• 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
TheDemSocialist said:
:doh

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?
Click to expand...

He's being sarcastic. At least I think he is.
 
Mycroft said:
I'd rather see the liberals shipped off to some third world country so they can screw THEM up instead of screwing up successful first world countries.
Click to expand...

Right. Liberals screw up everything, whenever conservatives are in charge things are always fine and dandy. Partisan hackery at its very finest.
 
Catawba said:
It provides health care coverage to all. That far outweighs your objections to people who can afford it having to pay for their own health care as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

Not just their own. Their own plus everyone else's who can't. And that is something no one can afford.

I've said it countless times, the problem is not that people didn't have access to health care, or even forms of insurance. The problem was the cost of the underlying services and our over-coverage of already-overpriced care. And that problem has been made worse.

Its affordable because those that cannot afford it will receive assistance in paying it.
Click to expand...

That's a politically correct way to dodge the fact that the needs of each are being billed according to the means of each. It is a purely communistic tenet, and it leaves no incentive for anyone in the game to be cost-conscious.

I have not read about that having been a problem in all the rest of the industrialized world that has already upgraded to UHC.
Click to expand...

That's because their care was always less expensive. Their UHC systems didn't make it that way. It already was.
 
Why are there only 2 options?

What about those of us who are opposed to RomneyCare/ObamaCare and UHC?
 
Neomalthusian said:
Not just their own. Their own plus everyone else's who can't. And that is something no one can afford.
Click to expand...

It will be less than we were paying before for increased hospital costs since more people will have health insurance.

I've said it countless times, the problem is not that people didn't have access to health care, or even forms of insurance. The problem was the cost of the underlying services and our over-coverage of already-overpriced care. And that problem has been made worse.
Click to expand...

The only way to address the underlying cost will be to upgrade to UHC as the rest of the industrialized world has done. But this is America, and we are only capable of baby steps, apparently.



That's a politically correct way to dodge the fact that the needs of each are being billed according to the means of each. It is a purely communistic tenet, and it leaves no incentive for anyone in the game to be cost-conscious.
Click to expand...

That is how you see it from the far right. I see it as upholding the intent of the Constitution to promote the welfare of we the people.



That's because their care was always less expensive. Their UHC systems didn't make it that way. It already was.
Click to expand...

Our medical care is almost twice as expensive as every other industrialized country but our health ratings for all citizens are not as good. That together with health care being the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country, will leave us no alternative but to eventually upgrade to UHC.
 
Catawba said:
It will be less than we were paying before for increased hospital costs since more people will have health insurance.
Click to expand...

You really need to start taking notes. Having insurance doesn't decrease health care utilization (if anything it increases it) and it doesn't suppress costs of the care, individually or overall. There is no mathematical way that expanding access decreases unit costs of medical care nor expenditures on medical care overall/per capita.

The only way to address the underlying cost will be to upgrade to UHC as the rest of the industrialized world has done. But this is America, and we are only capable of baby steps, apparently.
Click to expand...

Broken record player. We have said the same things back to one another for months. More care guaranteed to more people does not mean cheaper care individually or overall.

That is how you see it from the far right. I see it as upholding the intent of the Constitution to promote the welfare of we the people.
Click to expand...

1) SCOTUS disagrees with that as the basis.
2) Policies that make us poorer and make corporations which you argue were gouging us to begin with and erich add to our already exploding debt are directly contrary to the general welfare of the US.

Our medical care is almost twice as expensive as every other industrialized country
Click to expand...

That's THE problem that PPACA makes worse.

That together with health care being the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country, will leave us no alternative but to eventually upgrade to UHC.
Click to expand...

UHC isn't an upgrade. It just consolidates revenue collection and reimbursements. What it still leaves undone is price capping and rationing. Someone has to do that, and politicians won't because we'll destroy them if they do, so we will fail to contain costs until the debt it creates destroys us.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
You really need to start taking notes. Having insurance doesn't decrease health care utilization (if anything it increases it) and it doesn't suppress costs of the care, individually or overall. There is no mathematical way that expanding access decreases unit costs of medical care nor expenditures on medical care overall/per capita.
Click to expand...


Before health care reform we were paying increased hospital costs to cover the 50 million without insurance. With the reform we will be paying for the health care for only a fraction of that number because more will have health insurance. That was the conservatives idea when they created the insurance mandate. If you don't like it, tell them you would prefer UHC.


1) SCOTUS disagrees with that as the basis.
Click to expand...

They have agree with that as the basis for Medicare and Medicaid for decades under both parties. Let's just extend Medicare to everyone if that makes you feel better.



2) Policies that make us poorer and make corporations which you argue were gouging us to begin with and erich add to our already exploding debt are directly contrary to the general welfare of the US.
Click to expand...

You have not proven your premise this will cost us more money over the long term.






That's THE problem that PPACA makes worse.
Click to expand...
So you would prefer an upgrade to UHC, over the conservatives insurance mandate?



UHC isn't an upgrade.
Click to expand...

It provides better health care to more people at half the costs. I call that an upgrade.
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cuz the Democrats were too busy compromising w the Republicans. The Republicans would have gone ape-**** over such a move. But, since they did anyway, you are right, they should have ignored Romneycare and just gone for the true Obamacare.
 
Dezaad said:
Cuz the Democrats were too busy compromising w the Republicans. The Republicans would have gone ape-**** over such a move. But, since they did anyway, you are right, they should have ignored Romneycare and just gone for the true Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Exactly! The reason the conservatives created the insurance mandate in 1989 was that it was the only alternative they could come up with to UHC.
 
Catawba said:
Before health care reform we were paying increased hospital costs to cover the 50 million without insurance. With the reform we will be paying for the health care for only a fraction of that number because more will have health insurance. That was the conservatives idea when they created the insurance mandate. If you don't like it, tell them you would prefer UHC.
Click to expand...

Few of the 50 million without insurance incur huge hospital bills. No one is admitted to a hospital who does not have any need for hospital care. More people with insurance changes very little about people's aggregate need for medical care, and what it does change does not simply make the previous hospital costs vanish "because they have insurance." You are failing to grasp the basic financial mechanism of insurance and health care. Insurance is not some magical ticket that makes health care not cost anything.

They have agree with that as the basis for Medicare and Medicaid for decades under both parties. Let's just extend Medicare to everyone if that makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

Medicare is the most fiscally destructive policy in the history of our nation. Yeah let's expand it.

You have not proven your premise this will cost us more money over the long term.
Click to expand...

It doesn't cap health industry salaries, reimbursement rates for services/procedures/tests, or premiums that insurance companies can charge us now that our service to them is federally mandated. If you can't figure out on your own how that accelerates continued cost expansion, then what could I possible say to prove it to you?

So you would prefer an upgrade to UHC, over the conservatives insurance mandate?
Click to expand...

Post #7.

It provides better health care to more people at half the costs. I call that an upgrade.
Click to expand...

You can't demonstrate this whatsoever. To try, you would only point to other countries whose health care has always cost half what ours has. You repeatedly blindly assume that if a country has both UHC and lower health care costs, that it was the implementation of the UHC that caused those costs to be lower. Correlation is not causation.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Few of the 50 million without insurance incur huge hospital bills. No one is admitted to a hospital who does not have any need for hospital care. More people with insurance changes very little about people's aggregate need for medical care, and what it does change does not simply make the previous hospital costs vanish "because they have insurance." You are failing to grasp the basic financial mechanism of insurance and health care. Insurance is not some magical ticket that makes health care not cost anything.
Click to expand...


Health reform coverage cost falls slightly

"On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office released new estimates on the cost of subsidizing insurance coverage for millions of Americans.

The bottom line: The government's overall tab is expected to fall slightly over a decade. It is now projected to spend $1.083 trillion between 2012 and 2021. Last year, CBO's estimate was $1.131 trillion.

A key goal of the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, is to guarantee coverage for everyone regardless of health status and create affordable insurance options for low- and middle-income Americans.

What health reform is (and isn't) doing now

To achieve that end, the law expands eligibility rules for Medicaid and subsidizes the cost of health insurance for low- and middle-income families buying policies on newly created insurance exchanges, which will open in 2014.

The CBO now expects more people to be eligible for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, increasing the government's costs by $168 billion compared to last year's estimates. The reason: higher unemployment projections and lower income expectations.

At the same time, that increased outlay is offset by a reduction in projected costs for various tax credits and the government's share of premiums.
It is also offset by higher-than-expected taxable compensation and penalties, both of which will add to government revenue."


Medicare is the most fiscally destructive policy in the history of our nation.
Click to expand...

Only from the perspective of those on the far right.


It doesn't cap health industry salaries, reimbursement rates for services/procedures/tests, or premiums that insurance companies can charge us now that our service to them is federally mandated. If you can't figure out on your own how that accelerates continued cost expansion, then what could I possible say to prove it to you?
Click to expand...

From the CBO study referenced above:"the law expands eligibility rules for Medicaid and subsidizes the cost of health insurance for low- and middle-income families buying policies on newly created insurance exchanges, which will open in 2014."

"The CBO now expects more people to be eligible for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, increasing the government's costs by $168 billion compared to last year's estimates. The reason: higher unemployment projections and lower income expectations.

At the same time, that increased outlay is offset by a reduction in projected costs for various tax credits and the government's share of premiums.

It is also offset by higher-than-expected taxable compensation and penalties, both of which will add to government revenue."



You can't demonstrate this whatsoever. To try, you would only point to other countries whose health care has always cost half what ours has. You repeatedly blindly assume that if a country has both UHC and lower health care costs, that it was the implementation of the UHC that caused those costs to be lower. Correlation is not causation.
Click to expand...

" According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($7,146), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (15.2%), than any other nation in 2008.[3] The United States had the fourth highest level of government health care spending per capita ($3,426), behind three countries with higher levels of GDP per capita: Monaco, Luxembourg, and Norway.[3] A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses.[4] Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased."

Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. Ranks Last Among Seven Countries on Health System Performance Based on Measures of Quality, Efficiency, Access, Equity, and Healthy Lives

"Affordable Care Act Holds Promise for U.S. Performance; Focus on Information Technology and Primary Care Vital To Achieving High Performance"

U.S. Ranks Last Among Seven Countries on Health System Performance Based on Measures of Quality, Efficiency, Access, Equity, and Healthy Lives - The Commonwealth Fund
 
Neither.
Self provided sufficiency.
You don't want to buy it, or can't afford it, you don't get it, or the care.


Today's lesson:

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever in the history of the program.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please do not feed the animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.

This ends today's lesson.
Click to expand...
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Like our armed forces. The weakest in the world. Right?
Click to expand...

But since people keep making this comparison, despite the fact that the US Military has and always was a component of the government, the US Military is wasteful and very inefficient. Billions could be saved by cutting waste alone.
 
Excon said:
Neither.
Self provided sufficiency.
You don't want to buy it, or can't afford it, you don't get it, or the care.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the lesson... because I just KNOW you are not equating people and animals.
 
Neomalthusian said:
That wasn't the emergent reason to need reform.
Click to expand...
If we had been receiving the best overall health care in the world, we likely wouldn't have made such a fuss over paying for it. It was having pretty much the worst overall health care while paying by far the most for it that got people bent out of shape.

Neomalthusian said:
Unit. Down.
Click to expand...
And there is one example after another of just that in PPACA. Remember all those secret, backroom deals that Obama kept making with unions, doctors, hospitals, and drug and device manufacturers? All of those were to negotiate unit cost reductions that still allowed total costs (and profits) to increase. Of course, there wasn't any need to negotiate with public sector health systems. I've already noted multiple cost reduction provisions within those and won't repeat them here.

Neomalthusian said:
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.
Click to expand...
Whoopee-cushion output until you can back it up with something other than empty copy-and-paste partisan palaver.

Neomalthusian said:
I don't expect good math from anyone looking to justfy expanding handout programs.
Click to expand...
You have to just hate all those handout programs. Tax cuts for the rich? What next!

Neomalthusian said:
It still encourages spending more on health care over time, when we ought to spend less.
Click to expand...
With the population both aging and increasing going forward, it should be readily apparent to anyone that total health care spending will and should be increasing over time. The issues are how much those increases will be and who will receive what sort of actual services and benefits in return. Those are the issues that PPACA deals with.

Neomalthusian said:
Previously their revenues weren't federally mandated.
Click to expand...
They still aren't, except in the fun-house mirror world of a few whacko Liberty & Freedom types.

Neomalthusian said:
None of it, huh?
Click to expand...
No, none of it. Remote paper-pushing is a lot like remote prayer. It may be of some help to those who engage in it, but it is of no direct benefit to the health of any patient at all.
 
I see your off-the-wall ideas are routinely being deconstructed and dismissed with due disdain by others so I will not add unnecessarily to the pile. A couple of quick points, though...

Neomalthusian said:
Medicare is the most fiscally destructive policy in the history of our nation.
Click to expand...
Medicare is currently some $300 billion in surplus since its inception.

Neomalthusian said:
SCOTUS disagrees with that as the basis.
Click to expand...
The Court did not rule on questions under the General Welfare Clause.
 
Dezaad said:
I don't understand the lesson... because I just KNOW you are not equating people and animals.
Click to expand...
:doh
Of course humans are animals.

Don't tell me I am exposing you to something you didn't know?

And since we are, this was today's lesson:
Today's lesson:

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever in the history of the program.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please do not feed the animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.

This ends today's lesson.
Click to expand...
 
Excon said:
:doh Of course humans are animals. [...]
Click to expand...
Well, that certainly explains why right wing zealots slaughter them with nary a speck of remorse. Thanks for solving that mystery.
 
Neomalthusian said:
You recognize the difference between the cost of implementing PPACA and the costs of health care in the US, I sure hope. What they say PPACA will cost is in addition to what uncapped mandatory health insurance premiums will cost and what the actual medical care will cost.
Click to expand...

Yes, this first baby step will basically assure that everyone has access to health care, the next step will be a single payer plan that reduces actual health care costs.
 
Karl said:
Well, that certainly explains why right wing zealots slaughter them with nary a speck of remorse. Thanks for solving that mystery.
Click to expand...

Come again?

What is your point?

That human's slaughter other animals? If that is it, it isn't something new, and it isn't just done by one side of the political spectrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom