• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Change: Health Insurance Premiums Up 3K Under Obama

the discussion was on single payer i.e. obamacare in 2016.

So mitt romney and the GOP gave us socialized medicine? Hmm I think that is why romney praised israel's single payer system.
 
Sigh....Health care costs have been rising at 10% a year forever. So your post is not news, but this IS.

(PPACA) is doing what it was designed to do. Slow down and eventually reduce the cost of health care for more and more Americans. The PPACA, also known as Obamacare, is a complex law designed to improve the cost and distribution of health care.

That is exactly what The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation found in a recent survey of employers.

The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation's research group, Health Research & Educational Trust (HRET), conducted its annual employer survey and found that premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage rose only 4% during 2012. This information was made available through a press release from the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation.

Kaiser: Obamacare slowed down the rate of increase in employer health premiums - National White House Press | Examiner.com
 
Do you think that obamacare will reduce medical mistakes? Do you think doctors on fixed incomes will make more or less mistakes?

Yes, actually, Obamacare will reduce medical mistakes by standardizing and speeding up the introduction of eletronic medical records. Electronic records make it much easier for doctors to avoid drug interactions. In fact, systems can be put in place to automatically flag potential drug interaction problems.
 
Do you think that obamacare will reduce medical mistakes? Do you think doctors on fixed incomes will make more or less mistakes?

People are dying from starvation and thirst in UK hospitals

Nothing more needs to be said about single payer
 
Actually single payer would cut bureaucracy. Canada has less administrative costs than the US. Single payer gets rid of the middle man.

The only middle man single payer eliminates is YOU. It eliminates YOU as the primary party in deciding medical treatment. Because with single payer, a board of unelected officials will determine whether or not your life is worth saving if you have a heart attack. You get cancer? THEY will decide which treatment you get, if any.

Ya, that middle man, aka....YOU, will be eliminated. And here I thought liberals were all about "choice"....lol
 
How can you pay for it? Almost half the country isn't paying a dime in federal income tax already. So, How do you propose single payer would be funded? It would certainly have to be funded through tax revenues, or see another substantial increase in premiums across the board.

Single payer isn't what we need. What we need is real reform. The CBO estimated that almost 30% of every dollar spent on healthcare is wasted or spent on fraudulent claims. This alone accounts for billions of dollars per year. Government is responsible for that waste, and liberals refuse to address it.

In order for Obamacare to even work mathimatically, they had to upload 10 years of funding against 6 years of benefits. This alone tells you that it isn't feasible.

Single payer would cost less than the current system. How do I know this? Because every country with single payer spends less per person on healthcare, while also achieving a higher quality of care.
 
RESULTS
In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

MMS: Error

A bit out dated so if you can find anything new please post

For the last time......THEY RATION THE ****T OUT OF THE CARE! Of course the per capita expense is lower, BECAUSE THEY GIVE YOU AN APPLE AND SAY, HOPE THAT CURES YOUR CANCER!!!

When they ration the world's leading drugs, ration "who" can get certain medical procedures done, ration the dollar amount paid per patient, of course their numbers are going to look better. But put it into practice. DO YOU wanna be the person they deny a life saving cancer drug to? Or would your little ass be running south as fast as you could to see an American doctor, just like everyone else in the world who can afford to do so?

You simply aren't applying the actual care to real life situations. You would pitch a **** fit if you had to wait 6 months for a hip replacement knowing that in America you could get it done in less than 2 weeks. You would pitch another **** fit if you were diagnosed with cancer, and your doctor told you about a drug that is saving people's lives, but the government denied coverage for it because it's too freaking expensive! You would also pitch yet another **** fit if you paid the amount of taxes Europeans pay just to cover the cost of health insurance. You see, here in America, we think it's outright theivery to take more than 40% of ANY PERSON'S INCOME in taxes. They don't. They think it's "fair". By all means, GO LIVE UNDER THEIR SYSTEMS FOR A WHILE, AND GET BACK TO ME!!!
 
For the last time......THEY RATION THE ****T OUT OF THE CARE! Of course the per capita expense is lower, BECAUSE THEY GIVE YOU AN APPLE AND SAY, HOPE THAT CURES YOUR CANCER!!!

When they ration the world's leading drugs, ration "who" can get certain medical procedures done, ration the dollar amount paid per patient, of course their numbers are going to look better. But put it into practice. DO YOU wanna be the person they deny a life saving cancer drug to? Or would your little ass be running south as fast as you could to see an American doctor, just like everyone else in the world who can afford to do so?

You simply aren't applying the actual care to real life situations. You would pitch a **** fit if you had to wait 6 months for a hip replacement knowing that in America you could get it done in less than 2 weeks. You would pitch another **** fit if you were diagnosed with cancer, and your doctor told you about a drug that is saving people's lives, but the government denied coverage for it because it's too freaking expensive! You would also pitch yet another **** fit if you paid the amount of taxes Europeans pay just to cover the cost of health insurance. You see, here in America, we think it's outright theivery to take more than 40% of ANY PERSON'S INCOME in taxes. They don't. They think it's "fair". By all means, GO LIVE UNDER THEIR SYSTEMS FOR A WHILE, AND GET BACK TO ME!!!


A lot of these countries with "socialist" health care policies have higher life expectancy.

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The WHO also gives their health care higher ratings.

World Health Organization ranking of health systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I await your response.
 
the real issue with obamacare is that there was no healthcare crisis that needed fixing. no one in the US (citizen or not) was denied medical care. Those who paid for insurance were funding the ones who did not---exactly the same as obamacare, except obamacare creates a huge new inefficient beaurocracy that will eat up trillions of dollars that could be used for medical care.

liberalism always fails, marxism always fails, communism always fails, collectivism always fails---------Always, but you on the left hired a radical marxist collectivist to destroy this country---you will get what you voted for.

images
 
Single payer would cost less than the current system. How do I know this? Because every country with single payer spends less per person on healthcare, while also achieving a higher quality of care.

Please.....go study the mortality rates of cancer and heart disease in countries with single payer. The quality IS NOT better, and it's not even close. Go study countries with single payer and the breakthroughs in medicine and pharmaceutical drugs. It's virtually NON-EXISTENT. They buy them from America.

And I've stated before, the reason their cost is lower, IS BECAUSE THEY RATION THE HELL OUT OF THEIR CARE!!!
 
A lot of these countries with "socialist" health care policies have higher life expectancy.

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The WHO also gives their health care higher ratings.

World Health Organization ranking of health systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I await your response.

Many things can be factored in when considering "life expectancy" rates. So, that is a poor measure of comparison. Europeans, by genetic disposition, do not live as long as Asians.

A truer measure is mortality rates of people diagnosed with disease. THAT reflects on quality of care directly. Now compare the mortality rates for the 2 leading causes of death in America, cancer, and heart disease. We outperform EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD in these catagories which specifically relate to "care" of a diagnosed disease.

I await the response from ANY LIBERAL in this forum on "why" and "how" these single payer countries control their costs. It's directly because of the rationing of care. No debating that. They also use taxation as price controlling as well.

So, I'll repeat, if Americans are willing to pay much higher taxes, and have their care severely rationed, then single payer "may" work. You try and sell rationing along with higher taxes, and see what kind of response you get in a nation that is used to controlling their own choices for care, and a nation where 47% of the population PAYS NOTHING in federal income tax.
 
A lot of these countries with "socialist" health care policies have higher life expectancy.

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The WHO also gives their health care higher ratings.

World Health Organization ranking of health systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I await your response.

From your own source:

The WHO rankings have been subject to much criticism concerning their methodology, scientificity, and usefulness. Dr Richard G. Fessler called the rankings "misleading" and said that tens of thousands of foreigners travel to the United States every year for care. In addition, he claims that the United States leads the world in survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer. He also noted that the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior".[3] Dr Philip Musgrove wrote that the rankings are meaningless because they oversimplify: "numbers confer a spurious precision".

Glen Whitman claims, "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[7] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care.

the United States leads the world in survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer.

A publication by the Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.

This is what liberals do. They manipulate actual statistics, and cherry pick in order to make socialized medicine appear better. It's not. Other countries DO NOT figure life expectancy the way we do. They do not calculate infant mortality rates the same as America does either. Do a little research on that.
 
From your own source:

The WHO rankings have been subject to much criticism concerning their methodology, scientificity, and usefulness. Dr Richard G. Fessler called the rankings "misleading" and said that tens of thousands of foreigners travel to the United States every year for care. In addition, he claims that the United States leads the world in survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer. He also noted that the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior".[3] Dr Philip Musgrove wrote that the rankings are meaningless because they oversimplify: "numbers confer a spurious precision".

Glen Whitman claims, "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[7] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care.

the United States leads the world in survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer.

A publication by the Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.

This is what liberals do. They manipulate actual statistics, and cherry pick in order to make socialized medicine appear better. It's not. Other countries DO NOT figure life expectancy the way we do. They do not calculate infant mortality rates the same as America does either. Do a little research on that.

For developed nations our infant mortality is horrible. It's an easy thing to fix too. Just have better birth control and prenatal care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
 
Last edited:
Single payer would cost less than the current system. How do I know this? Because every country with single payer spends less per person on healthcare, while also achieving a higher quality of care.

they spend less because they RATION medical treatment. nothing more needs to be said.
 
For developed nations our infant mortality is horrible. It's an easy thing to fix too. Just have better birth control and prenatal care.

How about teaching young girls how to prevent pregnancies? How about teaching young boys to keep their pants zipped? How about education instead of abortion and infant mortality?

You liberals always attack the wrong problem.
 
For developed nations our infant mortality is horrible. It's an easy thing to fix too. Just have better birth control and prenatal care.

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Low birth weights are what attribute mainly to higher infant mortality rates in America. That has nothing to do with a health care system, and everything to do with personal lifestyle choices in America. Alcohold consumption and smoking during pregnancy are the primary contributors to low infant birth weights, which is the primary cause of infant mortality.

When comparing apples to apples, healthy babies to healthy babies, the infant mortality rate is lower in America than it is in Canada.

Infant mortality rates have little to do with a healthcare system. The primary reasons for infant mortality rates in America are due to personal lifestyle choices, outside the control of any healthcare system.

So once again, you are twisting and misrepresenting the actual facts.

Transition over to availability of MRIs, CT scans, and preventative screening. America has twice as many MRIs per capita than Canada. And 86% of women in America have had regular mammograms and papsmears, whereas only 73% of Canadians.

You cant twist these numbers. The only thing they have we dont have is more "availability". But because the healthcare is available to everyone in Canada, they must implement cost saving measures. THAT MEANS RATIONING.

Also, America figures in pre-mature births into our overall mortality rates, whereas most other countries do not. In addition, because of high rates of homicide and car wrecks, our mortality rates increase because of that as well. Take out those two factors, and America's mortality rate is better than most of the world's.

Now, are you going to say that homicide and car wrecks have anything whatsoever to do with any kind of "healthcare system"?????? Because they dont. Not a single thing.

Once again, you are twisting statistics severely.
 
they spend less because they RATION medical treatment. nothing more needs to be said.

We ration medical treatment.
 
We ration medical treatment.

Not at the hands of unelected government bureaucrats we dont......

Here's the beauty of America, under the privatized system.....if one doctor wont perform a medical procedure, you find one that will. If one insurance company wont cover a pre-existing condition, you find one that will, which might be a state's risk pool.

In other words, when there are mulitiple companies competing for my premium dollars, I have a little leverage as a consumer.

You go single payer, and everyone has the same coverage, no negotiating leverage, no bargaining chips on what's going to be covered, etc. We are all marginalized, and stripped of any decision making control over our own health care, our own end of life plans, our own retirements, our own child delivery methods, our own cancer treatments, our own surgical necessities.

If you think that's worth saving a little money, which it wont do anyway, be my guest. Go live under some socialized medicine policies. That's what burns me up about liberals. They clamour on and on about single payer, yet they've never experienced a day of it for them selves.
 
Not at the hands of unelected government bureaucrats we dont......

Here's the beauty of America, under the privatized system.....if one doctor wont perform a medical procedure, you find one that will. If one insurance company wont cover a pre-existing condition, you find one that will, which might be a state's risk pool.

There are rules about getting into the high risk pool. A healthy person most likely will not be able to get in.
 
Another attack Obama thread.

On a board called "Debate Politics" in the Presidential Election section? How very ODD . . .

How about putting the facts up there instead? Funny how you and investors.com avoid mentioning the last president and how premiums reacted there.

The previous president left office four years ago and didn't make said promise about premiums.
 
Not at the hands of unelected government bureaucrats we dont......

Here's the beauty of America, under the privatized system.....if one doctor wont perform a medical procedure, you find one that will. If one insurance company wont cover a pre-existing condition, you find one that will, which might be a state's risk pool.

In other words, when there are mulitiple companies competing for my premium dollars, I have a little leverage as a consumer.

You go single payer, and everyone has the same coverage, no negotiating leverage, no bargaining chips on what's going to be covered, etc. We are all marginalized, and stripped of any decision making control over our own health care, our own end of life plans, our own retirements, our own child delivery methods, our own cancer treatments, our own surgical necessities.

If you think that's worth saving a little money, which it wont do anyway, be my guest. Go live under some socialized medicine policies. That's what burns me up about liberals. They clamour on and on about single payer, yet they've never experienced a day of it for them selves.

There can still be private clinics under a single-payer system. And there already is an unelected bureaucrat deciding what healthcare people do or don't get. Except instead of a government bureacrat, it's a corporate bureaucrat. And many, many people don't choose their health insurance because it's given to them through their job. So no, they don't have the option to just find another insurance company that works better for them (unless they want to pay huge amounts of money, which they won't)
 
Back
Top Bottom