• 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!

Liberal states impose new individual mandate ahead of ObamaCare rollback

Not at all. Insurance on cars is mandatory in every state. Why? If having car insurance is such a good idea, you would think that 100% of the car owners would purchase it, right?

But "That's DIFFERENT!!!".

With the ACA, since people with preexisting conditions can't be denied coverage, it is necessary to have a viable pool of sick people and healthy people. However, if young healthy people can't be denied coverage when they get sick, without a mandate they will choose to buy the insurance ONLY when they get sick -- causing a rate spiral, as it dilutes the pool of healthy people. That's why the mandate is required.

Under the "Universal Coverage Single Payer" programs there is no such thing as a "preexisting condition" since coverage starts at birth (as do whatever premiums the plans charge).
 
How many people do you listen to talk about the health care system? Beyond your friends’ anecdotes? These things are rather well-known.



If we’ve merely reached a point where you’re becoming aware that things have gotten a lot better since the passage of the ACA, that’s progress! "Is the ACA responsible for our health system getting better after its passage?" is a great conversation to have.

Since the passage of the ACA coverage has hit an all-time high, health care cost growth has hovered near all-time lows, and quality has been steadily improving. People are getting the care they need and seeing better outcomes because of it, as can be seen in all sorts of situations as noted in that sample of links I shared. Maybe it's all a happy coincidence.



I’m talking about national health expenditures, the total cost of health care in the U.S. The CMS actuaries track these expenditures and also project future spending. Their projections in early 2009, based on the pre-ACA health spending trends of that time, put national health expenditures at $4,353.2B this year.

In reality, health care cost growth has slowed dramatically since then. The post-ACA cost savings have actual national health expenditures on track to instead be $3,675.3B this year.

Savings of $677.9B to the U.S. health care system.

If you're talking specifically about the public costs of the ACA coverage expansions themselves, the CBO projections of those costs have been falling on a year-by-year basis.

Capture.png


The CBO substantially overestimated the costs of the ACA, a fact the Wall Street Journal noticed three years ago: Future Obamacare Costs Keep Falling

The monthly (2016 figures) "Health Care Cost" in Canada averages out to US$396.08.

The monthly (2016 figures) "Health Care Cost" in the US averages out to US$824.33.

As far as I know (and I'm more than willing to be corrected on this point) BOTH of those figures include the amount that people pay DIRECTLY for their medical insurance.

It would be interesting to see what the figures are once the DIRECT cost of medical insurance is removed.
 
And I'm still waiting for the cheaper health care for everyone that Trump promised. The guy is a serial liar and playing with people's lives. And you make jokes? Nice

Don't you have a some responsibility in providing for your healthcare?
 
But "That's DIFFERENT!!!".



Under the "Universal Coverage Single Payer" programs there is no such thing as a "preexisting condition" since coverage starts at birth (as do whatever premiums the plans charge).

cradle to grave care, brought to you by the people that rule your life.
 
Don't you have a some responsibility in providing for your healthcare?

1) don't pull that Trumpster ploy with me by blaming the other guy for Trump's lies. He said cheaper HI for everyone, that was and is a 110% LIE. address that, don't attack me..

2) but unlike you I will address your question. I pay for my premiums with my money with NO subsides. So besides you trying to deflect and excuse Trump's lies I don't know what you mean by me having responsibility for my HC. I'm retired, the only place I can get HI is from NY's exchange. I pay for it with no help from anyone, so I don't see where I am not being responsible for my HC..
 
1) don't pull that Trumpster ploy with me by blaming the other guy for Trump's lies. He said cheaper HI for everyone, that was and is a 110% LIE. address that, don't attack me..

2) but unlike you I will address your question. I pay for my premiums with my money with NO subsides. So besides you trying to deflect and excuse Trump's lies I don't know what you mean by me having responsibility for my HC. I'm retired, the only place I can get HI is from NY's exchange. I pay for it with no help from anyone, so I don't see where I am not being responsible for my HC..

I'm not a Trumpster, for the umpteenth ****ing time. I do not like the guy and didn't vote for him. How about you apologize for insulting me before I respond to you further?
 
I'm not a Trumpster, for the umpteenth ****ing time. I do not like the guy and didn't vote for him. How about you apologize for insulting me before I respond to you further?

You're not fooling anyone here.

Have a nice day
 
1) don't pull that Trumpster ploy with me by blaming the other guy for Trump's lies. He said cheaper HI for everyone, that was and is a 110% LIE. address that, don't attack me..

2) but unlike you I will address your question. I pay for my premiums with my money with NO subsides. So besides you trying to deflect and excuse Trump's lies I don't know what you mean by me having responsibility for my HC. I'm retired, the only place I can get HI is from NY's exchange. I pay for it with no help from anyone, so I don't see where I am not being responsible for my HC..


We dont know yet, Because every instance of Movement Against ACA is blocked. Trump can say WHATEVER the heck he wants, But ONLY congress with 60 votes can pass legislation. Blah blah Repubs control majority, yeah 51 to 49 meaning we STILL need 9 Democrats/independents to vote IF all Repubs vote.


So to say he is lying is not correct he is JUST unable to move because he was handicapped with ACA to begin with. The preexisting condition was the ANTI repub move JUST like DACA. When you provide something that is EMOTIONAL you JUST cant take it back.


Your points of Increase in care is NOT trumps Fault. It is the way we have built our system.


1) ACA allowed pre existing conditions SO the market then Flooded with THOSE that required Immediate medical attention WHO subsided and PAID for this Immediate FLOOD of Cost due to the pre existing? The Drained the EXISTING Surpluss

2) While individual mandates help buffer the MAJOR increase cost, it was NOT nearly enough to cover the extensive increase from PRE Existing Conditions.

3) Seriously think WHAT pre existing conditions consisted of. NOT a Head cold, or a sprained finger.... We are Talking Cancer patience, Dialysis, Major Medical conditions that would NEVER qualified them So the EXUBERANT COST Drained surplus.

4) The removal of the mandate, more so trying to Collapse the ACA is the only way. We need to either REVAMP the WHOLE thing or GO back to an ACTUAL LOSS Mitigation rate system if NOT its impossible to sustain the cost OUT put by premium Input....


FACT!~
 
You're not fooling anyone here.

Have a nice day

Yeah, want me to pull all the anti-trump threads I started prior to the election? After the election? Geezum crow TDS is a 100% hate all things trump or you're a Trumper... so toxic.
 
Last I checked, moving to another state was still a choice.

Not much of a choice. Many people cannot simply pick up and move because they have a life and career in the state they are living in, but you're right in a certain sense because people are fleeing California like its a third world pile of filth. Of course its progressive cities continue to fill with human waste, dirty needles and undocumented migrants. The elite are safely hidden away in their gated communities leaving the middle class and working poor to deal with their globalist policies. Hypocrites in Ivory towers continue to politicize every issue from border security to healthcare. But who will deal with the consequences?
 
Your location says Cambridge Mass which is the Harvard area. What you apparently want is the federal taxpayer to fund your state and local healthcare which is a personal responsibility. When did you develop this entitlement mentality? There is every reason as each state has a different cost of living and although I have a Medicare supplement in TX it is accepted at any other state as well. There is no reason for a federal program other than to make you feel good and have someone else pay for your personal responsibility issues

I said I'm not from here, not that I'm not here for the time being. As I said, my family and most of my friends not here, and their well-being matters to me. That was in response to your bizarre argument that health care outside of Mass. has no personal importance to me.

Anyway, this lecture makes zero sense. You're on Medicare.

You have been talking about universal healthcare and costs associated with our healthcare vs. foreign countries so no I don't have you confused. You want a universal healthcare program in this country without understanding that other countries aren't paying as little as you believe and it is not sustainable in this country.

No, I haven't been talking about foreign countries' approach to health care financing. I rarely do, other than to point out that cross-national comparisons of health systems aren't particularly meaningful (https://www.debatepolitics.com/heal...ernational-comparison-health-care-system.html). I've also never claimed that "universal heath care," however you're using the term, will cost here what it does in the rest of the world. I've consistently argued the opposite. It will cost what the American health care system costs.

I don't know who you think you're responding to but it's not me.

Yours is the bad argument as there never has been a federal program that costs what it was supposed to cost, do what it was supposed to do, solve a problem and then went away. Medicare and SS are examples and are now the number 4 budget item cost and of course that doesn't bother you. The entitlement mentality you have is typical of all liberals who always want someone else to pay for their own personal responsibility issues

I don't know how you're arguing Medicare could or was supposed to "go away," but its primary purpose was to keep the old folks alive and out of the poorhouse and its been stunningly successful. Perhaps too successful, as you hint!

That doesn't change the point I was making in my post that the ACA (as one would expect of a product of the Senate) was intended to be run and tailored by the states.

The monthly (2016 figures) "Health Care Cost" in Canada averages out to US$396.08.

The monthly (2016 figures) "Health Care Cost" in the US averages out to US$824.33.

As far as I know (and I'm more than willing to be corrected on this point) BOTH of those figures include the amount that people pay DIRECTLY for their medical insurance.

It would be interesting to see what the figures are once the DIRECT cost of medical insurance is removed.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The infrastructure of the U.S. health care system is more expensive than anywhere else, this is not in dispute.
 
I said I'm not from here, not that I'm not here for the time being. As I said, my family and most of my friends not here, and their well-being matters to me. That was in response to your bizarre argument that health care outside of Mass. has no personal importance to me.

Anyway, this lecture makes zero sense. You're on Medicare.



No, I haven't been talking about foreign countries' approach to health care financing. I rarely do, other than to point out that cross-national comparisons of health systems aren't particularly meaningful (https://www.debatepolitics.com/heal...ernational-comparison-health-care-system.html). I've also never claimed that "universal heath care," however you're using the term, will cost here what it does in the rest of the world. I've consistently argued the opposite. It will cost what the American health care system costs.

I don't know who you think you're responding to but it's not me.



I don't know how you're arguing Medicare could or was supposed to "go away," but its primary purpose was to keep the old folks alive and out of the poorhouse and its been stunningly successful. Perhaps too successful, as you hint!

That doesn't change the point I was making in my post that the ACA (as one would expect of a product of the Senate) was intended to be run and tailored by the states.



I'm not sure what you're getting at. The infrastructure of the U.S. health care system is more expensive than anywhere else, this is not in dispute.

Yes, I am on Medicare, not because of choice but because I was forced into the program and contributed for 35 years. You will find out how great it is when you get there. I already have and it sucks to live off govt. run programs. Had I not contributed for 35 years then it wouldn't even be an issue but I purchasing a supplement to keep my doctor and my hospital but for some reason you believe the govt. run programs are the answer

As for the costs of healthcare overseas, seems you want to ignore the true total costs and only focus on what is reported, not the hidden tax dollars to fund the healthcare programs in much smaller countries than our 330 million Americans. Reality has other tax revenue used to fund healthcare in those countries you want to emulate but like with most liberals you don't even understand the taxes you pay in this country and their purpose

Not sure where those numbers posted came from as there was no link so you have no idea what the numbers represent however here is a study that puts it into perspective. Have no idea why you believe the federal bureaucrats are ever going to be efficient in running anything

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/true-...erage-family-is-11k-per-year-report-1.2525114

https://www.politico.eu/article/eur...eport-drug-pricing-medicines-public-services/

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/price-of-public-health-care-insurance-2016.pdf
 
Not at all. Insurance on cars is mandatory in every state. Why? If having car insurance is such a good idea, you would think that 100% of the car owners would purchase it, right?

With the ACA, since people with preexisting conditions can't be denied coverage, it is necessary to have a viable pool of sick people and healthy people. However, if young healthy people can't be denied coverage when they get sick, without a mandate they will choose to buy the insurance ONLY when they get sick -- causing a rate spiral, as it dilutes the pool of healthy people. That's why the mandate is required.

Which means all this pretense and outrage about not being able to afford health care and the GOP killing them is all...bull****. People are irresponsible and selfish. Good point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
cradle to grave care, brought to you by the people that rule your life.

Indeed, I live in a Socialist Dictatorship.

PS - Even if it were true, I think that I'd prefer it to the "To the bottom of your wallet, and then to hell with you, care brought to you by the people that rule your life (but whom you have never heard of and most certainly never voted for)" that the US has.

PPS - That doesn't mean that I'm going to force someone who wants a lesser level of medical care being available to the people of their own country to do what I (and the people of my country) want to have for our own country.
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The infrastructure of the U.S. health care system is more expensive than anywhere else, this is not in dispute.

The Canadian system includes a non-profit insurance program.

What would the US monthly cost be if the insurance companies' profits were deducted?

The Canadian system also does not include provisions for "denial of claims".

What would the US monthly cost if the amount that the insurance companies spend on "denial of claims" was also eliminated?

The Canadian system also does not include "for profit" hospitals.

What would the US monthly cost be if the hospitals' profits were eliminated along with the amount of insurance company profits and the insurance companies' "denial of claims" expenses?

There are other "profit centres" in the US health care system, but I'll stick with just those three (for now).
 
The Canadian system includes a non-profit insurance program.

What would the US monthly cost be if the insurance companies' profits were deducted?

We have non-profit health insurers here, as well. My market is dominated by them.

As for the for-profits, I think the Big 5 collectively have a net income of something like $12-$15 billion. That's not nothing, but it's also not a huge dent in a three-and-a-half trillion dollar system.

The Canadian system also does not include provisions for "denial of claims".

What would the US monthly cost if the amount that the insurance companies spend on "denial of claims" was also eliminated?

I don't know, what would it be?

The Canadian system also does not include "for profit" hospitals.

What would the US monthly cost be if the hospitals' profits were eliminated along with the amount of insurance company profits and the insurance companies' "denial of claims" expenses?

Most hospitals in the United States are not-for-profit.

As it is, for-profit hospitals here have lower cost structures than their not-for-profit cousins (e.g., the cost of an inpatient day in a for-profit hospital is about 24% lower).That's why for-profit hospitals tend to do a better job of breaking even on their Medicare business, as well.
 
Last edited:
We have non-profit health insurers here, as well. My market is dominated by them.

As for the for-profits, I think the Big 5 collectively have a net income of something like $12-$15 billion. That's not nothing, but it's also not a huge dent in a three-and-a-half trillion dollar system.

I don't know, what would it be?

Most hospitals in the United States are not-for-profit.

As it is, for-profit hospitals here have lower cost structures than their not-for-profit cousins (e.g., the cost of an inpatient day in a for-profit hospital is about 24% lower).That's why for-profit hospitals tend to do a better job of breaking even on their Medicare business, as well.

Thanks for the response.

So if:

  1. "Insurance profits" don't contribute markedly to the 123.35% increase in average monthly cost; and
  2. "hospital profits" don't contribute markedly to the 123.35% increase in average monthly cost; then

what DOES contribute the the 123.35% increase in average monthly cost?

Canada has a "both sexes life expectancy" of 82.2 years, for the US it's 79.3.
Canada has a "female life expectancy of 84.1, the US 81.6.
Canada has a "male life expectancy" of 80.2, the US 76.9.
Canada has a "both sexes healthy life expectancy at birth" of 73.2, the US 68.5.
Canada has a "female healthy life expectancy at birth" of 74.3, the US 70.1.
Canada has a "male healthy life expectancy at birth" of 72.0, the US 66.9.

Averaging those metrics and the Canadian health care system produces a result that is 5.25% better than the US health care system.

  • The only "logical" conclusion is that for single percentage point increase in the average monthly health care cost (over that of Canada's) you will net a 0.043% DECREASE in outcome.
  • Obviously, if the US were to reduce its average monthly health care cost to 50% of Canada's the only possible outcome to be expected would be a health care system that produced an outcome that was 21.5% better than the Canadian one already produces and the American "both sexes healthy life expectancy at birth" would shoot up to 88.94 years.

Now since both [A] and are rather silly, what it it about the US health care system that results in lower results for more money?

You don't think it could possibly be "Well, since some people don't have affordable medical insurance that will actually cover their medical requirements, that means that those people end up not getting the treatment that they need at all and when you calculate the people who don't get treated at all into the equation that depresses the results for things like "healthy life expectancy at birth" REGARDLESS of how much money the people who do get the treatment that they need actually pay for their health care.", do you?
 
what DOES contribute the the 123.35% increase in average monthly cost?

The inputs that comprise health care (primarily labor) cost more here. A few years ago MedPAC, the body the advises Congress on Medicare policy, looked into why Medicare prices--which are set by the federal government and are generally far lower than what private insurers pay--are still nearly 50% higher than the OECD average. Their answer was primarily about the prices of those inputs:

30svjuf.png

2chtmc1.png


The health care industry is now the largest employer in the U.S., meaning a lot of wages--livelihoods--flow through it. Those are the inputs that have to be paid for when we go to a doctor, hospital, whatever and get billed. The problem would be a lot easier if it could just be blamed on profits and not things like nurses striking for larger wage growth.
 
The health care industry is now the largest employer in the U.S., meaning a lot of wages--livelihoods--flow through it. Those are the inputs that have to be paid for when we go to a doctor, hospital, whatever and get billed. The problem would be a lot easier if it could just be blamed on profits and not things like nurses striking for larger wage growth.

You might find "Here's the real reason health care costs so much more in the US" a bit more detailed.

However, I don't find "It costs more because we get charged more." to be a REALLY satisfying answer since what it breaks down to is "It costs more because the providers are greedy and we don't have any choice but to go along with their demands.".
 
Indeed, I live in a Socialist Dictatorship.

PS - Even if it were true, I think that I'd prefer it to the "To the bottom of your wallet, and then to hell with you, care brought to you by the people that rule your life (but whom you have never heard of and most certainly never voted for)" that the US has.

PPS - That doesn't mean that I'm going to force someone who wants a lesser level of medical care being available to the people of their own country to do what I (and the people of my country) want to have for our own country.

Please, spare us the garbage. You decide your future in America, based on effort, sacrifice and performance. The more socialism, democratic or otherwise the more your future is determined by others.
 
You might find "Here's the real reason health care costs so much more in the US" a bit more detailed.

However, I don't find "It costs more because we get charged more." to be a REALLY satisfying answer since what it breaks down to is "It costs more because the providers are greedy and we don't have any choice but to go along with their demands.".

"It costs more because we get charged more" is not what I'm saying. You will get an answer like that at many health policy conferences (phrased not in terms of charges, which are largely meaningless, but in terms of pricing: "our system is more costly because we have a health care pricing problem.") That's a circular answer.

There are two components at play here: (1) what payers pay (reimburse) for health care services, and (2) what it costs to deliver those services.

The former (1) is often what people think of as the cost of the system. We pay taxes to the federal and state government so they have cash to spend on health services, and we pay premiums or have our employers set aside a piece of our compensation to have cash to spend on health services. And then when we get those health services we often also kick in a share of the cash from our personal funds via deductibles, copays, or coinsurance. That's the money that gets collected from us to pay hospitals, doctors, and other providers when we get services from them. And when that money is transferred to those actually delivering the care it's doled out in accordance with pricing negotiated between the providers and the payers.

The latter (2) is what one might think of as the actual costs of the American health care system. Health care is largely a service and delivering it has costs. For a hospital, for instance, those costs are primarily (~60% or more) labor costs but there are others: IT fees, food, postage, utilities, pharmaceuticals and medical supplies, etc. Hiring and retaining those people, paying those fees, keeping the lights on and the doors open so that you can provide the service costs money. Those costs are the actual costs of delivering health care in this environment. The money coming in the door from payers--the reimbursement ultimately provided from the pools of cash collected through premiums, taxes, and individual out-of-pocket commitments--has to be enough to cover those expenses. If they aren't, the hospital or practice or whatever closes up shop.

The prices providers ask is high because the cash flow they need coming through the door has to be high, and that's because the real costs of delivering care are high. That's not greed, it's reality.

There seems to be a perception among some that there's a great disconnect between (1) and (2) above: namely, that the amount we (the insurers, governments, and consumers buying care) pay is wildly higher than the actual costs that providers incur in delivering care. And that difference between the two must then be exorbitant profits for everybody along the chain. That would be great! Because it's an easy problem with an easy solution. If the money we're paying into the health care system through premiums and taxes is ending up in a vault somewhere so Scrooge McDuck can do the backstroke through it, then it isn't involved in patient care at all and clawing it back won't impact anyone's care or livelihood.

But they're not wildly out of whack. Yes, there is some profit along the line (even non-profit hospitals need positive margins) and insurers surely take their cut. But ultimately we pay more because care costs more here. And that's because the inputs providers need to deliver health services--namely labor, but also certain supplies and pharmaceuticals--cost more here than other places. Heath care is nearly a fifth of our economy, a fact that goes hand-in-hand with the reality that it employs the plurality of people in this country--and that's not because the plurality of Americans are physicians. We can't simply rightsize what we pay (1) to be in line with the rest of the world because our underlying costs (2), which those payments must cover, really are substantially higher here.

Health care is a sector that offers steady, good, high-paying work and is consistently a path to the middle class, particularly in places where other industries are disappearing. Said another way, it takes in a large chunk of the nation's income and spits it out in paychecks to the plurality of our workforce. That's a rather challenging "problem" to tackle. Framing this a story of "profit" and "greed" entirely misses the enormity of the task in front of us.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom