• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Health care costs set to increase sharply next year... thanks, Obamacare!

joG said:
But that does not show efficiency. Absolute cost per capita and average longevity are only two points on a very long list. You are trying to fool around with me.
Click to expand...

Seems like you'd come up with some data supporting your point.

If you had any.
 
joG said:
But that does not show efficiency. Absolute cost per capita and average longevity are only two points on a very long list. You are trying to fool around with me.
Click to expand...

yeah, actually read the study before responding next time.
 
Threegoofs said:
Seems like you'd come up with some data supporting your point.

If you had any.
Click to expand...

What kind of data? It is so elementary to economic systems that all variables are interconnected and therefore measurement of two or three variables say very little about the efficiency of the total system that it is hard to say, what kind of data you might want. There are good reasons for doctors here in Germany to want to study in the US and why it is the country most would want to be treated in, if they have the money. Don't forget that almost half the cash paid is by the private sector in the US, which indicates that people want more spending than the other countries supply.

This does not mean that the efficiency is high enough. But these fact do place the onus of proof before the door of those that demand less be spent on the American patient.
 
Pollycy said:
We should always care when one group of our citizens is unfairly subjected to deliberate, crass unfairness.
Click to expand...
OK. Then we should stop forcing the young and healthy to subsidize the old and affluent. Medicare is wage theft of the most vulnerable to the most successful.
 
Helix said:
yeah, actually read the study before responding next time.
Click to expand...

Actually, I read that study a few years ago and was only responding to your graphs, which are very deceptive.

But an interesting point in the study is the number of CTs in the US compared to other countries. I have a small anecdote, which I relate knowing full well, that anecdotal evidence is not really convincing. But it illustrates a point quite nicely. A relatively high level manager I am friendly with in a German multinational had his yearly check-up a while back and they identified a tumor in his skull. The doctor said on Friday that she would make an appointment at the university hospital for the Monday for a CT, as it was important to check it quickly. As she was dialing the number she said "You are privately insured?" which said he was not. The CT was not available for patients under the single-payer insurance system for three months. So he had to wait wich is not a good idea with cancer.
 
joG said:
What kind of data? It is so elementary to economic systems that all variables are interconnected and therefore measurement of two or three variables say very little about the efficiency of the total system that it is hard to say, what kind of data you might want. There are good reasons for doctors here in Germany to want to study in the US and why it is the country most would want to be treated in, if they have the money. Don't forget that almost half the cash paid is by the private sector in the US, which indicates that people want more spending than the other countries supply.

This does not mean that the efficiency is high enough. But these fact do place the onus of proof before the door of those that demand less be spent on the American patient.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Actually, I'm not sure why German students would want to study medicine in the US... I've never actually seen a European med student studying in America. I suppose they may want to do it if they choose to live here, but I've never seen that, either.

In terms of treatment, the glorification of the US system is a bit overblown. The Europeans certainly have cutting edge technology and excellent medical care which is equivalent and can exceed US treatment. In fact, in the area I work in, cardiology, Europeans are often more innovative, being the system that employed drug eluting stents, radial approach to cardiac interventional procedures, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, just to name a couple things.

Given the fact that the US gets care that is at least as good in terms of quantity, yet doesnt cover their population completely (even post-ACA), and it does this at a cost of about 50% more to double that of the cost of European nations. That, my friend, is what is called 'inefficiency'.
 
MorrisDay said:
It was all based on lies. I lost my doctor of 15 years because of the ACA. Fortunately I was able to find another decent one. The problem is that she hates the new bureaucratic rules too!
Click to expand...

I lost my eye specialist due to Obamacare.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL The ACA will never be repealed unless single payer is substituted..
Click to expand...

You are not the arbiter or what will or will not be repealed. The original version of Obamacare had the single payer option built it...if Obamacare failed. That was Obama and his merry band of leftwing morons intended all along. However that clause did not survive. If the GOP holds onto both houses of congress and a republican wins the white house.....I guarantee you that Obamacare will be repealed.

It may be revised to include the public option and other tweaks to make it work even better but....
Click to expand...

Sorry sport. Not going to happen. If you really wanted a single payer option, you should have been against the ACA. Getting the socalled ACA shoved down everyone's throat killed any chance of a single payer system for quite some time.

we will NEVER go back to pre-existing conditions and
Click to expand...

Common sense reform can address the issue of pre-existing conditions....Obamacare is not common sense reform.


millions who cannot afford insurance being subsidized with surcharges on the insured.
Click to expand...

If we ever get common sense healthcare reform, the cost of health insurance will become much more affordable. And the truly poor will still qualify of Medicaid. So, don't give me the "millions cannot afford without subsidies" crap. It's the subsidies that have driven up the cost since the passage of Obamacare.


It is just not possible even now but after 8 years of Hillary it will be unthinkable.
Click to expand...

More false and nervous bravado from the left. Hillary is not the sure thing you want to think she is. Americans are suffering from dynasty fatigue and rank and file voters don't desire another Clinton or Bush in the white house.


You might as well change your screen name now.
Click to expand...

I like my screen name and will enjoy it even more when Obamacare is repealed.


BTW According to polls, Medicare is the most well liked Govt. program EVER. Are old people not Americans? So much for them not trusting the Govt. and a single payer system. It turns out they already overwhelmingly do.
Click to expand...

I don't really care about "according to the polls". I think medicare sucks. And Obamacare is making it suck even more. You pay into it all of your working life and then still are expected to pay into parts of it when you are finally old enough to take advantage of it. No senior should have to buy supplemental insurance to make what they paid for all their working lives viable.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
LOL What did that "creaming" get the GOP?
Insurance companies do set the rates but this time because of the ACA they have to refund the customer if they profit from your payments by more than 15%. I have received a check every year since the law went into effect. This year it was $800. Thank you Obama.
Click to expand...

No offense, however I just don't buy that.
 
le bouffon said:
I never said that. I said I would have opted for a single payer system.



Well said.
Click to expand...


Single payer costs do not increase at the point of service, however the cost of providing that service is nowhere near immune to increase. That cost is either passed onto you in increased tax rates or increased rationing of healthcare.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You are not the arbiter or what will or will not be repealed. The original version of Obamacare had the single payer option built it...if Obamacare failed. That was Obama and his merry band of leftwing morons intended all along. However that clause did not survive. If the GOP holds onto both houses of congress and a republican wins the white house.....I guarantee you that Obamacare will be repealed.



Sorry sport. Not going to happen. If you really wanted a single payer option, you should have been against the ACA. Getting the socalled ACA shoved down everyone's throat killed any chance of a single payer system for quite some time.



Common sense reform can address the issue of pre-existing conditions....Obamacare is not common sense reform.




If we ever get common sense healthcare reform, the cost of health insurance will become much more affordable. And the truly poor will still qualify of Medicaid. So, don't give me the "millions cannot afford without subsidies" crap. It's the subsidies that have driven up the cost since the passage of Obamacare.




More false and nervous bravado from the left. Hillary is not the sure thing you want to think she is. Americans are suffering from dynasty fatigue and rank and file voters don't desire another Clinton or Bush in the white house.




I like my screen name and will enjoy it even more when Obamacare is repealed.




I don't really care about "according to the polls". I think medicare sucks. And Obamacare is making it suck even more. You pay into it all of your working life and then still are expected to pay into parts of it when you are finally old enough to take advantage of it. No senior should have to buy supplemental insurance to make what they paid for all their working lives viable.
Click to expand...

Of course you "don't care about polls" if you did you would realize how out of touch you are. You really haven't got a clue. Just try and not be too miserable when all your "dreams' turn to ****. There will not be a Republican in the Whitehouse again for a very very long time...if ever.
 
le bouffon said:
Just to list out the conversation: I stated that I would have preferred a single payer system and you questioned if the price would never increase, which Deuce countered, saying a single payer system costs less. "Never increases" is an impossible standard. I reaffirmed my previous point, of stating I would have opted for a single payer system, as it costs less and now you say that you don't care and it's off topic?

Either you have a short memory or you're a fool.
Click to expand...

However it does not cost less.
 
Threegoofs said:
Hmm. Actually, I'm not sure why German students would want to study medicine in the US... I've never actually seen a European med student studying in America. I suppose they may want to do it if they choose to live here, but I've never seen that, either.

In terms of treatment, the glorification of the US system is a bit overblown. The Europeans certainly have cutting edge technology and excellent medical care which is equivalent and can exceed US treatment. In fact, in the area I work in, cardiology, Europeans are often more innovative, being the system that employed drug eluting stents, radial approach to cardiac interventional procedures, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, just to name a couple things.

Given the fact that the US gets care that is at least as good in terms of quantity, yet doesnt cover their population completely (even post-ACA), and it does this at a cost of about 50% more to double that of the cost of European nations. That, my friend, is what is called 'inefficiency'.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that there are some clinics here that are quite good in certain things. A freind of mine ran the University hospital in Bochum till recently and said that in his specialty they were almost as good as the US correspondents. He could sometimes not, however, treat his patients as well as his friends in the States, because he was often not allowed to use the newer medications. Then there is the problem of personnel here, which has become a grave restriction to medical supply. I think it was three departments had to be closes in the Aachen hospital, which is a major and rather new one due to no availability of adequately trained nurses. The hospital in the town we live in has no dermatology any longer as well as having to employ doctors that do not speak German. It seems that a very large number of people leave Germany, because the pay is rather low. This has gone so far that Switzerland has begun to curtail immigration even of medical professionals.

Now, I must point out that may specialty is economics and my information in these things is second hand coming either from professionals or literature. So I am only repeating information I have collected and structured.
 
iguanaman said:
Of course you "don't care about polls" if you did you would realize how out of touch you are. You really haven't got a clue.

It is you that is out of touch. Since you seem to like opinion polls, note all of the opinion polls that show that Obamacare is still vastly unpopular.

Just try and not be too miserable when all your "dreams' turn to ****. There will not be a Republican in the Whitehouse for a very very long time...if ever.
Click to expand...

I recall liberals in the 1970s telling me there would not be a republican in the white house for a very very long time. Then came 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush Sr. Then in the 1992, liberals said...we have the white house and both houses of congress......you will not see any republican control for years to come. Fast forward to to 94 congressional midterms and lo and behold...the republicans take control of congress....then get the white house in the 2000 election. Then when Obama became president and the democrats gained control of both houses of congress....many talkboard liberals...claimed.....the republicans will never control congress again. Fast forward to 2010 and the republicans take the house of reps(and most statehouses). Then 4 years later they take the senate. Point is your claim that "There will not be a republican in the white house for a very long time, if ever." is just nervous partisan banter. Political parties fall in and out of favor....mostly based on performance or perceived performance. Your problem at this point is not merely Hillary. Your party has lost control of both houses of congress based mostly on what Obama has done.....and what he still plans to do now that he no longer faces re-election. Unless the republican nominate a RINO......I don't see Hillary becoming president.
Click to expand...
 
iguanaman said:
You should start realizing that most everything "you don't buy" is reality. When everything you believe is a lie nothing is real.
Click to expand...

That is one of the goofiest statements I have ever read on a talkboard.
 
ObamacareFail said:
That is one of the goofiest statements I have ever read on a talkboard.
Click to expand...

Actually, the goofiest is the fantasy that the ACA can be repealed.

It needs replacement.

And the GOP can't even agree on electing a Speaker of the House, much less a comprehensive reform of healthcare, which is about the hardest thing one can do legislatively outside of tax overhaul.
 
reinoe said:
OK. Then we should stop forcing the young and healthy to subsidize the old and affluent. Medicare is wage theft of the most vulnerable to the most successful.
Click to expand...

OK, then let's make a new law, effective tomorrow, October 26, 2015, there will be no more Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid (FICA) deductions taken from anyone's paycheck. Anyone who becomes employed on October 26, 2015 or thereafter will not receive any Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid payouts of any kind.

Everyone who had paid prior to October 26, 2015, however, is fully covered and funded according to the prevailing methods, personal accounts, and associated timetables in effect through midnight, October 25, 2015. There! You happy with that?

Think: the government had plenty of money (and the Federal Reserve banking cartel printed MORE) to save all those that somebody decided were "too-big-to-fail". Fine! Now the same ****ing government can come up with whatever funding it needs to keep promises it made DECADES AGO to people who were forced by law to pay into these systems.... And, with our new systems, going forward, the "young" won't have to be shackled to this system ever again. OK, you can cheer now.... :lol:
 
joG said:
Actually, I read that study a few years ago and was only responding to your graphs, which are very deceptive.

But an interesting point in the study is the number of CTs in the US compared to other countries. I have a small anecdote, which I relate knowing full well, that anecdotal evidence is not really convincing. But it illustrates a point quite nicely. A relatively high level manager I am friendly with in a German multinational had his yearly check-up a while back and they identified a tumor in his skull. The doctor said on Friday that she would make an appointment at the university hospital for the Monday for a CT, as it was important to check it quickly. As she was dialing the number she said "You are privately insured?" which said he was not. The CT was not available for patients under the single-payer insurance system for three months. So he had to wait wich is not a good idea with cancer.
Click to expand...

i don't believe the conservative horror stories concerning first health care systems that work more efficiently than our own. the data doesn't support the assertion. and yeah, i have more charts and data, if you'd like to go there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom