• 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!

"Obamacare" or UHC?

Would You Rather Have Obamacare or a System of UHC?


  • Total voters
    46
I'm going to have to see how the AHA works before I'll know.

Personally, I don't understand why the government didn't simply envelope everyone into Medicare and call it a day.

Beacuse the TRUE COSTS could not be hidden by doing that. It does not take thousands of pages of law to say keep what medical care insurance you have, make those without it by it from "pools" or exchanges" and give some more folks medicaid access. This is a scam to make the HUGE costs look little, and to delay the big tax bills until 2014 through 2018. Yes he did!
 
Libertarian philosophy is not anarchy. It is that the purpose of the government is to protect our rights. What we see in Somalia is anarchy in which no one has any rights.
Actually, it is. Property rights is about the only one of concern to libertarianism. The weak federalism it advocates will allow the states to descend into anarchy by unequal protection of rights, from abortion to contraception to segregation.
 
Beacuse the TRUE COSTS could not be hidden by doing that. It does not take thousands of pages of law to say keep what medical care insurance you have, make those without it by it from "pools" or exchanges" and give some more folks medicaid access. This is a scam to make the HUGE costs look little, and to delay the big tax bills until 2014 through 2018. Yes he did!

Exactly. Much of the real costs will be buried in insurance industry income statements and balance sheets. But then there's also the $1.7 Trillion to boot. And whatever upward pressure it will put on Medicaid as fewer and fewer can afford their skyrocketing premiums.

Hey, maybe that's one way to implement UHC... Make everyone poor enough that they have to apply for Medicaid.
 
That experiment has already been hypothesized. It didn't turn out well......

LordOfTheFliesBookCover.jpg


Libertarianism is not anarchy.

How many dumb mischaracterizations can we get in one thread.
 
Actually, it is. Property rights is about the only one of concern to libertarianism. The weak federalism it advocates will allow the states to descend into anarchy by unequal protection of rights, from abortion to contraception to segregation.

Horsecrap. Libertarians are about the only folks left trying to meaningfully slow the accelerating acquisition of power by the Federal Govt. Republicans, the religious right, Democrats, liberals and socialists are all in favor of expanding government over time. The idea that states can't be united in a basic way and left to govern themselves beyond that is a fast track to anarchy is profoundly insane.
 
Since the question is either/or, I'd rather have a UHC system than Obamacare hands down. Obamacare is benefits large corporations and hurts small-businesses, IMO.
 
[...] The PPACA has many things that INCREASE the current cost of medical care and its related mandated medical care insurance [...]
Can you name some of those things?

Here are the few I'm aware of:
1. Removal of health insurance lifetime benefit cap (surely this would be a tiny increase, and to be honest I had no problem with the cap).
2. Coverage of pre-existings. I think this would be a rather small increase as well.
3. 100% coverage of preventative care. I think this will be a wash (cost to insurance company will be offset by lower costs down the road).

4. Some tax on medical devices. I don't use any medical devices, but I can see a tiny increase in overall insurance expenditures.

So... what ya got?
 
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.
No scheit! I almost want to quote this in my siggy area.

Anyway, it goes against my normal beliefs and values, but I really think UHC is the only real and workable option. Obamacare, IMO, will be a long-term boondoggle, and will only serve to prolong the switch to UHC.
 
[...] Personally, I don't understand why the government didn't simply envelope everyone into Medicare and call it a day.
Politics. Obama has indicated that he would have preferred UHC (Medicare for everone, effectively) but it was undoable politically at this point in time (look at the apoplectic fit the GOP is still having over Obamacare). So, he saw Obamacare as a step in that direction, and had they been able to keep the Government Option in the package it would have been more of a step in that direction instead of a boon for health insurance companies.
 
Libertarianism is not anarchy.

How many dumb mischaracterizations can we get in one thread.
You've been around here long enough to know the answer to that :lol:
 
Here are the few I'm aware of:
1. Removal of health insurance lifetime benefit cap (surely this would be a tiny increase, and to be honest I had no problem with the cap).

How much of our health care is provided to people in their last year of life? This could be huge.

2. Coverage of pre-existings. I think this would be a rather small increase as well.

Wrong. People can opt to pay the tax until they get sick and need tons of medical care. Like waiting until the car accident to take out a policy with GEICO. That leads to astronomical increases.

3. 100% coverage of preventative care. I think this will be a wash (cost to insurance company will be offset by lower costs down the road).

Correct that it will raise costs, wrong that it will be offset. A minimal number of conditions caught preventatively save money overall when you consider the aggregate number of folks getting screened/tested. Especially when outpatient clinic care in the US is already more than twice as expensive as the next most expensive country.


Overall, you must agree that calling this the "Affordable Care Act" is an enormous deception.
 
[...] The idea that states can't be united in a basic way and left to govern themselves beyond that is a fast track to anarchy is profoundly insane.
There is much evidence to support that insanity, both current and historical. I'll look forward to your new thread :)
 
How much of our health care is provided to people in their last year of life? This could be huge.
Indeed, but Obamacare does little to address that AFAIK. In fact, when it did try to address it at the most minimalist level by paying doctors for advising on living wills, nutcases like Sarah Palin and Fox News frothed at the mouth over so-called Death Panels.
 
Wrong. People can opt to pay the tax until they get sick and need tons of medical care. Like waiting until the car accident to take out a policy with GEICO. That leads to astronomical increases.
While that will need to be addressed (I'm thinking the current monetary penalty/tax could be modified to include limb removal, or at the very least public caning), such gamers of the system will incur no additional overall system cost than what they are incurring now by simply being uninsured until their ailment reaches emergency status, at which point hospitals and doctors must treat them essentially for free (recouping the cost from others).

At least under Obamacare they're paying the fine/tax/whatever. Now they're paying nothing. But as I noted, the penalty must be made more painful -- somehow, some way.
 
Indeed, but Obamacare does little to address that AFAIK. In fact, when it did try to address it at the most minimalist level by paying doctors for advising on living wills, nutcases like Sarah Palin and Fox News frothed at the mouth over so-called Death Panels.

They were idiots to raise alarm to this. If government is going to step in, it absolutely must stiff someone. Our costs will become less affordable if we don't deny anyone and cover everyone's every complaint. Restrictions are desperately necessary. They should have been advocating for death panels, not freaking out about them.
 
Yeah, the world has that - they call it "Hong Kong".

For my five budgets, I have increased government expenditure by nearly 70 per cent. This exceeds GDP growth of 21 per cent for the same period. Dedicated to education, medical services, and social welfare to cater for public needs in such areas, this spending also helps invest in the future and sustain economic vibrancy. The increase in expenditure demonstrates our commitment, and confidence in Hong Kong.
-- HK Financial Secretary John Tsang, February 2011
 
UHC but then I am Canadian. I see Obamacare as being pretty much the worst possible way to go. It is a tax on those who can least afford it and will make it even harder to move to a UHC system. You guys should have looked around the world taken the best ideas and tried to come up with something even better, instead you got this monstrosity.
Because we Americans, collectively, are secure in our arrogance to believe that whatever other nations do must somehow be inferior to what we do. Sometimes that is correct. Just because somebody else does it a different way, doesn't automatically mean that is a better way. But, sometimes it IS a better way.


Obomneycare...
:2razz: I like that. I'm gonna steal it. :lol:


This is simply not true. Most people who can't afford it will either get free Medicaid, or receive a generous subsidy for private health insurance. And the few who still can't afford it will get a financial hardship exemption from the mandate.
How do we define "can't afford"? Some arbitrary number on a spreadsheet?


...I don't understand why the government didn't simply envelope everyone into Medicare and call it a day.
That's just crazy-talk! :2razz:
 
Can you name some of those things?

Here are the few I'm aware of:
1. Removal of health insurance lifetime benefit cap (surely this would be a tiny increase, and to be honest I had no problem with the cap).
2. Coverage of pre-existings. I think this would be a rather small increase as well.
3. 100% coverage of preventative care. I think this will be a wash (cost to insurance company will be offset by lower costs down the road).

4. Some tax on medical devices. I don't use any medical devices, but I can see a tiny increase in overall insurance expenditures.

So... what ya got?

I think a tax on medical devices will be way bigger than people realize and it could be a jobs killer. We have an aging population and there are all kinds of "devices" people need from replacement hips, knees, joints etc plus combined with all the devices found in hospitals and doctors offices, x-rays, cat scans, mri's to name a few. Also I have heard this tax is only placed on American made devices (not sure if true) but if it is, how long before those jobs at Hill-Rom, GE, Strycker will be sent overseas?
 
Correct that it will raise costs, wrong that it will be offset. A minimal number of conditions caught preventatively save money overall when you consider the aggregate number of folks getting screened/tested. Especially when outpatient clinic care in the US is already more than twice as expensive as the next most expensive country.

Overall, you must agree that calling this the "Affordable Care Act" is an enormous deception.
I know of no name of any legislation that is not an enormous deception.

You may be correct on the preventative cost; I'm shooting from the hip with no studies to back up my assumption. However, the poster I was replying to similarly had no data to justify his claims, which was my central point. What I provided was simply to prevent repetition should any reply have been forthcoming.
 
While that will need to be addressed (I'm thinking the current monetary penalty/tax could be modified to include limb removal, or at the very least public caning), such gamers of the system will incur no additional overall system cost than what they are incurring now by simply being uninsured until their ailment reaches emergency status, at which point hospitals and doctors must treat them essentially for free (recouping the cost from others).

But it destroys their credit and breaks their bank until they qualify for state-funded coverage that they don't pay for, so whatever, ultimately you're admitting that this provision 1) RAISES costs and 2) doesn't really improve anything about the system. People who get sick and have no money can continue gaming the system one way or another. Hell they can refuse to pay the tax and, at worst, forego their refund.

At least under Obamacare they're paying the fine/tax/whatever. Now they're paying nothing. But as I noted, the penalty must be made more painful -- somehow, some way.

The more painful you make it, the more incentive they have to simply not pay it. What's government gonna do if they don't? What do hospitals do if they dont pay currently?

Ultimately? Nothing. One way or another a bunch of poor people can rack up infinite amounts of health care and spread the cost elsewhere. There is no cost containment incentive, hence costs go crazy.

We're letting health care bankrupt us die to our refusal to restrict it from non-payers.
 
I think a tax on medical devices will be way bigger than people realize and it could be a jobs killer. [...]
You see that point there, in your quote, where I put the ellipses? That's where I stopped reading. Politically crafted partisan talking points are neither debate nor discussion.
 
That's not an answer. You made a false statement, in an attempt to ridicule a political belief system, using hyperbole and just plain ole false information.
I was blowing you off to prevent derailing the thread. You'd already got your return shot in. I'll gladly debate libertarianism in another thread; in this one, I'm done.
 
UHC but then I am Canadian. I see Obamacare as being pretty much the worst possible way to go. It is a tax on those who can least afford it and will make it even harder to move to a UHC system.
Harder than having done nothing at all? That's absurd. And you seriously need to brush up on the levels of exemption, subsidy, and taxation in PPACA. In the meantime, no place else is here. It isn't that people -- well at least the people actually involved -- don't know how national systems in other countries are structured or how and how well they work, but rather that the US isn't any of those places. Just as the national systems of other developed countries are unique and were brought about piece by piece to fit the special needs, preferences, and circmstances of those countries, ours must do the same. The French think the British NHS is a pile of socialist rubbish. But they love their system, and with very good reason.
 
But it destroys their credit and breaks their bank until they qualify for state-funded coverage that they don't pay for, so whatever, ultimately you're admitting that this provision 1) RAISES costs and 2) doesn't really improve anything about the system. People who get sick and have no money can continue gaming the system one way or another. Hell they can refuse to pay the tax and, at worst, forego their refund. [...]
I'm somewhat losing the thread of our conversation, but I'll say that IMHO the majority of the currently uninsured will comply with the mandate, thereby increasing the pool of insureds, which is a Good Thing. Yes, the gov't will be picking up the tab for many of these, and that is going to be the path to UHC. The capitalist model is not working; mainly because the capitalist model always strives for a better (or cheaper) mousetrap, and since healthcare can't be outsourced they can only go for better, which we simply can't afford due to wonderful but breathtakingly expensive technology and procedures.

Yes, there will be some gamers, as there was in Massachussetts, but I think that can be dealt with after it arises. In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
Back
Top Bottom