View Poll Results: Would You Rather Have Obamacare or a System of UHC?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • "Obamacare"

    8 14.81%
  • Universal Health Care

    46 85.19%
Page 12 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 228

Thread: "Obamacare" or UHC?

  1. #111
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I'm beginning to think that we should just have a "libertarian opt-out" for everything. Better yet why don't we set aside a parcel of land so that the libertarians can have their own paradise lol. That would be quite an experiment.
    Free State Project - Liberty in Our Lifetime

  2. #112
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,399

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Oh, that already exists. It's called Fantasyland and Walt Disney built it over 50 years ago.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  3. #113
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    I'm not sure if you have an objective here other than breast-beating and Obama-bashing, but a few seconds of thought would have revealed that there are many potential ways in which we could be better served that don't involve costs at all.
    Costs were the reason we needed reform. Most expensive health care in the world means any reform must address costs.

    And when it comes to discussing costs, you need to define your terms. What qualifies as "cheaper"? I raised this point earlier while not expecting to see a reply.
    What do you mean "what qualifies as cheaper?"

    As compared to what, the USA-PATRIOT Act? Do you agree that what is most important about a bill is its provisions rather than its title, and that it is silly to focus on what is actually trivial?
    A "who's John Galt" reply. I don't think it's trivial to name a bill something when what it does is the opposite and intentionally deceives millions. A more adequate comparison would have been if they'd named the Patriot Act the Privacy Protection Act.

    I noted several earlier, but are you aware of the 50% discount on brand-name drugs that manufacturers must provide under PPACA to seniors with Medicare Part-D coverage who are affected by the doughnut-hole?
    Medicare D is the most destructive welfare benefit in history. Even if manufacturers don't just spread this to other customers, it really just buys this financial hemorrhage of a program a wee bit more time.

    I'm reasonably sure that ths will be dismissed for any of a number of rhetorical reasons, so what about the required rebates of premiums to consumers in years when any less than 85% of them is spent for actual health care services?
    Creates a more-you-spend-more-you-earn scenario, encouraging overutilization of health care. They can just raise premiums that much faster. Does nothing to address the exploding costs of the care or the overutitilization/overcoverage thereof.

    Anticipating that this will be found not to count either, how about the standardization of various paperwork activities related to plan enrollment and claims processing? You know, in France it would not be at all uncommon to walk into a doctor's office (easier to do there since they have more of them per capita than we do) and find no one working there who was not a degreed or certified medical professional. Their claims system is so simple that paper-pushing admin assistants are simply not required under most circumstances. I know...job killer.
    You said it, not me. Maybe this saves some money, but how much of our health care problem was admin assistant wages?

    Death panels bad, death panels good. PPACA critics can't seem to make up their minds.
    If government provides guarantee to health care according to his need, their options are to implement death panels if they want to contain costs, or to simply not contain costs.

    By the way, what would your take be on assisted suicide being covered by insurance?
    Same way I feel about zit-popping being covered by insurance. There's no reason for it to be expensive enough to need to be.

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Costs were the reason we needed reform. Most expensive health care in the world means any reform must address costs.
    And worst levels of quality mean that any reform must address quality. Now that we've answered those two key questions, all that's left is to figure out how to do it without incurring a boatload of massive dislocation costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    What do you mean "what qualifies as cheaper?"
    Hmmm. I'll repeat from Post-76 already referenced once since...

    Would that be unit costs or overall costs? And what is the reference point from which cost reductions are to be calculated? To be more precise, if I do 10 procedures this year at $10 each, and 12 next year at $9 each, have costs gone up or down? And if costs at some point in the future are higher than they are today, but lower than they would have been extrapolated at current rates of increase from today, have costs gone up or down?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    A "who's John Galt" reply. I don't think it's trivial to name a bill something when what it does is the opposite and intentionally deceives millions. A more adequate comparison would have been if they'd named the Patriot Act the Privacy Protection Act.
    A "who's Bill O'Reilly" reply. When lacking any salient point to make, just maximize the volume-nonsense product.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Medicare D is the most destructive welfare benefit in history. Even if manufacturers don't just spread this to other customers, it really just buys this financial hemorrhage of a program a wee bit more time.
    Bush suppressed actual cost analyses, banned price negotiations, then refused to provide a funding source for Part-D. You just can't expect much good math from people who think that tax cuts will increase government revenue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Creates a more-you-spend-more-you-earn scenario, encouraging overutilization of health care. They can just raise premiums that much faster. Does nothing to address the exploding costs of the care or the overutitilization/overcoverage thereof.
    Speaking of bad math, cashflow is fixed from January 1 since you can't raise current year premiums. If 85% of the total you collect during the year doesn't go to purposes actually related to health care, you overcharged and the overage has to be refunded to customers. Previously, some 25-30% of a consumer's health care dollar was going to something other than health care.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    You said it, not me. Maybe this saves some money, but how much of our health care problem was admin assistant wages?
    Way too much has been going to adminstrative overhead, none of it improving the actual health of anyone. And I assume you do realize that a particular cost reduction need not in and of itself resolve our health care financing problems in order to be worthwhile. Each step taken toward that goal is worthwhile, I hope you would agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    If government provides guarantee to health care according to his need, their options are to implement death panels if they want to contain costs, or to simply not contain costs.
    Repeating a meritless claim does not improve it. Intro to Reality -- In 2010 research, surveys among populations of vulnerable elders showed that 93% preferred dying to lingering in a coma, being on a mechanical ventilator, or being on a feeding tube. You are claiming problems based upon conditions that you assume but which do not in fact exist.

    And as a personal FYI, some 73% of those surveyed above indicated that they had completed an Advance Directive and given a copy to their health care provider. At none of the survey sites had such directives made it into the medical record of as many as half of those who said they had completed one. Something to keep in mind?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Same way I feel about zit-popping being covered by insurance. There's no reason for it to be expensive enough to need to be.
    This at answer is worth 0 points.
    Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 07-18-12 at 04:46 PM.

  5. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    This is like picking between being raped once a month and being raped twice a week.

    You have to pick the former, but you still want to NOT be raped at all.

  6. #116
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Would you rather have the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA "Obamacare) or have a system of UHC in this country?
    With how screwed up the medical system is already, neither. Everything the government touches turns to **** shortly after.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  7. #117
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    And worst levels of quality mean that any reform must address quality.
    That wasn't the emergent reason to need reform.

    [I]Would that be unit costs or overall costs? And what is the reference point from which cost reductions are to be calculated? To be more precise, if I do 10 procedures this year at $10 each, and 12 next year at $9 each, have costs gone up or down?
    Unit. Down.

    A "who's Bill O'Reilly" reply. When lacking any salient point to make, just maximize the volume-nonsense product.
    I guess I'll have to assume that you quite simply dont care that the affordable care act was designed in a way that makes care less affordable, and thus deceive everyone as to it's function prior to being passed.

    Bush suppressed actual cost analyses, banned price negotiations, then refused to provide a funding source for Part-D. You just can't expect much good math from people who think that tax cuts will increase government revenue.
    I don't expect good math from anyone looking to justfy expanding handout programs.

    Speaking of bad math, cashflow is fixed from January 1 since you can't raise current year premiums. If 85% of the total you collect during the year doesn't go to purposes actually related to health care, you overcharged and the overage has to be refunded to customers.
    It still encourages spending more on health care over time, when we ought to spend less.

    Previously, some 25-30% of a consumer's health care dollar was going to something other than health care.
    Previously their revenues weren't federally mandated.

    Way too much has been going to adminstrative overhead, none of it improving the actual health of anyone.
    None of it, huh?
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 07-18-12 at 05:47 PM.

  8. #118
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,515

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokiate View Post
    With how screwed up the medical system is already, neither. Everything the government touches turns to **** shortly after.
    Precisely why it's time to privatize the military. The government can't run anything right, so it's a wonder we ever win any wars, and no wonder at all why our military costs more than that of anyone else.

    So, privatize it. Pay a contracting company according to how many enemies get killed, how many battles won, what new spiffy military hardware they can develop. Why, we'd save a ton of money and provide private sector jobs while doing so.

    I'm surprised that the right wing hasn't already championed the cause.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Precisely why it's time to privatize the military. The government can't run anything right, so it's a wonder we ever win any wars, and no wonder at all why our military costs more than that of anyone else.

    So, privatize it. Pay a contracting company according to how many enemies get killed, how many battles won, what new spiffy military hardware they can develop. Why, we'd save a ton of money and provide private sector jobs while doing so.

    I'm surprised that the right wing hasn't already championed the cause.
    Championing such a thing would be admitting not understanding rational economics, but then, so is championing UHC. Yes, its no wonder the right doesn't champion either.

  10. #120
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Precisely why it's time to privatize the military. The government can't run anything right, so it's a wonder we ever win any wars, and no wonder at all why our military costs more than that of anyone else.

    So, privatize it. Pay a contracting company according to how many enemies get killed, how many battles won, what new spiffy military hardware they can develop. Why, we'd save a ton of money and provide private sector jobs while doing so.

    I'm surprised that the right wing hasn't already championed the cause.


    Kidding me right? Who will these private companies call to? Who will they answer to? Did Backwater already not prove that **** storm that comes out of privatized military contracts?


Page 12 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •