• 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!

Health Care Protests Based On Misinformation?

What are the health care reform protests largely based on?

  • Anger or Mob Mentality

    Votes: 4 13.3%

  • Misinformation or No Information

    Votes: 9 30.0%

  • Genuine Opposition

    Votes: 13 43.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • Total voters
    30
Harry Guerrilla said:
They are basically saying that, "We are going to add more people to the system and it's going to save us money."
That is the base assertion of the proponents of government health care.
Click to expand...
You should find something more productive to do than beating up a straw man.
 
Last edited:
Baralis said:
The government would have to force the medical community to accept lower prices. As it is now they cannot and as you will find many hospitals will refuse to treat those on government programs because of the low cost the government is willing to pay.

I am curious for both sides. Anyone have any hard facts on the amount spent on individuals for health care annually in the US vs national health care systems? I am willing to bet it is higher per person in national health care nations that do not cap wages/costs.
Click to expand...

Here you go:

Compare International Medical Bills : NPR

In the U.S. the average cost of healthcare per person is $6,402 and in the UK it is $2723. Japan-$2,358, Switzerland-$4,177, France-$3,374, Germany-$3,673, Netherlands-$3,580. The U.S. is by far the most expensive. The thing to note is that our population is much much greater than any of these nations, thus the pool is tremendously bigger. I should think that should surely equal far less expense overall.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Here you go:

Compare International Medical Bills : NPR

In the U.S. the average cost of healthcare per person is $6,402 and in the UK it is $2723. Japan-$2,358, Switzerland-$4,177, France-$3,374, Germany-$3,673, Netherlands-$3,580. The U.S. is by far the most expensive. The thing to note is that our population is much much greater than any of these nations, thus the pool is tremendously bigger. I should think that should surely equal far less expense overall.
Click to expand...

Let us not forget one other golden rule of our system; costs rise faster than inflation, and that is the way it has been now for years with absolutely zero indication it will reverse itself. So the interesting question would be to compare projections for the next decade.
 
tlmorg02 said:
The thing to note is that our population is much much greater than any of these nations, thus the pool is tremendously bigger.
Click to expand...

Er when taking per capita it eliminates the whole population thing..
 
PeteEU said:
Er when taking per capita it eliminates the whole population thing..
Click to expand...

I was referring to if all people in the U.S. were put under a government plan, all one pool, rather than having some pay tremendously more than others and there being an average that is more than likely, actually higher per insured person.
 
Cilogy said:
It seems like many protesters of the health care reform bill are doing so because they are misinformed, or they are given no information at all.

I heard somewhere that the President himself, in an interview, said that everyone is getting the negatives about the health care reform bill and he is trying to stress the positives to the American people. I believe this was in a Time magazine interview, but I might.

I'm just curious to see how many people will deny this.
Click to expand...
Obamacare is going to mandate home visits to make sure you are raising your children according to the state's standards instead of your own. Your home and family are not your own anymore.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm9J4rNYzFM"]YouTube - That's the change they need[/ame]

Folks this is just one more reason why you were not supposed to vote for Obama. We had a free country and you voted to "change" that.
 
sam_w said:
Well you proved yourself that a lack of information can lead one to draw incorrect conclusions. Maybe it is best to look into what we are already paying to treat the uninsured. Then compare that cost to what the current estimated cost will be. Just a suggestion, that if you wish to actually be informed.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but adding more people to the system and continuing to insulate them from the actual cost will cause more usage and thus rising costs.
Adding more people to an insurance plan, in it's current form, will raise costs.

I am plenty informed, no direction needed.

Whip Comes Down said:
You should find something more productive to do than beating up a straw man.
Click to expand...

Please prove that I have misrepresented the truth.
I have provided the base argument of proponents for government health care.

They want to, 1. add more people and 2. claim it will save money.
 
Cilogy said:
It seems like many protesters of the health care reform bill are doing so because they are misinformed, or they are given no information at all.

I heard somewhere that the President himself, in an interview, said that everyone is getting the negatives about the health care reform bill and he is trying to stress the positives to the American people. I believe this was in a Time magazine interview, but I might.

I'm just curious to see how many people will deny this.
Click to expand...

Obama was pushing this bill before he even knew what was in it. Why don't you hold the President to the same standards as your political opponents?
 
celticlord said:
Some would. There's $245 Billion embedded in the bill to bump up reimbursement rates for rural doc. There's another $230 Billion of "savings" by curtailing future re-imbursement rates.

Basically, doctors get a bit of candy today, but no candy for the next 10 years. That only works if the doc is a five year old.
Click to expand...
It's an old "shell game" tactic, HMO companies used to do the "big money up front" thing to individual agents in the late 70's and early 80's, that was before my practice in the insurance business, but colleagues who worked at that time have told me the stories, HMO management hired agents at ridiculous commission rates to induce them to push their services and they saturated a few markets, then canceled all agent appointments and put entry level salaried "enrollment professionals" in place to pick off the rest of the market, shutting the agents out, it's not exactly the same thing, but close enough.
 
Last edited:
Guess what?

Even if the people are "misinformed" (ie, they lack devotion to the Messiah), they're still opposed.

Guess what matters?

The fact that they're opposed, not the presumption of their ignorance.
 
Its quite obvious that many of them are misinformed and thus arguing from ignorance. There are plenty of reasons to be against parts of the bills currently in congress. However, not too many of these protesters are arguing for more personal responsibility as a cost control, tort reform as a cost control, and so on. Instead its absurd crap like "Nationalizing Health care", Medicare recipients railing against "socialism" the very definition of hypocrisy on their part, and supposed "death panels".
 
Ethereal said:
Obama was pushing this bill before he even knew what was in it. Why don't you hold the President to the same standards as your political opponents?
Click to expand...

Because the president is not some loon claiming there will be government death panels and the president is not some hypocrite on Medicare railing against the disabled and asking them "why should I pay for your medical care".
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Because the president is not some loon claiming there will be government death panels and the president is not some hypocrite on Medicare railing against the disabled and asking them "why should I pay for your medical care".
Click to expand...

No, the president is some hypocrite who will NEVER have to suffer the indignities of socialized medicine or fear that the country he ruined will decide to ration HIS care.

AND....unless the government has UNLIMITED funds to provide all healthcare for everyone, the wonderful people who gave you the DMV will be deciding how to allocate their limited resources (your tax dollars) for the best return they can get from it. Not the best return you can get, but the best return for them.

That's how bureaucracies work in the real world. Even in a real world with a Messiah in it.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, the president is some hypocrite who will NEVER have to suffer the indignities of socialized medicine or fear that the country he ruined will decide to ration HIS care.

AND....unless the government has UNLIMITED funds to provide all healthcare for everyone, the wonderful people who gave you the DMV will be deciding how to allocate their limited resources (your tax dollars) for the best return they can get from it. Not the best return you can get, but the best return for them.

That's how bureaucracies work in the real world. Even in a real world with a Messiah in it.
Click to expand...

1. No bills up for consideration provide for a single payer system so nothing would be rationed beyond what current private insurers cover or not as is.

2. Obama is on "government health care".
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
They are basically saying that, "We are going to add more people to the system and it's going to save us money."
That is the base assertion of the proponents of government health care.

Now tell me anyone, does that sound like it could be remotely true? Is that at all logical?
Click to expand...

Um, Harry, that's how insurance works. By making subscribers pay premiums and paying out relatively little each year, insurance providers make bank. Furthermore, that's how a derivative works. By adding more people, you save money.
 
obvious Child said:
Um, Harry, that's how insurance works. By making subscribers pay premiums and paying out relatively little each year, insurance providers make bank. Furthermore, that's how a derivative works. By adding more people, you save money.
Click to expand...

Insurance, assuming they live up to their end of the bargain, allow you to be more productive with your money as well. This whole argument for individual health savings accounts with high deductible insurance to me is absurd. The whole point of insurance, public or private, is so that individuals can share risk and pool their resources rather than having to set aside large amounts of money to do nothing but cover current and future risks.

If you ask me the "Cafeteria Plans" for out of pocket health expenses make great sense from a financial perspective because its pre-tax money that is applied to out of pocket health expenses that year - as in money you know you will spend out of pocket towards health care that year. However, to set aside thousands of dollars in an HSA to cover expenses not covered by a Catastrophic Only Policy is a very inefficient use of your financial resources. That money would be far better put towards your retirement or childs college. Sure, it makes you more cognizant of healthcare expenses, but that could just as easily be accomplished by allowing employers and insurers to base premiums on risks associated with your lifestyle choices such as paying higher premiums if you smoke or our clinically obese rather than allowing others to subsidize your poor life choices.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
1. No bills up for consideration provide for a single payer system so nothing would be rationed beyond what current private insurers cover or not as is.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.....you a fan of Stephen King? Ever read "Salem's Lot"? Remember the scene near the end when Ben Mears, the kid, and Dr. Cody are searching for the vampire and Dr Cody blithely walks down the stairs, only to discover the stairs are cut away and only enough was left to con him into falling onto the knives on the floor below?


Hmmm.....careful that first step, boy, it could be missing.


SouthernDemocrat said:
2. Obama is on "government health care".
Click to expand...

I KNOW you're not stupid enough to believe that Congressmen and ex-presidents are going to get the same shoddy coverage us peons will under Messiah-care. I KNOW you're smart enough to know exactly what I meant.

So why did you post this?
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Obamacare is going to mandate home visits to make sure you are raising your children according to the state's standards instead of your own. Your home and family are not your own anymore.

YouTube - That's the change they need

Folks this is just one more reason why you were not supposed to vote for Obama. We had a free country and you voted to "change" that.
Click to expand...

People....turn off your right-wing radio and actually get informed and educated. Posts like this are what happen when you rely on people like Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity for your information.
 
disneydude said:
People....turn off your right-wing radio and actually get informed and educated. Posts like this are what happen when you rely on people like Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity for your information.
Click to expand...

For these people ignorance and stupidity is a badge of honor. People that follow these bastions of stupidity should be classified as 'special needs'.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Because the president is not some loon claiming there will be government death panels and the president is not some hypocrite on Medicare railing against the disabled and asking them "why should I pay for your medical care".
Click to expand...

Yes, but he is the President who is trying to fundamentally alter our health care system in a way that he does not even understand. To me, that is far more grievous an offense than spreading misinformation. I mean, how does Obama even know it's misinformation when he doesn't know what's in the bill?
 
Last edited:
A combination of the first two with a pinch of the third.
 
Before you even try to get to any details of the bill ask yourself this:

When have you ever seen the Government run a trillion $ operation in an
effective or efficient manner ???

They will rob us blind before the DR. can say open your mouth and say aaah !

Secondly you should go read up on Socialism and Communism (in th political
sense) and go see how well those countries are doing. Then realize that
Socialism and Communism are euphemisms for Dictatorship !

Thirdly if you can't afford health insurance and 45.000.000 other people in
America can't afford health insurance and America is in >$11,000,000,000,000
of debt. How in the world do you expect to pay for all this health Care ??????

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
 
obvious Child said:
Um, Harry, that's how insurance works. By making subscribers pay premiums and paying out relatively little each year, insurance providers make bank. Furthermore, that's how a derivative works. By adding more people, you save money.
Click to expand...

That is true if and only if those people who have the insurance don't use it regularly.
I understand the concept of insurance, however, health insurance isn't really insurance but more similar to a prepayment plan.

The government sponsored plan will have artificially low costs and no entry restrictions. I guarantee it will raise costs.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Insurance, assuming they live up to their end of the bargain, allow you to be more productive with your money as well. This whole argument for individual health savings accounts with high deductible insurance to me is absurd. The whole point of insurance, public or private, is so that individuals can share risk and pool their resources rather than having to set aside large amounts of money to do nothing but cover current and future risks.

If you ask me the "Cafeteria Plans" for out of pocket health expenses make great sense from a financial perspective because its pre-tax money that is applied to out of pocket health expenses that year - as in money you know you will spend out of pocket towards health care that year. However, to set aside thousands of dollars in an HSA to cover expenses not covered by a Catastrophic Only Policy is a very inefficient use of your financial resources. That money would be far better put towards your retirement or childs college. Sure, it makes you more cognizant of healthcare expenses, but that could just as easily be accomplished by allowing employers and insurers to base premiums on risks associated with your lifestyle choices such as paying higher premiums if you smoke or our clinically obese rather than allowing others to subsidize your poor life choices.
Click to expand...

HSA money can be put into interesting earning accounts and can be withdrawn like IRA contributions without penalties after retirement age.

"A health savings account (HSA), is a tax-advantaged medical savings account available to taxpayers in the United States who are enrolled in a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). The funds contributed to the account are not subject to federal income tax at the time of deposit. Unlike a flexible spending account (FSA), funds roll over and accumulate year over year if not spent. HSAs are owned by the individual, which differentiates them from the company-owned Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) that is an alternate tax-deductible source of funds paired with HDHPs. Funds may be used to pay for qualified medical expenses at any time without federal tax liability. Withdrawals for non-medical expenses are treated very similarly to those in an IRA in that they may provide tax advantages if taken after retirement age, and they incur penalties if taken earlier. These accounts are a component of consumer driven health care."

"Funds in an HSA can be invested in a manner similar to investments in an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). Investment earnings are sheltered from taxation until the money is withdrawn (and can be sheltered even then, as discussed in the section below)."

"While HSAs can be "rolled over" from fund to fund, an HSA cannot be rolled into an IRA or a 401(k), and funds from these types of investment vehicles cannot be rolled into an HSA, except for the one time IRA transfer allowed above. Unlike some employer contributions to a 401(k) plan, all HSA contributions belong to the participant immediately, regardless of the deposit source. A person contributing to an HSA is under no obligation to contribute to his or her employer-sponsored HSA, although employers may require that payroll contributions be made only to the sponsored HSA plan."

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account]Health savings account - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Well you proved yourself that a lack of information can lead one to draw incorrect conclusions. Maybe it is best to look into what we are already paying to treat the uninsured. Then compare that cost to what the current estimated cost will be. Just a suggestion, that if you wish to actually be informed.
Click to expand...
The current estimated costs doesn't follow logic. Have Obama's estimates ever been correct? He said unemployment would not go up, it did. In the past the government has said programs would be much cheaper than they really were.

The Obama administration is basically saying that "We will add people to the system and lower costs" at the same time. Adding more people to a healthcare system will cost MORE money. How can that cost less? The estimates are not "facts" mind you, your arrogance is not impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom