Page 52 of 58 FirstFirst ... 2425051525354 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 520 of 576

Thread: Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

  1. #511
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I guess the truth is lame then.
    In this case, as with much of what progressive governance is all about these days, yes, lame is a word for it.


    But you know what I was talking about....
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #512
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    In this case, as with much of what progressive governance is all about these days, yes, lame is a word for it.


    But you know what I was talking about....
    I know you spend too much time worried about instead of the point being made. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Beckish doesn't mean you got it from Beck, but you used his type of illogic, missing what else was said in the article you linked. You take snippets and twist it, with no effort to reason through it. That's Beckish.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #513
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I know you spend too much time worried about instead of the point being made. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Beckish doesn't mean you got it from Beck, but you used his type of illogic, missing what else was said in the article you linked. You take snippets and twist it, with no effort to reason through it. That's Beckish.
    Yeah, don't care...I thought we established that?

    Joe, I know you want, and continue to want UHC. Why don't you lay out for us what you think that would mean for the average person/family in terms of cost, service, and quality of care. Be specific, and use information that backs up your claims please.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #514
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Yeah, don't care...I thought we established that?

    Joe, I know you want, and continue to want UHC. Why don't you lay out for us what you think that would mean for the average person/family in terms of cost, service, and quality of care. Be specific, and use information that backs up your claims please.
    It would cost them less than now. We know this because nearly every country on earth with such a system pays less. And many do it while giving excellent care. Your side always misrepresents this.

    For example:

    The program would be federally financed and administered by a single public insurer at the state or regional level. Premiums, copayments, and deductibles would be eliminated. A single payer system as embodied in national legislation (H.R. 676) could be financed in several ways. One progressive option would be to fund it with a combination of existing federal and state revenues for health care, a payroll tax on employers (4-7 percent, much less that what employers pay today to provide less secure coverage), a 6 percent tax on unearned income, a 6 percent surtax on the highest 5 percent of income-earners, and a small tax on financial transactions.

    Under this plan, 95 percent of people would pay less for health care. (Gerald Friedman, "Medicare for All" would save billions, and could be redistributive. Dollars and Sense, March/April 2012).

    What is Single Payer? | Physicians for a National Health Program

    How Single-Payer Health System Reform Improves Quality

    http://www.pnhp.org/facts/quality.pdf

    These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US

    Read more: The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider

    now there's more than one form of single payer system. I think it would be two tiered here, allowing the wealthy to buy more. I'm fine with that. But the advantages are huge. Everyone is covered. Costs less. Better care overall (we actual hurt ourselves by getting too much treatment, over doing. You can look that up as it's an interesting read.). Removes insurance from employment, which in turn reduces the hardship on business and does more to help us internationally than taxes ever will.

    It's real a no brainer.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #515
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

    I know you hate this Joe, but in order to keep my thoughts straight I am going to have to break up your post here to address it....Please bear with me...




    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    It would cost them less than now.
    Not necessarily true. Many of the studies proponents of UHC put out there focus on administrative costs, and then leave out much. But even if the U.S. would save money on administrative costs by switching to a single-payer system, the savings would prove temporary. The main cause of rising health care costs is not administrative costs, but over-use of health care. A single-payer system would not solve that problem. Indeed, it would make it worse.

    We know this because nearly every country on earth with such a system pays less.
    Paying less is a relative term, no? I mean, how many of the countries that your example articles or other so called successful state run systems have a population of 330 million to cover? How many of those systems are the catalyst of innovation in health care for the world? It may save in the beginning but over time, overuse of the system would break budgets, and rationing would have to take place.

    And many do it while giving excellent care.
    Many in this country use Canada, and England as examples of what a UHC system could look like here. An excerpt from the Fraizer Institute's report says this....

    "... a profusion of research reveals that cardiovascular surgery queues are routinely jumped by the famous and politically-connected, that suburban and rural residents confront barriers to access not encountered by their urban counterparts, and that low-income Canadians have less access to specialists, particularly cardiovascular ones, are less likely to utilize diagnostic imaging, and have lower cardiovascular and cancer survival rates than their higher-income neighbours."

    Research from Canada

    So, I don't think such a broad statement can be made.

    Your side always misrepresents this.
    This is the problem with progressive arguments, it is all agreement with you, or you smear your opponent. I asked a simple question, and we are discussing it. You can leave out the silly childish insults please.

    For example:

    The program would be federally financed and administered by a single public insurer at the state or regional level. Premiums, copayments, and deductibles would be eliminated. A single payer system as embodied in national legislation (H.R. 676) could be financed in several ways. One progressive option would be to fund it with a combination of existing federal and state revenues for health care, a payroll tax on employers (4-7 percent, much less that what employers pay today to provide less secure coverage), a 6 percent tax on unearned income, a 6 percent surtax on the highest 5 percent of income-earners, and a small tax on financial transactions.

    Under this plan, 95 percent of people would pay less for health care. (Gerald Friedman, "Medicare for All" would save billions, and could be redistributive. Dollars and Sense, March/April 2012).

    What is Single Payer? | Physicians for a National Health Program

    How Single-Payer Health System Reform Improves Quality

    http://www.pnhp.org/facts/quality.pdf
    Do you have anyone less biased than PNHP? They are a progressive lobby group, that although made up largely of physicians, align themselves with, and routinely side with progressive activists. I would like to see something a little more neutral.

    These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US

    Read more: The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider

    now there's more than one form of single payer system. I think it would be two tiered here, allowing the wealthy to buy more. I'm fine with that. But the advantages are huge. Everyone is covered. Costs less. Better care overall (we actual hurt ourselves by getting too much treatment, over doing. You can look that up as it's an interesting read.). Removes insurance from employment, which in turn reduces the hardship on business and does more to help us internationally than taxes ever will.

    It's real a no brainer.
    This is based on the 2000 WHO report which is long discredited in its metrics used. Even in the BI article you provided said this....

    "The results have long been debated, with critics arguing that the data was out-of-date, incomplete, and that factors such as literacy and life expectancy were over-weighted.

    So controversial were the results that the WHO declined to rank countries in their World Health Report 2010, but the debate has raged on."

    The problem with objectively looking at this, as well as things like so called "global warming" is that it has been so politicized that arriving at the truth is nearly impossible because of the agendas of the people making the argument involved.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #516
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I know you hate this Joe, but in order to keep my thoughts straight I am going to have to break up your post here to address it....Please bear with me...






    Not necessarily true. Many of the studies proponents of UHC put out there focus on administrative costs, and then leave out much. But even if the U.S. would save money on administrative costs by switching to a single-payer system, the savings would prove temporary. The main cause of rising health care costs is not administrative costs, but over-use of health care. A single-payer system would not solve that problem. Indeed, it would make it worse.



    Paying less is a relative term, no? I mean, how many of the countries that your example articles or other so called successful state run systems have a population of 330 million to cover? How many of those systems are the catalyst of innovation in health care for the world? It may save in the beginning but over time, overuse of the system would break budgets, and rationing would have to take place.



    Many in this country use Canada, and England as examples of what a UHC system could look like here. An excerpt from the Fraizer Institute's report says this....

    "... a profusion of research reveals that cardiovascular surgery queues are routinely jumped by the famous and politically-connected, that suburban and rural residents confront barriers to access not encountered by their urban counterparts, and that low-income Canadians have less access to specialists, particularly cardiovascular ones, are less likely to utilize diagnostic imaging, and have lower cardiovascular and cancer survival rates than their higher-income neighbours."

    Research from Canada

    So, I don't think such a broad statement can be made.



    This is the problem with progressive arguments, it is all agreement with you, or you smear your opponent. I asked a simple question, and we are discussing it. You can leave out the silly childish insults please.



    Do you have anyone less biased than PNHP? They are a progressive lobby group, that although made up largely of physicians, align themselves with, and routinely side with progressive activists. I would like to see something a little more neutral.



    This is based on the 2000 WHO report which is long discredited in its metrics used. Even in the BI article you provided said this....

    "The results have long been debated, with critics arguing that the data was out-of-date, incomplete, and that factors such as literacy and life expectancy were over-weighted.

    So controversial were the results that the WHO declined to rank countries in their World Health Report 2010, but the debate has raged on."

    The problem with objectively looking at this, as well as things like so called "global warming" is that it has been so politicized that arriving at the truth is nearly impossible because of the agendas of the people making the argument involved.
    The non administrative costs happen even in our system. Unless we let people die unnecessarily, which not insuring them may do, we face those costs as well. So administrative costs do mean something.

    I also told you there were many different systems. So trying to limit he discussion to on or two largely is seen as an effort to side step the point. I will have to examine your source a little closer as it doesn't sound nonpartisan, at least not on this issue. But I'll investigate when I have more time.

    The trouble is j, you rarely if ever actually assess a source. You merely go with what you agree with no matter how poor the source is. So, I'm not sure you should throw stones at progressives, who ever they are.

    If we can use physicians who don't want universal health care, we can use those who do. If you evaluate the source, you'll find that they are accurate. I keep telling you, bias isn't the problem. Accuracy is.

    And no, WHO wasn't discredited. Whiny Americans just threw a hissy. Nothing more.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #517
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

    Some more for you j:


    3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.

    Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.

    (Snip)

    False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.

    Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the United States, an MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98. Under the pressure of cost controls, Japanese researchers found ways to perform the same diagnostic technique for one-fifteenth the American price. (And Japanese labs still make a profit.)

    (Snip)

    Not really. American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a "preexisting condition" -- precisely the people most likely to need the insurers' service. They employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer is hit by a truck and faces big medical bills, the insurer's "rescission department" digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the victim is still in the hospital. The companies say they have to do this stuff to survive in a tough business.

    Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums. The plans are required to pay any claim submitted by a doctor or hospital (or health spa), usually within tight time limits. The big Swiss insurer Groupe Mutuel promises to pay all claims within five days. "Our customers love it," the group's chief executive told me. The corollary is that everyone is mandated to buy insurance, to give the plans an adequate pool of rate-payers.

    5 Myths About Health Care Around the World - Page 2 - Washington Post

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #518
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,287

    Re: Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

    I heard on the radio today that insurance premiums for healthy people could go up two to three times for those that want Obamacare. I suppose this is to help pay for the insurance for the poor. So where is the savings that was advertised with this system? Obama said it would be cheaper for everyone since no one would be wondering into local emergency rooms where care is extremely high. We know Congress didn't read the law, and obviously now we know that Obama didn't either.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #519
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    Re: Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I heard on the radio today that insurance premiums for healthy people could go up two to three times for those that want Obamacare. I suppose this is to help pay for the insurance for the poor. So where is the savings that was advertised with this system? Obama said it would be cheaper for everyone since no one would be wondering into local emergency rooms where care is extremely high. We know Congress didn't read the law, and obviously now we know that Obama didn't either.
    Well if the radio said it, and used the strong word like 'could' then by golly it must be true!!!

    I suppose those who's company is ducking out on their side of the insurance plan could see a sharp increase in cost- welcome to the world of the self employed!

    I do know some in Congress fought hard to gut and dilute the impact of ACA so their protected interest groups could still be unaccountable for increases in cost.

    With any luck that will backfire as more and more people feel the cost escalations and start asking hard questions.

    Time for people to stop just accepting a cost increase is required because a corporation told them so.

  10. #520
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    The non administrative costs happen even in our system. Unless we let people die unnecessarily, which not insuring them may do, we face those costs as well. So administrative costs do mean something.

    I also told you there were many different systems. So trying to limit he discussion to on or two largely is seen as an effort to side step the point. I will have to examine your source a little closer as it doesn't sound nonpartisan, at least not on this issue. But I'll investigate when I have more time.

    The trouble is j, you rarely if ever actually assess a source. You merely go with what you agree with no matter how poor the source is. So, I'm not sure you should throw stones at progressives, who ever they are.

    If we can use physicians who don't want universal health care, we can use those who do. If you evaluate the source, you'll find that they are accurate. I keep telling you, bias isn't the problem. Accuracy is.

    And no, WHO wasn't discredited. Whiny Americans just threw a hissy. Nothing more.
    Well Joe, you seem to be starting out with an either/or fallacy here. I know you are a person that believes that there are more choices in a particular argument, than my way, or your way right?

    And as I have told you before, your proclamation that 'you have to study the source I used further to determine it's potential bias' is 1. - arrogant, and 2. - not your place to determine, and impose on the discussion. If you don't like a source I presented, then counter it with what you think is better information on the subject my source uses, and I can have the opportunity to judge both side by side. However, this tactic of yours to attack sources as not accepted by you, so therefore is invalid, is just silly.

    The question I asked you was intended to calmly, civilly have you as a progressive liberal show me why I should accept UHC, even though the sides are drawn, and there is propaganda on both sides of the argument. With this particular discussion so far you have offered your sources as pure truth, and dismissed mine out of hand arrogantly proclaiming that YOU must asses their validity to use or not, and for good measure throwing in a rather insulting jab at me personally as to YOUR perception of my ability to understand your argument....And you wonder why I don't like 'progressives'???? Really?

    And then as if delivered on a silver platter you launch immediately into some disjointed paragraph about why we can only use sources, or physicians that agree with you to discuss the matter....What you are really saying, boils down to a rather juvenile argument style, that although uses adult language, really just says "I'm right, and you're a doody head".... Weak dude.

    As for the WHO, when they show they can approach things like this clear of an agenda to diminish sovereignty then fine they can offer such....Til then they can take that star wars bar room scene of characters they got there, and pound sand.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 52 of 58 FirstFirst ... 2425051525354 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •