• 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!

Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

Car ins. is not health ins., true statement. However, both have a component of personal responsibility not just to yourself, but to others. In car ins. you have a responsibility to carry it mandated by the state, because none of us intend to get in a wreck through our own fault and to cause damage that we can't afford to pay for. The states have determined they must compel us to do the right thing and carry a minimum level of liability to pay for damage we may cause and not have the ability to pay for.



And this is where health insurance belongs, at the state level.
 
No, people will not always live up to their responsibility. That is why states REQUIRE individuals with cars to carry liability insurance. The state knows that some of them will get in wrecks and not be able to pay for the damage they caused. If the state didn't require them to carry liability insurance, those people would slough off their responsibility and those that they damaged would just be screwed. There is no moral imperative to replace a car by the society, so we are not involved like we are in saving the life of a very sick person who can be saved. Unless forced by the state, many people will not do the right thing.

Having a car is a choice, Obamacare is not a choice, you buy or get fined. That is the whole premise of Obamacare that you liberals just don't get. Then all the lies from Obama saying you can keep your insurance, period. You can keep you Dr. Period, you will save $2,500 a yr, all lies.
 
And this is where health insurance belongs, at the state level.

I disagree. The states have had decades to fix the problems and they have not, save Massachusetts where Mitt Romney implemented almost exactly what Obamacare implements. The constitution charters the federal govt. to provide for the general welfare of the people, and healthcare affects all of us.
 
I disagree. The states have had decades to fix the problems and they have not, save Massachusetts where Mitt Romney implemented almost exactly what Obamacare implements. The constitution charters the federal govt. to provide for the general welfare of the people, and healthcare affects all of us.

Then you clearly do not understand the constitution. But, as an exercise, you are more than free to show me in article 1 section 8 where this power is.
 
I disagree, but you point is not specified. State it clearly and I will show you why they are not in conflict.
Try reading what you typed out over our last few exchanges. If you can understand what you wrote, you'll see you talk in circles.



Car ins. is not health ins., true statement. However, both have a component of personal responsibility not just to yourself, but to others. In car ins. you have a responsibility to carry it mandated by the state, because none of us intend to get in a wreck through our own fault and to cause damage that we can't afford to pay for. The states have determined they must compel us to do the right thing and carry a minimum level of liability to pay for damage we may cause and not have the ability to pay for. With Health ins., none of us expect to get in a serious car accident, but some of us will, we will require a large amount of healthcare expense, and if we don't have the money to pay for it, the hospital will recoup it by rolling it into the room rates and rates for other services, so everyone else ends up paying the tab. If you go to the hospital then you are paying for those who didn't have health ins. and walked on their tab. Now the federal govt. has mandated that everyone pay for a health ins. policy or pay a penalty. The reason govt. mandates each type of ins. is so people who can pay for an ins. policy but who can't pay for the expenses they incur will have the ins. company to pay their tab instead of dumping that tab on their fellow citizens in the case of health ins.
Do you have car insurance? If so read your policy. Most likely it has health care insurance in it for accidents (every state I've lived in requires it).

But you end up paying for the deadbeats already. If you have health ins. your rates are higher than they need to be because the hospitals recoup the unpaid bills of the deadbeats by raising the fees for their services for everyone with the ability to pay. That causes your rates to go up if you have ins. and if you go in the hospital you pay your share on a higher rate. So, you are already paying.

The govt. mandates ER care in the case of an emergency, but without any ability to collect if the patient is not insured and can't pay the bill. They do it because it would be immoral to allow the patient to die in that case. You are already under that moral mandate, since 1986.
Nothing in Obamdon'tcare prevents the same from happening. And the way things are going, it's very likely fewer people end up with health insurance because of Obamadon'tcare. What's your argument going to be if that happens? And don't even pretend hospitals don't have "any ability to collect". That is anything but true.


You're inflating the cost of the program, provide a link please.

If you think we could fix it for less, tell us how. I have not seen this plan.

I have inflated nothing. You look it up.

I've seen your plan and the idiots that passed Obamadon'tcare plan. It made things worse. "We" won't "fix" it. You and I might "fix" it if we could get government out of the way.
 
I have inflated nothing. You look it up.

I've seen your plan and the idiots that passed Obamadon'tcare plan. It made things worse. "We" won't "fix" it. You and I might "fix" it if we could get government out of the way.

They don't want it fixed. Its supposed to break the system.
 
You said "You can't say people don't get the healthcare they need in a ER so they get treatment in a hospital they can't pay for", and I didn't say that. Show me my quote where I said that. You are jumbling thoughts again.
In one sentence you didn't. But over several posts, you did. Jumble your refresh button and read what you wrote.

You said " then say people don't get treatment without health insurance.". This is generally true, except emergency conditions will be treated and stabilized and then the patient released. There is no obligation on the hospital to provide followup treatment, so people without health ins. don't get that from a private hospital even though that may be where they were taken after a serious car accident, they were saved, stabilized, and released, then nothing from that hospital. If someone needs medical attention but it is not an emergency and they don't have insurance or the ability to pay, they will not be treated by a private hospital.

So, I have not made any contradictory statements, and you mis-interpreted one of my statements, which is why it appears contradictory to you, but you are wrong.
LOL. Which is it? Do people get treatment or do they not get treatment? If they do not get treatment, how do they "slough off their responsibility". LOL.

The Harvard study is the most recent, and the article points out that the gap between insured and uninsured is growing as new treatments are made available to the insured. It makes sense that the most recent study would show the biggest difference. I encourage you to post the study you mentioned showing no difference, I don't believe it.
That study from Oregon has been posted in this forum many times. You can look it up, it's common public knowledge. But if you do, you still won't believe it because it does not provide justification for the heavy hand of government to ruin the healthcare in America.
 
Having a car is a choice, Obamacare is not a choice, you buy or get fined. That is the whole premise of Obamacare that you liberals just don't get.
Oh, we get it. While having a car is a choice, if you choose to get a car, the govt. says you must carry liability insurance.

Having a life, or being alive, is NOT a choice, except in the extreme case of suicide in which case you will not need health ins. very much longer. So, it would make sense that since living is not a choice, you should not have a choice of whether to carry health ins. or not.

In both cases, the imperative is exactly the same. You are required to carry ins. because there are some people who will get in a car wreck and cause damage they could never pay for, or in the case of health ins. some of them will get very sick or in a serious accident and incur expenses they never could pay for, and the govt. has determined that in both cases, you should provide a way to pay for the expenses you incur but cannot pay for. The concept is EXACTLY THE SAME.

Born Free said:
Then all the lies from Obama saying you can keep your insurance, period. You can keep you Dr. Period, you will save $2,500 a yr, all lies.

95% will keep their health ins. The other 5% should get a better deal.

Over at The Washington Post, Erik Wemple takes on the curious case of Dianne Barrette, who is this minute's poster child for the evils of Obamacare:

" More coverage may provide a deeper understanding of the ins and outs of Barrette’s situation: Her current health insurance plan, she says, doesn’t cover “extended hospital stays; it’s not designed for that,” says Barrette. Well, does it cover any hospitalization? “Outpatient only,” responds Barrette. Nor does it cover ambulance service and some prenatal care. On the other hand, says Barrette, it does cover “most of my generic drugs that I need” and there’s a $50 co-pay for doctors’ appointments. “It’s all I could afford right now,” says Barrette. In sum, it’s a pray-that-you-don’t-really-get-sick “plan.”"

Steve Benen follows up like so:

" If this woman had a serious ailment and was forced to stay in the hospital for a while, her old plan would have likely destroyed her financial life permanently, leaving her bankrupt. Now, thanks to “Obamacare,” in the event of a disaster, she’ll be protected with coverage her insurer can’t take away -– with no annual or lifetime caps. In other words, the new horror story for critics of the health care law features a middle-aged woman trading a bad plan for a good plan, and health care insecurity for health care security. What’s more, while much of the coverage of Barrette’s situation has focused on the higher monthly cost of her new, better insurance plan, there’s another detail that’s been overlooked by some: she’ll be eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. The cost of the coverage isn’t what she’ll actually have to pay out of her own pocket."

Yeah, you see, that's sort of the whole point of the Affordable Care Act -- it creates health insurance exchanges where people who find themselves in this situation can get relief from situations like this, obtaining health insurance at competitive prices that offer more bang for the buck and remove the worry of people falling into crippling indebtedness because of that one time they really, really didn't want to die.

Nevertheless, if you are someone who's received notice that you are losing your insurance coverage, that's a traumatic thing to experience, even if your insurance coverage is objectively terrible.
What Obama Really Meant When He Said 'If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep It'
 
Then you clearly do not understand the constitution. But, as an exercise, you are more than free to show me in article 1 section 8 where this power is.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Supreme Court has reviewed the law and deemed in constitutional.
 
I have inflated nothing. You look it up.

You haven't inflated anything, you have dropped words out of my statements and mischaracterized them, and now you are afraid to provide exact quotes because you know you have mischaracterized them and I can show you that what I said is NOT what you said I said. I have no reason to look up what I said, I know what I said, and you have shortened and created an incorrect distortion of what I said. I have called you on it, and the burden is on you to show you are correct. So, show my exact statement and your characterization and I will show you your error.
 
The Supreme Court has reviewed the law and deemed in constitutional.

That's good, at least you posted the correct section. Now, can you define what a pre amble is?

It does indeed say promote the general welfare, however, you do understand that they laid out specifically how in article 1 section 8 right?

The point that you cite the SCOTUS only shows me that the court has strayed from its own charter.
 
That study from Oregon has been posted in this forum many times. You can look it up, it's common public knowledge. But if you do, you still won't believe it because it does not provide justification for the heavy hand of government to ruin the healthcare in America.

I have found the results of the Oregon study on their website, and they look good for the effectiveness of medicaid in Oregon, even if the study is limited looking only at blood pressure, cholesterol, depression and diabetes.

Oregon Health Study Findings

A 2013 article in the New England Journal of Medicine evaluates the effect of Medicaid on the care that patients receive and on patient health. These results are important because they interpret objective clinical health data, rather than data that was provided by the participant in a survey.

The data used for these results was collected two years after the lottery.
Some highlights:
Physical Health

Medicaid significantly increased the probability of being diagnosed with diabetes after the lottery, and the probability of using diabetes medication.

Medicaid had no statistically significant effect on measured blood pressure or cholesterol.

Mental Health

Medicaid reduced observed rates of depression by 30 percent.

Medicaid increased the probability of being diagnosed with depression after the lottery.

Medicaid increased self-reported health.


Financial Hardship

Medicaid virtually eliminated out-of-pocket catastrophic medical expenditures.

Medicaid reduced other measures of financial strain, such as reducing the probability of having to borrow money or skip paying other bills because of medical expenses by more than 50 percent.

Utilization and Access

Medicaid increased use of physician services, prescription drugs, and hospitalizations. This increased use represents about $1200 in medical costs annually, or an increase of about 35 percent.

Medicaid increased the probability of having a usual place of care by 50 percent.

Medicaid increased the use of preventive services and screening, such as increasing the probability of having a cholesterol check by more than 50 percent and doubling the probability that women over 50 had a mammogram.
Oregon Health Study Findings « Oregon Health Study
 
That's good, at least you posted the correct section. Now, can you define what a pre amble is?

It does indeed say promote the general welfare, however, you do understand that they laid out specifically how in article 1 section 8 right?

The point that you cite the SCOTUS only shows me that the court has strayed from its own charter.

Here is Article 1, section 8 and the power seems broad and that it includes the power to make laws to provide for the general welfare of the nation. I'll skip those that are not pertinent.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So, congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the provision for the general welfare of the country. That's what they did and the Supreme Court found no problem with it.
 
You haven't inflated anything, you have dropped words out of my statements and mischaracterized them, and now you are afraid to provide exact quotes because you know you have mischaracterized them and I can show you that what I said is NOT what you said I said. I have no reason to look up what I said, I know what I said, and you have shortened and created an incorrect distortion of what I said. I have called you on it, and the burden is on you to show you are correct. So, show my exact statement and your characterization and I will show you your error.

BS. There is no burden on me and I am correct. You speak in circles.
 
I have found the results of the Oregon study on their website, and they look good for the effectiveness of medicaid in Oregon, even if the study is limited looking only at blood pressure, cholesterol, depression and diabetes.


LOL. Man oh man am I glad you are not my doctor.


Background

Despite the imminent expansion of Medicaid coverage for low-income adults, the effects of expanding coverage are unclear. The 2008 Medicaid expansion in Oregon based on lottery drawings from a waiting list provided an opportunity to evaluate these effects.


Methods

Approximately 2 years after the lottery, we obtained data from 6387 adults who were randomly selected to be able to apply for Medicaid coverage and 5842 adults who were not selected. Measures included blood-pressure, cholesterol, and glycated hemoglobin levels; screening for depression; medication inventories; and self-reported diagnoses, health status, health care utilization, and out-of-pocket spending for such services. We used the random assignment in the lottery to calculate the effect of Medicaid coverage.


Results

We found no significant effect of Medicaid coverage on the prevalence or diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol levels or on the use of medication for these conditions. Medicaid coverage significantly increased the probability of a diagnosis of diabetes and the use of diabetes medication, but we observed no significant effect on average glycated hemoglobin levels or on the percentage of participants with levels of 6.5% or higher. Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive screening for depression (−9.15 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −16.70 to −1.60; P=0.02), increased the use of many preventive services, and nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.


Conclusions

This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years, but it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.
MMS: Error


Note: The link works. It's from the NEJM.
 
Last edited:
You won't attempt an answer because you know I am right.

LOL. Seriously, reread everything you have posted. You make points 180 degrees different on the same subject.

So, no you are not right. Oh the other hand, you type out so much you are never more than half wrong.
 
LOL. Man oh man am I glad you are not my doctor.



Methods

Approximately 2 years after the lottery, we obtained data from 6387 adults who were randomly selected to be able to apply for Medicaid coverage and 5842 adults who were not selected. Measures included blood-pressure, cholesterol, and glycated hemoglobin levels; screening for depression; medication inventories; and self-reported diagnoses, health status, health care utilization, and out-of-pocket spending for such services. We used the random assignment in the lottery to calculate the effect of Medicaid coverage.

Results

We found no significant effect of Medicaid coverage on the prevalence or diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol levels or on the use of medication for these conditions. Medicaid coverage significantly increased the probability of a diagnosis of diabetes and the use of diabetes medication, but we observed no significant effect on average glycated hemoglobin levels or on the percentage of participants with levels of 6.5% or higher. Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive screening for depression (−9.15 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −16.70 to −1.60; P=0.02), increased the use of many preventive services, and nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.

Conclusions

This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years, but it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.
MMS: Error


Note: The link works.

Regarding your study analysis:

The findings and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the funders.

There is disagreement over the results of the study. However, this one study was posted in response to my post about the Harvard study that found 45,000 die prematurely each year due to lack of health insurance, which has not been refuted, and was not limited to Medicaid only. The Harvard study agrees with nearly 100 other studies, and ALL OF THEM CONCLUDED THAT HAVING HEALTH INSURANCE IMPROVES YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO STAY ALIVE LONGER. This one study and the disagreement over its result, does not trump my 100 studies. Health insurance is good for people.
 
LOL. Seriously, reread everything you have posted. You make points 180 degrees different on the same subject.

So, no you are not right. Oh the other hand, you type out so much you are never more than half wrong.


I am on the record and you won't attempt to demonstrate your point. I am fine with the readers of this thread drawing their own conclusion about your imprecision and distortion of my statements.
 
One of the problems folks don't touch on is how sub-standard the care is in the public / county hospitals that our system provided for the poor who could not afford insurance. When I grew up in the south in the 50's and 60's, the schools were segregated on color lines, black and white, and the law provided for "separate but equal". The reality was they were separate but UNEQUAL and the supreme court eventually ordered the practice to be ended. If you didn't get a good education there was no way you could meaningfully participate at first class corporations like IBM, American Express, Aetna, etc.

Somehow today we have separate heathcare facilities and again they are UNEQUAL. People die as a result of this, and the right keeps trying to ignore this reality, like the white racists in the old south didn't care about substandard education under the old separate but unequal system from the 50's (see Brown vs. Board of Education).

Video Shows Woman Dying on NY Hospital Floor - YouTube

And this will not change. The best doctors will pull out of the system altogether and offer group patient plans for families that can afford it.

Everybody else will be able to go to "the free clinic."
 
Regarding your study analysis:



There is disagreement over the results of the study. However, this one study was posted in response to my post about the Harvard study that found 45,000 die prematurely each year due to lack of health insurance, which has not been refuted, and was not limited to Medicaid only. The Harvard study agrees with nearly 100 other studies, and ALL OF THEM CONCLUDED THAT HAVING HEALTH INSURANCE IMPROVES YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO STAY ALIVE LONGER. This one study and the disagreement over its result, does not trump my 100 studies. Health insurance is good for people.


The findings and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the funders.
I'd say you were kidding around when you posted that but you probably are not. LOL.

"does not trump my 100 studies". You did 100 studies? On what? Or do you mean you saw 100 studies that you did not cite in this thread that can back up half of your statements and prove the other half wrong?
 
I am on the record and you won't attempt to demonstrate your point. I am fine with the readers of this thread drawing their own conclusion about your imprecision and distortion of my statements.

The words you typed out demonstrated your distorted statements. I'm fine with that, I'm sure others are too.
 
Here is Article 1, section 8 and the power seems broad and that it includes the power to make laws to provide for the general welfare of the nation. I'll skip those that are not pertinent.



So, congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the provision for the general welfare of the country. That's what they did and the Supreme Court found no problem with it.

So did Obama sell health insurance reform to the people as a tax? No.
 
So did Obama sell health insurance reform to the people as a tax? No.

I don't recall Obama stating how it would be paid for, just that it would be paid for and not add to the deficit. And the supreme court ruled it constitutional, including Chief Justice Roberts, a Bush appointee.
 
Oh, we get it. While having a car is a choice, if you choose to get a car, the govt. says you must carry liability insurance.

IF is the key word, to have a car is a choice. Period.

Having a life, or being alive, is NOT a choice, except in the extreme case of suicide in which case you will not need health ins. very much longer. So, it would make sense that since living is not a choice, you should not have a choice of whether to carry health ins. or not.

Should a person have the right to abort their baby? But now you say you have to have health insurance. What BS.

In both cases, the imperative is exactly the same. You are required to carry ins. because there are some people who will get in a car wreck and cause damage they could never pay fo

You just don't get it. How many people don't even have an ID let alone a car. There is now law that requires you to buy a care. Period.

In the case of health ins. some of them will get very sick or in a serious accident and incur expenses they never could pay for

There are a lot of people that are self insured, and now you want people to buy insurance. Well what about the people that can't afford it. Oh that's right they get a subsidy and who pays for that. Yep the tax payer. Either way the tax payer picks up the tab.

the govt. has determined that in both cases, you should provide a way to pay for the expenses you incur but cannot pay for. The concept is EXACTLY THE SAME.

The concept is not the same I don't have car.

95% will keep their health ins. The other 5% should get a better deal.

You have been listening to Obama's lies, you can keep your own insurance, PERIOD. You can keep your Dr. PERIOD, you will save $2,500 per yr on your insurance cost. PERIOD. All lies.
 
Back
Top Bottom