• 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: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

j-mac said:
That's nonsense...Do the credit card companies force you to retain, and use their product?
Click to expand...

Exactly! Health care gives us far less of a choice!
 
Obamacare is in place to regulate businesses in an attempt to dictate our economy by taxing the **** out of products. Our government will sell it to the public by labeling businesses enablers of obesity and such.

Between Obamacare and the Patriot Act our government will own you..

They've already labeled "obesity" as a "disease" just like they labeled addiction a "disease" and drugs are illegal aren't they? guess what? our POS government will start comparing foods and products to drugs in an attempt to pick "winners and losers" in industry hence economy.

Does anyone even bother to understand what constitutes "obese?" - no most people think "fat people" or people fatter than they are...

These people in government (democrats) want to dictate every aspect of our society while they play "The Sims" with a country of 300,000,000 people.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
Obamacare is in place to regulate businesses in an attempt to dictate our economy by taxing the **** out of products. Our government will sell it to the public by labeling businesses enablers of obesity and such.

Between Obamacare and the Patriot Act our government will own you..

They've already labeled "obesity" as a "disease" just like they labeled addiction a "disease" and drugs are illegal aren't they? guess what? our POS government will start comparing foods and products to drugs in an attempt to pick "winners and losers" in industry hence economy.

Does anyone even bother to understand what constitutes "obese?" - no most people think "fat people" or people fatter than they are...

These people in government (democrats) want to dictate every aspect of our society while they play "The Sims" with a country of 300,000,000 people.
Click to expand...

I love the smell of paranoia in the morning.


Look, we have a problem. We spent too much for too little access. Health care is a community issue, like police and fire fighting. It shoud be treated much the same. If we stop with the hyperbolic fear mongering, we might be able to actually create a better system.
 
Boo Radley said:
I love the smell of paranoia in the morning.

Look, we have a problem. We spent too much for too little access.
Click to expand...

That is NOT what the problem is

Health care is a community issue, like police and fire fighting. It shoud be treated much the same. If we stop with the hyperbolic fear mongering, we might be able to actually create a better system.
Click to expand...

Health care is not a community issue like police and fire. The differences are huge, and important.

Mischaracterizing the problem the way you are is not only generating ideas that aren't right, it's generating ideas that make the problem worse.
 
Neomalthusian said:
That is NOT what the problem is



Health care is not a community issue like police and fire. The differences are huge, and important.

Mischaracterizing the problem the way you are is not only generating ideas that aren't right, it's generating ideas that make the problem worse.
Click to expand...
I quite disagree. It is the problem. And it is like police and fire. Untreated people can spread disease, and do. Public health matters, and using the ER doesn't count as valid access.
 
Boo Radley said:
I quite disagree. It is the problem. And it is like police and fire. Untreated people can spread disease, and do. Public health matters, and using the ER doesn't count as valid access.
Click to expand...

Cost is the problem. Not access.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Cost is the problem. Not access.
Click to expand...

Both are a problem.

Washington -- Middle-income insured Americans are increasingly experiencing health care access difficulties that are more commonly associated with their lower-income counterparts and the uninsured, according to two recent reports. These troubles include delayed or unmet needs for medical care, high insurance deductibles and difficulty getting in to see physicians.

Health care access problems surge among insured Americans - amednews.com


The problem: Too many Americans without access to health care

The AMA and the AMA-MSS have recognized the problem of access to care in America as one of the largest issues facing medicine today. To address the issue of access to care, the AMA and the AMA-MSS have been involved in policy development, community service, education, and awareness efforts.

Health Care Access


Health Care Access Worsened For Americans Since 2000: Report

Health Care Access Worsened For Americans Since 2000: Report

Just the first few of a search.
 
Boo Radley said:
Both are a problem.
Click to expand...

The health insurance system, public and private, created the cost problem by enabling too much access. Access to other people's money allows costs to rise because people don't care what the cost is. Providing even more access is counterproductive at this stage of the game.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
The health insurance system, public and private, created the cost problem by enabling too much access. Access to other people's money allows costs to rise because people don't care what the cost is. Providing even more access is counterproductive at this stage of the game.
Click to expand...

What is too much access? How many fires put out is too many? How many crimes solved or people protected us too many? Health care had a bleed over effect on all of us, and it is something all people need sooner or later. You said we didn't have an access issue. I showed we did. Your not really addressing the point.
 
Boo Radley said:
What is too much access? How many fires put out is too many? How many crimes solved or people protected us too many? Health care had a bleed over effect on all of us, and it is something all people need sooner or later.
Click to expand...

The only reason it has a bleed over effect is because of the way the system entitles people to outside funds to provide for their medical care. That's the bleed over.

You said we didn't have an access issue. I showed we did. Your not really addressing the point.
Click to expand...

The point is that access is a problem because there's too much of it and has been for decades. Too much access allows costs to rise until eventually it festers so bad that it all catches up to us.
 
Neomalthusian said:
The only reason it has a bleed over effect is because of the way the system entitles people to outside funds to provide for their medical care. That's the bleed over.



The point is that access is a problem because there's too much of it and has been for decades. Too much access allows costs to rise until eventually it festers so bad that it all catches up to us.
Click to expand...

Wring again. If we simply refused to treat those who can pay, there illnesses. And decaying health would bleed over in others. One way or another, the health of the community effects more than just the individual who can't pay.


Again, I ask you to define too much. I can't respond without knowing how you're defining too much.
 
GottaGo said:
When you don't have additional access points, no, access is not greater, it is reduced. Think funnel effect.
Click to expand...

Not true. Say there was only 1 access point. But before only x number could gain access there, but we double the number who can now access, access would be greater. Even in a funnel. However, I think if we did a count, you'd find there really are more access points.
 
roughdraft274 said:
It's insurance. You can't just look at a single year and say "see you're over paying!" Because then you overlook that one year where you needed emergency surgery with a short stay in the ICU, where you shelled out a few thousand but didn't have to pay the other hundred thousand dollars of your bill. Do you really not understand that or are you being intentionally thick headed?
Click to expand...

That "emergency" care cannot be denied whether you have insurance or not. If you are wealthy, only then is that major a concern, otherwise they write off the bad debt just as they now do and your credit rating still sucks. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Not true. Say there was only 1 access point. But before only x number could gain access there, but we double the number who can now access, access would be greater. Even in a funnel. However, I think if we did a count, you'd find there really are more access points.
Click to expand...

Simplified example:

If you start with 100 people going to a doctor per week, over the period of 5 days, he/she is seeing 20 people per day, about a half an hour per patient, with an hour break for lunch.

Suddenly, there are now 200 patients, which only allows 15 per patient. Access has been reduced.

They haven't opened up any clinics, hospitals or increased the number of GPs to handle the influx. Have you tried recently to get an appointment with a GP? 4 week wait, minimum in my area, even with an infection.
 
GottaGo said:
Simplified example:

If you start with 100 people going to a doctor per week, over the period of 5 days, he/she is seeing 20 people per day, about a half an hour per patient, with an hour break for lunch.

Suddenly, there are now 200 patients, which only allows 15 per patient. Access has been reduced.

They haven't opened up any clinics, hospitals or increased the number of GPs to handle the influx. Have you tried recently to get an appointment with a GP? 4 week wait, minimum in my area, even with an infection.
Click to expand...

You assume constant numbers. Two things will prevent that: 1) more creative use of personnel which has already begun, and 2) increasing the physician pool, which the legislation encourages and demand will push along.
 
Boo Radley said:
You assume constant numbers. Two things will prevent that: 1) more creative use of personnel which has already begun, and 2) increasing the physician pool, which the legislation encourages and demand will push along.
Click to expand...

Stumbling block there, since the number of additional GPs is no where's near a realistic doctor:patient ratio (being that most med students head straight for a specialty for the $$), and I was including the fact that Nurse Practitioners and the like have long since been assisting in the medical field, add to that the doctors who are retiring for whatever reason, the basis remains the same.

A couple of million people seeking medical help in a rather stagnant pool of access points is not greater access. The Insurance Mandate MAY give an individual greater access to medical treatment, but the population as a whole, access will be reduced.
 
GottaGo said:
Stumbling block there, since the number of additional GPs is no where's near a realistic doctor:patient ratio (being that most med students head straight for a specialty for the $$), and I was including the fact that Nurse Practitioners and the like have long since been assisting in the medical field, add to that the doctors who are retiring for whatever reason, the basis remains the same.

A couple of million people seeking medical help in a rather stagnant pool of access points is not greater access. The Insurance Mandate MAY give an individual greater access to medical treatment, but the population as a whole, access will be reduced.
Click to expand...

As those retire, more come in. And while use of alternatives like nurse practitioners have been done before, they are seeing new attention. Creative approaches have gained new emphasis. And demand will assure adjustments. It's already begun. There is no likelihood access will be reduced. None at all.

But lets really look at your premise, for the few to have more, we have to leave some without. A bit like "let them eat cake" don't ya think?
 
Boo Radley said:
As those retire, more come in. And while use of alternatives like nurse practitioners have been done before, they are seeing new attention. Creative approaches have gained new emphasis. And demand will assure adjustments. It's already begun. There is no likelihood access will be reduced. None at all.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't see that happening, nor do many in the medical field. We're not talking a couple of hundred thousand people here. The time it will take to educate the number of medical personnel to service that many people isn't going to happen over night.

But lets really look at your premise, for the few to have more, we have to leave some without. A bit like "let them eat cake" don't ya think?
Click to expand...

What should have been done, was staffed clinics, immediate medical care centers, etc, to take the drain off the ERs, and expand Medicare/Medicaid. Payment via those programs for the additional people needing the care would have been less expensive in the long run than paying premiums for insurance they may or may not use. Instead of upping the cash flow for programs that do some good, those subsidized premiums will now go corporations, people aren't able to keep plans they want, and those that want Catastrophic coverage are no longer able to do so.

It has nothing to do with 'let them eat cake', it has to do with using common sense.
 
GottaGo said:
Sorry, I don't see that happening, nor do many in the medical field. We're not talking a couple of hundred thousand people here. The time it will take to educate the number of medical personnel to service that many people isn't going to happen over night.
Click to expand...

I know quite a few in the field, and it's already happening. So the end game is it will increase access.

What should have been done, was staffed clinics, immediate medical care centers, etc, to take the drain off the ERs, and expand Medicare/Medicaid. Payment via those programs for the additional people needing the care would have been less expensive in the long run than paying premiums for insurance they may or may not use. Instead of upping the cash flow for programs that do some good, those subsidized premiums will now go corporations, people aren't able to keep plans they want, and those that want Catastrophic coverage are no longer able to do so.

It has nothing to do with 'let them eat cake', it has to do with using common sense.
Click to expand...

Here, we might not be too far Apart. I have not argued this is the best plan, or the best approach. But it doesn't decrease access.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom