• 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!

With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

So you're claiming that some hospitals will refuse to treat an emergency case, and some hospitals may treat the person but consciously not provide adequate care.

No, I'm saying people ONLY get emergency care, not care for chronic issues that degrade the quality of life but aren't emergencies. And waiting until something is an emergency sucks - it's bad for the patient, and expensive for the rest of us.

Well that's true, and my argument has been and will continue to be the more government is involved and adds layers of bureaucracy into it, and with good intentions (I assume that btw) try to make the system better they apparently (As we see with Obama Care) make it worse and not just a little worse, a LOT worse. To the point where if nothing is done, health care will literally bury the entire country in 30-40 years.

But isn't that what you want - nothing to be done by government? Repeal Obamacare, and Medicare/Medicaid too, and let the private sector do it all?

It's one thing to say Obamacare won't work. I might agree. It's another thing to say there's no way the government can help, or should help.
 
No, I'm saying people ONLY get emergency care, not care for chronic issues that degrade the quality of life but aren't emergencies. And waiting until something is an emergency sucks - it's bad for the patient, and expensive for the rest of us.
You don't seem to understand... what you consider emergency isn't what they consider emergency. People go into the emergency ward for colds, small splinters, every day little maladies as well as, for maintenance on chronic conditions.



But isn't that what you want - nothing to be done by government?
I want government out of the health care business yes. However, government can turn health insurance back into insurance by passing a law.... that would be nice.
Repeal Obamacare, and Medicare/Medicaid too, and let the private sector do it all?
Certainly repeal Obama Care, as it increases costs and fails at it's primary function: To lower costs. Eventually repeal Medicare yes... Medicaid at some level will still be needed, but the government doesn't have to run it. That can be done by the private sector.

It's one thing to say Obamacare won't work.
I don't know if it will work or not, it's not in place yet. I do know the mandate is in my opinion, unconstitutional, and I do know that most economists, health professionals and the CBO know it will raise costs. What kills me about Obamacare is that the obvious things which would improve health care in this country isn't in it. Obamacare was a partisan disaster written by Pelosi and Reid which even the President didn't want - but politically he can't back away from it now - especially in an election year.

I might agree. It's another thing to say there's no way the government can help, or should help.
Certainly the government can help but they forgot that "less is more". They need to help less in quantity and help more in quality - but quantity is where the money is for their states and constituents. There's no money in quality.
 
You don't seem to understand... what you consider emergency isn't what they consider emergency. People go into the emergency ward for colds, small splinters, every day little maladies as well as, for maintenance on chronic conditions.

But they only get emergency treatment of those things. They don't get complete, consistent care.

I want government out of the health care business yes. However, government can turn health insurance back into insurance by passing a law.... that would be nice. Certainly repeal Obama Care, as it increases costs and fails at it's primary function: To lower costs. Eventually repeal Medicare yes... Medicaid at some level will still be needed, but the government doesn't have to run it. That can be done by the private sector.

Yeah yeah yeah. Private sector is perfect, government is terrible. We've heard it before.

Seriously, dude, how much do you think you'd have to pay for private insurance as an unemployed, high-risk guy - i.e. a retiree? Medicare exists for a reason.

As for the rest of your comments, I agree that Obamacare wasn't the best outcome.
 
But they only get emergency treatment of those things. They don't get complete, consistent care.
It depends on what you consider "complete" but certainly consistent.... they just keep going back to the ER whenever they need something. That's VERY consistent.



Yeah yeah yeah. Private sector is perfect, government is terrible. We've heard it before.
In no way is the private sector perfect, but it's a helluva lot better than a controlling bureaucracy. See, with the private sector there are multiiple ideas, multiple policies, multiple suggestions from different types of organizations, businesses, towns and cities.... instead of one way and one policy which is the state or the federal government who wields the power.

Seriously, dude, how much do you think you'd have to pay for private insurance as an unemployed, high-risk guy - i.e. a retiree? Medicare exists for a reason.
Have I been non-serious in this conversation? And if you'd bother to read, the quotation you are answering, I stated "Medicaid at some level will still be needed." Are you obtuse on purpose or do you just not comprehend what I'm writing?

As for the rest of your comments, I agree that Obamacare wasn't the best outcome.
Without blatantly saying so, I knew it from the beginning and do you know why? It's because such a governmental control is contrary to what historically is known to work. Yet we have a President and a Democratic party for 16 months who tried to convince the American people that by adding 30-40 million more people into the system under a mandate, that costs would go down and they trotted out economists and all sorts of people to try and convince us of that obvious lie. THAT was an insult to anyone and everyone in this country and that it actually got signed into law shows how ultimately dangerous such a move by ANY political group or party is. THIS is why I advocate for the private sector - NOT because it's "perfect" because that's an idiotic notion. It's because the private sector is diverse, is multi-faceted and will ultimately agree on the best solution unlike a bureaucracy which advocates NOT for the people they are supposedly representing, but for their ideology and for their political careers.
 
It depends on what you consider "complete" but certainly consistent.... they just keep going back to the ER whenever they need something. That's VERY consistent.

But you don't know that every uninsured patient always goes to only the ER either. Some go to free or cheap clinics. Some stay home and just don't get treatment, until its an emergency.

In no way is the private sector perfect, but it's a helluva lot better than a controlling bureaucracy. See, with the private sector there are multiiple ideas, multiple policies, multiple suggestions from different types of organizations, businesses, towns and cities.... instead of one way and one policy which is the state or the federal government who wields the power.

No there isn't. There's plenty of ideas and policies and suggestions in government too.

Have I been non-serious in this conversation? And if you'd bother to read, the quotation you are answering, I stated "Medicaid at some level will still be needed." Are you obtuse on purpose or do you just not comprehend what I'm writing?

No, just wondering why you think you can bash government and then support it in the same breath. Make up your mind.

It's because the private sector is diverse, is multi-faceted and will ultimately agree on the best solution

If that were true, we wouldn't have needed a health care law in the first place.
 
But you don't know that every uninsured patient always goes to only the ER either. Some go to free or cheap clinics. Some stay home and just don't get treatment, until its an emergency.
I have a family member (well nearly family) who works the ER and has for the past 6 months, and I made sure to check with her before weighing in on this subject. Now that's one hospital in one state but I can tell you that this hospital is suburban (small town) and not urban. Newark, Camden, Philly, New Brunswick, Trenton... much much more prevalent than the hospital where she works. The nursing staff is on a first name basis with many who come in for primary care and maintenance care claiming an emergency.... through the emergency room which treats them and releases them, with no insurance. If that happens... why go to a clinic or go further away or somewhere different unless the hospital refuses to treat you? If they keep doing it, keep going... and that's what they do.

No there isn't. There's plenty of ideas and policies and suggestions in government too.
Sure, but they follow one policy --- at the fed it's the policy of the President. Yet if I go to the states, there's 50 policies one for each state... and within the state there are yet more policies for each Mayor. If I take this to the private sector, I get hundreds or thousands of different policies and when changing healthcare on a grand scale, I want as many diverse policies from different groups as possible. Obamacare is an abortion because it was conceived by one policy - the DNC policy - Republicans were kept out remember? Even if Republicans were allowed in, I still don't want it - oligarchic federal policy as an insurance provider---- it's disaster waiting to happen.
No, just wondering why you think you can bash government and then support it in the same breath. Make up your mind.
Because reasonable people do not see all government as all evil all the time --- just like government isn't roses and icecream, angels and wonderful all the time.

If that were true, we wouldn't have needed a health care law in the first place.
Again... purposely obtuse or ... ? Healthcare insurance isn't insurance - it's a payment plan used for everything and anything. Stop using it as a payment plan... government CAN pass a law that removes and restructures healthcare. The fed should approach it in this way: Instead of the government passing laws telling the bureaucracy how it will require and involve itself in healthcare, it should outline how costs and fees should work. Government goes to the insurance companies and says, "Ok boys, come up with a fair way to decrease the cost of healthcare coverage. Here's the guidelines." And then the insurance companies and the government hammer out how it could work. Once that's done government comes back to the insurance company's and says "Good job, now you run it with Government oversight. Integrate it into your current structure and you can't pass this cost off to the consumers. You have to make it work without raising costs, deferring costs... "

Government can't do their OWN jobs ... why do you think they can be a healthcare provider? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.
 
I have a family member (well nearly family) who works the ER and has for the past 6 months, and I made sure to check with her before weighing in on this subject. Now that's one hospital in one state but I can tell you that this hospital is suburban (small town) and not urban. Newark, Camden, Philly, New Brunswick, Trenton... much much more prevalent than the hospital where she works. The nursing staff is on a first name basis with many who come in for primary care and maintenance care claiming an emergency.... through the emergency room which treats them and releases them, with no insurance. If that happens... why go to a clinic or go further away or somewhere different unless the hospital refuses to treat you? If they keep doing it, keep going... and that's what they do.

Okay, that would be interesting, but not a complete study.

Sure, but they follow one policy --- at the fed it's the policy of the President.

False. There are plenty of different ideas and policies in government, even at the federal level.

Again... purposely obtuse or ... ?

Claiming that the private sector is perfect is obtuse.

Government can't do their OWN jobs ...

Government does a good job sometimes and a crappy job sometimes. The private sector does a good job sometimes and a crappy job sometimes.

why do you think they can be a healthcare provider? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

Poll: Americans are more satisfied with Medicare than private healthcare insurance

Poll: Americans are more satisfied with Medicare than private healthcare insurance | SwampBubbles - News, Politics, Reports
 
Okay, that would be interesting, but not a complete study.

Who claimed a study?


False. There are plenty of different ideas and policies in government, even at the federal level.
Who else's policy does the Obama Administration push? Answer: No one else's policies buy Obama's.

Claiming that the private sector is perfect is obtuse.
Good thing no one's doing that then. :coffeepap:

Nice strawman though... you're good at those.


Government does a good job sometimes and a crappy job sometimes. The private sector does a good job sometimes and a crappy job sometimes.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the subject. How's government track record on being an insurance company?


Poll: Americans are more satisfied with Medicare than private healthcare insurance
Where in the satisfaction survey does it show how well the government runs Medicare? How efficient it is? :lamo
 
Who claimed a study?

You didn't. That's the point. Your relative can't provide enough information.

Who else's policy does the Obama Administration push? Answer: No one else's policies buy Obama's.

But it's not like he only has one policy, or gets no input from the people, or never changes....

Where in the satisfaction survey does it show how well the government runs Medicare? How efficient it is? :lamo

I showed you the survey. You can't deal with reality.
 
You didn't. That's the point.
You're point is to make logical fallacies. I can see that...


But it's not like he only has one policy, or gets no input from the people, or never changes....
Who else's policy would he have? He hears different opinions from his Cabinet but those opinions all follow his general policies. Are you claiming multiple people on Obama's staff are seriously suggesting and pushing for Conservative healthcare policies? :lamo

I showed you the survey. You can't deal with reality.
The survey is worthless... your reality is a joke.


Anything else you need help with?
 
You're point is to make logical fallacies. I can see that...

No fallacy. Just pointing out that your relative's perspective, while valuable, is extremely limited.

Who else's policy would he have? He hears different opinions from his Cabinet but those opinions all follow his general policies. Are you claiming multiple people on Obama's staff are seriously suggesting and pushing for Conservative healthcare policies? :lamo

I said what I said. The government has many different ideas, policies, approaches, etc. Obama doesn't run every little detail. The government doesn't lack any flexibility, or do everything top down, etc. Do I have to say this again or do you get it this time?

The survey is worthless... your reality is a joke.

It's not worthless, you're just in denial. Lame.
 
Last edited:
If we had a program furnishing every American with an Italian sports car, I'm sure people would be satisfied with that too.

In other words, if they grasped the fiscal issues it's creating for us, fewer would be satisfied with it.

Are you thinking of a Fiat?
 
If we had a program furnishing every American with an Italian sports car, I'm sure people would be satisfied with that too.

The survey blows away the claim that Medicare is somehow providing substandard care, or a frustrating bureauracy. I didn't say it proved it was perfect. It has financial problems, for sure - like lots of private businesses do though. The point is made.
 
No fallacy.
Then you need to brush up on what a fallacy is... no one mentioned a study, therefore you created a strawman.

I said what I said.
Someone claimed you didn't say what you said? :lamo

The government has many different ideas, policies, approaches, etc. Obama doesn't run every little detail.
The DNC of which Obama is the defacto leader pushed DNC and Obama's policies. No one elses. You didn't answer my question.... wonder why?
Do I have to say this again or do you get it this time?
Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true - but feel free to repeat it as much as you want. No one else is listening to you except me and if you think you repeating BS will make it true - go for it. Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V is your friend.

It's not worthless, you're just in denial. Lame.
A survey doesn't do anything except poll a small sample of people's OPINIONS. Just who are you trying to convince of your alternate-reality?
 
They get patched together in an emergency room and then skip out on the bill, leaving the rest of us to pay the tab. What a system, certainly one worthy of a great and wealth country like the USA.

Amazing that anyone would argue this is a great way to approach the problem.
 
Then you need to brush up on what a fallacy is... no one mentioned a study, therefore you created a strawman.

Sigh.

The point is that you NEED a study. The fact that you didn't mention one is the PROBLEM. Only a good study would give you the data you need, not just asking a relative who works in an ER.

A survey doesn't do anything except poll a small sample of people's OPINIONS. Just who are you trying to convince of your alternate-reality?

Customers being happy with results is worthless? You'd make a crappy businessman in the private sector.
 
Wait a minute...Are we really talking of misterman using a poll generated by a site that states that anyone can create their own poll?

Now, he calls it a survey?

You HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!


j-mac
 
But they only get emergency treatment of those things. They don't get complete, consistent care.

They get whole hospital treatment for anything medically necessary. Intensive care, medical/surgical stays, psychiatric inpatient, you name it. No unit of any hospital is off limits to any uninsured person.

What you're complaining about is that they don't also receive free outpatient clinic care.

Seriously, dude, how much do you think you'd have to pay for private insurance as an unemployed, high-risk guy - i.e. a retiree? Medicare exists for a reason.

Do you know how much we're set up to have to pay for Medicare with money we don't even have? Who cares what you think the reason is for it? It's unfundable.
 
Last edited:
No, we're not.

The survey I cited was a legitimate scientific poll conducted by a legitimate academic group.

Meeting Enrollees' Needs: How Do Medicare and Employer Coverage Stack Up? - The Commonwealth Fund

You could have just went and looked.


You mean you didn't post this?...

misterman said:


Really?


j-mac
 
You mean you didn't post this?...




Really?


j-mac

Um, if you click on that link, it show you this link:

Meeting Enrollees' Needs: How Do Medicare and Employer Coverage Stack Up? - The Commonwealth Fund

Which is the survey I referred to. I guess I should have posted that link so as not to confuse you.

Details of the survey:
Meeting Enrollees' Needs: How Do Medicare and Employer Coverage Stack Up?

May 12, 2009

Authors: Karen Davis, Ph.D., Stuart Guterman, Michelle M. Doty, Ph.D., and Kristof M. Stremikis
Journal: Health Affairs Web Exclusive, May 12, 2009, w521–w532
Contact: Michelle M. Doty, Director of Survey Research, The Commonwealth Fund, mmd@cmwf.org
Summary Writers: Tammy Worth

Synopsis

In a national Commonwealth Fund survey, elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported greater overall satisfaction with their health coverage, better access to care, and fewer problems paying medical bills than people covered by employer-sponsored plans. The findings bolster the argument that offering a public insurance plan similar to Medicare to the under-65 population has the potential to improve access and reduce costs.

About the Study

The authors used data from the Commonwealth Fund 2007 Biennial Health Insurance Survey to compare how patients felt about access and cost under Medicare and employer-sponsored plans. Princeton Survey Research Associates International conducted the survey by telephone with adults in the United States over age 19. The survey response rate was 47 percent. The 25-minute phone interview included questions about health care access, out-of-pocket spending, benefit information, and demographic characteristics.

So what exactly is your problem with this?
 
Back
Top Bottom