- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,717
- Reaction score
- 53,432
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That's nonsense...Do the credit card companies force you to retain, and use their product?
Exactly! Health care gives us far less of a choice!
That's nonsense...Do the credit card companies force you to retain, and use their product?
Exactly! Health care gives us far less of a choice!
Obamacare will, yes.
Obamacare is in place to regulate businesses in an attempt to dictate our economy by taxing the **** out of products. Our government will sell it to the public by labeling businesses enablers of obesity and such.
Between Obamacare and the Patriot Act our government will own you..
They've already labeled "obesity" as a "disease" just like they labeled addiction a "disease" and drugs are illegal aren't they? guess what? our POS government will start comparing foods and products to drugs in an attempt to pick "winners and losers" in industry hence economy.
Does anyone even bother to understand what constitutes "obese?" - no most people think "fat people" or people fatter than they are...
These people in government (democrats) want to dictate every aspect of our society while they play "The Sims" with a country of 300,000,000 people.
I love the smell of paranoia in the morning.
Look, we have a problem. We spent too much for too little access.
Health care is a community issue, like police and fire fighting. It shoud be treated much the same. If we stop with the hyperbolic fear mongering, we might be able to actually create a better system.
I quite disagree. It is the problem. And it is like police and fire. Untreated people can spread disease, and do. Public health matters, and using the ER doesn't count as valid access.That is NOT what the problem is
Health care is not a community issue like police and fire. The differences are huge, and important.
Mischaracterizing the problem the way you are is not only generating ideas that aren't right, it's generating ideas that make the problem worse.
I quite disagree. It is the problem. And it is like police and fire. Untreated people can spread disease, and do. Public health matters, and using the ER doesn't count as valid access.
Cost is the problem. Not access.
Both are a problem.
The health insurance system, public and private, created the cost problem by enabling too much access. Access to other people's money allows costs to rise because people don't care what the cost is. Providing even more access is counterproductive at this stage of the game.
What is too much access? How many fires put out is too many? How many crimes solved or people protected us too many? Health care had a bleed over effect on all of us, and it is something all people need sooner or later.
You said we didn't have an access issue. I showed we did. Your not really addressing the point.
The only reason it has a bleed over effect is because of the way the system entitles people to outside funds to provide for their medical care. That's the bleed over.
The point is that access is a problem because there's too much of it and has been for decades. Too much access allows costs to rise until eventually it festers so bad that it all catches up to us.
Yes, more access means less choice. That's logical. :coffeepap
That's but one of the lies.
Really, more people covered isn't greater access? Who knew. :coffeepap
When you don't have additional access points, no, access is not greater, it is reduced. Think funnel effect.
It's insurance. You can't just look at a single year and say "see you're over paying!" Because then you overlook that one year where you needed emergency surgery with a short stay in the ICU, where you shelled out a few thousand but didn't have to pay the other hundred thousand dollars of your bill. Do you really not understand that or are you being intentionally thick headed?
Not true. Say there was only 1 access point. But before only x number could gain access there, but we double the number who can now access, access would be greater. Even in a funnel. However, I think if we did a count, you'd find there really are more access points.
Simplified example:
If you start with 100 people going to a doctor per week, over the period of 5 days, he/she is seeing 20 people per day, about a half an hour per patient, with an hour break for lunch.
Suddenly, there are now 200 patients, which only allows 15 per patient. Access has been reduced.
They haven't opened up any clinics, hospitals or increased the number of GPs to handle the influx. Have you tried recently to get an appointment with a GP? 4 week wait, minimum in my area, even with an infection.
You assume constant numbers. Two things will prevent that: 1) more creative use of personnel which has already begun, and 2) increasing the physician pool, which the legislation encourages and demand will push along.
Stumbling block there, since the number of additional GPs is no where's near a realistic doctoratient ratio (being that most med students head straight for a specialty for the $$), and I was including the fact that Nurse Practitioners and the like have long since been assisting in the medical field, add to that the doctors who are retiring for whatever reason, the basis remains the same.
A couple of million people seeking medical help in a rather stagnant pool of access points is not greater access. The Insurance Mandate MAY give an individual greater access to medical treatment, but the population as a whole, access will be reduced.
Sorry, I don't see that happening, nor do many in the medical field. We're not talking a couple of hundred thousand people here. The time it will take to educate the number of medical personnel to service that many people isn't going to happen over night.As those retire, more come in. And while use of alternatives like nurse practitioners have been done before, they are seeing new attention. Creative approaches have gained new emphasis. And demand will assure adjustments. It's already begun. There is no likelihood access will be reduced. None at all.
But lets really look at your premise, for the few to have more, we have to leave some without. A bit like "let them eat cake" don't ya think?
Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?' - Jun. 13, 2013
So when does the "Affordable" part of the Affordable Care Act kick in? High deductibles and high co-pays were not what Obama sold us.
Sorry, I don't see that happening, nor do many in the medical field. We're not talking a couple of hundred thousand people here. The time it will take to educate the number of medical personnel to service that many people isn't going to happen over night.
What should have been done, was staffed clinics, immediate medical care centers, etc, to take the drain off the ERs, and expand Medicare/Medicaid. Payment via those programs for the additional people needing the care would have been less expensive in the long run than paying premiums for insurance they may or may not use. Instead of upping the cash flow for programs that do some good, those subsidized premiums will now go corporations, people aren't able to keep plans they want, and those that want Catastrophic coverage are no longer able to do so.
It has nothing to do with 'let them eat cake', it has to do with using common sense.