Preimums rise faster under Obamacare than in piror 8 years combined!

[TerryMathews]

Uh...you do realize that Obamacare and the ACA is not really the Left's plan, right? If anything, it's an implementation of a Republican plan designed to get in the way of the Left's implementing its real plan (actual socialized medicine and not the ACA garbage).

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, this nonsense again?

This was the plan you all wanted, embrace it. At least stop spreading these falsehoods. http://www.politifact.com/punditfa...5/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Obviously not designed to get in the way of the Left's implementing its real plan (actual socialized medicine and not the ACA garbage), since this was passed exclusively by the left. Not a single Republican vote passed this monstrosity, although a few courageous Democrats opposed it.

The Democrats supported the ACA because it was the best attainable alternative to the previous disaster of a system we had before the ACA.

The alternatives to passing the ACA were? Implement socialized medicine--not happening. That would require having 80% of the populace on board and changing the Constitution. The other option was to retain the previous disastrous system.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I'm always behind the trends. My premiums have stayed the same and copays were cut in half. Darn, will I never be one of the hip kids?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

This is why, like all proggie plans, they must have total control of everyone.

OK...so what is your alternative to the evil Proggie plan?

Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly and quietly?

Spent 17+% of GDP while leaving tens of millions of people uninsured and while having hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies per year and businesses and an economy burdened by health insurance concerns?

Just what is the alternative and how will it result in 100% coverage and a lower percentage of GDP expended? The opponents of the ACA never explain that. They say "go to the ER" or "get your health care and declare bankruptcy"

 

[Darwin333]

...and if Obamacare is repealed...the alternative is?

To hear some people tell it, our health care system was near-perfect pre-ACA. There weren't any death panels at health insurance companies. No one went without care. The costs were minimal. There was no such thing as a medical cost-induced bankruptcy. Businesses didn't worry about insurance concerns.

The problem is that the ACA does very little to bring down or control health care costs. Health insurance is as expensive as it is because of insane health care costs which are, in very large part, due to the .gov allowing the health care industry to do things that are illegal in every other industry in the country. Most notably long standing anti-trust laws that every other industry must abide by.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, this nonsense again?

This was the plan you all wanted, embrace it. At least stop spreading these falsehoods. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993

I was arguing that they really wanted socialized medicine but that the ACA is all they could get.

But yes, tons of evidence abounds that the Individual Mandiate was originally a Republican plan.

If the Individual Mandate is not the Republicans' plan, then what exactly is their plan for health care? Do they have some sort of a way to provide 100% coverage while lowering the GDP and eliminating medical bankruptcies?

 

[poofyhairguy]

I stopped reading after your first scentence. The goal of the ACA isn't to have all Americans sign up for plans through ACA websites, a majority of people already have insurance through their employer or through the government.

I didn't say anything about a website. You stopped reading what I said because you don't like what I am saying.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Just what is the alternative and how will it result in 100% coverage and a lower percentage of GDP expended? The opponents of the ACA never explain that.

You know WHY you will NEVER get that "explanation?"

Because a lot of people don't agree with your goalposts. The GDP one is ridiculous, I see no proof that Obamacare will be a lower percentage of our GDP than the system we had in 2010. But the real issue is your other goalpost:

Why is 100% coverage THE goal?

Why not decreased overall cost per capita, best average overall outcomes, highest patient satisfaction, longest life expectancy, or some other metric?

I can give you a plan with "100%" coverage for 1% of Obamacare. In my plan EVERYONE in America is covered for free. If you have anything happen to you, you get a bandaid. That is all you get, but that is all anyone gets, so it meets your metric of 100% coverage. So unless you define a minimum standard of coverage, the 100% metric is useless.

In fact, one could say that you are completely wrong and we had 100% coverage in our old system. I mean, ERs couldn' turn people away so 100% of people had access to heathcare.

But you will say, they had bills and bankruptcy and all that. So what you really mean is that you want everyone in America to be covered at a level that currently someone with nice private insurance can expect. And I say not only is that idea unreasonable, I wouldn't want that system because it sounds good in theory but sucks in practice.

Such a system doesn't have medical innovation, or only has it for the 1%. Look at European socialized medicine: You want a 20 year old procedure? Go with the government. You want the modern procedure? Pay out of pocket 100% in cash or have a private insurance you pay out of pocket completely for. The system sucks for those who are productive members of society compared to what America has today.

I would rather a system where 85%+ of people are covered, and all children are covered, but the average productive middle class person with private insurance has access to the best care in the world. And that is very close to the system we have before Obamacare.

 

[TerryMathews]

But yes, tons of evidence abounds that the Individual Mandiate was originally a Republican plan.

The individual mandate, in a different form, did come out of Heritage. It was a plan that no Republicans supported at the time, aside from the one who brought it up.

One feature of a plan, does not a plan make. Unelss you're some proggie idiot that only regurgitates what they read on Mother Jones.

It's very telling that Politifact, which you all normally love, says you're wrong on this issue.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Because they love the idea of having a government empowered to force the population to purchase their product?

Which is not "left" in any way, shape or form. It's far closer to being a type of fascistic corporatism than anything else.

 

[Victorian Gray]

...So...what aren't Canadians dying in droves? How does the Canadian lifespan rate compared to the American lifespan?

It's several years higher (in case the question was not rhetorical).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You know WHY you will NEVER get that "explanation?"

Because a lot of people don't agree with your goalposts. The GDP one is ridiculous, I see no proof that Obamacare will be a lower percentage of our GDP than the system we had in 2010.

I agree with you that Obamacare won't do anything to lower the percentage of GDP spent on health care because it doesn't address the real problem. If anything, it will increase the percentage of GDP spent on health care which will make our system look even more expensive and inefficient compared to the evil sochulust systems.

But the real issue is your other goalpost:

Why is 100% coverage THE goal?

Personally, I'd prefer not to see people dying on the streets from treatable conditions or having to go bankrupt because they were working poor and became sick.

Why not decreased overall cost per capita, best average overall outcomes, highest patient satisfaction, longest life expectancy, or some other metric?

I don't have a problem with that. I don't see how 100% coverage and that goal are necessarily mutually exclusive.

I can give you a plan with "100%" coverage for 1% of Obamacare. In my plan EVERYONE in America is covered for free. If you have anything happen to you, you get a bandaid. That is all you get, but that is all anyone gets, so it meets your metric of 100% coverage. So unless you define a minimum standard of coverage, the 100% metric is useless.

In fact, one could say that you are completely wrong and we had 100% coverage in our old system. I mean, ERs couldn' turn people away so 100% of people had access to heathcare.

Let's not drop context. It's assumed that when people say "100% coverage" they mean "effective coverage" and not "just a band-aid." Somehow all of those evul sochulast countries manage to do it.

But you will say, they had bills and bankruptcy and all that. So what you really mean is that you want everyone in America to be covered at a level that currently someone with nice private insurance can expect. And I say not only is that idea unreasonable, I wouldn't want that system because it sounds good in theory but sucks in practice.

I don't see any metaphysical reason why we can't spend the same world leading 17% of GDP and have a level of coverage as good as what other nation's have for a smaller percentage of national GDP and also in terms of fewer American dollars per capita.

Such a system doesn't have medical innovation, or only has it for the 1%. Look at European socialized medicine: You want a 20 year old procedure? Go with the government.

A 20 year-old procedure is better than no procedure or a procedure that results in your bankruptcy.

You want the modern procedure? Pay out of pocket 100% in cash or have a private insurance you pay out of pocket completely for. The system sucks for those who are productive members of society compared to what America has today.

Aren't working poor productive members of society? How does the system work for them? Is it also good for them? Or do hard-working poor people just not count? What about hard-working lower middle class and middle class people? Many hard working middle class people suffered economic catastrophes under the free market system, too.

I would rather a system where 85%+ of people are covered, and all children are covered, but the average productive middle class person with private insurance has access to the best care in the world. And that is very close to the system we have before Obamacare.

...And what about the uncovered 15%? Are they no longer human? What if they have jerbs and work hard at their jerbs and are productive?

 

[Victorian Gray]

LOL That is classic.


The alternative would be to repeal Obamacare, give control back to the states to provide competition in ideas, and pass simple common sense mandates like "must issue".


Two reasons. First, most uses of an MRI are not life-threatening conditions. Second, when it is life-threatening they have the option of coming to the United States for diagnosis and treatment.

I'm sorry but as a Canadian, that's just fucking insulting. If you wish to talk about the Canadian health care and health insurance system please take the time to educate yourself about it.

For example, our life expectancy is higher, our infant mortality rate is lower, and while the percentage of medical care covered by our govt. is higher the percentage of govt revenue that goes to health expenditures is lower. We have a physician to population ratio that is a fraction of a % higher than the US. Our per capita expenditure rate on health is almost half that of the US and yet the results are as good as or better than the US in pretty much any major marker you wish to choose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Comparison_to_other_countries

Year after year polls show that Canadians support our health care and health insurance system at levels around 90%. Are we all so stupid that we don't understand how poor our system is?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It's several years higher (in case the question was not rhetorical).

Are you saying the American life span is higher? Or the Canadian life span is higher?

How can the Canadian life span possibly be higher when they don't even have as many MRI's as Memphis, Tennessee (according to one poster)? Shouldn't they all be dying in droves?

 

[OverVolt]

Can I have my Tin plan back (which had dental fwiw) and just keep the pre-existing conditions law? That'd be great thanks.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Are you saying the American life span is higher? Or the Canadian life span is higher?

How can the Canadian life span possibly be higher when they don't even have as many MRI's as Memphis, Tennessee (according to one poster)? Shouldn't they all be dying in droves?

It's tough. The stench given off by all the dead people in the streets is more than a little annoying. And those guys screaming out "Bring out your dead!" all the time. Sheesh!

 

[werepossum]

I'm sorry but as a Canadian, that's just fucking insulting. If you wish to talk about the Canadian health care and health insurance system please take the time to educate yourself about it.

For example, our life expectancy is higher, our infant mortality rate is lower, and while the percentage of medical care covered by our govt. is higher the percentage of govt revenue that goes to health expenditures is lower. We have a physician to population ratio that is a fraction of a % higher than the US. Our per capita expenditure rate on health is almost half that of the US and yet the results are as good as or better than the US in pretty much any major marker you wish to choose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Comparison_to_other_countries

Year after year polls show that Canadians support our health care and health insurance system at levels around 90%. Are we all so stupid that we don't understand how poor our system is?

Two different populations. We're the ones who chose to throw off the tyrant's boot from our neck; you guys are the ones who found it comfy. We drive more, speed more, get fat more, take more chances, are more blac, have more guns. We're the risk takers. But end of the day we still have Canadians coming here to pay for good medical care. The only reason an American might travel to Canada for health care is to get something cheap. It's the difference between a restaurant and a soup kitchen.

 

[JEDIYoda]

A) its not Daily callers chart.

B) Way to be an ass, it was obviously a typo.

spreading false information and lies is being an ass....which the Op by his link is spreading falsehoods...

 

[Victorian Gray]

Two different populations. We're the ones who chose to throw off the tyrant's boot from our neck; you guys are the ones who found it comfy. We drive more, speed more, get fat more, take more chances, are more blac, have more guns. We're the risk takers. But end of the day we still have Canadians coming here to pay for good medical care. The only reason an American might travel to Canada for health care is to get something cheap. It's the difference between a restaurant and a soup kitchen.

Booyah, American exceptionalism! Booyah!

Sorry but you simply don't know what you are talking about. Walk away from the propaganda and take the time to actually learn about the Canadian system. Or not, your choice. Feel free to believe that Canadians are too stupid to know that our health care system is a 'soup kitchen'.

Huh, makes me wonder how the heck I managed to survive my cancer with such poor treatment.

 

[fskimospy]

Those states? Plenty of old people that aren't covered by Obamacare.

Actually those states generally have greater percentages of hispanics and other low income workers, many of which are covered by the ACA.

Rural areas don't matter. There aren't enough people in them. The flyover states don't matter for the most part for the same reason. The important thing is to look at the purple states, why they are purple, and what direction they are going in. The ACA is effective for all of that.

Our innovation is driven by the free market and a profit motive. Just like cell phones, computers, any other market. If you are a medical equipment company or a drug company, why innovate when the system won't pay any more for your new stuff than your old stuff?

Or more directly: Why would the panel embrace innovation, unless the innovation is tied to cost savings?

The worst thing possible for the ACA's popularity is if some new popular treatment is not covered because that would balloon the costs inside the system too much. You can tell the old person until they are blue in the face that they way we did it in the 80's was good enough, but if they see a new technique with better results they want it.

Medicare already goes out of its way to kill innovation in the elderly segment, to the point of not allowing out of pocket pay, if it will lead to an increase in expectations and costs. Here is an example:

http://www.beckersasc.com/news-analysis/why-arent-surgery-centers-buying-femtosecond-lasers.html

And since that article is old I can give you an update: Not only does Medicare NOT allow carve-out or reimbursement increases for femtosecond, they have gone after those that push femtosecond as the new standard of care. That is what innovation by a panel gets you.

Do we want a bean counter deciding for all of insured America (since the private companies will follow along and use the panel's decisions like a shield) what procedures won't change for decades because a much better procedure with much better results costs too much?

None of this is related to how the IPAB works.

 

[fskimospy]

Two different populations. We're the ones who chose to throw off the tyrant's boot from our neck; you guys are the ones who found it comfy. We drive more, speed more, get fat more, take more chances, are more blac, have more guns. We're the risk takers. But end of the day we still have Canadians coming here to pay for good medical care. The only reason an American might travel to Canada for health care is to get something cheap. It's the difference between a restaurant and a soup kitchen.

How embarrassing for the restaurant that the soup kitchen gets better reviews then, huh?

That is pretty funny that you chalk up our horrible health care system to our rock and roll lifestyle though.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How embarrassing for the restaurant that the soup kitchen gets better reviews then, huh?

That is pretty funny that you chalk up our horrible health care system to our rock and roll lifestyle though.

Why are you complaining? You fought against serious reform to get Obamacare. You objected to a serious dedicated effort, and you have what you wanted.

Congratulations.

 

[poofyhairguy]

None of this is related to how the IPAB works.

True. I discussed the long-term real world effects of the IPAB as expressed by real medical professional organizations like the AMA who are very much against it. I did not state how it will work on paper in theory in fantasyland as expressed by liberal politicians.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I don't see any metaphysical reason why we can't spend the same world leading 17% of GDP and have a level of coverage as good as what other nation's have for a smaller percentage of national GDP and also in terms of fewer American dollars per capita.

The reason is because of American expectations and habits. Even in a state like Massachusetts that is ahead of the curve, ONE THIRD of heathcare spending is waste:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303754404579308922659280620

Why?

Main drivers of excess spending included patients returning to hospitals for preventable reasons and emergency-room visits that better primary care could have warded off

Americans being Americans making poor decisions thats why.

You add that to our obesity epidemic and we will NEVER come CLOSE in per capita spending to all those healthy, skinny, walk everywhere Europeans and their socialist heathcare systems.

America has enough money to cover everyone in America if we lived like Europeans. America does not have enough money to cover everyone in America living like Americans.

There is simply no logic to the idea that if we had single payer overall heathcare spending would go down. Unless you are going to be Mr. Dictator and shove the system down the throats of Americans and FORCE THEM (via law) to take better care of themselves.

A 20 year-old procedure is better than no procedure or a procedure that results in your bankruptcy.

Depends. If the modern procedure can get highly productive workers back in the workforce faster and with less complications, than it hurts our economy and society if everyone (except the cash paying 1%) is held to the 20 year old procedure just because some people can't pay.

Aren't working poor productive members of society? How does the system work for them? Is it also good for them? Or do hard-working poor people just not count? What about hard-working lower middle class and middle class people? Many hard working middle class people suffered economic catastrophes under the free market system, too.

The people who get insurance in America provide enough value to an employer to get that. Yes it is sad that a huge chunk of the population doesn't provide enough value compared to workers in southeast Asia or Mexico, but welcome to the modern global economy. The idea that every American has some sort of middle class floor of value died in the 80's.

...And what about the uncovered 15%? Are they no longer human?

They can go to the emergency room. I mean, what harm is bankruptcy if you never had more than $10k to your name your entire life, and will never have more than that due to your skill level?

 

[fskimospy]

Why are you complaining? You fought against serious reform to get Obamacare. You objected to a serious dedicated effort, and you have what you wanted.

Congratulations.

Dp