Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 May 2013, 3:17 pm

tom
...I'm terribly confused


Yes you are.

When I say its not ideal, that doesn't mean
Tom
it's not good for anyone?


it means its not ideal.
Ideal would be a system modelled after an effective efficient system found elsewhere in the world....
Take your pick. There isn't another country that has such high Costs, such a high portion of the GDP going to health care, and yet a performance, based on results, that is middling at best.

The ACA was at best incremental change that fixed some things and made modest improvements. There isn't the political will to make a massive change.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 May 2013, 6:39 pm

not many that have the quality of care we have either! (for those with insurance that is ...that's another argument). But in other threads you bemoan the whole employer paid system. You also fail to acknowledge it was you who said this would be good for our economy, yet it is increasingly seeming to be just the opposite now isn't it?
Just what has given you hope that Obamacare would help the economy??
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 May 2013, 7:56 am

Meanwhile, Obamacare continues to be unpopular:

Majorities of American voters say their family will be worse off under the Affordable Care Act, and think it would be better to go back to the pre-ObamaCare health care system.

A Fox News poll released Wednesday finds that while 26 percent of voters say their health care situation will be better under the new law, twice as many -- 53 percent -- say it will be worse. Another 13 percent say it won’t make a difference.

Almost all Republicans (85 percent) and just over half of independents (51 percent) say they will be worse off under ObamaCare. Nearly half of Democrats expect to be better off (48 percent), while about one-quarter believe they will be worse off (24 percent).

Young voters and seniors are pessimistic about ObamaCare. Majorities of those under age 35 and those 65+ think things will be worse under the 2010 health care law.

That helps explains why a 56-percent majority wants to go back to the health care system that was in place in 2009. Some 34 percent would stick with the new law.


Why is it unpopular? Because people believe (rightly) their medical care will worsen.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 May 2013, 11:13 am

Your assertion about quality of care is unsupported..
Because its unsupportable. if not, I'd be interested in what credible evidence you have for the claim/


tom
But in other threads you bemoan the whole employer paid system
.

Yes. So what.
Can you hold two thought at one time?

Obama care doesn't eliminate this, (it does reduce it a little) as most people will still rely upon their employer for insurance. But it does provide an alternative marketplace which will insure many who currently couldn't get it before.
But Obama care does provide incremental improvements in a large number of areas, and as originally posted :
1. The U.S. spent 16.2% of its GDP on health care plus up to 3% more on litigation concerning medical bills while other countries spend 10% and nothing on litigation because bills are paid by everyone. Lawsuits to recoup medical costs will slow because of Obamacare.
2. People with serious illnesses are uninsurable and are stuck in jobs they cannot leave or remain unemployed because they are unemployable. This will end if everyone’s covered.
3. Tens of millions of uninsured people in the U.S. end up with health problems that become a drain on society and economy. Under this reform, the 50 million uninsured people, mostly young healthy people, will have to be insured or pay fines, which will reduce overall costs because the paying base will be spread over the entire population.
4. Doctor, nursing, hospital and drug costs are out of control in the U.S. because of litigation and greed. American doctors over-service those with health insurance and fear of litigation has led to over-prescribing, testing and excessive costs. That fear has been removed.
The next step will allow patients to directly access coverage through state-run health care exchanges. They will have to compete in a new environment. Now it is illegal for them to be denied coverage for medical treatment, or be charged more due to health problems. Forcing the exchanges to compete will save costs or result, more likely, in disintermediation and governments becoming the insurers, as is the case in Canada and elsewhere.
Despite an irrational hatred of governments, America’s private-sector health experiment has failed abysmally and is on its way out. Governments outside the U.S. deliver medical care better and cheaper. The proof exists all over the world, except in the minds of partisans who would defend the indefensible
.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 24 May 2013, 12:17 pm

I can simply look at other countries and easily see MY care is better. You want to use averages where our poor skew the average lower for the US, go ahead but I'm worried about MY care and it is better.

and your posting, really" You want to assume this nonsense is working for you?

1. Lawsuits will decrease? Maybe, maybe not but wouldn't a simple law to prevent these types of lawsuits go a lot further and cost us a lot less?
2.People are stuck in their jobs? Uhhhh, what has changed? Your employer will still be paying for your healthcare and leaving a job still leaves you uninsured. Obamacare promises to make health insurance affordable to those not working but that simply is not true, it's still expensive and if you have no full time job, you still can't afford it. Oh, and we already discussed how this will force some employers to FURTHER reduce work hours to avoid having to pay for healthcare, this flies entirely counter to your argument!
3. These tens of millions will have to pay fines and will be required to obtain insurance. Of these "tens of millions" I grant you a very small number will now obtain insurance but the overwhelming majority still can't afford it and making them pay fines/ You can't get blood from a rock now can you? Please, this is NOT universal care, this is Obamacare and people are required to BUY their health insurance, it simply is not "affordable" no matter how you look at it!
4. Litigation again, see #1 and how oh how will anything channge when you STILL have private health insurance companies still offering the same product/service, how is this changing in the least (that would not be fixed with litigation reform that is)

You want to argue for universal care, you have a much firmer ground to stand upon, but attempting to say Obamacare is any sort of answer is simply ignoring the facts.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 24 May 2013, 12:48 pm

Why complain about the ACA any more? If it doesn't work Republicans have a great campaign issue in 2016 and can get it repealed. If it does work, it is good for the country. For Republicans it is a win-win situation. I think Republicans are afraid that people will by and large like the ACA once it is implemented, hence their persistent opposition to it being implemented. If they are really sure people will hate the ACA, then they should welcome the implementation of the ACA given the political dividends it will bring them.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 24 May 2013, 1:31 pm

why? Because like most government programs, once started is hard to stop. How about the ethanol program, that is pretty clearly a bad idea that doesn't work. Once set in motion and entrenched, it becomes impossible to get out of. Already this program is way out of projected budget and already we have seen many of the problems we will face, hey, why not fix it before we jump into this with both feet? That seems like a win-win for the Democrats doesn't it?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 May 2013, 2:04 pm

rickyp wrote:Your assertion about quality of care is unsupported..
Because its unsupportable. if not, I'd be interested in what credible evidence you have for the claim/


Um, no it's not "unsupportable." In fact, it's quite evident.

1. Polls suggest it's still very unpopular. Why? Because people believe the quality of care will go down. (Please note my post directly BEFORE yours).
2. Senator Max Baucus, who helped write it, has said it's going to be "a train wreck."
3. Even Obama cheerleaders, thinkprogress, have a survey of 800 large/medium corporations and they crow that only 6% "intend to completely exit the healthcare system over the next three to five years. What they don't tell you is how many employees that represents. They also don't get to wear the rubber meets the road: small businesses.

So, yes, it is supportable--because it's true. The President said, a million times, that you can keep your doctor and your insurance. Neither will be true for millions of people.

tom
But in other threads you bemoan the whole employer paid system
.

Yes. So what.
Can you hold two thought at one time?


When mocking someone else's intellect, check your grammar twice.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 May 2013, 2:06 pm

freeman3 wrote:Why complain about the ACA any more? If it doesn't work Republicans have a great campaign issue in 2016 and can get it repealed. If it does work, it is good for the country. For Republicans it is a win-win situation. I think Republicans are afraid that people will by and large like the ACA once it is implemented, hence their persistent opposition to it being implemented. If they are really sure people will hate the ACA, then they should welcome the implementation of the ACA given the political dividends it will bring them.


Now, there's an assertion for which there is zero evidence. Show me proof that people like the ACA.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 24 May 2013, 4:51 pm

Well, I can't provide evidence for how people will feel in the future because it has not happened yet...I know it is hard to not skim what a liberal posts but there is the risk of misinterpretation...
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 May 2013, 7:12 am

fate
Um, no it's not "unsupportable." In fact, it's quite evident.


You got to read better.

What I said
ricky
Ideal would be a system modelled after an effective efficient system found elsewhere in the world....
Take your pick. There isn't another country that has such high Costs, such a high portion of the GDP going to health care, and yet a performance, based on results, that is middling at best.


How Tom responded
not many that have the quality of care we have either! (for those with insurance that is ...that's another argument).


He did not support this claim. He later goes on to make this assertion:
Tom
I can simply look at other countries and easily see MY care is better.



There are hundreds of comparisons available on the internet.... Here's one...

http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/ ... ce2011.htm

he could refer to any one of them ...but he simply "looks around" ...
The definition of an unsupported claim.

The opposition to the new health care laws, is purely obstructionist. There isn't anything on offer that provides solutions to the problems of
1) large numbers of uninsured,
2) pure quality of care for un and underinsured
3) poor quality of care in relation to money spent. There's absolutely no correlation between the absolute cost of the average medical treatment in the US and the outcomes. (Covered in the study I linked you to, so look at that Tom).

Despite the incremental improvements that the new laws bring into effect, the US system will still be the most costly system in the world. And there still won't be the quality of care difference that a premium cost should deliver in any other rationale market.
The reasons are complex and myriad. I agree with you that Obama's law doesn't provide a perfect answer. But, its not like your political system is capable of delivering a logical response.
As Tom points out ethanol remains highly subsidized distorting the agricultural market and costing billions. All because Iowa caucuses are so important and because big agra is so involved in lobbying and financing political campaigns.
The last two reasons are essential reasons why there is not a better solution to improving health insurance and the health care industry in the US. That and the fact that a large portion of the populace has a problem with critical thinking...
Whatever its shortcomings Obama Care will have enough positives that after a while it will become more popular. Personal experience of lower premiums, or the ability to move jobs freely (something taken for granted by every country with single payer insurance Tom - and a major reason why the social mobility in the US has diminished since the 60s) ), and a lowering rate of inflation within the health care industry .... all will have an impact.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 May 2013, 3:46 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Um, no it's not "unsupportable." In fact, it's quite evident.


You got to read better.


I don't think so. It certainly appeared you were responding to my statement, "Why is it unpopular? Because people believe (rightly) their medical care will worsen."

In any event, my comments are still apropos.

What I said
ricky
Ideal would be a system modelled after an effective efficient system found elsewhere in the world....
Take your pick. There isn't another country that has such high Costs, such a high portion of the GDP going to health care, and yet a performance, based on results, that is middling at best.


How Tom responded
not many that have the quality of care we have either! (for those with insurance that is ...that's another argument).


Right, he still wins. The polls suggest it. The number of people losing coverage confirms it. And, even one of the Senators who wrote the bill, naturally a Democrat, acknowledges it will be a train wreck.

The opposition to the new health care laws, is purely obstructionist.


Nonsense. More people object to it than who voted for Obama. It's not "anti-Obama." It's "anti-Obamacare."

There isn't anything on offer that provides solutions to the problems of
1) large numbers of uninsured,
2) pure quality of care for un and underinsured
3) poor quality of care in relation to money spent. There's absolutely no correlation between the absolute cost of the average medical treatment in the US and the outcomes. (Covered in the study I linked you to, so look at that Tom).


And, Obamacare is going to fail too. They can't even get a decent rollout going. Maybe that's because for the first time in history a major social welfare program was passed on a purely partisan basis. That means there was little thinking put into it--and it shows.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 May 2013, 3:47 pm

freeman3 wrote:Well, I can't provide evidence for how people will feel in the future because it has not happened yet...I know it is hard to not skim what a liberal posts but there is the risk of misinterpretation...


Has it grown in popularity? All the "good stuff" is out there.

Now the taxation begins in earnest.

Let me know if it hits 60% approval.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 May 2013, 8:41 am

Maybe your famous "low information voters " have something to do with this?

Health-care reform is unpopular. But if you actually tell people what's in the health-care reform bill, then it becomes quite popular. A recent Newsweek poll found the same thing: "The majority of Americans are opposed to President Obama's health-care reform plan — until they learn the details."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... pular.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... ction.html

people won't really make up their minds until they personally experience either something negative or positive from the reforms. One of the positives has been consumers receiving rebate checks from their health insurance providers...
Other than that it will depend upon which information silo they are in, and perhaps how well they actually know anything past the borders of their own state or the United States..
You know, "When I look around".
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 May 2013, 7:09 am

Ricky, you (again) did not read what was said. When I "look around" I am comparing other countries and what they cover compared to ME and I even pointed out I don't really give a rats ass what the average is, what am I getting if we switch and it aint good, my care gets worse. Your link shows averages, averages I don't really care about, compare them to ME and you have something. I was quite clear about it yet you insist on reporting something else, unless you know my exact coverage you simply can not post any examples of how I am wrong, you just don't know but INSIST how you know better and your cute play with quotes suggesting I "look around" does nothing for your case because you simply have no idea what you are talking about, you don't know my coverage, you are spouting facts that are meaningless unless you have statistics from both sides of the story. I however DO have both sides and when I "look around" frankly, I am correct!