• 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!

Health Care Bill has passed

Lerxst said:
That's assuming an awful lot about peoples health care habits don't you think? Are they already doing it now with the E.R.? Less expensive office visits would only help the situation. If they are predisposed to overusing the system they are probably already doing it. How will this bill change their habits? Do you really think that those who are uninsured now, and not getting any real health care, will of a sudden just go "health care crazy?" We are already paying for these overusers/abusers as it is.

Or will they possibly start going to the their doctor when they need to because now they can?

See where I am coming from on this?
Click to expand...
I doubt your position will play out. For instance, if someone will go to the emergency room once a month, how often do you suppose they will be in a doctor's office, probably times six, those bills add up.
 
LaMidRighter said:
If America gets the next two elections right and finally rids itself of some of the old trash in Washington it can be gone in 2012.
Click to expand...

No Chance.

What Republican in their right mind is going to stand in front of their constituents and explain why they kicked people off of their health insurance because they reinstituted a plan that allows people to be excluded for pre-existing illnesses?

What Republican is their right mind is going to stand in front of their constitutients and explain why young adults are being kicked off their parents insurance because they thougt it was a good idea to go back to the old system?

The only chance the Republicans had of stopping progress was to try to defeat this bill at this level. You are fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.
 
PHP:
Lerxst said:
That's assuming an awful lot about peoples health care habits don't you think? Are they already doing it now with the E.R.? Less expensive office visits would only help the situation.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, and no, less expensive office visits probably won't help the situation. What this will do is increase utilization at taxpayer expense. Only about half of us pay income taxes as it is.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I doubt your position will play out. For instance, if someone will go to the emergency room once a month, how often do you suppose they will be in a doctor's office, probably times six, those bills add up.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume the uninsured would go to the doctor more frequently than they now go to the ER?

People who have spent their entire adult lives uninsured go to the ER whenever they feel the need to see a doctor.
They treat the ER exactly like a free walk-in clinic.
Why shouldn't they? They'd already accrued more medical debt before they were twenty than they'd ever be able to pay in a thousand lifetimes.
They quit worrying about medical debt before they were old enough to buy a legal beer.
 
drz-400 said:
You have to realize though, that the private insdustry already recieves a huge amount of subsidy. Most people who have private insurance recieve it through their employer.
Click to expand...
That's not a subsidy, that is benefit insurance. Subsidized would be the government being the major contributory.
Employers have continued to offer more and more generous health insurance benefits because it is essentially a tax shelter from federal, state, and local goverments. Had you instead taken higher wages and gone out and bought your own insurance it would be far more expensive because you would be paying taxes on all of that income before buying insurance.
Click to expand...
Wrong, the plan on the market can be less expensive if you are in good health, you may still come out ahead from pre-tax revenue, as well, if healthcare is such a big problem, why weren't tax breaks or credits first tried to allow for the purchase of individual insurance under IRS tax code?
Furthermore, since employers are the ones actually paying the insurance bill it further seperates the consumers from the actual cost of health care, not to mention the moral hazard already associated with insurance of any type.
Click to expand...
Too simplistic, there are different contribution models, some are non-contributory and some are partially contributory, co-pays are built into that model, and itemized bills are available.

One advantage private health care has over medicare is they typically do not pay like a fee for service plan. Therefore they are not subjuct to the supply induced demand associated with medicare. However, medicare and medicaid has been increasingly using HMO's to provide care, which in this case, reverses the effects of supply induced demand and actually results in underconsumption.
Click to expand...
Okay, you can stop trying to lecture me on how my profession works, I've taken the courses and worked the field, I have the manuals. Medicare uses various models, not necessarily HMO's, they use supplemental plans which meet the department most of the way, medicare advantage plans, etc. The bill does not cover these types of models, so.....apples and oranges.
 
LaMidRighter said:
That's not a subsidy, that is benefit insurance. Subsidized would be the government being the major contributory. Wrong, the plan on the market can be less expensive if you are in good health, you may still come out ahead from pre-tax revenue, as well, if healthcare is such a big problem, why weren't tax breaks or credits first tried to allow for the purchase of individual insurance under IRS tax code? Too simplistic, there are different contribution models, some are non-contributory and some are partially contributory, co-pays are built into that model, and itemized bills are available.

Okay, you can stop trying to lecture me on how my profession works, I've taken the courses and worked the field, I have the manuals. Medicare uses various models, not necessarily HMO's, they use supplemental plans which meet the department most of the way, medicare advantage plans, etc. The bill does not cover these types of models, so.....apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

I realize it is a benefit insurance, but the way it is administered it is subsidize through the tax code. Why do you think people with realatively higher wages tend to also have a more generous health benefits package?
 
LaMidRighter said:
I doubt your position will play out. For instance, if someone will go to the emergency room once a month, how often do you suppose they will be in a doctor's office, probably times six, those bills add up.
Click to expand...

How can you make that assumption? You are telling me to expect this as if it's a forgone conclusion. I can't do that. Look I don't know how this thing will play out. I am behind the cause of providing health care to those who can't truly afford it. I don't know that this bill is the answer. But you can't makes incredible leaps like that without some sort of evidence that supports your statement.

You're claiming this bill will result in a dramatic increase in overuse of the health care system. Is this a hypothesis you can support with corroborating information? Or just your gut instinct?
 
1069 said:
Why do you assume the uninsured would go to the doctor more frequently than they now go to the ER?
Click to expand...
Exactly the reason I explained to Lerxst, no accountability. IOW, basically people prone to go see a doctor for low pain tolerance issues like the sniffles, attention seekers, and hypochondriacs will abuse the system because they either "paid their fair share" or it "was free".
 
Lerxst said:
How can you make that assumption? You are telling me to expect this as if it's a forgone conclusion. I can't do that. Look I don't know how this thing will play out. I am behind the cause of providing health care to those who can't truly afford it. I don't know that this bill is the answer. But you can't makes incredible leaps like that without some sort of evidence that supports your statement.

You're claiming this bill will result in a dramatic increase in overuse of the health care system. Is this a hypothesis you can support with corroborating information? Or just your gut instinct?
Click to expand...
I think we have a misunderstanding. I don't mind indigent social insurance, or even a true public option that must be voluntary with a self-funding mechanism, but I have a serious problem with this being called reform, because it fixes none of the core issues. If we actually got things working again and healthcare became a commodity and affordable it would accomplish what we want to see without further empowering Washington. As it is this thing is a power grab.
 
Politics101 said:
Very true! The health care bill is confusing, but what we do know is that massive tax increases are quickly heading our direction.

It's like being in the eye of the storm.
Click to expand...

But only if you are well off making big bucks. The rich should be grateful that they are rich enough to help others who are poor.
 
USA-1 said:
Most people opposed to the bill don't even know what it is.
Click to expand...
So you read all +2600 pages? You do know what is in it?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Exactly the reason I explained to Lerxst, no accountability. IOW, basically people prone to go see a doctor for low pain tolerance issues like the sniffles, attention seekers, and hypochondriacs will abuse the system because they either "paid their fair share" or it "was free".
Click to expand...

The uninsured don't pay for medical care anyway.
Are you uninsured? Do you know anyone who is?
Do you really think they pay $200 out of pocket for an office visit whenever they need to see a doctor, and then another hundred or more for prescription drugs?

If they could afford to do that, they wouldn't be uninsured in the first place; they'd buy insurance.
Uninsured people use free and sliding scale community health clinics- to whatever extent these are available- and the ER, which costs ten times as much as an office visit, but which- haha- you don't ever have to pay.
You can walk in the ER without ID and give a fake name and address; they'll still treat you. I know, because my husband and I have both done it many times.
Or you can walk in and give your real info, and they'll send you these monstrous bills- 20 or 30 thousand dollars- for awhile and then eventually they'll turn it over to a medical debt collection agency, and the collection agency will call and pester you with recorded messages for a few months, and then eventually they'll just give up and drop it, and then, you know what?
Eventually it all just drops off your credit, and it's like it never happened.

Honestly, that's what happens.

It would probably be better if uninsured people could just see GPs for office visits when they're sick. But chances are they don't just have an extra $400 bucks lying around every time they get strep throat or an ear infection and need antibiotics.

In my state, one out of three adults is uninsured.
That's a lot of people using the ER as a primary care physician.
it's a broken system and a federal money-suck.
Anything would be better.
 
Last edited:
Coronado said:
So you read all +2600 pages? You do know what is in it?
Click to expand...
Don't need to. It's called science. If no one knows what's in it, then no one can argue FOR it.
 
1069 said:
The uninsured don't pay for medical care anyway.
Click to expand...
Some of us actually do pay for services rendered. Please don't lump everyone who is uninsured in one big loser category of people who steal from others.

Are you uninsured?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Do you know anyone who is?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Do you really think they pay $200 out of pocket for an office visit whenever they need to see a doctor, and then another hundred or more for prescription drugs?
Click to expand...
Yes. (though $200 is a bit ****ing pricey, never seen a doc who charged that much for just an office visit)

If they could afford to do that, they wouldn't be uninsured in the first place; they'd buy insurance.
Click to expand...
Not true. Many people who are uninsured most certainly *could* afford insurance. We CHOOSE not to have it.

Uninsured people use free and sliding scale community health clinics- to whatever extent these are available- and the ER, which costs ten times as much as an office visit, but which- haha- you don't ever have to pay.
You can walk in the ER without ID and give a fake name and address; they'll still treat you. I know, because my husband and I have both done it many times.
Click to expand...
Yay for theft. Go pat yourself on the back for stealing from others. Awesome.

Not everyone is so low class though. Some people actually DO have a conscience, and that includes many of the uninsured.

It would probably be better if uninsured people could just see GPs for office visits when they're sick.
Click to expand...
They can.

But chances are they don't just have an extra $400 bucks lying around every time they get strep throat or an ear infection and need antibiotics.
Click to expand...
Oh please. :roll: An office visit doesn't cost anywhere near that and neither do antibiotics.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Exactly the reason I explained to Lerxst, no accountability. IOW, basically people prone to go see a doctor for low pain tolerance issues like the sniffles, attention seekers, and hypochondriacs will abuse the system because they either "paid their fair share" or it "was free".
Click to expand...

No kidding. There aint no one that goes to the ER more for non-emergency reasons than Medicaid/Medicare recipients. But what do I know? I only drove them there in an ambulance.
 
rivrrat said:
Some of us actually do pay for services rendered. Please don't lump everyone who is uninsured in one big loser category of people who steal from others.


Yes.


Yes.


Yes. (though $200 is a bit ****ing pricey, never seen a doc who charged that much for just an office visit)


Not true. Many people who are uninsured most certainly *could* afford insurance. We CHOOSE not to have it.


Yay for theft. Go pat yourself on the back for stealing from others. Awesome.

Not everyone is so low class though. Some people actually DO have a conscience, and that includes many of the uninsured.


They can.


Oh please. :roll: An office visit doesn't cost anywhere near that and neither do antibiotics.
Click to expand...


The minor emergency room costs $120, cash on the barrelhead; an office visit is comparable. You then pay additionally for a strep-test and any other lab fees. it's going to run you at least $160-$180, more likely around 200 bucks.
Good antibiotics like Zythromax (Z-Pac) are around $70; most often doctors will prescribe additional drugs such as a decongestant and hydrocodone syrup for a sore throat.
It all ends up adding up to around $200 just for the drugs.
My experience with the ER is, if you simply ask- not even give a sob story, just ask- they'll give you samples, and then all the drugs are free.
I've had ER docs give me full courses of antibiotics for free, in little individual sample packs.
All you have to do is say, "How much is this prescription going to cost, because I really don't have any money", and they'll bust out a box of free samples.

How much do you think an office visit and prescription drugs cost?


By the way, I don't consider any of this "theft", because health care is my right.
It's everyone's right.

For the past couple of years, I've had insurance, and you know what? I can't afford to go to the doctor with it, because it's a $40 co-pay for an office visit, and then $15 for prescriptions, and I basically never have that much cash on hand to blow.
 
Last edited:
1069 said:
By the way, I don't consider any of this "theft", because health care is my right.
It's everyone's right.
Click to expand...
your house/apartment/condo/estate/place where you sleep at night/etc is my right. :doh
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
your house/apartment/condo/estate/place where you sleep at night/etc is my right. :doh
Click to expand...

That's a very good analogy, because of course there's only one doctor in the entire world, and he only gets to see one patient, ever.
So when I see him, that means I'm robbing you (and everyone else) of your chance to ever go to the doctor. :roll:

Oops. Wait. That's not a good analogy, because there's actually plenty of health care to go round.
It's just a matter of distribution.
 
The main issue among others I have with this bill is that health care premiums will still be very expensive. Nothing (from what I have gathered) is contained in this bill to:

a. increase competition amongst insurers (such as allowing out of state insurers) which would naturally lower rates;
b. remove unnecessary mandates on what I have in my plan (I'd like a simple plan that only cover things like major illness, accidents and disease - no need for coverage on infertility treatments or sex-change operations, etc.);
c. reform tort law concerning malpractice litigation so that doctor expenses were reduced, thus lowering the cost of my premium;
d. create incentives for doctors and hospitals to focus on quality care instead of quantity care, such as through fixed fees;
e. create incentives for the individual to focus on his own quality of health through nutrition, exercise and less trips to the doctor for the consequences of poor health. I'd like to be rewarded for my optimum BMI with a tax break.

My preference is that this would be a state matter and each state would tailor their own universal health care to it's citizens.
 
USA-1 said:
Most people opposed to the bill don't even know what it is.
Click to expand...

Let's change that to "Most people don't even know what it is.
 
Originally Posted by USA-1
Most people opposed to the bill don't even know what it is.
Click to expand...

Most people for the bill don't know what is in it and that Includes your girlfriend Pelosi who said "We will pass the bill now and find out what is in it later."
 
Anyone with insomnia that wants a cure start reading that damn thing .Two pages and its nap time. :yawn:
 
1069 said:
Rather, it's the beginning: of a healthier life, a life with less needless suffering, for many people I know- 30% of adults uninsured in my state! Think about it! One out of three. And we're not even the worst. Other states are worse off.

Society will benefit if people are able to get treatment for their chronic and acute illnesses before they become permanently disabled from them.
That will help the economy, not hurt it.

Every single one of us gets sick. Someday, each of us will get so sick that we won't be able to get better again, and we'll die.
This is true no matter how well we try to take care of ourselves.
People need to be able to go to the doctor. Everyone gets sick.
One out of three adults not having access to medical care is unacceptable.
No wonder our economy is in the tank.
Click to expand...

I wonder what % of that 30% of people who are uninsured in your state do not have insurance because they choose not to. I am not talking about those rich few that can pay all the cost themselves. I am talking about those who have other priorites such as a big screen tv with cable a new car instead of a used one, eating out instead of cooking at home, or how much they spend on thier monthly cell phone bill. My brother inlaw is a perfect example he makes less money than me but drives a new car and has great toys that he is always buying and is always going on fun trips. The way I see it is the main problem is not the cost of health care (while I agree it does need reform) the problem is the way Americans live paycheck to paycheck and buy everthing with credit. I have no problems with people who want to live like that just dont ask me to foot the bill for you when the check comes. It is called personal responsibility and as a country we seem to have forgot what that means.
 
MC.no.spin said:
The main issue among others I have with this bill is that health care premiums will still be very expensive. Nothing (from what I have gathered) is contained in this bill to:

a. increase competition amongst insurers (such as allowing out of state insurers) which would naturally lower rates;
b. remove unnecessary mandates on what I have in my plan (I'd like a simple plan that only cover things like major illness, accidents and disease - no need for coverage on infertility treatments or sex-change operations, etc.);
c. reform tort law concerning malpractice litigation so that doctor expenses were reduced, thus lowering the cost of my premium;
d. create incentives for doctors and hospitals to focus on quality care instead of quantity care, such as through fixed fees;
e. create incentives for the individual to focus on his own quality of health through nutrition, exercise and less trips to the doctor for the consequences of poor health. I'd like to be rewarded for my optimum BMI with a tax break.

My preference is that this would be a state matter and each state would tailor their own universal health care to it's citizens.
Click to expand...

You know, if Congressional Republicans had given an argument like this instead of "pull the plug on grandma", they might have been successful in shutting this monstrosity down.

Good arguments.
 
digsbe said:
Insurance reform does not equal healthcare. If you have a heart attack and go to the ER, the hospital must treat you regardless of your plan. This reform took place to further enslave the country before the federal government and to push a damaging agenda. It's government take over of healthcare, which means more power to the federal government and less to the people.
Click to expand...

there have been numerous examples recited during the congressional debate about persons being denied the healthcare they needed because they were without insurance. that absence of health insurance, that resulting denial of health care, led to their demise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom