• 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!

New York Healthcare Premiums Are About To Explode

This thread is not about taxes. It is about health insurance premiums.

I beg to differ, since our taxes are paying for ACA but okay.

So would you mind looking for how much they're paying?

Or are you just going to assume Immigrants are uninsured, like alot of americans, and thus their emergency care costs that they cannot afford, like alot of americans, are passed on to those that are insured/can afford them? If anything, that argument would be pro-amensty for insurance companies to insure Immigrants. But, insofar as I know, they cannot by law. But I could be wrong.
 
New York Healthcare Premiums Are About To Explode

By Brett LoGiurato 7/15/2014

Insurance companies operating in New York State's marketplace are expected to ask for double-digit premium hikes next year, according to new filings from the companies.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/york-healthcare-premiums-explode-132658547.html

In other words, the rise is a little less than it was a decade ago:

0916-web-KAISER.jpg

The only difference is that the ACA requires that 85% of premiums need to be spent on health care. If they don't, they have to refund to insured.
 
I beg to differ, since our taxes are paying for ACA but okay.

So would you mind looking for how much they're paying?

Or are you just going to assume Immigrants are uninsured, like alot of americans, and thus their emergency care costs that they cannot afford, like alot of americans, are passed on to those that are insured/can afford them? If anything, that argument would be pro-amensty for insurance companies to insure Immigrants. But, insofar as I know, they cannot by law. But I could be wrong.

You are the one who jumped on my question with these most INTOLERANT words:

Ah yes. The Heartless Licentiousness.

Those damn subhumans.

GET MA GAWN SOZ I KANZ KEEPZ MAH JAWB

I thought you were going to educate us on the topic. But alas.............
 
You are the one who jumped on my question with these most INTOLERANT words:



I thought you were going to educate us on the topic. But alas.............

Well, to be fair, I've posted alot of links.

You probably didn't see the one above your post, but it basically has to do with what it's costing us to absorb uncovered emergency medical immigrant costs when we could just have them legally purchase insurance.

When you break it down, it just makes more sense to treat the Brown Immigrants the same way we did the white ones.
 
Well, to be fair, I've posted alot of links.

You probably didn't see the one above your post, but it basically has to do with what it's costing us to absorb uncovered emergency medical immigrant costs when we could just have them legally purchase insurance.

When you break it down, it just makes more sense to treat the Brown Immigrants the same way we did the white ones.

None of them were on topic. ~sigh~
 
None of them were on topic. ~sigh~

Well, that's your opinion, not mine.

I generally stick to the Economics forum where we take into account multiple variables and don't just narrow the view to favor our interests (though, to be fair, I've noticed alot of righties tend to try and do just that)

Anyways, I think these would be less tangential in your opinion

Still can't find anything, but from what I read so far it's near-illegal for undocument migrants to get health insurance outside very limited Medicaid coverage

5 Outlandish Claims About Immigrants And Health Care | Blog | Media Matters for America

What it will cost you to deny health insurance to illegal immigrants.

^ I think this is especially poignant.
 
Do some research before just shooting your mouth off.

Here, I'll help you out a lil'

US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_slideshow.jpg



The US spends more on just about everything.

That's just the way it is.

When there is more money to spend on anything, more money will be spent.
 



Americans are not Europeans. We are a notoriously impatient group and waiting 4 months to see a doctor is not going to fly here.

The key to any nationalized health care depends on rationing.

This is how HMO's work and we all know how well these were accepted in the USA.
 
Americans are not Europeans. We are a notoriously impatient group and waiting 4 months to see a doctor is not going to fly here.

The key to any nationalized health care depends on rationing.

This is how HMO's work and we all know how well these were accepted in the USA.

Rationing = Allocation of Resources

Economics =/= Allocation of Resources

Besides, the horror (really sensationalized emotional) stories of a few definitely are not outweighed by the needs of the Many.
 
Lol, okay. You clearly don't understand what I posted, but that's fine.

What percentage of bankruptcies are caused by unexpected medical expenses in America? ~67%.

actually about 17%
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/w74.long

A reexamination of their data suggests that medical bills are a contributing factor in just 17 percent of personal bankruptcies and that those affected tend to have incomes closer to poverty level than to middle class.

The Medical Bankruptcy Myth — The American Magazine
They also reviewed other research, including studies by the Department of Justice, finding that medical debts accounted for only 12 percent to 13 percent of the total debts among American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy
 
Rationing = Allocation of Resources

Economics =/= Allocation of Resources

Besides, the horror (really sensationalized emotional) stories of a few definitely are not outweighed by the needs of the Many.

nope not the stories of a few. the average wait time for specialists in canada is a year. to see a family doctora can take months.
it is the same reason that the canadian government is overlooking the private MRI centers that have opened up because they are filling a demand that can't be met by the government system even though the MRI centers are technically illegal.

sorry i don't want rationed healthcare. you might but i don't.

as i said before if you want government run healthcare i say go for it. you and people like you can pay all the taxes you want for medicaid and i will go with a private insurance plan.
only don't come complaining to me when you can't find a doctor and it takes you a year or longer to see the one you can find.
 
And that would lower costs by what method?

It doesn't lower costs which is why all these UHC systems are raising taxes and cutting back on services. their healthcare costs continue to rise and they are getting unaffordable.
France has been running in the red on their healthcare system for years now and it is getting worse.
England just announced cuts to it's healthcare system as well to try and contain costs.

They are all cutting back on costs which means less coverage. so people are paying more (taxes) for less in order to reign in costs.
 
Americans are not Europeans. We are a notoriously impatient group and waiting 4 months to see a doctor is not going to fly here.

The key to any nationalized health care depends on rationing.

This is how HMO's work and we all know how well these were accepted in the USA.

The belief that Europeans wait a long time to see a doctor is a meme. In actuality, Americans wait longer than most Europeans.

HPE-Access-2011-from-MacBook-Pro.018-500x375.jpg
From: Enough with the wait times, already | The Incidental Economist
 
The belief that Europeans wait a long time to see a doctor is a meme. In actuality, Americans wait longer than most Europeans.

View attachment 67169196
From: Enough with the wait times, already | The Incidental Economist



Comparing any international statistics on anything is pretty much meaningless. The methodology of getting the stats and the definitions of what particular things mean change in many cases when you cross a border.

I was trying once to follow up on a life expectancy figure and found that infant mortality is recorded in different ways by different countries. For instance, in the European countries that I ran into, infant morality was recorded by hospitals and calculated more as a measure of staff effectiveness and less as a simple counting function. Effect of this change?

If the baby was DOA, the stat was not recorded anywhere. The Staff could not re-animate the corpse, so the stat would not fit into their columns and was ignored. It died somewhere else. That baby dies and would therefore be a drag on the life expectancy numbers, but that 1 life at zero years did not hit the averages.

This does not indicate any devious conspiracy. It's just the analysis of the numbers as they exist and are collected by the rules of whatever bureaucracy is trying to whatever it does. Similarly, in the USA, an unborn is not counted as a death. Just the way it is.

Your chart might be perfect, but the anecdotal stories are in conflict with it. I would need to see more evidence than one blogger.

Three-week wait to see your doctor: Millions of patients are denied a prompt appointment to see their GP | Mail Online

<snip>
Millions of patients wait as long as three weeks to see their GP, a Daily Mail survey reveals today.
Only one in three manages to secure a same-day appointment, despite Government promises to make such slots routinely available. One in five cannot get a consultation within seven days.
>nip>

Read more: Three-week wait to see your doctor: Millions of patients are denied a prompt appointment to see their GP | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
Last edited:
Comparing any international statistics on anything is pretty much meaningless. The methodology of getting the stats and the definitions of what particular things mean change in many cases when you cross a border.
...

You are the one who said the below just a few posts ago:
code1211 said:
Americans are not Europeans. We are a notoriously impatient group and waiting 4 months to see a doctor is not going to fly here.
...
So, when you wrote it, you must have had some kind of metric to make the implication that Europeans wait longer. Either that, or you were making a baseless assertion.

But now you say one can't make international comparisons, which undercuts your previous post's point.

But the overriding fact is that Americans pay the most per capita and also have medical results that are about in the middle of the pack. That should be considered unacceptable to all.
 
Rationing = Allocation of Resources

Economics =/= Allocation of Resources

Besides, the horror (really sensationalized emotional) stories of a few definitely are not outweighed by the needs of the Many.



The VA is the best and only example of nationalized healthcare in the USA and the patients are literally dying on 2-year waiting lists as the care is rationed and the efficiency, patients served to doctors hours worked, is at about 1/8 the level of the private care system.

Krauthammer Proposes Voucher System to Cure VA Woes
<snip>
“This is a purely government-run service,” Krauthammer said. “Doctors are on salary.

They have zero incentive to see a lot of patients.

In the Albuquerque report that you saw in the Daily Beast, they reported the average cardiologist treats alone in one week what the entire eight-person department of cardiology in the Albuquerque facility treated.

So that's eight-to-one and that's because if you are in private practice, if you want to stay alive, you have to see a lot of patients so you can cover your overhead.
<snip>

Exclusive: VA Scandal Hits New Hospital - The Daily Beast
<snip>
There are eight physicians in the cardiology department. But at any given time, only three are working in the clinic, where they see fewer than two patients per day, so on average there are only 36 veterans seen per week. That means the entire eight-person department sees as many patients in a week as a single private practice cardiologist sees in two days, according to the doctor.

For perspective, 60% of cardiologists reported seeing between 50 and 124 patients per week, according to a 2013 survey of medical professionals’ compensation conducted by Medscape. On the low end, the average single private practice cardiologist who participated in the study saw more patients in a week than the Albuquerque VA’s entire eight-person cardiology department.
<snip>
 
You are the one who said the below just a few posts ago:
So, when you wrote it, you must have had some kind of metric to make the implication that Europeans wait longer. Either that, or you were making a baseless assertion.

But now you say one can't make international comparisons, which undercuts your previous post's point.

But the overriding fact is that Americans pay the most per capita and also have medical results that are about in the middle of the pack. That should be considered unacceptable to all.




I didn't say you can't make the international comparisons. I said that if you do make international comparisons, you need to do so much research and provide so many qualifiers that the comparisons will become less meaningful. My post was pretty clear on this.

By stating my thoughts, edited by your method and intention, and then rewording the conclusions as you did, that eliminated the meaning I applied and then you applied a meaning you preferred. Disingenuous is a generous definition of your effort.

I also provided a link from a real news source with editorial staff review and real world example that undermined your cartoon's conclusion and supported my assertion that international comparisons are often suspect.

If you only want to throw out assertions and not actually respond to my thoughts, why did you quote me?
 
Right now 6 out of 10 Americans think Obamacare is a cluster bleep... imagine what it will be like as soon as all the nationwide rate hikes kick in next year.

At least republicans played absolutely no part in this, and the creation, passage and implementation falls squarely in the lap of Obama, Pelosi, and house democrats, who are the 100% owners of this train wreck.

No part.. really? So this means nothing?

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate - Forbes

Or this :

Is the ACA the GOP health care plan from 1993? | PunditFact
 
actually about 17%
Medical Bankruptcy: Myth Versus Fact

A reexamination of their data suggests that medical bills are a contributing factor in just 17 percent of personal bankruptcies and that those affected tend to have incomes closer to poverty level than to middle class.

The Medical Bankruptcy Myth — The American Magazine
They also reviewed other research, including studies by the Department of Justice, finding that medical debts accounted for only 12 percent to 13 percent of the total debts among American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy

American Enterprise Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(The American, which you cited, is the online arm of the AEI. I think they have a certain bias.)

"Its stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate"."

"Some AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy.[3] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich,"

___

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf
 
Last edited:
nope not the stories of a few. the average wait time for specialists in canada is a year. to see a family doctora can take months.
it is the same reason that the canadian government is overlooking the private MRI centers that have opened up because they are filling a demand that can't be met by the government system even though the MRI centers are technically illegal.

sorry i don't want rationed healthcare. you might but i don't.

as i said before if you want government run healthcare i say go for it. you and people like you can pay all the taxes you want for medicaid and i will go with a private insurance plan.
only don't come complaining to me when you can't find a doctor and it takes you a year or longer to see the one you can find.

Where did you get that claim?

From a Biased think tank?

"In its annual report, “Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada,” the Fraser Institute said the median wait time in 2013 hit 18.2 weeks, three days longer than in 2012. Twenty years ago, the average wait time for treatment in Canada was 9.3 weeks...

The survey measures wait times from a GP’s referral to treatment, wait times between GP referral and consultation with a specialist, the wait time between seeing a specialist and receiving treatment, and wait times for tests such as MRIs, CT scans and ultrasounds.

According to the latest report, the delay between:
GP referral and specialist consultation increased to 8.6 weeks in 2013, up from 8.5 week in 2012.
Specialist consultation and treatment increased to 9.6 weeks from 9.3 weeks in 2012."

Read more: Wait times for medical treatment getting longer: Fraser Institute report | CTV News
 
The VA is the best and only example of nationalized healthcare in the USA and the patients are literally dying on 2-year waiting lists as the care is rationed and the efficiency, patients served to doctors hours worked, is at about 1/8 the level of the private care system.

Krauthammer Proposes Voucher System to Cure VA Woes
<snip>
“This is a purely government-run service,” Krauthammer said. “Doctors are on salary.

They have zero incentive to see a lot of patients.

In the Albuquerque report that you saw in the Daily Beast, they reported the average cardiologist treats alone in one week what the entire eight-person department of cardiology in the Albuquerque facility treated.

So that's eight-to-one and that's because if you are in private practice, if you want to stay alive, you have to see a lot of patients so you can cover your overhead.
<snip>

Exclusive: VA Scandal Hits New Hospital - The Daily Beast
<snip>
There are eight physicians in the cardiology department. But at any given time, only three are working in the clinic, where they see fewer than two patients per day, so on average there are only 36 veterans seen per week. That means the entire eight-person department sees as many patients in a week as a single private practice cardiologist sees in two days, according to the doctor.

For perspective, 60% of cardiologists reported seeing between 50 and 124 patients per week, according to a 2013 survey of medical professionals’ compensation conducted by Medscape. On the low end, the average single private practice cardiologist who participated in the study saw more patients in a week than the Albuquerque VA’s entire eight-person cardiology department.
<snip>

You're right. It has Absolutely Nothing, In ANY WAY, to do with the lack of VA Funding. That would be flipping absurd. As if money makes any difference in equipment, technology, staffing and wait times. Unpossible. THE GOD DAMN DOUBLE THINK!
 
Back
Top Bottom