• 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!

Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

Boo Radley said:
Not convinced either way on that, but concede it might be for some items.
Click to expand...

It has to be because there is no third party involvement. It makes sense, right?

So perhaps a true 'reform' might have been to enhance and improve the direct relationship between the doctor and the patient. if the patient is paying out of pocket then cost becomes a real factor. If third or fourth parties are paying then cost becomes less of a concern. and eventually no concern whatsoever.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I completely agree. Living in Germany I've seen how amazing their health care system is, every citizen covered 100% for everything, and the quality is quite impressive. We get all this for half the per capita cost that the US is paying. The only thing I'll say is the special brand of American UHC that's been brewing by Obama and libs is little more than legislation giving more power to big pharma and the medical industry. Obamacare actually is making prices rise, we need to adopt a real UHC program.
Click to expand...

Whille I agree with you that Obamas' version leaves much to be desired, it is very similar to the system France uses, and their costs are far below what we have here in the US
 
Grant said:
It has to be because there is no third party involvement. It makes sense, right?

So perhaps a true 'reform' might have been to enhance and improve the direct relationship between the doctor and the patient. if the patient is paying out of pocket then cost becomes a real factor. If third or fourth parties are paying then cost becomes less of a concern. and eventually no concern whatsoever.
Click to expand...

No, it makes no sense beceause EVERY nation wit UHC has lower costs than we do, a fact you continue to ignore.
 
Grant said:
It has to be because there is no third party involvement. It makes sense, right?

So perhaps a true 'reform' might have been to enhance and improve the direct relationship between the doctor and the patient. if the patient is paying out of pocket then cost becomes a real factor. If third or fourth parties are paying then cost becomes less of a concern. and eventually no concern whatsoever.
Click to expand...

If that we're the only factor, you may be right. But as they lose volume, demand becomes less, they have to pamper more, add in the unnecessary test, it is not sure that they will. History suggests we're not really savvy consumers. Especially when it comes to medicine. We love snake oil.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I completely agree. Living in Germany I've seen how amazing their health care system is, every citizen covered 100% for everything, and the quality is quite impressive. We get all this for half the per capita cost that the US is paying. The only thing I'll say is the special brand of American UHC that's been brewing by Obama and libs is little more than legislation giving more power to big pharma and the medical industry. Obamacare actually is making prices rise, we need to adopt a real UHC program.
Click to expand...

Yes, there can be a national health care program but what they have done in the States is pass a bill that few have read, few understand and no one knows the consequences. That is just passing a health bill for the sake of passing a health bill. It's supporters haven't read it either but will defend it only because of their political ideology.

There has been no debate and very little thought, put into the legislative process and that is not a good thing..
 
Grant said:
Yes, there can be a national health care program but what they have done in the States is pass a bill that few have read, few understand and no one knows the consequences. That is just passing a health bill for the sake of passing a health bill. It's supporters haven't read it either but will defend it only because of their political ideology.

There has been no debate and very little thought, put into the legislative process and that is not a good thing..
Click to expand...

So now that we've pointed out how reality completely refutes your nonsense claim about how 3rd party involvement always makes costs go up, instead of admitting you were wrong, you're going to pretend that the real problem is that no one has read the law? :doh
 
sangha said:
Whille I agree with you that Obamas' version leaves much to be desired, it is very similar to the system France uses, and their costs are far below what we have here in the US
Click to expand...

Finally we have someone who has read both the Obamacare act and the French Healthcare Act.

Where do you find the similarities and where are the differences, the advantages and disadvantages?
 
Boo Radley said:
Not convinced either way on that, but concede it might be for some items.
Click to expand...
That is largely how the Canadian system works, and is one of its strengths. The doctors are given quite wide latitude to work with their patients, although on the flip side the doctors maintain a strict medical board system and if you are not registered with that the government insurance does not recognize you as an MD.
 
Grant said:
Finally we have someone who has read both the Obamacare act and the French Healthcare Act.

Where do you find the similarities and where are the differences, the advantages and disadvantages?
Click to expand...

I'll respond to your questions when you respond to the point I made about how every nation with UHC has lower costs than the US and how that blows your nonsense claim about 3rd parties out of the water
 
Boo Radley said:
If that we're the only factor, you may be right. But as they lose volume, demand becomes less, they have to pamper more, add in the unnecessary test, it is not sure that they will. History suggests we're not really savvy consumers. Especially when it comes to medicine. We love snake oil.
Click to expand...

Well it's not the only factor, of course, but one that should have been given some thought. If we can start from that premise then perhaps a more workable and less unwieldy and expensive solution looked at.
 
sangha said:
I'll respond to your questions when you respond to the point I made about how every nation with UHC has lower costs than the US and how that blows your nonsense claim about 3rd parties out of the water
Click to expand...

Relax. I'm not interested in your response.
 
Grant said:
Yes, there can be a national health care program but what they have done in the States is pass a bill that few have read, few understand and no one knows the consequences. That is just passing a health bill for the sake of passing a health bill. It's supporters haven't read it either but will defend it only because of their political ideology.

There has been no debate and very little thought, put into the legislative process and that is not a good thing..
Click to expand...

Of course. Obamacare is just plain awful. Here in Germany you can opt out of the public health care system, get a tax break, and take that money to go private. That way if you don't want to pay for anybody else, you don't have to, but don't come crying when the private insurance companies screw you over. Since I'm now a permanent resident here and enrolled in their health care system, I will stay on the public plan so that I can be covered for 100% of everything, and my rates won't skyrocket when I'm old.

Would you be ok with a system like Germany where you could opt-out?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Of course. Obamacare is just plain awful. Here in Germany you can opt out of the public health care system, get a tax break, and take that money to go private. That way if you don't want to pay for anybody else, you don't have to, but don't come crying when the private insurance companies screw you over. Since I'm now a permanent resident here and enrolled in their health care system, I will stay on the public plan so that I can be covered for 100% of everything, and my rates won't skyrocket when I'm old.

Would you be ok with a system like Germany where you could opt-out?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would.

I've spent a lot of the last 19 years in Costa Rica and they have both a private system and public. I've been in both.

The public system treats the people like animals, eight to a room in the hospital I was in, with obviously poorly trained staff. I was able to get out of there and cross the street to a private clinic and everything was first class. Because I was not insured the rates for both were the same which was roughly $100 per day at that time. In the private hospital I had a large room to myself, a bed for overnight guests, a big screen TV, two nurses on call and doctors who were very professional. There was simply no comparison.

I save money by not paying insurance for my employees because it is just too expensive for what you get, so i pay for the private healthcare instead whenever they need it, including the birth of my housekeepers son. They are treated first class. I have too much respect to put them in public care facilities.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Of course. Obamacare is just plain awful. Here in Germany you can opt out of the public health care system, get a tax break, and take that money to go private. That way if you don't want to pay for anybody else, you don't have to, but don't come crying when the private insurance companies screw you over. Since I'm now a permanent resident here and enrolled in their health care system, I will stay on the public plan so that I can be covered for 100% of everything, and my rates won't skyrocket when I'm old.

Would you be ok with a system like Germany where you could opt-out?
Click to expand...

Same sort of thing in Britain, however most people opt out due to the S*** standard.
BBC News - Morecambe Bay trust failings prompts watchdog criticism
 
Grant said:
Yes, I would.

I've spent a lot of the last 19 years in Costa Rica and they have both a private system and public. I've been in both.

The public system treats the people like animals, eight to a room in the hospital I was in, with obviously poorly trained staff. I was able to get out of there and cross the street to a private clinic and everything was first class. Because I was not insured the rates for both were the same which was roughly $100 per day at that time. In the private hospital I had a large room to myself, a bed for overnight guests, a big screen TV, two nurses on call and doctors who were very professional. There was simply no comparison.

I save money by not paying insurance for my employees because it is just too expensive for what you get, so i pay for the private healthcare instead whenever they need it, including the birth of my housekeepers son. They are treated first class. I have too much respect to put them in public care facilities.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know much about costa rica, but their public system sounds awful. In Germany, there are only a few major differences between the public and private system.

In the public system, you usually share a room with 1 other person (not more). A lot of the times though there isn't anybody there, just an empty bed. In the private system, your costs may be less when you're young (which lures a lot of people into it), but the costs go up rapidly the older you get. When you opt-out of the public system in Germany it's almost impossible to get back in. The public system will never be insolvent, and will always cover any of your illnesses.

There has been a rare case where we've been denied coverage for something cosmetic or trivial, but we've always been given the opportunity to pay out of pocket if we wanted, and usually the cost of everything is a tiny, tiny fraction of what it would be in the states.
 
Spriggs05 said:
Same sort of thing in Britain, however most people opt out due to the S*** standard.
BBC News - Morecambe Bay trust failings prompts watchdog criticism
Click to expand...

The public system has to be good for people to decide to stay. Here in Germany it's absolutely stellar. I will stay on it for the rest of my life, because it's unbelievably comforting to know that no matter what happens, even if I'm sucking dick for crack in dark alleys I'll at least be able to get good medical coverage.

And I have a rare genetic condition that gives me a 15% chance of getting kidney cancer at some point in my life, so it's definitely safer to stay with full coverage.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The public system has to be good for people to decide to stay. Here in Germany it's absolutely stellar. I will stay on it for the rest of my life, because it's unbelievably comforting to know that no matter what happens, even if I'm sucking dick for crack in dark alleys I'll at least be able to get good medical coverage.

And I have a rare genetic condition that gives me a 15% chance of getting kidney cancer at some point in my life, so it's definitely safer to stay with full coverage.
Click to expand...

The Germans probably run it like they run their cars. Germans apply engineering logic to Everything. Therefore Everything is efficiant
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The public system has to be good for people to decide to stay. Here in Germany it's absolutely stellar. I will stay on it for the rest of my life, because it's unbelievably comforting to know that no matter what happens, even if I'm sucking dick for crack in dark alleys I'll at least be able to get good medical coverage.

And I have a rare genetic condition that gives me a 15% chance of getting kidney cancer at some point in my life, so it's definitely safer to stay with full coverage.
Click to expand...

Here in the US I'm considered disabled because of a rare congenital heart defect. With out disability (government insurance) I would most likely be dead. Also I do require constant health care because of this condition.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yeah, I don't know much about costa rica, but their public system sounds awful. In Germany, there are only a few major differences between the public and private system.

In the public system, you usually share a room with 1 other person (not more). A lot of the times though there isn't anybody there, just an empty bed. In the private system, your costs may be less when you're young (which lures a lot of people into it), but the costs go up rapidly the older you get. When you opt-out of the public system in Germany it's almost impossible to get back in. The public system will never be insolvent, and will always cover any of your illnesses.

There has been a rare case where we've been denied coverage for something cosmetic or trivial, but we've always been given the opportunity to pay out of pocket if we wanted, and usually the cost of everything is a tiny, tiny fraction of what it would be in the states.
Click to expand...

There are cultural differences in Costa Rica, and much of Latin America, where wroking class people and below tend not to complain and also tend to accept what is given. Luckily, in recent years, the people have found their voice and things are changing for the better. While complaining about things may get us down it can get very frustrating when we can't. Complaining is what they've learned from 'the Gringos' and I believe they appreciate it. Things would never improve otherwise.
 
Grant said:
Well it's not the only factor, of course, but one that should have been given some thought. If we can start from that premise then perhaps a more workable and less unwieldy and expensive solution looked at.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the other issue is what prevents it. Access. There is no reasonable way to handle those who can't really afford it, or those to which they MIT afford it, but be seriously burdened by it. It is not something that can be merely done without, at least not for the overall health and good for the community.
 
Boo Radley said:
On the contrary, the other issue is what prevents it. Access. There is no reasonable way to handle those who can't really afford it, or those to which they MIT afford it, but be seriously burdened by it. It is not something that can be merely done without, at least not for the overall health and good for the community.
Click to expand...

There are many kinds of health care systems in the world but, to my knowledge, the American system, whatever it may be, is the only one that was created in secret and passed without anyone understanding what was in it.

This is ideological, based on whims, not one based on anything that has stood up to any public scrutiny.
 
Grant said:
There are many kinds of health care systems in the world but, to my knowledge, the American system, whatever it may be, is the only one that was created in secret and passed without anyone understanding what was in it.

This is ideological, based on whims, not one based on anything that has stood up to any public scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're trying to say here.
 
Grant said:
There are many kinds of health care systems in the world but, to my knowledge, the American system, whatever it may be, is the only one that was created in secret and passed without anyone understanding what was in it.

This is ideological, based on whims, not one based on anything that has stood up to any public scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Suddenly, the right doesn't like it when health care bills are passed before everyone has a chance to read it. Funny how that wasn't a problem when the repubs passed the bill that created Medicare D
 
sangha said:
Suddenly, the right doesn't like it when health care bills are passed before everyone has a chance to read it. Funny how that wasn't a problem when the repubs passed the bill that created Medicare D
Click to expand...


Ok, let me get this straight...So you are implying that because the Medicare part D bill was passed through circumstances that you didn't like, or think was appropriate, then that makes it ok to ram through legislation that you like? What kind of thinking is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom