• 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!

Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

Repub house, repub senate, repub white house!


Medicare Part D - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is just corruption on the part of repubs who steered this through. The wrote the law to help big pharma rape the taxpayers. Actually, there is NO TAX TO PAY FOR THIS AT ALL, so the repubs just ran up the deficit, now they complain that the dems are running up the deficit, but it is mostly repub screw ups from the Bush admin, and the slow recovery keeping income tax receipts low.

At least an attempt was made by the dems to pay for Obamacare, savings in Medicare, big pharma agreed to a 10% discount on the drugs provided by Medicare part D, some new taxes in the healthcare area, and the penalty on those who go uninsured. We'll see how it turns out, but I don't see how it can be as bad to the deficit as Medicare part D was, without even a shred of an attempt to pay for it.

The point was, that the bill Med part D, went through the normal process. Passed the house, a different bill passed the Senate, and then went into conference committee, and came out negotiated between both houses, and passed both chambers with democrat support, and signed by the President...NOTHING like the process that the ACA went through to pass.

But, even if you want to take that avenue to complain about Med part D, then why would you think that doing the same thing, if not worse, as in more partisan on your side with the ACA would turn out any better? Or be accepted more readily?

As for your "trying to pay for it" statement, that is as phony as the statements Obama made selling the bill in the first place about 'if you like your insurance plan....etc.' Democrats through the likes of Ezekel Emmanuel, who btw, is well documented as being, shall we say, non sympathetic to the care of the elderly, robbed Medicare to the tune of $700 billion to pay for an expansion to Medicaid which in turn offers nothing to pay for actual mandates in the ACA, and instead will leave the states in the future with an increased burden to pick up the expense as the Federal government pulls out of their assistance that they start the plan with, so another bait and switch.

The ACA also takes the taxation that you compare with Med part D, and puts it on steroids...

"WASHINGTON, DC -- Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses. Arranged by their respective sizes according to CBO scores, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, their effective dates, and where to find them in the bill."

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes | Congressman Jeff Duncan

Although we can probably agree that in the area of Health Insurance, something had to be done, but this scale, this magnitude, the degree in which Progressive liberals over reached in this all but ensure its failure to come.
 
The point was, that the bill Med part D, went through the normal process. Passed the house, a different bill passed the Senate, and then went into conference committee, and came out negotiated between both houses, and passed both chambers with democrat support, and signed by the President...NOTHING like the process that the ACA went through to pass.
The point is that all this was lead by the repub house, the repub senate, and the repub president, and it was fiscally irresponsible since there was no tax to pay for it, the government was prohibited from negotiating for discounts on the drugs when even the VA gets a 50% discount, and it now adds $70 billion annually to the deficit. Its the worst piece of legislation I have seen in my lifetime in this country. The dems didn't oppose it, so yes to an extent both parties are to blame, but the repubs were in the drivers seat and they earn the biggest blame, especially Bush; he could have just vetoed it.

j-mac said:
But, even if you want to take that avenue to complain about Med part D, then why would you think that doing the same thing, if not worse, as in more partisan on your side with the ACA would turn out any better? Or be accepted more readily?
The repubs shot down healthcare reform in 94 totally, they could have done something during the Bush admin if they wanted, and with the Mitch McConnell strategy of making Obama a one term president by not allowing him to pass anything, it was not politically an option. The repubs haven't stepped across the isle to help Obama with anything and they sure weren't going to do it on this. They're just a bunch of angry old men, known as the party of no. That's why, that's the political reality. It was passed the way it was because after 20 years of trying by the dems, and no effort by the repubs to do anything, it was the only way it could be passed.

j-mac said:
As for your "trying to pay for it" statement, that is as phony as the statements Obama made selling the bill in the first place about 'if you like your insurance plan....etc.' Democrats through the likes of Ezekel Emmanuel, who btw, is well documented as being, shall we say, non sympathetic to the care of the elderly, robbed Medicare to the tune of $700 billion to pay for an expansion to Medicaid which in turn offers nothing to pay for actual mandates in the ACA, and instead will leave the states in the future with an increased burden to pick up the expense as the Federal government pulls out of their assistance that they start the plan with, so another bait and switch.

Link please.

j-mac said:
The ACA also takes the taxation that you compare with Med part D, and puts it on steroids...

"WASHINGTON, DC -- Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses. Arranged by their respective sizes according to CBO scores, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, their effective dates, and where to find them in the bill."

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes | Congressman Jeff Duncan
This is about fiscal responsibility and the repubs showed NONE with the medicare part D bill, as there was NO TAX to pay for it, and it dumps $70 billion a year straight on the deficit, courtesy of George Bush, and then the repubs complain about he deficit under Obama. Does Obamacare come with taxes, sure; that's how you pay for things.

j-mac said:
Although we can probably agree that in the area of Health Insurance, something had to be done, but this scale, this magnitude, the degree in which Progressive liberals over reached in this all but ensure its failure to come.
I agree with the bolded part, something needed to be done. Is Obamacare the best bill we could have gotten; no. If the repubs had not wanted to make Obama a one term president as their top priority per McConnell, and they had worked with the dems, we could have gotten a better bill. Once Sen. Kennedy died and Scott Walker took his seat, there was no longer a veto proof majority in the senate, so no changes could be made to the bill without one repub vote, and not one repub would work with the dems, so the house had to pass the senate bill unchanged. That's not optimum, but given the repub game of hardball, it was the only way it could happen. Republican partisanship forced this on as much as anything the dems did. I showed a Harvard study that 45,000 per year are dying pre-maturely due to being denied health insurance, and the republicans haven't lifted a finger in 2 decades to do anything about it. I guess its just because they are poor people and the republicans just don't care about poor people.
 
Last edited:
Do you believe it is necessary to dump sick people in order for the health ins. companies to make money?

I have started a push poll to answer this question. So far most people have answered it right. You should chime in and give us a wrong answer. I only have two wrong answers so far.

Here is the link.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/176462-best-way-run-insurance-company-6.html#post1062482924

If you prefer you can vote in my poll about the Ceramic Doll Industry. Your answer will be identical in both polls.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/176637-best-way-run-ceramic-doll-company.html
 
Last edited:
vasuderatorrent said:
Yes, they do kick people off their insurance policy when they get very sick and start costing the insurance company too much. Why wouldn't they?

Why are you having such a hard time understanding that $4,200 in dues over 1,190 years only yields $4,998,000. 1,190 years is too long to wait for a return on investment. Most people don't pay premiums for 1,190 years. How could an insurance continue to exist if they made completely mathematically absurd decisions?

I can't comprehend this kind of thinking.
Businesses should go broke because it's nice. Businesses shouldn't make a profit because it is mean.


Do people really believe this stupidity? Surely not.

vasuderatorrent


In order for you to assert that the profit of the private health ins. industry is more important to our national health system than the lives of the people that it is supposed to serve, you would have to prove that a private health ins. industry is even NECESSARY. England and Canada have shown that it is not even necessary to have a private health ins. industry.

Does a health insurance company provide any actual CARE to sick people? No. Why do we need them if they are harmful to the poor and the very sick when it comes to accessing the healthcare that they need, if other countries do the job WITHOUT private health ins. at all, and they do it at 11% of GDP while the US pays 17% of GDP? Answer, we don't need them as part of our national health system. Therefore, their profit motive cannot be deemed superior to saving the lives of the sick that really need healthcare and are only being rescinded because they cost a lot. It is immoral to allow corporate america to let people die like that, and it is a prime example of the inappropriateness of putting private industry in charge of setting the rules via their death panels, on who gets to live and who has to die, based on their profit requirement to Wall St. The military is not for profit, nor should healthcare be for profit. Life and death is a moral issue, not a profit issue.

I have started a push poll to answer this question. So far most people have answered it right. You should chime in and give us a wrong answer. I only have two wrong answers so far.

Here is the link.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/176462-best-way-run-insurance-company-6.html#post1062482924

If you prefer you can vote in my poll about the Ceramic Doll Industry. Your answer will be identical in both polls.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/176637-best-way-run-ceramic-doll-company.html

I'll answer yours after you answer my question I posed to you several days ago. England and Canada don't use private health insurance companies in their national healthcare system, they cover everyone, and they do it for 11% of GDP vs. the US spends 17% of GDP on healthcare. Part of the US money spent is essentially a guaranteed profit to the health insurance companies that provide NO CARE to the people (the car companies and the airlines occasionally lose money, when was the last time you heard of an established health insurance company losing money? They don't. They use a system that essentially guarantees them a fat profit, while our fellow citizens die prematurely because they were denied coverage or dropped). Why do we need the health insurance companies???
 
Last edited:
How many of these policies are fraudulent junk, like the rest of the GOP??

Like the GOP who crash-landed the economy..

How long did it take to overcome the Great Depression??

Or is it, would we have recovered without a World War ?
 
You are taking two statements I made out of context and joining them together, which demonstrates confused and invalid logic on your part. Fail.
"Wait times are standard on all insurance", your words that go along with more of your words, "is the same under Obamacare" (referencing wait times). Nope, I'm not confused with what you wrote.


Again, nothing but confused jumbled invalid logic. What I showed is federal law required EMERGENCY ROOM TREATMENT. I did NOT SAY what you just said "the old way required healthcare to everyone but the old way wasn't good enough.", you just made that up. You are really grasping for straws by attempting to alter what I said.
No grasp on my part. Treatment in an ER is heath care. Period. Of course then you added, "Well if the hospital has to treat you, you should be required to carry ins. to pay for it, instead of sloughing off your burden on others.". Fine with me but how about letting the taxpayers off the hook for paying for health insurance for the something for nothing crowd. You should agree being you claim to be against, "sloughing off your burden on others". Note: Of course I made up the following, ""the old way required healthcare to everyone but the old way wasn't good enough." those were my words. Lets throw in a few words you used to describe your position, "jumbled", "invalid", "grasping for straws". Sober up dude.



There's a difference that you don't seem to get. Under the old system, many of the 50 million uninsured HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY for insurance and they don't, so if something real serious happens to them, and they can't cover the expense themselves, since they chose not to take responsibility for themselves, they slough it off on the rest of us (but they had the ability to pay for the insurance). In the new system, you are correct, some people will get nearly free health insurance, but the difference is that they DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY FOR IT otherwise. Then we face the moral issue, if someone can't pay for health ins. nor the care necessary to save their life, will we, in the richest nation on earth, just allow them to die. As a society, we are voting NO, we won't let them die. Now, I believe there are limits, I don't think we can ask the society to pay unlimited bills on a limited budget, and that is where we have to make some practical choices on what type of care to pay for that everyone will have access to.
It's their money and they know how better to spend it than you do. Look at the big "if" you put in your justification of trying to force people to spend their money the way you want them to. That "if" in no way means (a) they will get sick or hurt or (b) they can't cover the expenses.
You assume everyone that doesn't have heath insurance doesn't have the ability to pay for it. Lot's of people make choices in that places little or no priority on obtaining health insurance. Really, it's not that big a risk being most people had accident coverage with their car insurance and are also covered under workers comp.
Then here we are back to a point you already made. "we won't let them die.". The law before Obamadon'tcare already provided for that.

People were already making choices on what to spend their money on before Obamadon'tcare and they still will after 1 Jan. This law will end up forcing millions of productive people to drop health insurance due to increased cost or job loss and the something for nothing crowd is crowned the winner. Assuming they can find a doctor that Obamadon'tcare didn't run off.
 
Why do we need the health insurance companies???

We don't need insurance companies. I PASSIONATELY HATE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

I'm honest when I say this. Shut down all insurance companies. Put the employees of the insurance companies in jail. It's the most disgusting industry of which I am aware. I don't buy their product. When you buy their product you become just as disgusting as they are.

There are disgusting people in this world that buy health insurance. There are disgusting people in this world that work in health insurance companies. Since this is the case I expect the health insurance scum bags to outsmart the consumer scum bags. The purpose of a company is to make a profit. Anybody who buys health insurance deserves to be screwed for being completely stupid and thinking they can get one over on a sophisticated business operation. They spend billions of dollars on the smartest number crunchers in the world. To expect them to pay out 10 times more than they take in is absurd. Why would they do that? Because they feel guilty? That's ridiculous. It isn't their job to feel guilt. Feeling guilty is something that you can enjoy in your spare time.
 
Absolutely true - but I've yet to see a business that can be run more efficiently and effectively by government than by private enterprise.

Healthcare. In countries that have nationalized healthcare (which is every 1st world country in the world), healthcare to GDP is 50% lower and with better outcomes than in the US where healthcare system (including insurance) is a substantially run by private enterprise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ow-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries
 
Last edited:
Healthcare. In countries that have nationalized healthcare (which is every 1st world country in the world), healthcare to GDP is 50% lower and with better outcomes than in the US where healthcare system (including insurance) is a substantially run by private enterprise.

21 graphs that show America’s health-care prices are ludicrous
Health Care Spending
</title> <script src='/rapi/js_config.js' type='text/javascript'></script> <script src="http://cdn.gotraffic.net/v/20131029_153533/javascripts/visual-data/jquery-1.8.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script> $.fn.localizeDateStamp = function

The problem with figures and graphs like these is that they don't include the additional funds that citizens pay out of pocket for the healthcare they need that is not covered by the government funded plan. Here in Canada, such things as eyecare, dental care, chiropractic care, prescription drugs, and an ever expanding list of other services and products are not covered and require the patient to either have supplemental health insurance or pay for the services out of pocket. As an example, a senior down the street from me pays about $500/month for insulin and diabetes testing strips. More and more people are concerned that the government run system is becoming unmanageable, too expensive, and limited in its application. More and more people have private supplemental healthcare and it's becoming more and more an employment benefit being demanded.

Here in Ontario, the government spends just under 50% of every dollar of revenue on the delivery of healthcare and it's increasing rapidly causing more and more services to be dropped. People with money and or private insurance are going to border cities in the US to get treatment they either can't get in Canada or can't get in a reasonable time. You may not believe it, but there's a reason people from all over the world, people from all those nationalized healthcare countries you tout, come to the US for healthcare. Here in Canada, we've had UHC for about 60 years and most people haven't ever lived in a system without it. As a result, we'd never give it up. But don't let that fool you into thinking it's 100% fantastic - it's not. Another example is doctors and nurses over the past 2 decades relocating in the US, primarily the southern, expanding US, because in the case of nurses, the government here has reduced the number of nurses hired and they can find jobs, often better paying jobs, in the US - as for doctors, they are not limited to income dictated by the government or limited by setting up office where the government says they can set up office. The best, with the talent and initiative to do so, were moving to the US where their talents were properly compensated. That trend will likely lessen or stop now that more and more Americans are going to be getting their healthcare through government programs and the government is and will continue to squeeze compensation for services they cover - Canada thanks you.
 
I found this interesting from the World Bank... In all its progressive, one world glory....

"So what exactly is UHC?

As each layer of argument has been added, UHC has thus morphed from a straightforward notion of making sure everyone has coverage to something much more complex and useful.

Yes universalism is still there. But UHC isn't about getting everyone coverage, since everyone already has it.

So what exactly is UHC? I think it means that that in practice everyone—whether rich or poor—gets the care they need without suffering undue financial hardship as a result.

UHC is about equity: linking care to need, not to ability pay. UHC is also about financial protection: making sure that people's use of needed care doesn't leave their family in poverty. And UHC is about quality of care: making sure providers make the right diagnosis, and prescribe a treatment that is appropriate and affordable."

Universal health coverage: Old wine in a new bottle? If so, is that so bad? | Let's Talk Development

So it is, and always has been this sort of, one world, wealth redistribution from those that have, to those that have not...IOW, a subtle, covert communist ideal.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
No grasp on my part. Treatment in an ER is heath care. Period. Of course then you added, "Well if the hospital has to treat you, you should be required to carry ins. to pay for it, instead of sloughing off your burden on others.". Fine with me but how about letting the taxpayers off the hook for paying for health insurance for the something for nothing crowd. You should agree being you claim to be against, "sloughing off your burden on others". Note: Of course I made up the following, ""the old way required healthcare to everyone but the old way wasn't good enough." those were my words. Lets throw in a few words you used to describe your position, "jumbled", "invalid", "grasping for straws". Sober up dude.
Treatment in the ER is a part of the healthcare system, but it is NOT the totality of healthcare. If all people got was ER care, they would miss out on much that a good healthcare system should provide. You don't need to go to the ER to get chemo treatments, so are you going to let all the cancer patients die? You don't go to the ER to get brain surgery, you need a sophisticated diagnosis and treatment plan and the correct specialist scheduled to perform the operation. Most of us receive most of our health care outside the ER. To assert that because they passed a federal law requiring hospitals to treat those who present themselves to an ER to the point that they are stabilized, therefore they "have healthcare" is silly, because it omits the bulk of treatments that most of us need. All the ER is required to do is stabilize and release people.

My point about people sloughing off their responsibility is those who can pay for insurance but they do not, then if they get hit with an expensive illness and the cost is more than they can pay they throw the bill on everyone else. They are sloughing off their responsibility. The other set of people cannot afford health insurance or to pay for their treatment. In a sense they are sloughing off their responsibility, but they have no choice (as opposed to those with the ability to pay who chose not to). Everyone I have talked to says they support providing healthcare to those that are unable to provide it for themselves, we should have a national healthcare system that takes care of those who can't take care of themselves. Simply letting them die is not a good option. You can't get all the treatment you need in the ER, and if you could ER is the most expensive form of treatment in our healthcare system and it is stupid to require people to go the the most expensive method of treatment.

ItAin'tFree said:
It's their money and they know how better to spend it than you do. Look at the big "if" you put in your justification of trying to force people to spend their money the way you want them to. That "if" in no way means (a) they will get sick or hurt or (b) they can't cover the expenses.
No, people will not always live up to their responsibility. That is why states REQUIRE individuals with cars to carry liability insurance. The state knows that some of them will get in wrecks and not be able to pay for the damage they caused. If the state didn't require them to carry liability insurance, those people would slough off their responsibility and those that they damaged would just be screwed. There is no moral imperative to replace a car by the society, so we are not involved like we are in saving the life of a very sick person who can be saved. Unless forced by the state, many people will not do the right thing.

You assume everyone that doesn't have heath insurance doesn't have the ability to pay for it.
Of course not, you just made that up. In my previous discussion about sloughing off responsibility it was directed at those with the ability to pay for health insurance but don't, and they run up a medical bill they can't pay for. That is what Obamacare aims to fix. There are also those without ins. who can pay for their bills (the wealthy can do that), and those who can't afford heath ins. under the old system. Then there are those under the old system that can afford health ins. but the ins. company denies them coverage because of a pre-existing condition or drops them is they were well but get seriously ill, which is the tragic flaw in the old system than must be fixed.

ItAin'tFree said:
Then here we are back to a point you already made. "we won't let them die.". The law before Obamadon'tcare already provided for that.
Of course not. In this thread I have posted a study by Harvard that 45,000 die each year because they don't have health ins. See below:

Now, on to the tough question: Is the 45,000 figure accurate? We can’t say for sure, but scores of other studies also conclude that persons without health insurance have a higher chance of dying prematurely than those with health insurance. A committee headed by Dr. John Z. Ayanian of the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine reviewed nearly 100 such studies released since 2002. And in March he summed up the findings for Congress this way:

Ayanian’s testimony to Congress, March 2009: Uninsured Americans frequently delay or forgo doctors’ visits, prescription medications, and other effective treatments, even when they have serious disease or life-threatening conditions. … Because uninsured adults seek health care less often than insured adults, they are often unaware of health problems such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or early-stage cancer. Uninsured adults are also much less likely to receive vaccinations, cancer screening services such as mammography and colonoscopy, and other effective preventive services.

The 45,000 estimate is at the high end of estimates, but earlier studies also have put the number of excess deaths from lack of insurance coverage in the thousands:
Dying from Lack of Insurance

So, your statement that the old system covered that is wrong, or at best incomplete. We won't let you die if you are in a serious accident and are brought to the ER, we will save and stabilize you. However if you have a serious illness that required extensive followup and treatment, those without health ins. died at a higher rate than those with health ins. because the old system DOES NOT HANDLE THAT. Studies, nearly 100 studies, have proven that.
 
The problem with figures and graphs like these is that they don't include the additional funds that citizens pay out of pocket for the healthcare they need that is not covered by the government funded plan. Here in Canada, such things as eyecare, dental care, chiropractic care, prescription drugs, and an ever expanding list of other services and products are not covered and require the patient to either have supplemental health insurance or pay for the services out of pocket. As an example, a senior down the street from me pays about $500/month for insulin and diabetes testing strips. More and more people are concerned that the government run system is becoming unmanageable, too expensive, and limited in its application. More and more people have private supplemental healthcare and it's becoming more and more an employment benefit being demanded.

Here in Ontario, the government spends just under 50% of every dollar of revenue on the delivery of healthcare and it's increasing rapidly causing more and more services to be dropped. People with money and or private insurance are going to border cities in the US to get treatment they either can't get in Canada or can't get in a reasonable time. You may not believe it, but there's a reason people from all over the world, people from all those nationalized healthcare countries you tout, come to the US for healthcare. Here in Canada, we've had UHC for about 60 years and most people haven't ever lived in a system without it. As a result, we'd never give it up. But don't let that fool you into thinking it's 100% fantastic - it's not. Another example is doctors and nurses over the past 2 decades relocating in the US, primarily the southern, expanding US, because in the case of nurses, the government here has reduced the number of nurses hired and they can find jobs, often better paying jobs, in the US - as for doctors, they are not limited to income dictated by the government or limited by setting up office where the government says they can set up office. The best, with the talent and initiative to do so, were moving to the US where their talents were properly compensated. That trend will likely lessen or stop now that more and more Americans are going to be getting their healthcare through government programs and the government is and will continue to squeeze compensation for services they cover - Canada thanks you.

Great post John, thanks for your contribution. Canada handles healthcare much like the US handles education. In the US, there is a minimum standard of education provided for all, and if you want better you can pay more and go to a private school. My 3 kids went to the public schools in TX and one is an elec. eng., one is a bio-chemist, and one has a degree in psychology. If you accept the knowledge, you can go on and do what you want.

Canada spends 11% of GDP on healthcare and we spend 17% in the US. Canada covers everyone and they deal with what they can afford. The US clearly can't afford the system we have, evidenced by our huge deficit, and we don't cover 18% of the people and they die prematurely due to lack of health ins. which 100 studies have shown (I show it in the post above). Canada has something similar to the IPAB proposed by Obamacare that decides what the healthcare system will cover, and there must be limits. Canada's system may not be ideal, but at least Canada isn't going broke as a nation, nor are they allowing the poorest die prematurely due to lack of routine care.
 
The problem with figures and graphs like these is that they don't include the additional funds that citizens pay out of pocket for the healthcare they need that is not covered by the government funded plan. Here in Canada, such things as eyecare, dental care, chiropractic care, prescription drugs, and an ever expanding list of other services and products are not covered and require the patient to either have supplemental health insurance or pay for the services out of pocket. As an example, a senior down the street from me pays about $500/month for insulin and diabetes testing strips. More and more people are concerned that the government run system is becoming unmanageable, too expensive, and limited in its application. More and more people have private supplemental healthcare and it's becoming more and more an employment benefit being demanded.

Here in Ontario, the government spends just under 50% of every dollar of revenue on the delivery of healthcare and it's increasing rapidly causing more and more services to be dropped. People with money and or private insurance are going to border cities in the US to get treatment they either can't get in Canada or can't get in a reasonable time. You may not believe it, but there's a reason people from all over the world, people from all those nationalized healthcare countries you tout, come to the US for healthcare. Here in Canada, we've had UHC for about 60 years and most people haven't ever lived in a system without it. As a result, we'd never give it up. But don't let that fool you into thinking it's 100% fantastic - it's not. Another example is doctors and nurses over the past 2 decades relocating in the US, primarily the southern, expanding US, because in the case of nurses, the government here has reduced the number of nurses hired and they can find jobs, often better paying jobs, in the US - as for doctors, they are not limited to income dictated by the government or limited by setting up office where the government says they can set up office. The best, with the talent and initiative to do so, were moving to the US where their talents were properly compensated. That trend will likely lessen or stop now that more and more Americans are going to be getting their healthcare through government programs and the government is and will continue to squeeze compensation for services they cover - Canada thanks you.

Actually, they are inclusive graphs. If what you suggested were true, then the US would have the lowest spending on healthcare as most healthcare spending is private, non government spending.

I understand supplement in insurance in Canada. In my previous life, my company had four Canadian subsidiaries, all of which I directed the acquisitions of. I can tell, albeit anecdotal, one of the employees biggest fears at being bought out by an American company was that we would layer health insurance on the Canadians (which was an irrational fear, as are most fears). Medicare also operations under the premise of private supplemental insurance (Medicare Part D)...

The real problem with "figures and graphs like these" is they expose the pathetic nature of the American healthcare system, which provides second world outcomes at out of this world prices.
 
It was tough to try and wade through all 29 pages. The title of course is a CON lie. The CEO of FL. Blue was on a Sunday morning squabble show to knock down the CON game being run by the TPs. No one's policy was cut, the policies that don't meet the new standards are being converting to one of several that do meet the new standards.

The CONs are trying to make far more of this than is the truth. This is like a state requiring all drivers to have uninsured motorist coverage. The CON lie would be to claim all the driver's without the coverage already part of their policy are going to have their insurance cut.

That someone in Canada is using 500 dollars worth of insulin, syringes, test strips a month is rather meaningless. For one this person must be using the designer forms of insulin such as humalog and the disease is out of control. Back when I volunteered in the Eldercare program a big issue was the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada. The same drug was far cheaper in Canada, where the government bargains with Big Pharma on price (something Congress was forbidding our taxpayer supported programs from doing). The average cost for most of the diabetics was 100 to 200 bucks.

One dirty little secret those who decry the Canadian system and point to those 'fleeing' their wait lists is the fact far more Americans are 'fleeing' our high costs for other countries' far cheaper medical costs. New Zealand promotes the fact their operations generally run 15-20% the cost of an American one. In 2000 Blue Cross of California certified 3 Mexican hospitals for Americans to use. Companion Global Healthcare of S. Carolina in 2007 used medical facilities in Thailand, Singapore, Turkey, Ireland, Costa Rica, and India. A kidney transplant in Taiwan is $91,000- in the USA $300,000.

McKinsey and Co. researched the medical tourist traffic and estimated in 2008 85,000 people came to America for treatment while in 2007 over 750,000 Americans went out of country for medical treatment. American retirees routinely cross the Mexican border for medicine, dental, and minor surgeries such as lap band.

According to the OECD report of 2008 the per capita spending on drugs was $897 in the States and the average for the industrialized countries was $461.
 
Actually, they are inclusive graphs. If what you suggested were true, then the US would have the lowest spending on healthcare as most healthcare spending is private, non government spending.

I understand supplement in insurance in Canada. In my previous life, my company had four Canadian subsidiaries, all of which I directed the acquisitions of. I can tell, albeit anecdotal, one of the employees biggest fears at being bought out by an American company was that we would layer health insurance on the Canadians (which was an irrational fear, as are most fears). Medicare also operations under the premise of private supplemental insurance (Medicare Part D)...

The real problem with "figures and graphs like these" is they expose the pathetic nature of the American healthcare system, which provides second world outcomes at out of this world prices.

I would simply add that, like most things in life, not all the people can afford to enjoy the very best of everything or anything. I'd say Canada benefits from the American system of healthcare because your profit driven, business modeled delivery provides us access to treatments we don't get here at all or in a timely manner. When a person can work hard and have their labors properly compensated, they tend to be more productive and more innovative. That's not to say Canada doesn't have some top notch services and service providers just that a lot of research and development dollars go to America where efforts are justly rewarded.

I believe strongly that all Americans should have healthcare insurance that protects them against catastrophic illnesses/accidents similar to what Canadians enjoy. I never have to worry that having a heart attack is going to cost me and my family out home or our savings. I only have to worry about getting well again. There are two, significant, problems with Obamacare, among many, that I can see - firstly, it requires you to purchase a product you should not be forced to buy and secondly, it demands that that product contain a menu of services/products that many who would buy don't want to buy and thus makes the basics more expensive than the penalty.

I don't know how you get out of the Obamacare mess - it is a mess, no doubt - and in your political climate, I see it simply as a cudgel with which to beat the other side, depending on your ideological views and having the most inflexible, egotistical, arrogant President in recent memory is not going to help and just leads reform leaderless. Perhaps, after 4 years or so of disaster, a new President in 2016 will come in and have the political mandate to change it.
 
It was tough to try and wade through all 29 pages. The title of course is a CON lie. The CEO of FL. Blue was on a Sunday morning squabble show to knock down the CON game being run by the TPs. No one's policy was cut, the policies that don't meet the new standards are being converting to one of several that do meet the new standards.

The CONs are trying to make far more of this than is the truth. This is like a state requiring all drivers to have uninsured motorist coverage. The CON lie would be to claim all the driver's without the coverage already part of their policy are going to have their insurance cut.

That someone in Canada is using 500 dollars worth of insulin, syringes, test strips a month is rather meaningless. For one this person must be using the designer forms of insulin such as humalog and the disease is out of control. Back when I volunteered in the Eldercare program a big issue was the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada. The same drug was far cheaper in Canada, where the government bargains with Big Pharma on price (something Congress was forbidding our taxpayer supported programs from doing). The average cost for most of the diabetics was 100 to 200 bucks.

One dirty little secret those who decry the Canadian system and point to those 'fleeing' their wait lists is the fact far more Americans are 'fleeing' our high costs for other countries' far cheaper medical costs. New Zealand promotes the fact their operations generally run 15-20% the cost of an American one. In 2000 Blue Cross of California certified 3 Mexican hospitals for Americans to use. Companion Global Healthcare of S. Carolina in 2007 used medical facilities in Thailand, Singapore, Turkey, Ireland, Costa Rica, and India. A kidney transplant in Taiwan is $91,000- in the USA $300,000.

McKinsey and Co. researched the medical tourist traffic and estimated in 2008 85,000 people came to America for treatment while in 2007 over 750,000 Americans went out of country for medical treatment. American retirees routinely cross the Mexican border for medicine, dental, and minor surgeries such as lap band.

According to the OECD report of 2008 the per capita spending on drugs was $897 in the States and the average for the industrialized countries was $461.

What you've just proven is that the major issue with American healthcare prior to Obamacare was the costs associated with the delivery of the product, not the product itself, and Obamacare did virtually nothing to reduce those costs and in fact has exacerbated those costs going forward.

You champion Americans going elsewhere for inferior care due to costs, while I champion Canadians going to America for superior care. Sure, you can get a cheaper kidney transplant in Taiwan and other Asian countries - could be because in some they harvest kidneys from unwilling or unknowing donors. You can get a cheaper operation in Costa Rica, but try filing a civil lawsuit there if something goes wrong. Instead of cheering on California health insurance providers sanctioning care in Mexico, you should be livid that the same care costs too much in California and probably because of all the frivilous lawsuits and extra tests and the extra malpractice insurance providers in California need to have and pay for in order to survive.
 
Last edited:
I would simply add that, like most things in life, not all the people can afford to enjoy the very best of everything or anything. I'd say Canada benefits from the American system of healthcare because your profit driven, business modeled delivery provides us access to treatments we don't get here at all or in a timely manner. When a person can work hard and have their labors properly compensated, they tend to be more productive and more innovative. That's not to say Canada doesn't have some top notch services and service providers just that a lot of research and development dollars go to America where efforts are justly rewarded.

I believe strongly that all Americans should have healthcare insurance that protects them against catastrophic illnesses/accidents similar to what Canadians enjoy. I never have to worry that having a heart attack is going to cost me and my family out home or our savings. I only have to worry about getting well again. There are two, significant, problems with Obamacare, among many, that I can see - firstly, it requires you to purchase a product you should not be forced to buy and secondly, it demands that that product contain a menu of services/products that many who would buy don't want to buy and thus makes the basics more expensive than the penalty.

I don't know how you get out of the Obamacare mess - it is a mess, no doubt - and in your political climate, I see it simply as a cudgel with which to beat the other side, depending on your ideological views and having the most inflexible, egotistical, arrogant President in recent memory is not going to help and just leads reform leaderless. Perhaps, after 4 years or so of disaster, a new President in 2016 will come in and have the political mandate to change it.

I agree that Obamacare was a dumb idea; conceived by the Heritage Foundation, articulated by Sens Hatch/Caffee and Nickles (all R); beta tested under the leadership by a Massachusetts Republican governor (where it enjoys 63% popularity) and now taken national because Obama and Dems lacked the political will or guts to do the right thing and introduce UHC as Medicare part E...... its a bastardized system that relies much too much on private insurance... but it was probably the only thing that was remotely politically viable.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

It is what it is. I don't like it, but its ours, so I will do my best to embrace it.
 
Last edited:
What you've just proven is that the major issue with American healthcare prior to Obamacare was the costs associated with the delivery of the product, not the product itself, and Obamacare did virtually nothing to reduce those costs and in fact has exacerbated those costs going forward.

You champion Americans going elsewhere for inferior care due to costs, while I champion Canadians going to America for superior care. Sure, you can get a cheaper kidney transplant in Taiwan and other Asian countries - could be because in some they harvest kidneys from unwilling or unknowing donors. You can get a cheaper operation in Costa Rica, but try filing a civil lawsuit there if something goes wrong. Instead of cheering on California health insurance providers sanctioning care in Mexico, you should be livid that the same care costs too much in California and probably because of all the frivilous lawsuits and extra tests and the extra malpractice insurance providers in California need to have and pay for in order to survive.

I am not championing anything, simply pointing out the other side of this coin. I don't think you champion superior care in this country vs say Canada- no statistics back such a claim up. What this country has is a faster treatment policy- for those who can pay. Lack a method of payment and it's a band aid and on your way. Some like Mickey Mantle or former VP Cheney get moved to the head of the line when most protocols would deny them.

The ACA will not fix all the problems within Health Care, the lobbies in support of the status quo are powerful, but it is a start.

The lawsuit issue is a funny one- that was what was used to discourage Americans from buying Canadian 'script drugs- you just don't know if they are legit.

Now when it comes to suing bad doctors overseas- if the Insurance Company certified the off shore facility then they are on the hook to make any complication right and pursue any legal course of action. (Given how our legal system works most lawsuits don't end well for the patient, the lawyer perhaps but rarely the patient- is why they call it a practice and not a skill. ;) )

But while you champion our medical system I just wanted to point out so many more leave this country because the cost doesn't insure better care. 85K in which due to our costs means very rich folks vs over 750K leaving for a wide variety of countries to include New Zealand- with a 15 to 20% cost of the same operation (not exactly a 3rd world nation)

Now tell us more aboot your neighbor who uses 500 bucks worth of Canadian insulin a month....
 
Let's see, you had a policy that was cheap, well, because it was a cheap policy. If you got really sick, like cancer, you could be kicked off that cheap policy. If they didn't kick you off when you got cancer, then the lifetime max would kick in and you wouldn't have health ins. although you desperately needed it. Clearly, you had a cheap policy that did a reasonable job taking care of normal healthcare needs and it failed to take care of major needs. But, since most people are healthy most of the time, most people were dumb and happy about their situation, until they got really sick and they became very unhappy with their crappy situation after they were dropped and couldn't get health insurance anywhere because of the health insurance company death panels that evaluated their illness and denied them coverage due to their pre-existing condition.

Clearly that cheap old policy cannot provide the standard of benefits required by Obamacare (which people need whether their short sighted minds realize it now or not), so the policy must be changed to specify new terms that meet the standard, and at a new rate.

You are guaranteed coverage in the exchange, and that policy will not have a lifetime maximum, and you can't be dropped just because you have or get a serious illness. That's a much better policy.

How is that a bad thing?

Being as objective as I can, I have to agree. The high priced individual plans are obviously being cancelled because their terms do not comply with the ACA and are probably more expensive than the deals available through the exchanges, which are group rate policies. I understand some people are a little panicked because they can't get on the exchange website for the time being but there's no need to panic.
 
I'm convinced it's by design that this entire cluster**** happened. Ultimately, give the middle class no choice but to adopt a single payer government plan and put the insurance industry out of business.

But those folks in Congress will be exempt and get an aristocratic plan of their own.
Well.... yea.
 
One of the problems folks don't touch on is how sub-standard the care is in the public / county hospitals that our system provided for the poor who could not afford insurance. When I grew up in the south in the 50's and 60's, the schools were segregated on color lines, black and white, and the law provided for "separate but equal". The reality was they were separate but UNEQUAL and the supreme court eventually ordered the practice to be ended. If you didn't get a good education there was no way you could meaningfully participate at first class corporations like IBM, American Express, Aetna, etc.

Somehow today we have separate heathcare facilities and again they are UNEQUAL. People die as a result of this, and the right keeps trying to ignore this reality, like the white racists in the old south didn't care about substandard education under the old separate but unequal system from the 50's (see Brown vs. Board of Education).

Video Shows Woman Dying on NY Hospital Floor - YouTube
 
One of the problems folks don't touch on is how sub-standard the care is in the public / county hospitals that our system provided for the poor who could not afford insurance. When I grew up in the south in the 50's and 60's, the schools were segregated on color lines, black and white, and the law provided for "separate but equal". The reality was they were separate but UNEQUAL and the supreme court eventually ordered the practice to be ended. If you didn't get a good education there was no way you could meaningfully participate at first class corporations like IBM, American Express, Aetna, etc.

Somehow today we have separate heathcare facilities and again they are UNEQUAL. People die as a result of this, and the right keeps trying to ignore this reality, like the white racists in the old south didn't care about substandard education under the old separate but unequal system from the 50's (see Brown vs. Board of Education).

Video Shows Woman Dying on NY Hospital Floor - YouTube

Amen! Amen!
 
Treatment in the ER is a part of the healthcare system, but it is NOT the totality of healthcare. If all people got was ER care, they would miss out on much that a good healthcare system should provide. You don't need to go to the ER to get chemo treatments, so are you going to let all the cancer patients die? You don't go to the ER to get brain surgery, you need a sophisticated diagnosis and treatment plan and the correct specialist scheduled to perform the operation. Most of us receive most of our health care outside the ER. To assert that because they passed a federal law requiring hospitals to treat those who present themselves to an ER to the point that they are stabilized, therefore they "have healthcare" is silly, because it omits the bulk of treatments that most of us need. All the ER is required to do is stabilize and release people.
You're next para says something different than this one.

My point about people sloughing off their responsibility is those who can pay for insurance but they do not, then if they get hit with an expensive illness and the cost is more than they can pay they throw the bill on everyone else. They are sloughing off their responsibility. The other set of people cannot afford health insurance or to pay for their treatment. In a sense they are sloughing off their responsibility, but they have no choice (as opposed to those with the ability to pay who chose not to). Everyone I have talked to says they support providing healthcare to those that are unable to provide it for themselves, we should have a national healthcare system that takes care of those who can't take care of themselves. Simply letting them die is not a good option. You can't get all the treatment you need in the ER, and if you could ER is the most expensive form of treatment in our healthcare system and it is stupid to require people to go the the most expensive method of treatment.
You're first para says something different than this one.


No, people will not always live up to their responsibility. That is why states REQUIRE individuals with cars to carry liability insurance. The state knows that some of them will get in wrecks and not be able to pay for the damage they caused. If the state didn't require them to carry liability insurance, those people would slough off their responsibility and those that they damaged would just be screwed. There is no moral imperative to replace a car by the society, so we are not involved like we are in saving the life of a very sick person who can be saved. Unless forced by the state, many people will not do the right thing.
Car insurance is not health insurance (unless you are counting the accident provision). Are you saying health insurance should be required just in case you get a broken leg and it harms someone else? That's what I'm getting from your example.

I am under no "moral imperative" to pay for somebody else's health insurance anymore than they are to pay for mine.



Of course not, you just made that up. In my previous discussion about sloughing off responsibility it was directed at those with the ability to pay for health insurance but don't, and they run up a medical bill they can't pay for. That is what Obamacare aims to fix. There are also those without ins. who can pay for their bills (the wealthy can do that), and those who can't afford heath ins. under the old system. Then there are those under the old system that can afford health ins. but the ins. company denies them coverage because of a pre-existing condition or drops them is they were well but get seriously ill, which is the tragic flaw in the old system than must be fixed.
You list problems that could have been "fixed" without spending 2 trillion dollars of taxpayer money (like it's only going to cost that much). But back to "you just made that up". You are the one that said people could not afford health insurance. make your mind up on which way you want to go.


Of course not. In this thread I have posted a study by Harvard that 45,000 die each year because they don't have health ins. See below:


Dying from Lack of Insurance

So, your statement that the old system covered that is wrong, or at best incomplete. We won't let you die if you are in a serious accident and are brought to the ER, we will save and stabilize you. However if you have a serious illness that required extensive followup and treatment, those without health ins. died at a higher rate than those with health ins. because the old system DOES NOT HANDLE THAT. Studies, nearly 100 studies, have proven that.
Once again, decide which way you are going to argue a point. You can't say people don't get the healthcare they need in a ER so they get treatment in a hospital they can't pay for then say people don't get treatment without health insurance. And on to your Harvard study. Did they report how many people die each year that have health insurance? Then this: "The 45,000 estimate is at the high end of estimates, but earlier studies also have put the number of excess deaths from lack of insurance coverage in the thousands". And this:, "Now, on to the tough question: Is the 45,000 figure accurate? We can’t say for sure,". So in other words, they don't have a clue. A study in Oregon showed health insurance had no positive trend in peoples health.

Try a little consistency.
 
Originally Posted by finebead
Treatment in the ER is a part of the healthcare system, but it is NOT the totality of healthcare. If all people got was ER care, they would miss out on much that a good healthcare system should provide. You don't need to go to the ER to get chemo treatments, so are you going to let all the cancer patients die? You don't go to the ER to get brain surgery, you need a sophisticated diagnosis and treatment plan and the correct specialist scheduled to perform the operation. Most of us receive most of our health care outside the ER. To assert that because they passed a federal law requiring hospitals to treat those who present themselves to an ER to the point that they are stabilized, therefore they "have healthcare" is silly, because it omits the bulk of treatments that most of us need. All the ER is required to do is stabilize and release people.
You're next para says something different than this one.

My point about people sloughing off their responsibility is those who can pay for insurance but they do not, then if they get hit with an expensive illness and the cost is more than they can pay they throw the bill on everyone else. They are sloughing off their responsibility. The other set of people cannot afford health insurance or to pay for their treatment. In a sense they are sloughing off their responsibility, but they have no choice (as opposed to those with the ability to pay who chose not to). Everyone I have talked to says they support providing healthcare to those that are unable to provide it for themselves, we should have a national healthcare system that takes care of those who can't take care of themselves. Simply letting them die is not a good option. You can't get all the treatment you need in the ER, and if you could ER is the most expensive form of treatment in our healthcare system and it is stupid to require people to go the the most expensive method of treatment.
You're first para says something different than this one.
I disagree, but you point is not specified. State it clearly and I will show you why they are not in conflict.


finebead said:
No, people will not always live up to their responsibility. That is why states REQUIRE individuals with cars to carry liability insurance. The state knows that some of them will get in wrecks and not be able to pay for the damage they caused. If the state didn't require them to carry liability insurance, those people would slough off their responsibility and those that they damaged would just be screwed. There is no moral imperative to replace a car by the society, so we are not involved like we are in saving the life of a very sick person who can be saved. Unless forced by the state, many people will not do the right thing.
Car insurance is not health insurance (unless you are counting the accident provision). Are you saying health insurance should be required just in case you get a broken leg and it harms someone else? That's what I'm getting from your example.
Car ins. is not health ins., true statement. However, both have a component of personal responsibility not just to yourself, but to others. In car ins. you have a responsibility to carry it mandated by the state, because none of us intend to get in a wreck through our own fault and to cause damage that we can't afford to pay for. The states have determined they must compel us to do the right thing and carry a minimum level of liability to pay for damage we may cause and not have the ability to pay for. With Health ins., none of us expect to get in a serious car accident, but some of us will, we will require a large amount of healthcare expense, and if we don't have the money to pay for it, the hospital will recoup it by rolling it into the room rates and rates for other services, so everyone else ends up paying the tab. If you go to the hospital then you are paying for those who didn't have health ins. and walked on their tab. Now the federal govt. has mandated that everyone pay for a health ins. policy or pay a penalty. The reason govt. mandates each type of ins. is so people who can pay for an ins. policy but who can't pay for the expenses they incur will have the ins. company to pay their tab instead of dumping that tab on their fellow citizens in the case of health ins.

ItAin'tFree said:
I am under no "moral imperative" to pay for somebody else's health insurance anymore than they are to pay for mine.
But you end up paying for the deadbeats already. If you have health ins. your rates are higher than they need to be because the hospitals recoup the unpaid bills of the deadbeats by raising the fees for their services for everyone with the ability to pay. That causes your rates to go up if you have ins. and if you go in the hospital you pay your share on a higher rate. So, you are already paying.

The govt. mandates ER care in the case of an emergency, but without any ability to collect if the patient is not insured and can't pay the bill. They do it because it would be immoral to allow the patient to die in that case. You are already under that moral mandate, since 1986.

Of course not, you just made that up. In my previous discussion about sloughing off responsibility it was directed at those with the ability to pay for health insurance but don't, and they run up a medical bill they can't pay for. That is what Obamacare aims to fix. There are also those without ins. who can pay for their bills (the wealthy can do that), and those who can't afford heath ins. under the old system. Then there are those under the old system that can afford health ins. but the ins. company denies them coverage because of a pre-existing condition or drops them is they were well but get seriously ill, which is the tragic flaw in the old system than must be fixed.
You list problems that could have been "fixed" without spending 2 trillion dollars of taxpayer money (like it's only going to cost that much). But back to "you just made that up". You are the one that said people could not afford health insurance. make your mind up on which way you want to go.
You're inflating the cost of the program, provide a link please.

If you think we could fix it for less, tell us how. I have not seen this plan.
 
finebead said:
Of course not. In this thread I have posted a study by Harvard that 45,000 die each year because they don't have health ins. See below:

Dying from Lack of Insurance

So, your statement that the old system covered that is wrong, or at best incomplete. We won't let you die if you are in a serious accident and are brought to the ER, we will save and stabilize you. However if you have a serious illness that required extensive followup and treatment, those without health ins. died at a higher rate than those with health ins. because the old system DOES NOT HANDLE THAT. Studies, nearly 100 studies, have proven that.
ItAin'tFee said: Once again, decide which way you are going to argue a point. You can't say people don't get the healthcare they need in a ER so they get treatment in a hospital they can't pay for then say people don't get treatment without health insurance. And on to your Harvard study. Did they report how many people die each year that have health insurance? Then this: "The 45,000 estimate is at the high end of estimates, but earlier studies also have put the number of excess deaths from lack of insurance coverage in the thousands". And this:, "Now, on to the tough question: Is the 45,000 figure accurate? We can’t say for sure,". So in other words, they don't have a clue. A study in Oregon showed health insurance had no positive trend in peoples health.
You said "You can't say people don't get the healthcare they need in a ER so they get treatment in a hospital they can't pay for", and I didn't say that. Show me my quote where I said that. You are jumbling thoughts again.

You said " then say people don't get treatment without health insurance.". This is generally true, except emergency conditions will be treated and stabilized and then the patient released. There is no obligation on the hospital to provide followup treatment, so people without health ins. don't get that from a private hospital even though that may be where they were taken after a serious car accident, they were saved, stabilized, and released, then nothing from that hospital. If someone needs medical attention but it is not an emergency and they don't have insurance or the ability to pay, they will not be treated by a private hospital.

So, I have not made any contradictory statements, and you mis-interpreted one of my statements, which is why it appears contradictory to you, but you are wrong.

The Harvard study is the most recent, and the article points out that the gap between insured and uninsured is growing as new treatments are made available to the insured. It makes sense that the most recent study would show the biggest difference. I encourage you to post the study you mentioned showing no difference, I don't believe it.
 
Back
Top Bottom