• 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!

Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

Carleen said:
I have seen no evidence that premiums are going to skyrocket unless you rely on the sound bites from the right.
Click to expand...

Not mention they were skyrocketing before reform. If they go up, one would have to question why as there is little reason for premiums to go up. There is a fee aspect that must be dealt with, but that is not premiums. And will likely be handled outside of premiums.
 
Boo Radley said:
No one s stealing from you. That's a sad and rather cheap debate tactic. And the money the government would subsidize for savings would also come from you, as does the money that makes up for those paying right now.
Click to expand...

If I'm paying $4,000 for $1,000 worth of service, and you get to pay $12,000 for $20,000 worth of service; that is theft and a moral hazard. You have absolutely no incentive to minimize your health risk, because any additional healthcare you consume is dispersed throughout the system.

That's largely fine. We subsidize things all the time. I am merely offering a template where the subsidy will not result in moral hazards and shifting of risk. Under a savings plan, it is still to the benefit of the individual to maximize their personal well being in order to minimize their costs.

Boo Radley said:
Again, the only way to force is to ban or outlaw. No one is forced not to use anything.
Click to expand...
If you are reducing the amount that someone can contribute to said account, then that means that the account will meet less of said person's healthcare needs. Forcing them to buy insurance. Yes, that is forcing.

Boo Radley said:
No, your trying to deal in absolutes; I'm not. Many are not able to get adequate care. That's a fact.
Click to expand...
Its not an ambiguous fact with many possible solutions to fixing it. No one said the current system is perfect. But, the strengths of our system outweigh the weaknesses. We can make minor fixes here and there to try and maximize the number of people who can obtain health insurance, reduce costs, and improve quality. But it takes a scalpel, not a hacksaw.

Boo Radley said:
And you want illegals to get care. You have no idea what they might bring with them that could be communicable. Our leaders have shown no will to stop illegal immigration despite enough was on the books to do so. So, you either adjust to the reality, or change leadership. But I warn you that there s a reason nothing's been done, and new leadership won't likely change it.
Click to expand...

No I don't, because that just gives them even more incentive to come here. You're right, that's because we don't have the balls to stand up for our laws and our citizens. Instead, we let this become a political wedge, when we should have been taking care of the issue.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not convinced. If we used the money we spend extra right now, moved it to a universal payer system, allowing those who can to buy more, we'd spend less, much less, and get more.
Click to expand...

You live in a delusional fantasy if you think that the government can provide health insurance for all Americans for a cheaper price then it provides it for half of Americans already. We already spend more money on public run healthcare then any other country in the world.
 
ReformCollege said:
If I'm paying $4,000 for $1,000 worth of service, and you get to pay $12,000 for $20,000 worth of service; that is theft and a moral hazard. You have absolutely no incentive to minimize your health risk, because any additional healthcare you consume is dispersed throughout the system.

That's largely fine. We subsidize things all the time. I am merely offering a template where the subsidy will not result in moral hazards and shifting of risk. Under a savings plan, it is still to the benefit of the individual to maximize their personal well being in order to minimize their costs.


If you are reducing the amount that someone can contribute to said account, then that means that the account will meet less of said person's healthcare needs. Forcing them to buy insurance. Yes, that is forcing.


Its not an ambiguous fact with many possible solutions to fixing it. No one said the current system is perfect. But, the strengths of our system outweigh the weaknesses. We can make minor fixes here and there to try and maximize the number of people who can obtain health insurance, reduce costs, and improve quality. But it takes a scalpel, not a hacksaw.



No I don't, because that just gives them even more incentive to come here. You're right, that's because we don't have the balls to stand up for our laws and our citizens. Instead, we let this become a political wedge, when we should have been taking care of the issue.
Click to expand...

1st you pay for it either way. You're paying for it right now without reform. But it's not stealing. Now or later. Live long enough, and you will cost more than you're paying. It equals out. And a savings plan has more limitations, and not likely to cover anyone needing anything major. We will still need more for some and less for others.

You might ask why he limitations. Don't leap to forcing. Having used these programs and lost on them, I think they may be other reasons. I'll look later if you're not inclined to.

I don't think the strengths out weight the weaknesses. We cost more and get less access. The market leads to decreasing doctors, as it maximizes profit (see AMA).

Back later
 
Boo Radley said:
1st you pay for it either way. You're paying for it right now without reform. But it's not stealing. Now or later. Live long enough, and you will cost more than you're paying. It equals out. And a savings plan has more limitations, and not likely to cover anyone needing anything major. We will still need more for some and less for others.

You might ask why he limitations. Don't leap to forcing. Having used these programs and lost on them, I think they may be other reasons. I'll look later if you're not inclined to.

I don't think the strengths out weight the weaknesses. We cost more and get less access. The market leads to decreasing doctors, as it maximizes profit (see AMA).

Back later
Click to expand...

No it doesn't equal out. That's my point. If I live healthy, I'm going to have less healthcare costs every step of the way then someone who doesn't. Asking me to pay for them isn't equaling out. It's a moral hazard.

Look up the healthcare system of Singapore. They use health savings accounts, and the government helps subsidize the costs of emergency procedures. Its a system that works and keeps costs down.

Where do you get this idea? Americans have shorter waiting periods, better technology, more advanced treatments, and better health outcomes for heart disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes, and nearly every category of cancer. Healthcare access isn't reducible to a single denominator on how many people are insured. In many other countries, everyone has health insurance, they just don't get the same level of treatment as they get here.

Well you certainly don't want too many doctors. Some supply control is absolutely necessary to control for quality. Besides, doctors make up less then 10% of all healthcare costs. As a % of healthcare costs, its actually amoung the lowest in the world. U.S Physician Compensation Among Lowest of Western Nations, Survey Finds
 
Boo Radley said:
It might once Obama's not in office any more. After all, it holds a lot of republican ideas.
Click to expand...

Lol! I love this idea of doing things people hate, but will love later. The best part is that the people that say it love to spout that the government only does what the people want and that the US is for the people, by the people. I can't imagine how they can say the country is for the people, by the people and then support the passing laws without public support. You guys can start being consistent whenever you please.

Btw, ideas put out by think tank represent the think tank and no one else.
 
Fiddytree said:
Not a bad thought from the President. It was one of the common talking points against the bill, was that once it starts it won't stop. Those in support of the bill thought that the good would dramatically outweigh whatever problems would surface, and opposition to the bill would gradually diminish.
Click to expand...

It would have been a better thought if it didn't depend on the idea that giving away free things or benefits to the people naturally leading to greater public support over time of very bad or unpopular actions. He of course applied this rather obvious observation that allows democrats to do immoral things and applied to forced commerce. That is probably because he only has two brain cells though.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
you said no republican voted for healthcare reform, Arlen specter did vote for it.
Click to expand...

Arlen Specter was a party jumper. He was democrat for fourteen years before he changed parties to ride with the republicans until 2009 when he decided that he needed to switch back. Obamacare passed after he switched back to the democratic party.
 
Henrin said:
Arlen Specter was a party jumper. He was democrat for fourteen years before he changed parties to ride with the republicans until 2009 when he decided that he needed to switch back. Obamacare passed after he switched back to the democratic party.
Click to expand...

but he still was a republican at some point.
 
ReformCollege said:
"We are very concerned about what will happen if essentially there is so much rate shock for young people that they're bound not to purchase (health insurance) at all," California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones.
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: CBO: Up to 20 Million Could Be Pushed Off Employer Health Insurance Because of Obamacare
Click to expand...

Oh so now the CBO is relevent, but when they talk about the lowering of the deficit, they are wrong. If you actually read the healthcare law premiums are not going to go up.
 
Carleen said:
Oh so now the CBO is relevent, but when they talk about the lowering of the deficit, they are wrong. If you actually read the healthcare law premiums are not going to go up.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, because premiums aren't going to go up because the law says so? Right.

I wouldn't be surprised if it lowers the deficit. There are a lot of tax increases in the law. Doesn't mean it still isn't a bad bill.
 
ReformCollege said:
Oh yeah, because premiums aren't going to go up because the law says so? Right.

I wouldn't be surprised if it lowers the deficit. There are a lot of tax increases in the law. Doesn't mean it still isn't a bad bill.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the ACA law is a lie? Tell me how you have come to that conclusion. The ACA has nothing to do with the deficit. My point was the talking points by republicans.
 
Carleen said:
So you are saying that the ACA law is a lie? Tell me how you have come to that conclusion. The ACA has nothing to do with the deficit. My point was the talking points by republicans.
Click to expand...

There is nothing about the law that gives it the power to determine premiums. We only have the merits of the provisions passed to go by, and those suggest that there will be an upward pressure on premiums to go higher.
 
ReformCollege said:
You live in a delusional fantasy if you think that the government can provide health insurance for all Americans for a cheaper price then it provides it for half of Americans already. We already spend more money on public run healthcare then any other country in the world.
Click to expand...

It's actually harder and more expensive to provide it or the most needy than it is for everyone. There is a reason why insurance companies really only want healthy people. We spend more because we have no actual system, and doing things ad hoc as hospitals and healthcare professionals do allow for a lot of overcharging. Ask yourself if a bandaid that us no different than found in a box of band aids at any store for less than $2 is really $16 dollars for each single bandaid at a hospital. This price shifting under a real system would end.
 
ReformCollege said:
No it doesn't equal out. That's my point. If I live healthy, I'm going to have less healthcare costs every step of the way then someone who doesn't. Asking me to pay for them isn't equaling out. It's a moral hazard.

Look up the healthcare system of Singapore. They use health savings accounts, and the government helps subsidize the costs of emergency procedures. Its a system that works and keeps costs down.

Where do you get this idea? Americans have shorter waiting periods, better technology, more advanced treatments, and better health outcomes for heart disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes, and nearly every category of cancer. Healthcare access isn't reducible to a single denominator on how many people are insured. In many other countries, everyone has health insurance, they just don't get the same level of treatment as they get here.

Well you certainly don't want too many doctors. Some supply control is absolutely necessary to control for quality. Besides, doctors make up less then 10% of all healthcare costs. As a % of healthcare costs, its actually amoung the lowest in the world. U.S Physician Compensation Among Lowest of Western Nations, Survey Finds
Click to expand...

Do you know how many people complain about a lack of doctors. You really should talk to some of the conservatives around here who say we can't treat those needing treatment due to a lack of doctors.


But yes, doctors are small in number, but contribute significantly to cost. One thing being done tom lower costs is to have treats not requiring a physician done by less costly personnel.

I will look up Singapore later, but I'm not sure how comparable they are. But I will investigate.


No American wait times are not significantly shorter. Nor is technology equal o better care, just more expensive care. The wealthy do well here, true. But poorer consumers don't. There is a real inequality in the treatment of Americans.

As for you being robbed, none of us know the future. I remember a similar argument from an old political forum user, Missouri Mule, great guy, who saw his circumstances change and thus led to him modifying his view. It could happen to you or any of as well.
 
Henrin said:
Lol! I love this idea of doing things people hate, but will love later. The best part is that the people that say it love to spout that the government only does what the people want and that the US is for the people, by the people. I can't imagine how they can say the country is for the people, by the people and then support the passing laws without public support. You guys can start being consistent whenever you please.

Btw, ideas put out by think tank represent the think tank and no one else.
Click to expand...

This actually is a government of the people by he people. However, today that means wealthy people. Money is free speech and more money means more speech, more influence. The using and capitulation works both ways between government and earthy, but the money s are largest problem.

However, we really don't use the one bit of power we have, the vote, effectively. And we allow ourselves to be fooled by silly arguments and tricked by old worn tactics. This makes us weak and ineffective.
 
ReformCollege said:
No it doesn't equal out. That's my point. If I live healthy, I'm going to have less healthcare costs every step of the way then someone who doesn't. Asking me to pay for them isn't equaling out. It's a moral hazard.

Look up the healthcare system of Singapore. They use health savings accounts, and the government helps subsidize the costs of emergency procedures. Its a system that works and keeps costs down.

Where do you get this idea? Americans have shorter waiting periods, better technology, more advanced treatments, and better health outcomes for heart disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes, and nearly every category of cancer. Healthcare access isn't reducible to a single denominator on how many people are insured. In many other countries, everyone has health insurance, they just don't get the same level of treatment as they get here.

Well you certainly don't want too many doctors. Some supply control is absolutely necessary to control for quality. Besides, doctors make up less then 10% of all healthcare costs. As a % of healthcare costs, its actually amoung the lowest in the world. U.S Physician Compensation Among Lowest of Western Nations, Survey Finds
Click to expand...

As promised, did look at Singapore. A few things of note:

Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls.

(The other two elements would face major resistance here, but would be necessary for this plan.)

The increasingly large private sector provides care to those who are privately insured, foreign patients, or public patients who are able to afford what often amount to very large out-of-pocket payments above the levels provided by government subsidies.

(A second system, as could be done with any universal payer system).

Approximately 70-80% of Singaporeans obtain their medical care within the public health system. Overall government spending on healthcare amounts to only 3-4% of annual GDP, partly because government expenditure on healthcare in the private system is extremely low.

(Also something that could happen with any single payer system.)

Healthcare in Singapore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article suggests the elderly are presenting same problems for them as for us:

Healthcare For The Elderly: Can And Should We Do More?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom