• 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!

Trump vows ‘insurance for everybody’ in Obamacare replacement plan

Incisor said:
First of all, in order to qualify for most welfare benefits, a person must be employed. So right away, we have government subsidizing the profits of companies that pay their workers so little, they qualify for welfare benefits.
Click to expand...

https://www.reference.com/government-politics/welfare-qualifications-dd85b8388b8f0f80#
Incisor said:
Like Walmart. Walmart workers cost the taxpayer about $5B a year in welfare benefits. Walmart's profit is $14B a year. So we the taxpayers are subsidizing nearly 1/3 of Walmart's profit. If Walmart paid its workers a living wage, it would make $9B a year instead of $14B a year. So it's still profitable.
Click to expand...
What is the purpose of a business?
Incisor said:
Secondly, what difference does it make between the state or the feds? Never understood this argument. In the age of globalization and commerce routinely happening across state borders (as opposed to what it was back in the 18th Century), the idea of states' rights is just stupid, silly, and pointless.
Click to expand...
Well considering your comments so far, it doesn't shock me you don't get the difference.
 
Renae said:
LOL
Click to expand...


So, that's not quite what he said. What he said was that the average family would save that much a year. Which is entirely true. There's the hilarious case of Julie Boonstra. You remember her, right? She's the GOP sow who claimed Obamacare became too costly for her. So convinced was she that the Koch brothers even gave her a starring role in a propaganda video during the 2012 election. In it, a tearful, fat, ugly Julie Boonstra claimed because of Obamacare, her premiums "skyrocketed" and she couldn't afford cancer treatment. Guess what? She was lying. Not only did Obamacare not cost her as much as she claimed, she actually saved $2,500...the exact amount Obama said she would save. When confronted with these facts, what was Boonstra's response? "I choose to not believe that". So there ya go. Conservatism in a nutshell; fat, ugly, annoying people spreading lies because they're full of BS.
 
Incisor said:
Single-payer is what every other First World nation has. I don't understand why you people are so content to pay a 20% admin fee for someone in Hartford to push a button to send payment to your doctor from premiums you've already paid. The only thing insurance companies do is administer payment of premiums you've already paid to your provider. That transaction is not something you are a part of and has no bearing on the quality of care your doctor gives you.
Click to expand...

I had to see the doctor recently for an MRI.

I went to my doc at 930 am. I had my MRI at 2pm.

If I were single payer in Canada:
Patients also experience significant waiting times for various diagnostic technologies across the provinces. This year, Canadians could expect to wait 4.0 weeks for a computed tomography (CT) scan, 10.4 weeks for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and 4.0 weeks for an ultrasound.
Click to expand...
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/stu...t-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2015-report

In a bitter irony, it was UK scientists who were instrumental in inventing the scanners which are now credited with saving lives throughout the world.
Yet we have fewer of them than almost all other Western countries – and even developing countries such as Turkey and former Communist states such as Slovakia.


Read more: Britain has fewer MRI machines than almost any other Western country | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...
https://expathealth.org/healthcare-news/global-patient-wait-time-statistics/
Wait times are the boogeyman of public health systems all over the world. They cut to the very heart of the debate over costs versus access to care.

Hardly a week goes by where we don’t see a story on the world’s ever-lengthening patient queues (and trust us, we make it our business to keep up on these things). Fortunately, a new OECD study has shed some additional light on the subject.

In Health at a Glance 2011, researchers investigated wait times across 11 countries using data from a 2010 Commonwealth Fund Survey. They found more patients waiting longer for specialist appointments and elective surgery in Canada, Sweden and Norway.

In all three of these countries, at least 50% of patients surveyed had to wait 4 weeks or more to see a specialist (in Canada that figure was 59%). According to the report, all three of these countries had “significant” numbers of patients who had to wait six days or more to see a GP.
Click to expand...

I got the news I needed a treatment path and the meds I needed. Same day.
Cost to me? $250 out of pocket.


Keep your single payer bull****.
 
Incisor said:
So, that's not quite what he said. What he said was that the average family would save that much a year. Which is entirely true. There's the hilarious case of Julie Boonstra. You remember her, right? She's the GOP sow who claimed Obamacare became too costly for her. So convinced was she that the Koch brothers even gave her a starring role in a propaganda video during the 2012 election. In it, a tearful, fat, ugly Julie Boonstra claimed because of Obamacare, her premiums "skyrocketed" and she couldn't afford cancer treatment. Guess what? She was lying. Not only did Obamacare not cost her as much as she claimed, she actually saved $2,500...the exact amount Obama said she would save. When confronted with these facts, what was Boonstra's response? "I choose to not believe that". So there ya go. Conservatism in a nutshell; fat, ugly, annoying people spreading lies because they're full of BS.
Click to expand...

https://spectator.org/65893_obamacare-six-legacy-deception/
 
People that are complaining don't even know what the plan is yet.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Is there some reason you linked to the rates for federal employees who were exempted from Obamacare and are heavily subsidized by the federal government?
Click to expand...

Yes, because the idea was "It could be as simple as the government requiring the companies bidding on the civil service employee insurance contract, to provide unnamed policies at the government group rate." Group insurance, including the group insurance available to federal government employees, tends to be more expensive than what's available in the marketplaces. The rates quoted are the unsubsidized total premiums for FEBHP coverage in that poster's state.

Renae said:
Cont'd
Click to expand...

So the "miracle" is that more physicians went to Texas and Mississippi because of tort reform? If that's the miracle, they must've been in really bad shape before those early 2000s reforms. (I like that the article boasted they poached some docs from New York.)

5n54t1.png


Meanwhile premium growth in Texas from 2003 to 2011 was right around the national average, and growth in health spending in Texas from 2003-09 was actually higher than the national average over that period (49% in Texas vs. 41% nationally).
 
Absentglare said:
No they haven't. Are you confused? It made insurance affordable for millions of Americans who would have otherwise been uninsured.
Click to expand...

Are you ****ing serious? Even Bill Clinton realizes that's :bs
 
When in doubt with Trump.....redouble your doubts.
 
Well in Four Days, trump will be President, think we will hear his "plan" then, next month, this year? This should be interesting to watch, the Cons finally got with they wanted, full control, I wonder if they actually know what to do next, yes, going to be very interesting.
 
Greenbeard said:
Yes, because the idea was "It could be as simple as the government requiring the companies bidding on the civil service employee insurance contract, to provide unnamed policies at the government group rate." Group insurance, including the group insurance available to federal government employees, tends to be more expensive than what's available in the marketplaces. The rates quoted are the unsubsidized total premiums for FEBHP coverage in that poster's state.



So the "miracle" is that more physicians went to Texas and Mississippi because of tort reform? If that's the miracle, they must've been in really bad shape before those early 2000s reforms. (I like that the article boasted they poached some docs from New York.)

5n54t1.png


Meanwhile premium growth in Texas from 2003 to 2011 was right around the national average, and growth in health spending in Texas from 2003-09 was actually higher than the national average over that period (49% in Texas vs. 41% nationally).
Click to expand...

I'm sure that made perfectly good sense to you. However for those of us who are not federal employees or working under federal contracts and have to deal with the realities of every day life in America, we are experiencing something quite different.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I'm not arguing this.


But to your question.


"you can keep"

vs

"Our goal is"


You don't see the difference?
Click to expand...
“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
Click to expand...
This is just the usual early-term propaganda promises they'll hope everyone will forget by the time the policies actually come in to place.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I'm sure that made perfectly good sense to you. However for those of us who are not federal employees or working under federal contracts and have to deal with the realities of every day life in America, we are experiencing something quite different.
Click to expand...

Quite different than what? Premiums for federal employees are expensive (like most group premiums), that was the point. Premiums in the exchanges are generally lower.
 
Greenbeard said:
Quite different than what? Premiums for federal employees are expensive (like most group premiums), that was the point. Premiums in the exchanges are generally lower.
Click to expand...

I doubt premiums in the exchanges are lower for anybody not receiving a substantial federal subsidy as federal employees do.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I doubt premiums in the exchanges are lower for anybody not receiving a substantial federal subsidy as federal employees do.
Click to expand...

Both sets of numbers I posted are unsubsidized total premiums. That was the point of comparing them.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I'm not arguing this.


But to your question.


"you can keep"

vs

"Our goal is"


You don't see the difference?
Click to expand...

Yes, i did keep my doctor, so President Obama was correct to explain that it is possible.

On the other hand, Trump's stated goal is in direct conflict with what we've heard from republican congressional leadership.
 
Renae said:
I didn't say that. But good on you for playing the bull**** card.

I expect we'll see an expansion of medicare for the bottom end of incomes and getting as much government red tape out of the way of private insurance companies (less red tape, lower taxes...) to expand coverage options and competition on the free market. Something along those lines instead of a massive government take over of the system that Obama attempted to force on us.
Click to expand...

LOL if people aren't insured, they neglect to go to the doctor. That means not only missing out on highly cost-effective preventative care but in many cases neglecting serious conditions that result in death.

A healthcare system that rations healthcare for only those with wealth is one that necessarily neglects to serve the public at large. That's the cold hard truth that the right is coming to terms with, as these 7 years of vicious, insane rhetoric is completely detached from the reality.
 
Renae said:
Possibly, but anything at this point IMHO is better then the ACA.
Click to expand...

That's a flat out lie.

"Anything" means, literally, anything. No one should repeat this kind of vicious lie.

If by "anything" you mean "any other healthcare system in the developed world," you'd be right. But they're also all more socialized and/or regulated than ours is. Every. Single. One.

You're not going to dig yourself out of this hole by digging some more.
 
NonoBadDog said:
People that are complaining don't even know what the plan is yet.
Click to expand...

Well, nobody knows what the plan is yet. The people that are complaining are complaining about the fact that there is no plan yet.

What's really strange is that you're complaining that people are concerned about a huge policy issue's clearly dubious fate. One that is literally life and death for many Americans.
 
Absentglare said:
LOL if people aren't insured, they neglect to go to the doctor. That means not only missing out on highly cost-effective preventative care but in many cases neglecting serious conditions that result in death.

A healthcare system that rations healthcare for only those with wealth is one that necessarily neglects to serve the public at large. That's the cold hard truth that the right is coming to terms with, as these 7 years of vicious, insane rhetoric is completely detached from the reality.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you think only Government can save you and everyone else.
 
Renae said:
I'm sorry you think only Government can save you and everyone else.
Click to expand...

There are two sides of society in an industry: producers and consumers. Ordinarily, the consumers have leverage over the producers by having the option to refuse the product.

Consumers generally lack that leverage in the healthcare industry. The people have only one avenue to level the playing field: the organizational structure uniquely developed to manage society wide issues like this, the government.
 
Renae said:
I'm sorry you think only Government can save you and everyone else.
Click to expand...

That approach should serve the GOP well in the 2018 elections .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom