• 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?'

Dr. Chuckles said:
actually you're overlooking the fact that you're going to have to balance new members with people that are going to use more than they pay into the system. And one of the big issues with this bill is that it took no steps to widen access to primary care, or deal with the issue of doctors unwilling to take medicaid patients. This is likely to stear more individuals into ER's now that they have coverage
Click to expand...

Not hardly. Younger people are not likely to use more than they pay in, and they are a large part of the population who should be now getting insurance. And it is false that took no action to encourage an increase in primary care. They did both in encouraging more doctors and in encouraging different methods of delivery. Someone mentioned this earlier (shockingly ignored).
 
Boo Radley said:
Not hardly. Younger people are not likely to use more than they pay in, and they are a large part of the population who should be now getting insurance. And it is false that took no action to encourage an increase in primary care. They did both in encouraging more doctors and in encouraging different methods of delivery. Someone mentioned this earlier (shockingly ignored).
Click to expand...

Actually if you research the situation with the exchanges in mass you would realize a current issue is that they are not getting the numbers of healthy payers to off set the cost of high use and subsadized plans.

Also, its a pretty long thread and never claimed to be familier with all of it. But feel free to cite the relevent material. I would love to read it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Logic and math. What makes insurance affordable is having large numbers of people
Click to expand...

Right, but there are many scenerios where that might not happen. Its been an ongoing issue, at various levels in mass, in fact.

[QuoteThe more people on insurance, the less it should cost. That's how it works. [/quote]

Not exactly. Take for instance the problem outlined in the article I previously cited for you. It talks about the crippling rate increases experianced by small business because they combined small business and the individual market.

The trade off was a lower rate for individuals

And with more people covered, less are using services they can't pay for, so that decreases the need to hike costs.
Click to expand...

Actually your likely to have a drastic increase in demand for services now that people are covored. In fact, this has been pretty well documented in mass ERs.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Actually if you research the situation with the exchanges in mass you would realize a current issue is that they are not getting the numbers of healthy payers to off set the cost of high use and subsadized plans.

Also, its a pretty long thread and never claimed to be familier with all of it. But feel free to cite the relevent material. I would love to read it.
Click to expand...

Then they aren't doing it right.


For instance, more than 250 hospitals and physician groups joined the Obama administration's accountable care program and have shown early success.

Mount Sinai Care in New York City reports emergency room visits fell 54 percent among high-risk patients. The organization signed up for the Medicare Shared Savings Program to better enable population management and cost-effective medicine, Mark Callahan, M.D., CEO of Mount Sinai Care and FierceHealthcare Editorial Advisory Board member, told FierceHealthcare in a previous interview.

Healthcare reform shows early signs of success - FierceHealthcare
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Right, but there are many scenerios where that might not happen. Its been an ongoing issue, at various levels in mass, in fact.


Not exactly. Take for instance the problem outlined in the article I previously cited for you. It talks about the crippling rate increases experianced by small business because they combined small business and the individual market.

The trade off was a lower rate for individuals



Actually your likely to have a drastic increase in demand for services now that people are covored. In fact, this has been pretty well documented in mass ERs.
Click to expand...

Demand for services is not a problem for costs. Not paying for them is.

As for business, this is why UHC would be better. Insurance should not be attached to employment. And individuals can't afford it unless attached to large groups, and little is larger than everyone.
 
The more people on insurance, the less it costs! Obviously!
This is why universal health care works and the US system of health care for profit doesn't. And how long will Americans continue to drag their feet kicking and screaming from hearing the truth before they just come to their senses.

Most likely a soon as Obama's gone and the racist hate starts to vanish. Then the Repubs themselves will come back in line to what they all knew was the 'fix' right from the start! Great entertainment though!
 
Boo Radley said:
Then they aren't doing it right.


For instance, more than 250 hospitals and physician groups joined the Obama administration's accountable care program and have shown early success.

Mount Sinai Care in New York City reports emergency room visits fell 54 percent among high-risk patients. The organization signed up for the Medicare Shared Savings Program to better enable population management and cost-effective medicine, Mark Callahan, M.D., CEO of Mount Sinai Care and FierceHealthcare Editorial Advisory Board member, told FierceHealthcare in a previous interview.

Healthcare reform shows early signs of success - FierceHealthcare
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that speaks to my above point about the effects of expanded care, particularly via govt programs. Those programs have shown success in it's absence

EDIT: You also seemingly ignored by point about the lack of healthy and full paying individuals in the exchanges ...
 
Last edited:
Michael66 said:
The more people on insurance, the less it costs! Obviously!
This is why universal health care works and the US system of health care for profit doesn't.
Click to expand...

this just expands that for profit system
 
Boo Radley said:
Demand for services is not a problem for costs.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that?

As for business, this is why UHC would be better.
Click to expand...

Well UHC isn't what we have. What we have is current law and you are arguing it will have a positive effects on costs and premiums. Clearly that is not true in all cases, as with small businesses ...

Insurance should not be attached to employment.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you are trying to change topics here

And individuals can't afford it unless attached to large groups, and little is larger than everyone.
Click to expand...

reads like an empty platitude
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
this just expands that for profit system
Click to expand...

It's just become an exercise in contrariness toward everything that Obama has tried to do. Until that basic truth is accepted then there's really no good reason to go around in circles on the issue. Universal health care is the only answer and until that comes about your system will continue to bankrupt your country and fail the people.

If you are interested in discussing it with a Canadian in an honest way then I'm more than happy to oblige. That will include criticisms of our system and my excuses for why it can be criticized. Along with the obvious solutions for making it as good as France's. The world's best!
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I'm not sure how that speaks to my above point about the effects of expanded care, particularly via govt programs. Those programs have shown success in it's absence

EDIT: You also seemingly ignored by point about the lack of healthy and full paying individuals in the exchanges ...
Click to expand...

It was related to a link of alternates working.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
How do you figure that?



Well UHC isn't what we have. What we have is current law and you are arguing it will have a positive effects on costs and premiums. Clearly that is not true in all cases, as with small businesses ...



I'm not sure why you are trying to change topics here



reads like an empty platitude
Click to expand...

You make money by demand. And thus also encourages alternative deliveries and more doctors.

While UHC isn't what we have, true, we have to deal with these convoluted alternatives until we do. It's the by product of not having the will to actually tackle the problem. It's not a changing of the topic but moving it forward.

Not sure how the truth is empty, but it is what it is.
 
Boo Radley said:
You make money by demand. And thus also encourages alternative deliveries and more doctors.
Click to expand...

1) you realize primary care physicians are already in short supply and there is an already existing deterrence to govt payments?

While UHC isn't what we have, true, we have to deal with these convoluted alternatives until we do.
Click to expand...

Then why are you trying to deflect from the discussion to bring up some red herring about UHC?


It's the by product of not having the will to actually tackle the problem. It's not a changing of the topic but moving it forward.
Click to expand...

And they call me chuckles ...

Not sure how the truth is empty, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

because it reads like something that is suppose to give the illusion of profound meaning when it is simply a statement without any meaningful content
 
Last edited:
Michael66 said:
It's just become an exercise in contrariness toward everything that Obama has tried to do.
1) I'm not sure how that changes this simply expands the current system

2) Obama was against single payer and UHC, and the public option was used as little more than a weak bargaining chip.


Until that basic truth is accepted then there's really no good reason to go around in circles on the issue.
Click to expand...

There are really no circles to go around. It's a plan dependent on the insurance industry, Hence, the importance of the personal mandate.

Universal health care is the only answer and until that comes about your system will continue to bankrupt your country and fail the people.
Click to expand...

Depending on what you mean by UHC I probably agree with you. But that doesn't really speak to the current law

If you are interested in discussing it with a Canadian in an honest way then I'm more than happy to oblige. That will include criticisms of our system and my excuses for why it can be criticized. Along with the obvious solutions for making it as good as France's. The world's best!
Click to expand...

?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This is the problem with health care - GOVERNMENT - insurance companies should be able to offer what the people want not what the dictators dictate.


Fisher said:
Ironically, that would be more expensive for the individual holders than my high deductible policy that is no longer allowed to be issued.
Click to expand...
 
So if I sign up, pay a $321 premium for a month, get the necessary paper work, and stop paying what happens? I show the IRS fascist my docs showing them I had insurance month one and what - wait for them to audit or what?
 
CalGun said:
So if I sign up, pay a $321 premium for a month, get the necessary paper work, and stop paying what happens? I show the IRS fascist my docs showing them I had insurance month one and what - wait for them to audit or what?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure enforcement is something they flushed out at this point
 
CalGun said:
This is the problem with health care - GOVERNMENT - insurance companies should be able to offer what the people want not what the dictators dictate.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. They are trying to soak the people who can better afford such policies as a way to finance the others' policies. Most of Obamacare is a giant backdoor, off the books tax whether you have insurance or not. They want to force everybody who makes more than $75K a year to subsidize the insurance for everybody who makes below that amount.

CalGun said:
So if I sign up, pay a $321 premium for a month, get the necessary paper work, and stop paying what happens? I show the IRS fascist my docs showing them I had insurance month one and what - wait for them to audit or what?
Click to expand...

Dr. Chuckles said:
I'm not sure enforcement is something they flushed out at this point
Click to expand...

My guess is you will get a statement every year from your insurance(s) kind of like a 1099 or w-2 verify what months you were insured in. Unless you have documentation for the whole year you will get penalized unless your income is low enough to be exempted from the penalty, so I imagine a part of a month is the biggest gap you could have and not face at least a pro-rated penalty.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1) you realize primary care physicians are already in short supply and there is an already existing deterrence to govt payments?



Then why are you trying to deflect from the discussion to bring up some red herring about UHC?




And they call me chuckles ...



because it reads like something that is suppose to give the illusion of profound meaning when it is simply a statement without any meaningful content
Click to expand...

Are you saying the free market wont react to an increased demand for doctor services?
Why? Is there something wrong with the free market?
 
Deuce said:
Are you saying the free market wont react to an increased demand for doctor services?
Why? Is there something wrong with the free market?
Click to expand...

Maybe the problem is your assumption that I am some mindless supporter of "the free market" because I politically define myself as "slightly Conservative"? Well, 1)that would not address the issues outlined above, 2) I hold no such dogmatic views, 3) look up Tu quoque and stick to discussing the topic
 
jmotivator said:
Well, in theory he could apply for coverage in the hospital, or his spouse. I'm sure the Hospitals would be MORE than happy to send a social worker around to your room to help you with the paper work.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with theories, they sometimes don't play out very well in reality.

Before ACA, insurance companies could put your application on hold for eternity, while they determine if you are worth the risk for them to insure you for whatever reason they desire.

The ACA took some of those reasons away from them. Such as per-existing conditions or financial. The ACA even limited the holding/waiting period to 90 days.

Now, you can sign up for coverage after being diagnosed with cancer, but could have to wait for your policy to go into effect for up to 90 days and hopefully that will be enough time for you to begin expensive chemotherapy and survive.

For accidents or sudden illness...well, maybe you saved enough from paying penalties rather than premiums to keep you out of bankruptcy.
 
What a pathetic and sick joke. Private, for profit health care companies which exclude people who need insurance and even disqualify and cheat those who they have already rooked into their moneymaking schemes. And the American people just continue to suuuccccck it all up like it's kooool aid.

However, no matter how the rabid right tries to hide the fact that it's a big problem, the mere fact that threads such as this are popular and busy gives the whole wicked game away.

Blame Obama, he wants to make 'his' people well again!
Get the meaning of 'his'?
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1) you realize primary care physicians are already in short supply and there is an already existing deterrence to govt payments?



Then why are you trying to deflect from the discussion to bring up some red herring about UHC?




And they call me chuckles ...



because it reads like something that is suppose to give the illusion of profound meaning when it is simply a statement without any meaningful content
Click to expand...

There's very little I don't know with all the doctors and nurses in my family ;), but as I said, they have encouraged getting more with the reform. And frankly, few are going to go to retail. If doctors overreact, there will likely be a response in return. But all of this is still part of the same problem, our unwillingness to really address the problem.

I bring up UHC because it would address the problems. Few can be happy with where we are. It is fruitless to limit the discussion to merely good or bad, as that is too simplistic and doesn't move us anywhere.

And it is the truth none the less. It is the direction we should be moving towards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom