half of people had waiting times of 31 minutes or less,” Pitts noted

 

 

 

Now, I looked at multiple articles regarding the "wait times", some of them distill the info differently, categorizing "wait time" as length of stay, hence, my giving the range. Further, some articles conflict with one another regarding these times.

 

So, the average length of stay in a US ER is 4 hours, 7 minutes and, we'll use your numbers, the avg length of stay in CA is 7 hours, 75% greater, that seems to be reasonably close...

 

Your whole "rurality" argument could well apply to the US. But, I'll let you use the innernets to prove that, as your research ability is more advanced than mine.

 

And Canada, as of 2010, pays a bit more than half (since we want to be all believing of numbers and stuff) of what the US does on a per capita basis... Canada $5,614 per capita/US $8,402 per capita.

 

Further, even with the new HC bill, you will not see a drop to Canadian levels in HC spending in the US if the govt payment structure remains the same as it currently is (in the HC bill). There is a recent article out there, I'll let you employ your google skills to find it, that outlines the fact that the US will still pay great deal more, through our govt programs, for same services than do Canada or the UK (or the rest of the industrialized world, for that matter.)

 

You then get into the whole other problem of our 14 million illegals who use the emergency rooms already, an issue that is not quite as prevalent in Canada.

 

To distill the arguments against the HC bill:

1. The prexisting condition clause causes a bunch of issues

2. The increase of patients will lead to less efficient distribution of services by primary care physicians who will not be able to handle the workload. Therefore, all of this great preventive care that you guys are championing will not be delivered as there are not enough physicians to dispense the care.

3. Lowering payments to doctors and hospitals will not increase the number of those becoming doctors.

4. The penalties for not having insurance are waaaay to lenient to actually trigger someone to buy insurance prior to having an issue.

5. THe taxes levied against spam and medical equipment providers will increase the cost of their products as they will pass said tax on to the consumer.

6. There are many others, but I just don't have the energy.

Edited by SEC=UGA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the fact that US spends more on health care than any other nation, while the WHO ranks our quality 37th best in the world, effectively dispells the notion that less gubbment always equals better and cheaper.

 

 

Figured it would be you that would bring up a United Nations 2000 study as some rallying cry. While I am certain you have not read this study as it is ridiculous as any form of a justification model.

 

I have included a 2008 analysis from Michael Tanner that is a more appropriate comparison of health systems around the world.

 

Of course Whacked probably wants to run to San Marino because this country of around 31,000 has the 3rd best WHO system. Better hope it is nothing serious for if it is, the USA is by far and away the place to be.

 

That said; Anyone that wants to better understand Healthcare and systems around the world should read this as it is a very good starting point regardless of ones system preference.

 

http://www.cato.org/.../pas/pa-613.pdf

Edited by Ice1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, now I'm participating in the debate when I know better. The true believers can't be swayed.

 

 

 

It's like rain on your wedding day

It's a free ride when you've already paid

It's the good advice that you just didn't take

Who would've thought... it figures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo mama, have you even reviewed the Act? It would allow for people to remain uninsured for $750 a year penalty, and then sign up immediately sUbsequent to a significant event and be fully covered for treatment of the effects of the event. The system is rigged to be gamed. How do you think that will affect premiums of those who carry insurance full time, especially when the scammers can not be refused by the insurance companies per the law?

 

Further and very importantly, do you think the provisions of the Act listed above promote people signing up for health insurance or dropping their coverage?

 

That's counter intuitive. Why pay $750 for nothing, when you can pay $750 and get insurance? It stands to reason that if someone is really so bad off as to avoid purchasing insurance, why wouldn't they want to actually get some for the money they have to pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or it dispells the notion that you are a critical thinkier, if, you know, somebody were to have had that notion.

 

 

BB states "govt. never makes anything better," and then labels statstics as talking points, while you take it upon yourself to state this. What an extra special little tag team you 2 are in the tailgate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's counter intuitive. Why pay $750 for nothing, when you can pay $750 and get insurance? It stands to reason that if someone is really so bad off as to avoid purchasing insurance, why wouldn't they want to actually get some for the money they have to pay?

 

 

Please direct me to the place where one can procure am insurance policy with a $750 annual premium.

 

Here's how you game the system. Pay your $750 penalty, perpetually until you have an accident or get sick. At that time call up an insurance company, get insurance, pay the premium. Go to the doctor and receive care. After all care is rendered, drop insurance policy. You pay two, three, eight months of premiums, at most and then go back on your $750 per year penalty until an ailment strikes again. One can save tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime by doing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BB states "govt. never makes anything better," and then labels statstics as talking points, while you take it upon yourself to state this. What an extra special little tag team you 2 are in the tailgate.

 

 

Other than war what has the government ever perfected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than war what has the government ever perfected?

 

 

Who is claiming that the govt is "perfect?" I am simply taking issue with BB's statement (the genuine talking point) that gubbment never makes anything better. Sometimes it's neccesary for govt. to be an active entity. I am sure you'll probably disagree with these ..but here are a few things that turned out okay and likely would have been worse in the Ayn Rand utopia so many seem fascinated with these days.

 

Nasa, FAA, Army Corp of Engineer damn system (provides power and historians credit the power generation advantage in winning WW2), fed highway commission, FBI, police depts, fire depts, public librariers, fed election commissions, public health agencies, uniform building codes, CDC.......

 

Again, no matter how much one feels the need to attack the source, we spend more money on HC than anyone and are far and away from providing the highest quality and sustainable system for our society as a whole. BB's talking point is dispelled.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is claiming that the govt is "perfect?" I am simply taking issue with BB's statement (the genuine talking point) that gubbment never makes anything better. Sometimes it's neccesary for govt. to be an active entity. I am sure you'll probably disagree with these ..but here are a few things that turned out okay and likely would have been worse in the Ayn Rand utopia so many seem fascinated with these days.

 

Nasa, FAA, Army Corp of Engineer damn system (provides power and historians credit the power generation advantage in winning WW2), fed highway commission, FBI, police depts, fire depts, public librariers, fed election commissions, public health agencies, uniform building codes, CDC.......

 

Again, no matter how much one feels the need to attack the source, we spend more money on HC than anyone and are far and away from providing the highest quality and sustainable system for our society as a whole. BB's talking point is dispelled.

 

 

I was being a smartass and not really looking for a response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please direct me to the place where one can procure am insurance policy with a $750 annual premium.

 

Here's how you game the system. Pay your $750 penalty, perpetually until you have an accident or get sick. At that time call up an insurance company, get insurance, pay the premium. Go to the doctor and receive care. After all care is rendered, drop insurance policy. You pay two, three, eight months of premiums, at most and then go back on your $750 per year penalty until an ailment strikes again. One can save tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime by doing this.

 

You are correct, I should have indicated the difference between the penalty amount and the premium amount, however, the argument remains the same. Why throw away the $750?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo mama, have you even reviewed the Act? It would allow for people to remain uninsured for $750 a year penalty, and then sign up immediately sUbsequent to a significant event and be fully covered for treatment of the effects of the event. The system is rigged to be gamed. How do you think that will affect premiums of those who carry insurance full time, especially when the scammers can not be refused by the insurance companies per the law?

 

Further and very importantly, do you think the provisions of the Act listed above promote people signing up for health insurance or dropping their coverage?

 

All 2700 pages? No. And neither have you.

 

Is your concern that people with insurance will drop theirs and merely opt to pay the penalty? Is that what you plan to do? Because I don't. My insurance is awesome. As far as everyone else goes (i.e., the uninsured) I'd rather get $750 a year from them rather than the $0 a year we're currently getting.

 

The law is bound to be imperfect at first but there will be time to revise and adjust. You seem so willing to quit before even giving it a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the free market was so perfect in regards to healthcare, we wouldn't have anyone in this country complaining or demanding the government get involved.

 

A pure free market system would be THE definition of death panels. You are well off, you have insurance and healthcare. You aren't, tough luck pal. Let them die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this approach. Everyone pays sales tax. We institute a national sales tax that helps fund insurance in some manner. It is regressive in nature of course, but it would mostly be these same individuals that would benefit from the subsidies for their insurance in the exchanges. Are they still coming out ahead? Sure, but at least they are paying something into the system. Would that help satisfy all the redistribution victims of socialism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct, I should have indicated the difference between the penalty amount and the premium amount, however, the argument remains the same. Why throw away the $750?

 

Why throw away the $750? Do you not understand the nature of mandatory? You no longer have the choice not to either pay for the insurance or pay the fine (which is what it is, calling it a tax seems like nothing more than a loophole, especially considering Obama has long said it wasn't a tax... Oh wait, a tax can technically make it constitutional? Oh, well, that's what we meant in the first place :rolleyes:).

 

Thus, the better way to ask your question is: Why would I pay full premiums, when I can "waste" less and still be able to get covered when I need it.

 

I really think there's a fundamental misunderstanding about why insurance companies didn't cover pre-existing conditions, and it's exactly this, that people who hadn't paid in previously to the insurance will claim the benefits when they need to, without having contributed a dime to it previously.

 

So you're not "wasting" the $750 unless that prevents you from getting insurance when you need it. Since it doesn't, then the fine can be essentially be seen as a cheaper premium, and certainly not a waste, liek is paying a full premium when healthy when you can jsut pay a cheaper fine and claim it later... Screwing the system rocks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aging population is going to demand an increase in doctors and hospitals. This is a fact with or without Obamacare.

 

Then the question becomes:

 

1) Is this going to increase or decrease the number of available doctors, when medicare is already underpaying them?

2)Will this stand to restrict or grow competition, and oppositely, prices?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information