• 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!

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

Nope, you don't get to declare what is or isn't a fact....Everyone has the same "access" to health care in this country, what we are talking about is method of payment for service.



I don't rely on "outliners", I use bold when making important points...:lol: Anyway, you have two logical fallacies in two sentences here....you go man....

No, facts are facts. O one declares them. They just are.

And no, not everyone has proper access. You should investigate more.


Key findings
Data from the National Health Interview Survey: 2008
• Almost 13 million young adults aged 20–29 years did not have health insurance coverage in 2008 (30%).
• Young men aged 20–29 years were 36% more likely than young women of that age to be uninsured.
• Young adults aged 20–29 years without insurance were less likely to have a usual source of medical care (44%) than were those with private insurance (80%) or Medicaid (84%).
• Young adults aged 20–29 years without insurance were four times as likely (21%) as those with private insurance (5%) and two times as likely as those with Medicaid (9%) to have unmet medical need.
• Uninsured young women aged 20–29 (33%) were almost twice as likely as uninsured young men of that age (18%) to have had unmet prescription medication need in the past 12 months.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db29.PDF


Tens of millions of adults under age 65 — both those with insurance and those without — saw their access to health care worsen dramatically over the past decade, according to a study abstract released Monday.

The findings suggest that more privately insured Americans are delaying treatment because of rising out-of-pocket costs, while safety-net programs for the poor and uninsured are failing to keep up with demand for care, say Urban Institute researchers who wrote the report.

Access to health care in U.S. worsens, study finds : Lifestyles

About 44 million people in this country have no health insurance, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families.

Having no health insurance also often means that people will postpone necessary care and forego preventive care - such as childhood immunizations and routine check-ups-completely. Because the uninsured usually have no regular doctor and limited access to prescription medications, they are more likely to be hospitalized for health conditions that could have been avoided.

Delaying care for fear of medical bills is a downward spiral that leads to ultimately higher health care costs for all of us. More than one third of uninsured adults reported they have problems paying their bills, which helps explain why many of the uninsured don't seek out the care they need until the last minute. But when an uninsured person is in crisis and cannot pay, that burden falls upon the insured population, the hospitals, the doctors and the government. And these billions of dollars of "uncompensated care" drive up health insurance premiums for everyone.

PBS- Healthcare Crisis: The Uninsured

And you really should review logical fallacies. You don't know them very well. ;)
 
No, facts are facts. O one declares them. They just are.

And no, not everyone has proper access. You should investigate more.


Key findings
Data from the National Health Interview Survey: 2008
• Almost 13 million young adults aged 20–29 years did not have health insurance coverage in 2008 (30%).
• Young men aged 20–29 years were 36% more likely than young women of that age to be uninsured.
• Young adults aged 20–29 years without insurance were less likely to have a usual source of medical care (44%) than were those with private insurance (80%) or Medicaid (84%).
• Young adults aged 20–29 years without insurance were four times as likely (21%) as those with private insurance (5%) and two times as likely as those with Medicaid (9%) to have unmet medical need.
• Uninsured young women aged 20–29 (33%) were almost twice as likely as uninsured young men of that age (18%) to have had unmet prescription medication need in the past 12 months.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db29.PDF


Tens of millions of adults under age 65 — both those with insurance and those without — saw their access to health care worsen dramatically over the past decade, according to a study abstract released Monday.

The findings suggest that more privately insured Americans are delaying treatment because of rising out-of-pocket costs, while safety-net programs for the poor and uninsured are failing to keep up with demand for care, say Urban Institute researchers who wrote the report.

Access to health care in U.S. worsens, study finds : Lifestyles

About 44 million people in this country have no health insurance, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families.

Having no health insurance also often means that people will postpone necessary care and forego preventive care - such as childhood immunizations and routine check-ups-completely. Because the uninsured usually have no regular doctor and limited access to prescription medications, they are more likely to be hospitalized for health conditions that could have been avoided.

Delaying care for fear of medical bills is a downward spiral that leads to ultimately higher health care costs for all of us. More than one third of uninsured adults reported they have problems paying their bills, which helps explain why many of the uninsured don't seek out the care they need until the last minute. But when an uninsured person is in crisis and cannot pay, that burden falls upon the insured population, the hospitals, the doctors and the government. And these billions of dollars of "uncompensated care" drive up health insurance premiums for everyone.

PBS- Healthcare Crisis: The Uninsured

And you really should review logical fallacies. You don't know them very well. ;)

ok smart guy, if someone goes into a doctors office with no insurance, but has the money in his pocket to pay for the service of an office visit, does he get turned away?
 
ok smart guy, if someone goes into a doctors office with no insurance, but has the money in his pocket to pay for the service of an office visit, does he get turned away?

Nope. But if he has no insurance, and no money he does. So, stay within the confines of what I linked. No one claims those who can afford it gets turned away.
 
Nope. But if he has no insurance, and no money he does.

That's just not true...In most cities there are free clinics, (although not enough I admit), and if the situation is bad enough to warrant emergency treatment then by law he can not be turned away from a hospital. Then, for even the those that don't have the money for say "top notch doctor's offices" there are emergent care practices like "doctor's care" and others that you can visit for an office visit costing $30.

So, stay within the confines of what I linked.

No, because what you link sets up a false picture of what is available in this country. It leaves much out for the purposes of furthering a narrative in favor of your desire. That is just not an honest debate.

No one claims those who can afford it gets turned away.

By using a blanket term "access" you are at best giving a misleading term. Access, and affordability are two different things. I tell you a little story. My daughter just got out of the hospital yesterday. She was in there for 10 days. Now, although she does work, she didn't need any money up front, and the insurance she is covered under, is still probably going to leave her with bills that are in the thousands, that she doesn't have. But, she will be able to work with the financial dept. and set up payments of some sort. Either way, she received the treatment she needed even though she didn't have the money to pay up front, so her access was just fine.

And I have news for you Joe, even if she didn't have the insurance coverage she did, she still would have been admitted, and treated. The bill would have been higher, and other avenues would have been worked out with the hospitals, doctors, and other services in terms of payment, but she still would have been treated. So, if you want to shift the argument to cost, we will probably find more agreement, but to use the disingenuous term access, I am going to say you are just plain wrong, or dishonest. Either way, we know it to be false.
 
That's just not true...In most cities there are free clinics, (although not enough I admit), and if the situation is bad enough to warrant emergency treatment then by law he can not be turned away from a hospital. Then, for even the those that don't have the money for say "top notch doctor's offices" there are emergent care practices like "doctor's care" and others that you can visit for an office visit costing $30.



No, because what you link sets up a false picture of what is available in this country. It leaves much out for the purposes of furthering a narrative in favor of your desire. That is just not an honest debate.



By using a blanket term "access" you are at best giving a misleading term. Access, and affordability are two different things. I tell you a little story. My daughter just got out of the hospital yesterday. She was in there for 10 days. Now, although she does work, she didn't need any money up front, and the insurance she is covered under, is still probably going to leave her with bills that are in the thousands, that she doesn't have. But, she will be able to work with the financial dept. and set up payments of some sort. Either way, she received the treatment she needed even though she didn't have the money to pay up front, so her access was just fine.

And I have news for you Joe, even if she didn't have the insurance coverage she did, she still would have been admitted, and treated. The bill would have been higher, and other avenues would have been worked out with the hospitals, doctors, and other services in terms of payment, but she still would have been treated. So, if you want to shift the argument to cost, we will probably find more agreement, but to use the disingenuous term access, I am going to say you are just plain wrong, or dishonest. Either way, we know it to be false.

Nothing's free. And have you been to a "free" clinic? Again, I gave you links with the numbers.

A no, you not liking the view of the country doesn't make it false. The view presented by the links is quite accurate. I know this from experience, but unlike the fellow you won't question when he didn't back up his assertions, I've backed mine up.

And no, if you can't afford something, you don't have access to it. You using one of tactics some think is clever. It's not. What you can't afford, you can't have. What you can't afford, you are denied access to.

And no, hospitals only have to treat emergencies. And charging someone more, when they can't afford less, is largely stupid. I've linked numbers. I can even link examples if you want. Including international medical teams coming to help Americans who can't get care. So, no, the facts are against you on this.
 
The purpose of the health care act is not to make health care any cheaper for anyone...it's an attempt to make 30 hours the new full time work week. This way, companies have more workers working fewer hours. Which equals lower unemployment numbers.
 
Looks pretty affordable to me.
 
Is that why the fund is going broke, because they do an amazing job?

yes, any thing that does more than intended, that takes on those most in need, will have some trouble with funding. This is not shocking, especially without solid planning and support from all concerned. it would actually do even better if we merely adopted one system, not ten, and handled this like people trying to solve the problem.
 
yes, any thing that does more than intended, that takes on those most in need, will have some trouble with funding.

Trouble? They were only off on their cost estimate by 10 times when they authorized it. We better hope Obamacare isn't off as much, we couldn't print money fast enough to cover that sort of blunder.
 
Trouble? They were only off on their cost estimate by 10 times when they authorized it. We better hope Obamacare isn't off as much, we couldn't print money fast enough to cover that sort of blunder.

Again, they did more than originally asked. And we're aging quickly. No easy way around that. Try to see all of it.
 
Again, they did more than originally asked. And we're aging quickly. No easy way around that. Try to see all of it.

No the original estimate for the basic program was off by a ton. There is no reason to suspect they have gotten any better at estimating long term costs in the past 50 years.
 
The purpose of the health care act is not to make health care any cheaper for anyone...it's an attempt to make 30 hours the new full time work week. This way, companies have more workers working fewer hours. Which equals lower unemployment numbers.

PLease do it. People who bypass this and continue to work longer and harder than the norm will continue to have higher wealth and wealth disparity will grow EVEN FASTER, and the cycle will continue. Incentivize non-wealth creating behaviors, and expect more people to create wealth. Liberal insanity.
 
No the original estimate for the basic program was off by a ton. There is no reason to suspect they have gotten any better at estimating long term costs in the past 50 years.

If that is the ONLY thing you look at. Of course, that would be dishonest. It is not too much to ask that we look at everything, every factor, to have a better understanding of they how and whys. .
 
If that is the ONLY thing you look at. Of course, that would be dishonest. It is not too much to ask that we look at everything, every factor, to have a better understanding of they how and whys. .

What is dishonest about asking that the AFFORDABLE healthcare act actually be affordable?
 
The only question I saw was why did Medicare cost so much.

No I said Medicare cost way more than projected and I hope they weren't off as much on Obamacare. We can't afford Medicare so how will the Affordable healthcare act be affordable if they are as accurate with their projections for it as they were with medicare, since is it Medicare on steroids?
 
So, to put it in perspective, an average healthy person who sees the doctor twice a year will pay.... $1,500 per visit. Bargain!

Or just shell out the penalty and pocket the difference.

Apparently, understanding the concept of 'insurance' isnt one of your strong points.

I guess my term life insurance has been a waste because I only can die once... and I have to do it during the term.
 
No I said Medicare cost way more than projected and I hope they weren't off as much on Obamacare. We can't afford Medicare so how will the Affordable healthcare act be affordable if they are as accurate with their projections for it as they were with medicare, since is it Medicare on steroids?

We can afford Medicare and more. We just need to properly fund it. It's all in how it's done.
 
We can afford Medicare and more. We just need to properly fund it. It's all in how it's done.

Right. We can't even fund medical care for a small percentage of the population and now we are expanding it to the entire population. Brilliant idea.
 
Right. We can't even fund medical care for a small percentage of the population and now we are expanding it to the entire population. Brilliant idea.

But we have been, and rather well considering we're taking on the most needy population without full support. You might try looking at it a little more. Open the mind. research a bit. ;)
 
But we have been, and rather well considering we're taking on the most needy population without full support. You might try looking at it a little more. Open the mind. research a bit. ;)

Rather well? You call a program that is suppose to take care of a small portion of our population being bankrupt after less than a generation doing rather well?
 
Back
Top Bottom