• 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!

'Delay’ suddenly not a dirty word at White House

cpwill said:
How much does a standard single two-day visit to the hospital cost? If you are (say) 86 which means that you average 12-20 days a year, you aren't really buying health insurance - you are pre-paying for your costs, and receiving a huge subsidy when you do so.
Click to expand...

You're confusing me with this data . . . unsourced, I might add. This has nothing to do with whether or not a Medicare model would work. The model would work. It's the taxes collected for it that would have to change.

That is sadly incorrect - as we expand the third-party-payment model, what we see is less price sensitivity, not more. What induces doctors to treat old people less is simply that Medicare/Medicaid will not reimburse them as well for taking care of the old or the poor.
Click to expand...

As we shine a bright light on the cost of treatment and the cost of insurance to cover said treatment, as we increase premiums to accurately reflect projected losses, people will suddenly become outraged that their doctor is charging them $130 for 10 minutes of his time. As their deductibles rise, they will question themselves before running to the ER and wonder whether or not they really need that CT scan for a broken arm. When more money is coming out of their pockets, costs will go down.

Unfunded Liability for Medicare at current runs in the $60 Trillion range. There isn't a way to pay that by bumping up premiums a couple hundred dollars, and there sure isn't a way to do so if we are expanding it to pay for three to four times as many people.
Click to expand...

Medicare's "unfunded liability" is $24 trillion. Social Security $21 trillion. (Based on 2010 numbers) PolitiFact Florida | Romney says debt plus unfunded liabilities equals $520,000 per household

These numbers are misleading because they make the assumption that everything will remain exactly as it is -- expenditures, benefits and premiums. That's not going to happen.

People making $100,000+ in retirement should be paying a great deal more for their Medicare insurance. Not just a few hundred dollars . . . the correct actuarial amount to cover their care. There needs to be a progressive premium that depends upon their income...pension benefits...investment...everything. Perhaps even taking assets into account.

We're so screwed up it's pathetic. I personally know two people who are milking a system that allows them to do so. One has over $1 million in assets and is on Medicare's Advantage Plan. He pays $104 a month -- and no more. That's ridiculous. Another who has over a half-million dollars in assets who gets his medication without having to buy Part D for $5 a prescription through a subsidized plan. He pays nothing for the plan itself. Both of these examples are ridiculous. The system needs drastic repair; but the MODEL itself works.
 
jmotivator said:
Which part don't you understand? The ACA is a turd, you are defending it, and it is standing in the way of what you and I actually want (which, granted, are two different things) and costs millions of people in skyrocketing premiums and deductibles or costs them their insurance altogether and in many cases costs them their jobs. That it potentially makes your dealings with insurance companies somewhat easier pales in comparison.
Click to expand...

Something had to be done. I wish it had been an expansion of Medicare. The ACA will need fixing, there's no doubt about that. But something had to be done. The ACA is a start.
 
MaggieD said:
Something had to be done. I wish it had been an expansion of Medicare. The ACA will need fixing, there's no doubt about that. But something had to be done. The ACA is a start.
Click to expand...

There are things that had to be done but none of them are ever going to be fixed by another govt. bureaucracy. Medicare and SS were well intended programs that have become bloated and filled with waste, fraud, and abuse. ACA is no different, just another slush fund for the Federal Govt. Nothing is going to change until the Federal Govt. gets out of the business but first has to correct the problems they created. Dissolve the unified budget, put Medicare and SS where it belongs along with the FICA taxes that fund it. Until that happens nothing is going to change and any attempts at healthcare reform will fail
 
danarhea said:
Not true. But don't take my word for it. Here is an article from Forbes Magazine. Romney's plan WAS the Heritage Foundation plan.
Click to expand...

Yes, and Liz fowler, one of the main people credited for crafting the bill was also a VP for one of the largest insurance companies in the us...

So, we are making the same point... This was made by and for insurance companies and nothing more.

It's all about maximizing profits; which means maximizing cost (to customers) while minimizing services offered.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes, and Liz fowler, one of the main people credited for crafting the bill was also a VP for one of the largest insurance companies in the us...

So, we are making the same point... This was made by and for insurance companies and nothing more.

It's all about maximizing profits; which means maximizing cost (to customers) while minimizing services offered.
Click to expand...

Isn't typical of liberal arrogance that now is calling for the best and brightest minds of America coming in to fix a program whose implementation has been a disaster. Shouldn't have been done prior to attempting the role out and creation of the website? Here we are hundreds of millions of dollars spent, a website that is a disaster, and supporters still giving Obama credibility?

Rather frustrating for thinking people to see the failures of Obama being ignored all because of the rhetoric he speaks.
 
j-mac said:
So, republicans have to become liberals to be supported? So, you are in favor of a one party system....Well, McCain, and Graham are good starts, but hint for ya....Graham may not be there for long.....heh, heh....
Click to expand...

Dr. Chuckles said:
LOL~!!! What part of this are you having the most trouble with? Is it A) that I'm not a republican supporter B) That I am very open about the fact republicans lacked anything even resembling a viable health plan C) That such is irrelevant to the points we are discussing, due to the fact the democrats never had an interest in pushing UHC and that THEY GOT THE PLAN THEY WERE PUSHING?


You should be honestly ashamed of the fact that you can't even manage discussing the topic


So your argument is that the dems should only fight for policy that is better than what the republicans are pushing, and not actual meaningful reforms that work? See, that is the problem, becayuse that outlines a mentality of putting party interest before those of the country


I keep accusing you of passing the buck because you keep passing the buck


1) No, if you were actually unhappy with it you would push for something better, as opposed to agreeing with it out of party interests. 2) actually supporting effective policy, regardless of political affiliation, requires something akin to independent thought. A skill you seem wholly incapable of at this point
Click to expand...

What's hilarious is that with every insistence that it's not the Republican's responsibility to come up with anything better, you're only confirming my earlier assertion that true health care reform isn't high on their list of priorities. Just keeping bitching and bitching and bitching about the PPACA. That's leadership, guys.

Dickieboy said:
Actually they have ('better' is certainly questionable), perhaps you just weren't listening...GWB in 2007 advanced a plan to address these SAME issues in a different way:
Bush's health plan: Who will pay less, who will pay more - Jan. 23, 2007
Here's several other RECENT GOP plans:
Seriously? The Republicans Have No Health Plan? - Forbes

And the common theme from Nancy/Democrats was 'dead on arrival'...sound familiar?
Click to expand...

:lol:

Bush: "I've got a healthcare reform idea!"
Democrats: "Nuh uh."
Bush: "Okay."

Yep, just more of that Republican go-get-em attitude when it comes to solving the healthcare problem. Of course, it would be extremely unfair of me to not give credit to the Republican who did in fact enact his own solution. A governor of Massachusetts, if I recall, but well, that's probably not the example you were hoping for.
 
jmotivator said:
It's even funnier than your think because the House has been offering the postponement compromise since at least mid-July, about the same time the Healthcare.gov site was failing its preliminary tests and contractors were advising the system wouldn't be ready.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that, all the talk centered around the defunding of Obamacare and the delay at least that I was hearing at the time was offered as a counter proposal to the total defunding. Live and learn
 
Cardinal said:
What's hilarious is that with every insistence that it's not the Republican's responsibility to come up with anything better, you're only confirming my earlier assertion that true health care reform isn't high on their list of priorities. Just keeping bitching and bitching and bitching about the PPACA. That's leadership, guys.



:lol:

Bush: "I've got a healthcare reform idea!"
Democrats: "Nuh uh."
Bush: "Okay."

Yep, just more of that Republican go-get-em attitude when it comes to solving the healthcare problem. Of course, it would be extremely unfair of me to not give credit to the Republican who did in fact enact his own solution. A governor of Massachusetts, if I recall, but well, that's probably not the example you were hoping for.
Click to expand...

It exactly the solution hoped for, a state run program that can easily get dismantled if there is failure not a massive Big Federal Program that creates nothing more than a slush fund for politicians. Seems that is something some don't understand, State vs Federal!
 
Conservative said:
It exactly the solution hoped for, a state run program that can easily get dismantled if there is failure not a massive Big Federal Program that creates nothing more than a slush fund for politicians. Seems that is something some don't understand, State vs Federal!
Click to expand...

What reform would you have liked to see?
 
Cardinal said:
What reform would you have liked to see?
Click to expand...

I would like to see the Federal regulations lifted and the Federal govt. completely out of the process letting the states implement their own program like MA did. I am not for the MA program because I believe in the free market but at least they did something at the state and local level. I would like to see states promote healthcare exchanges and allow businesses to pool their resources to creating buying groups for insurance. I would like to see insurance companies selling across state lines, Tort reform, and more incentives provided to the private sector customer to promote competition in the business.

I definitely don't want to see this

Obama raising money off HealthCare.gov problems | Fox News

Our campaigner in chief who has zero leadership skills.
 
Perotista said:
If so, the the needless shutdown as I refereed to it needs to be capitalized to NEEDLESS SHUTDOWN.
Click to expand...

Good afternoon, Pero. :2wave:

It wouldn't surprise me if the mandate were delayed. The current problems people are having when trying to comply with the law is making enough news to embarrass the administration, who have had a few years to ensure that the system worked. They knew exactly how many people would be attempting to get on board, so why are they surprised or unhappy now at being criticized for the failure? BHO said it will be fixed as soon as possible, but what are people supposed to in until it is? Most of us don't have the time to keep checking and checking to see if it works "today."
 
Conservative said:
I would like to see the Federal regulations lifted and the Federal govt. completely out of the process letting the states implement their own program like MA did. I am not for the MA program because I believe in the free market but at least they did something at the state and local level. I would like to see states promote healthcare exchanges and allow businesses to pool their resources to creating buying groups for insurance. I would like to see insurance companies selling across state lines, Tort reform, and more incentives provided to the private sector customer to promote competition in the business.

I definitely don't want to see this

Obama raising money off HealthCare.gov problems | Fox News

Our campaigner in chief who has zero leadership skills.
Click to expand...

I could see a state-by-state solution if the problem were localized to a few states, but the problem is fully nationwide. Your suggestion would have the solution, such as it is, hobbling along for years before it managed to solve anything. This is especially demonstrated by your "companies selling across state lines" suggestion. How many decades do you think it would be before every state managed to come up with their own bill to make that happen? Your solution is a non-solution.

...Tort reform...
Click to expand...

Right. Make it hard to sue doctors, as if that was the cause of the healthcare problem all along.
 
Cardinal said:
What's hilarious is that with every insistence that it's not the Republican's responsibility to come up with anything better, you're only confirming my earlier assertion that true health care reform isn't high on their list of priorities. Just keeping bitching and bitching and bitching about the PPACA. That's leadership, guys.

Bush: "I've got a healthcare reform idea!"
Democrats: "Nuh uh."
Bush: "Okay."

Yep, just more of that Republican go-get-em attitude when it comes to solving the healthcare problem. Of course, it would be extremely unfair of me to not give credit to the Republican who did in fact enact his own solution. A governor of Massachusetts, if I recall, but well, that's probably not the example you were hoping for.
Click to expand...

Kinda confused...first you claim:


Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post

...In fact, the only solution I've ever heard from them is usually along the lines of "make it harder to sue doctors."

Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post

...Do the Republicans have a plan ...

Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post

...and the Republicans have offered nothing better for me to flock to.
Click to expand...

Which were proven wrong...you move the 'goal post' to they didn't try hard enough...
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes, and Liz fowler, one of the main people credited for crafting the bill was also a VP for one of the largest insurance companies in the us...

So, we are making the same point... This was made by and for insurance companies and nothing more.

It's all about maximizing profits; which means maximizing cost (to customers) while minimizing services offered.
Click to expand...

Also not true. Check out this article, which just came out at FOX News.
 
Cardinal said:
I could see a state-by-state solution if the problem were localized to a few states, but the problem is fully nationwide. Your suggestion would have the solution, such as it is, hobbling along for years before it managed to solve anything. This is especially demonstrated by your "companies selling across state lines" suggestion. How many decades do you think it would be before every state managed to come up with their own bill to make that happen? Your solution is a non-solution.



Right. Make it hard to sue doctors, as if that was the cause of the healthcare problem all along.
Click to expand...

The problem is an individual one that becomes a state problem if there are too many uninsured seeking treatment. Explain how it is a nationwide program when the costs are localized? It is up to the people of the state to push the program if it is truly a problem in that state. Most states have programs available for just about anyone and if it becomes a serious individual problem move to a state that has a ACA type program. I grew up in Ohio, moved to Kentucky, then Indiana, then TX for that is where the job was. Most people seem to believe they are entitled to a job with benefits. Jobs aren't an entitlement, they are an opportunity.

Do you think any of the costs of healthcare are lawsuit related? Easy to correct, make the loser pay and if they don't have the money garnish their wages and seize their assets. Consequences for failure.
 
Dickieboy said:
Kinda confused...first you claim:




Which were proven wrong...you move the 'goal post' to they didn't try hard enough...
Click to expand...

What the hell am I supposed to flock to? They didn't fight for it!! You can call it moving the goalposts if you like, but do you honestly expect me to be impressed because Bush came up with some off-the-cuff suggestion and not pursue it in the least?
 
polgara said:
Good afternoon, Pero. :2wave:

It wouldn't surprise me if the mandate were delayed. The current problems people are having when trying to comply with the law is making enough news to embarrass the administration, who have had a few years to ensure that the system worked. They knew exactly how many people would be attempting to get on board, so why are they surprised or unhappy now at being criticized for the failure? BHO said it will be fixed as soon as possible, but what are people supposed to in until it is? Most of us don't have the time to keep checking and checking to see if it works "today."
Click to expand...

I suppose so. I am old enough I don't have to worry about it. Hence I never read the law. But with the shutdown over, the media is having a field day over the web site. But the republicans should rejoice too much here, that web site will be fixed and then what? I agree, the only common sense thing to do is to delay the mandates, unless all the bugs get fix real fast like in a couple of weeks which I doubt. When it comes to administrating anything, the government is most inefficient.
 
danarhea said:
Also not true. Check out this article, which just came out at FOX News.
Click to expand...

You don't think the state of New York has anything to do with the high cost of private insurance? You are going to hear stories like that in California, Illinois, and other high priced cost of living states none of which justifies a national program subsidized by the taxpayers of the other states
 
Perotista said:
I suppose so. I am old enough I don't have to worry about it. Hence I never read the law. But with the shutdown over, the media is having a field day over the web site. But the republicans should rejoice too much here, that web site will be fixed and then what? I agree, the only common sense thing to do is to delay the mandates, unless all the bugs get fix real fast like in a couple of weeks which I doubt. When it comes to administrating anything, the government is most inefficient.
Click to expand...

That's the reason I'm apprehensive about the whole mess! Can someone tell me why so many new IRS agents were hired so early? We're paying their salaries, and the damn thing hasn't even gone into effect yet. It appears to me as if they were anticipating problems with this great new healthcare plan from the beginning, and that does not inspire confidence in me! Many people I have talked with are taking a "wait and see" attitude at the moment, and are doing exactly nothing. I can't even imagine what it's going to be like when they do get involved. :eek:
 
Cardinal said:
What the hell am I supposed to flock to? They didn't fight for it!! You can call it moving the goalposts if you like, but do you honestly expect me to be impressed because Bush came up with some off-the-cuff suggestion and not pursue it in the least?
Click to expand...

Interesting, questions:
Did you 'flock to' PPACA prior to its passage?...considering the oft repeated proclamation 'we have to pass it to know what's in it'
Why would Bush fight for legislation when Congress clearly stated 'dead on arrival'?...especially considering his weakened position after the '06 election.
Off-the-cuff? It seems pretty well delineated:

Reforming Health Care for the 21st Century
Note these specific points:
•Leveling the playing field by making the same tax relief available to individuals and employers. Americans who purchase HSA-qualified insurance policies on their own should have the same tax advantages as people who obtain insurance through their employer.
•Eliminating all taxes on out-of-pocket spending through HSAs. Americans with HSAs should be able to pay for all of their care tax-free.
•Making health insurance portable. Americans should be able to own the insurance policy that goes along with their HSA, and keep it when they change or lose their jobs without worrying about paying higher premiums if they become sick.
•Strengthening the buying power of America’s small businesses. Small businesses should have the same access to price efficiencies as large businesses when purchasing health insurance.
•Passing medical liability reform. Limit costly and frivolous lawsuits that waste scarce resources, increase health care costs, and drive doctors out of business.
•Improving adoption of health information technology. Electronic health records that reduce costs and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of medical treatment should be widely used.
•Empowering consumers through information. All Americans should be able to obtain easy-to-understand information about the price and quality of the health care they receive from their medical provider and insurance carrier.
•Providing affordable coverage for vulnerable Americans. Americans with low incomes and persistently high medical expenses should receive additional assistance.
•Promoting prevention, wellness, and fitness. The President encourages all Americans to lead a healthy lifestyle to prevent disease and improve their overall quality of life.
Click to expand...
The bolded ones are quite similar to some currently in PPACA...what is there to NOT get behind?
 
Cardinal said:
What's hilarious is that with every insistence that it's not the Republican's responsibility to come up with anything better, you're only confirming my earlier assertion that true health care reform isn't high on their list of priorities. Just keeping bitching and bitching and bitching about the PPACA.
Click to expand...

Who said the republicans didn't have responsibility to push better policy too? Like I said, it's like you can't engage this discussion without breaking it down innto some moronic, antiquated "us vs them" dichotomy. What I have been arguing is that republican failures do not excuse democratic ones, especially when the democrats weren't seeking a different form of policy


That's leadership, guys.
Click to expand...

Holy ****, this is amazing. I've just informed you three or four times I am not a republican. Seriously, stop focusing on my political lean and try reading and grasping the words I am actually writing.

Talk about sad and pathetic ...
 
MaggieD said:
An entrepreneur is an entrepreneur. We should be grateful for them. They create jobs, invent things and represent the spirit on which our country was founded. In the past, too damned many people were stuck in jobs they hated, gave up their dreams and ambitions, all because they couldn't buy health insurance at any price. That's a damned shame.

You tell me I could have gotten a job with health insurance if it was a problem. Pfft. I preferred to retire at 40.
Click to expand...

We should be grateful for entrepreneurs. You are exactly right about that and about the jobs they create and so on. But you were the one complaining about obtaining health insurance and even the price of it. You chose a route that made that side of things a little more difficult. Others don't. Nothing is free, past that everything comes at a cost that sometimes includes more than just money.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
We should be grateful for entrepreneurs. You are exactly right about that and about the jobs they create and so on. But you were the one complaining about obtaining health insurance and even the price of it. You chose a route that made that side of things a little more difficult. Others don't. Nothing is free, past that everything comes at a cost that sometimes includes more than just money.
Click to expand...

I pointed to a real problem for entrepreneurs. Most of them fail, don't forget. And before Obamacare, many of them didn't even try. You bet I complained about the price of it. How much money would YOU have to make before you could afford $15,400 a year for health insurance? Just for you? Most people would simply have to take their chances. You don't think that's worth complaining about? I do.
 
danarhea said:
Also not true. Check out this article, which just came out at FOX News.
Click to expand...

Kohn's experience does in fact reveal that some will see reductions but in the entirety there will be anecdotal stories of cost increases/decreases across the full spectrum of this health INSURANCE issue. And both sides will be legitimate in most cases. IMO, the jury will be out on this for QUITE some time.

To her specific instance I've read that NY state had one of the most regulated health insurance industry in the country. Due to this the premium costs were previously well ahead of the rest of the states thus when PPACA came out they could actually lower their regulations thereby passing Ins Co's cost reductions to their customers. Other states that were not regulated as significantly will see there premiums rise antithetically similarly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom