• 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:
I'm not gifted with mind reading abilities that radical partisan conservatives seem to have, but this is not UHC. That's a fact. Nor has it been sold as that.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said, you should really try and not misrepresent others.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
True. It's a BFD according to Papa Joe except he got what the last letter meant wrong.
Click to expand...

Not exactly sure what you're talking about. But we agree it isn't UHC. If we were serious, we'd have a honest discussion concerning reforming to UHC. Likely a two tiered single payer system.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not exactly sure what you're talking about. But we agree it isn't UHC. If we were serious, we'd have a honest discussion concerning reforming to UHC. Likely a two tiered single payer system.
Click to expand...

How about this single payer system, each person pays for what they use?
 
j-mac said:
No, I neither inferred, nor implied anything. That is your problem, injecting into what I write what you want to see.
Click to expand...

Says the pot to the kettle. You said quite clearly what they were really trying to do. Without reading minds, something that inclusive, can't be claimed. Sorry. :lamo
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
How about this single payer system, each person pays for what they use?
Click to expand...

You can do that, but you have to be willing to turn people away and live with the consequences. So far, we've been unwilling to do that. Absent that, UHC is the better option.
 
Boo Radley said:
You can do that, but you have to be willing to turn people away and live with the consequences. So far, we've been unwilling to do that. Absent that, UHC is the better option.
Click to expand...

What makes it better? Paying more for the same thing doesn't sound better to me.
 
Boo Radley said:
You don't pay more. Those systems nearly all pay less than we do.
Click to expand...

Sure we will. What would make you think we would pay less, the fact that it's a big government program?
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
What makes it better? Paying more for the same thing doesn't sound better to me.
Click to expand...

Some support:

The U.S. has, by far, the highest total expenditure on health care per capita. America spends approximately $2,600 more per person annually than Norway, the second-highest spender. Only 47.7 percent of this amount is public expenditure -- the third-smallest percentage among developed countries. However, the actual amount of public spending, $3,795, is among the highest. The U.S. also spends the largest amount on pharmaceuticals and other medical nondurables. The country has fairly low rates of doctors and hospital beds relative to its population. It also has the eighth-lowest life expectancy, at 78.2 years.

Countries that spend the most on health care - NBC News.com

Pearson: France and Japan demonstrate that it is possible to have cost-containment at the same time as paying physicians using similar tools to those used in the U.S. There are three key things that stand out when you compare these countries to the U.S.:

They use a common fee schedule so that hospitals, doctors and health services are paid similar rates for most of the patients they see. In the U.S., how much a health care service gets paid depends on the kind of insurance a patient has. This means that health care services can choose patients who have an insurance policy that pays them more generously than other patients who have lower-paying insurers, such as Medicaid.

They are flexible in responding if they think certain costs are exceeding what they budgeted for. In Japan, if spending in a specific area seems to be growing faster than projected, they lower fees for that area. Similarly, in France an organization called CNMATS closely monitors spending across all kinds of services and if they see a particular area is growing faster than they expected (or deem it in the public interest), they can intervene by lowering the price for that service. These countries also supplement lowering fees with other tools. For example, they monitor how many generic drugs a physician is prescribing and can send someone from the insurance fund to visit physicians' offices to encourage them to use cheaper generic drugs where appropriate. In comparison, U.S. payment rates are much less flexible. They are often statutory and Medicare cannot change the rates without approval by Congress. This makes the system very inflexible for cost containment.

There are few methods for controlling rising costs in private insurance in the U.S. In running their business, private health insurers continually face a choice between asking health care providers to contain their costs or passing on higher costs to patients in higher premiums. Many of them find it hard to do the former.

Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries | PBS NewsHour
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Sure we will. What would make you think we would pay less, the fact that it's a big government program?
Click to expand...

Because all the rest do. As the country that spends the most, we could hardly do worse.
 
Boo Radley said:
Says the pot to the kettle. You said quite clearly what they were really trying to do. Without reading minds, something that inclusive, can't be claimed. Sorry. :lamo
Click to expand...

No, you're just trying to be irritating in your assertions. In any case instead of reading into what I am saying, you should just stick to what I say and address that, not what you think I am saying.
 
Boo Radley said:
Because all the rest do. As the country that spends the most, we could hardly do worse.
Click to expand...

Oh you under-estimate our politicians. We could certainly, and most likely will, do worse.
 
Boo Radley said:
Because all the rest do.
Click to expand...


:lamo Surely you jest....That is the most absurd reasoning I think I have ever heard you attempt in the years I've known you to pass on ... There are a myriad of factors that make the US unique from any other country on this planet, and you fail to take them into consideration with such a simplistic notion. Plus, I would offer with this type of reasoning you make the same mistake that WHO made in 2000, so it is no wonder you think they got it right, when experts on the subject disagree.
 
j-mac said:
No, you're just trying to be irritating in your assertions. In any case instead of reading into what I am saying, you should just stick to what I say and address that, not what you think I am saying.
Click to expand...

Again, you can't know what they "REALLY" wanted to do. Sorry. :lamo
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Oh you under-estimate our politicians. We could certainly, and most likely will, do worse.
Click to expand...

Not really possible. It's appropriate to try and improve when you spend as much as we do. What will hurt them most is listening to folks who don't know what they're talking about (you death panels, socialism, killing granny).
 
Boo Radley said:
Not really possible. It's appropriate to try and improve when you spend as much as we do. What will hurt them most is listening to folks who don't know what they're talking about (you death panels, socialism, killing granny).
Click to expand...

Sure it's possible.

We are on track to spend more for what we currently have now and that is just the initial phase. It could be all downhill from there!
 
j-mac said:
:lamo Surely you jest....That is the most absurd reasoning I think I have ever heard you attempt in the years I've known you to pass on ... There are a myriad of factors that make the US unique from any other country on this planet, and you fail to take them into consideration with such a simplistic notion. Plus, I would offer with this type of reasoning you make the same mistake that WHO made in 2000, so it is no wonder you think they got it right, when experts on the subject disagree.
Click to expand...

All countries are unique. But systems are systems. We pay more; have less access. That's merely a fact.

And sure, you can always find someone to say something, but again, there is a pecking order. Your side, like with GW, are always relying on the low end or outliners, and not the mainstream accepted and supported sources. ;) :coffeepap
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Sure it's possible.

We are on track to spend more for what we currently have now and that is just the initial phase. It could be all downhill from there!
Click to expand...

Hard to say. They didn't really tackle the problem, and bowed to tea party (mostly) and republican pressure. They had a better plan before the nonsense. But it will never get better until we stop the silliness and try to have a rational discussion.
 
Boo Radley said:
Hard to say. They didn't really tackle the problem, and bowed to tea party (mostly) and republican pressure. They had a better plan before the nonsense. But it will never get better until we stop the silliness and try to have a rational discussion.
Click to expand...

Well they sure did a bang up job estimating Medicare's costs and that was just for a tiny portion of the population. Trust me, it can always be worse.
 
Boo Radley said:
All countries are unique. But systems are systems. We pay more; have less access. That's merely a fact.
Click to expand...

Nope, you don't get to declare what is or isn't a fact....Everyone has the same "access" to health care in this country, what we are talking about is method of payment for service.

And sure, you can always find someone to say something, but again, there is a pecking order. Your side, like with GW, are always relying on the low end or outliners, and not the mainstream accepted and supported sources.
Click to expand...

I don't rely on "outliners", I use bold when making important points...:lol: Anyway, you have two logical fallacies in two sentences here....you go man....
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Well they sure did a bang up job estimating Medicare's costs and that was just for a tiny portion of the population. Trust me, it can always be worse.
Click to expand...

Truth is they do an amazing job. They take the worse of an aging population that lives lonGer and requires more care. Neither individuals nor insurance companies would do better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom