• 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?'

Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

How would having doctors or nurses in your family lend you any expertise on the subject, when being a nurse or doctor wouldn't even do that?

And frankly, few are going to go to retail. If doctors overreact, there will likely be a response in return.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty weak means to address the issue above.


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.
Click to expand...

You were just actively defending the program. When issues were raised you couldn't address you brought uhc.

Clearly you're trying to deflect

And it is the truth none the less. It is the direction we should be moving towards.
Click to expand...

You have done nothing to show its anything more than an empty platitude ...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
How would having doctors or nurses in your family lend you any expertise on the subject, when being a nurse or doctor wouldn't even do that?
Click to expand...

Oh, it gives me insight, not to mention the years I out in the profession. I've been involved at nearly every level


This is a pretty weak means to address the issue above
Click to expand...
.

The point is its not really a serious issue. Not whereas there won't be physicians to see patients. It's a hill, and not a mountain.


You were just actively defending the program. When issues were raised you couldn't address you brought uhc.

Clearly you're trying to deflect
Click to expand...

You clear have little if what I've written. I defend the program only so far as against hyperbole and misinformation.

You have done nothing to show its anything more than an empty platitude ...
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think this is some game on your part.
 
Boo Radley said:
Oh, it gives me insight, not to mention the years I out in the profession.
Click to expand...

lol, no it doesn't

I've been involved at nearly every level
Click to expand...

Again, administering care does not make you an expert in HC policy


The point is its not really a serious issue. Not whereas there won't be physicians to see patients. It's a hill, and not a mountain.
Click to expand...

Again, simply trying to dismiss something is not actually addressing it
 
Boo Radley said:
Because there is no need to charge extra to others for those thy treat who can't pay. That $16 bandaid should not exist if everyone is covered.
Click to expand...

The simple status of being "covered" by something does not make the price tag of a health care service drop.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
lol, no it doesn't



Again, administering care does not make you an expert in HC policy




Again, simply trying to dismiss something is not actually addressing it
Click to expand...

That's not what I said actually. I said it gave me insight into what doctors will do. Go back and reread.

Dismissing what really isn't a huge problem is appropriate when that is the case.
 
Neomalthusian said:
The simple status of being "covered" by something does not make the price tag of a health care service drop.
Click to expand...

Not sure you understand what I said by that response. Think about it a little while.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure you understand what I said by that response. Think about it a little while.
Click to expand...

I have thought about it plenty. Being "covered" does not cause the cost of anything to go down. It might channel the payment through some other conduit but it does not change the $16 price tag on that bandaid. Access is not a cost control. Something additional would have to happen.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I have thought about it plenty. Being "covered" does not cause the cost of anything to go down. It might channel the payment through some other conduit but it does not change the $16 price tag on that bandaid. Access is not a cost control. Something additional would have to happen.
Click to expand...

You haven't thought enough.

Not one person being covered. A majority bring covered makes for fewer people using services they can't pay for. That, not having to make up for those who don't pay is what brings it down.
 
Boo Radley said:
You haven't thought enough.

Not one person being covered. A majority bring covered makes for fewer people using services they can't pay for.
Click to expand...

The same number of people out there can't afford health care whether we decide to change their status to "covered" or not. There is no greater amount of money suddenly appearing in the system just because more people are arbitrarily granted access.

That, not having to make up for those who don't pay is what brings it down.
Click to expand...

Almost nobody out there who doesn't pay actually can.

All along, liberals have been misinterpreting the problem.
 
Neomalthusian said:
The same number of people out there can't afford health care whether we decide to change their status to "covered" or not. There is no greater amount of money suddenly appearing in the system just because more people are arbitrarily granted access.



Almost nobody out there who doesn't pay actually can.

All along, liberals have been misinterpreting the problem.
Click to expand...

It's not he system. Your not thinking I through. Not making much sense either.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not he system. Your not thinking I through. Not making much sense either.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, the reason people aren't covered is because they can't afford health insurance, so obviously nor can they afford very much health care. These people end up getting health care, but they don't pay for it.

You're making the common liberal error of thinking that if we shift the cost around, that means the cost has gone down. Channeling the reimbursements through an insurance mechanism does not cause costs of medical services and products to decrease.

If I am poor and have a $16 bandaid applied to me and they bill me and I refuse payment, the provider might spread the cost around to everyone else. If I'm poor but legislation has considered me "covered" and I have a $16 bandaid applied to me, and the insuring agent remits the $16 for the bandaid, the provider does not have to spread that cost to other patients (yay!), but now the insurer does (boo!). In both cases the high cost of health care is being spread to others. What's still missing is a (cost control) mechanism by which the $16 bandaid would under no circumstances be applied to my skin, but a $1.50 bandaid would be.

Like I said, some additional action is needed on somebody's part in order to control cost.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
Generally speaking, the reason people aren't covered is because they can't afford health insurance, so obviously nor can they afford very much health care. These people end up getting health care, but they don't pay for it.

You're making the common liberal error of thinking that if we shift the cost around, that means the cost has gone down. Channeling the reimbursements through an insurance mechanism does not cause costs of medical services and products to decrease.

If I am poor and have a $16 bandaid applied to me and they bill me and I refuse payment, the provider might spread the cost around to everyone else. If I'm poor but legislation has considered me "covered" and I have a $16 bandaid applied to me, and the insuring agent remits the $16 for the bandaid, the provider does not have to spread that cost to other patients (yay!), but now the insurer does (boo!). In both cases the high cost of health care is being spread to others. What's still missing is a (cost control) mechanism by which the $16 bandaid would under no circumstances be applied to my skin, but a $1.50 bandaid would be.

Like I said, some additional action is needed on somebody's part in order to control cost.
Click to expand...


Making no such error, and you continue to demonstrate you don't know what's being said. Currently the uninsured get care. Providers raise costs for those who pay to cover this. Thus a bandaid that costs mere change, is charged out at sixteen dollars per bandaid. If premiums are collected, through those who can pay and by taxes or other means these people now have the means to pay. This means the cost of the bandaid can't be argued at sixteen dollars. It should come down.

Now you may argue the payment shifts for those who can afford to pay the hospital to those who can afford to pay taxes, which partly true. But it is unlikely it will be as expensive as this non system of providers charging whatever thy think covers it. We should be above to better see where the money is going. This should help lower costs.

It. Is but one way cost may be lowered. With more attention end paid, as it is happening around the country, we can also use alternative ways to provide care. But, we have to ave a better sense of where the money is going.
 
Boo Radley said:
Making no such error, and you continue to demonstrate you don't know what's being said. Currently the uninsured get care. Providers raise costs for those who pay to cover this. Thus a bandaid that costs mere change, is charged out at sixteen dollars per bandaid. If premiums are collected, through those who can pay and by taxes or other means these people now have the means to pay.
Click to expand...

It still looks like you mistaken believe that a significant number of people who don't have the money to pay for much of anything (whether insurance or care) will somehow end up paying. Or, stated another way, that there are many people out there getting health care for free but who could afford to be paying. I don't believe this is true in general, with one glaring exception: Medicare beneficiaries.

Now you may argue the payment shifts for those who can afford to pay the hospital to those who can afford to pay taxes, which partly true. But it is unlikely it will be as expensive as this non system of providers charging whatever thy think covers it. We should be above to better see where the money is going. This should help lower costs.
Click to expand...

I can't make sense of what you're trying to say in this paragraph.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
It still looks like you mistaken believe that a significant number of people who don't have the money to pay for much of anything (whether insurance or care) will somehow end up paying. Or, stated another way, that there are many people out there getting health care for free but who could afford to be paying. I don't believe this is true in general, with one glaring exception: Medicare beneficiaries.



I can't make sense of what you're trying to say in this paragraph.
Click to expand...

what he's trying to tell you isn't rocket science. You're just not paying attention to the elementary instructions in understanding economics. You need to get by that before you can talk on his level about health care. And alas, for a libertarian it seems to me that would be an impossibility. The world of imaginary pie in the sky politics needs to be separated from reality.
 
Michael66 said:
Likes Given:0













Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post

Your entire argument relies on the belief that a great number of people who don't have the money to pay for much of anything (whether insurance or care) will somehow end up paying. As though there are many people out there getting health care for free but who could afford to be paying. I don't believe this is true in general, with one glaring exception: Medicare beneficiaries.
What he's trying to tell you isn't rocket science. You're just not paying attention to the elementary instructions in understanding economics. You need to get by that before you can talk on his level about health care. And alas, for a libertarian it seems to me that would be an impossibility. The world of imaginary pie in the sky politics needs to be separated from reality.
Click to expand...

First off, what is causing your malfunction in responding to posts?

Second, you also haven't offered any explanation as to how expanding access to the status of being "covered" lowers the prices providers charge. What is the cost control mechanism? If you keep letting fly with insults, I'll just assume you don't know.
 
Deuce said:
You're the ones always demanding that extremely high deductible plans meet the requirements
News flash: your cheap as **** plan with a $10,000 deductible isn't health insurance.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is health insurance. Everything else is prepaid health care.
 
Neomalthusian said:
It still looks like you mistaken believe that a significant number of people who don't have the money to pay for much of anything (whether insurance or care) will somehow end up paying. Or, stated another way, that there are many people out there getting health care for free but who could afford to be paying. I don't believe this is true in general, with one glaring exception: Medicare beneficiaries.
Click to expand...

You do have young people who are not insured and working people not insured who could contribute some. Yes. By try to grasp that isn't the core of my argument.

I can't make sense of what you're trying to say in this paragraph.
Click to expand...

Which explains why you're missing the argument. I've tried to explain it a couple of ways for you. Our ad hoc system has no real control, so the costs, that sixteen dollar bandaid, hiked to cover those who don't pay, is arbitrary in the sense that no one knows if it has to be that much to cover the costs. Once they no longer have to do that, we can see better what healthcare actually costs.
 
Boo Radley said:
You do have young people who are not insured and working people not insured who could contribute some. Yes. By try to grasp that isn't the core of my argument.



Which explains why you're missing the argument. I've tried to explain it a couple of ways for you. Our ad hoc system has no real control, so the costs, that sixteen dollar bandaid, hiked to cover those who don't pay, is arbitrary in the sense that no one knows if it has to be that much to cover the costs. Once they no longer have to do that, we can see better what healthcare actually costs.
Click to expand...

Your health care system is a total mess. But on the bright side, when people are screwed around long enough sometimes revolutions happen. You will though have to be vigilant in guarding against the rabid extreme right hijacking it again. That's what happened to OWS and happened to the tea baggers before they even got anything resembling a populist movement in gear.

I think you still have some time before people get serious. However, such things as Zimmerman/Martin happen and juries made very bad decisions. That could light a fire but then it would require some proper direction to proceed to anything worthwhile.
 
Michael66 said:
Your health care system is a total mess. But on the bright side, when people are screwed around long enough sometimes revolutions happen. You will though have to be vigilant in guarding against the rabid extreme right hijacking it again. That's what happened to OWS and happened to the tea baggers before they even got anything resembling a populist movement in gear.

I think you still have some time before people get serious. However, such things as Zimmerman/Martin happen and juries made very bad decisions. That could light a fire but then it would require some proper direction to proceed to anything worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Not my health care system. I support a single payer system, UHC.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not my health care system. I support a single payer system, UHC.
Click to expand...

I sincerely wish you the best of luck but I fear that the right's case would be totally destroyed if it is ever allowed to prove itself. There is enough big money involved to keep their fight up until the end of Obama's term and then they will move against it with full force. That means that the only hope is that the obvious benefits in it are seen by the people to be convincing. If that happens then they could never destroy it.

I'm not totally conversant on it all but I suspect that point has not been reached yet and perhaps won't be before Obama's gone.
 
Michael66 said:
I sincerely wish you the best of luck but I fear that the right's case would be totally destroyed if it is ever allowed to prove itself. There is enough big money involved to keep their fight up until the end of Obama's term and then they will move against it with full force. That means that the only hope is that the obvious benefits in it are seen by the people to be convincing. If that happens then they could never destroy it.

I'm not totally conversant on it all but I suspect that point has not been reached yet and perhaps won't be before Obama's gone.
Click to expand...

Health care has been an issue for as long as I can remember. Those who don't want reform have always done a good job of demonizing and making sure nothing gets done. As bad as this effort is, it's the first cement forward I can remember. Well see how it plays out.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
No, it's not free. But you don't pay NEARLY the amount for employer-provided insurance as you do for individual insurance because the risk-pool is larger. In the case of a public school teacher, they would be in the risk pool with all county or state employees and thus, premiums would be lower - and a portion is paid by the employer.
Click to expand...

Well I'm glad you seem to think two teacher who are married as so well off they can afford to buy their own health insurance and pay the subsidy for another. Who knew they were doing so well!
 
Boo Radley said:
Which explains why you're missing the argument. I've tried to explain it a couple of ways for you. Our ad hoc system has no real control, so the costs, that sixteen dollar bandaid, hiked to cover those who don't pay, is arbitrary in the sense that no one knows if it has to be that much to cover the costs. Once they no longer have to do that, we can see better what healthcare actually costs.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, can you show me in the law where any of the providers as the current law is written, states that they must reign in costs? We see wild swings for the same things like that $16 band aid, or a surgical procedure from one hospital to another, but nothing in the ACA says that has to change....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom