Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
I hear a lot of passionate opposition to the plan, but I hear nothing about alternative proposals. That goes for this forum as well as the Republicans.
|
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
Do you really favor a status quo where you quickly lose access to healthcare if your employer fires you;
|
No, but the best solution is not Obamacare.
Obviously, 99% of the problem is sheer ignorance....look at what you said..."
lose access to healthcare if your employer fires you."
That is a factually incorrect and misleading statement on your part.
You do not lose access to health care, rather you lose access to an employer-sponsored group
health care plan from which you derive more financial and economic harm than good.
Problem-solving requires the ability to understand the problem, in order to present effective solutions.
You ---
like nearly all supporters of the ACA on C-D Forum --- have no clue what the problem really is, or how your health care system came to be the nightmare it is from the point of coverage.
Because most willfully refuse to understand the problem, no effective solution will ever be forthcoming.
What you are trying to do is fix a flat tire on your car by replacing it with a flat tire...that has no tread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
... where 50 million remain uninsured....
|
Congratulations...you just spread Misinformation.
Even the US Census Bureau admitted it was wrong on those numbers.
But....that's not the point...the point is you just made a serious mistake.....
"Health insurance expansions (10 to 13 percent): The expansion of health insurance increases health care cost per capita as people demand more health care when they are better insured. Health insurance has expanded in two ways: (1) by covering an increasing share of the population and (2) by covering each person more completely."
Neutral Source: GAO-13-281
PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, January 2013; Page 34
Oh..my...god....the quarterback is toast.
That is what happens when people choose to be willfully ignorant.
So....hahaha...adding those 50 Million people....whether they're real or merely a figment of the imagination of the differently twisted ACA-mind.....
...your health care costs are going to increase at least 10%-13% annually every single year from 2014 forward just because you have more people "insured."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
... who we all pay top dollar for when they end up in the ER given no preventative care;....
|
That would be incorrect, but nice try at misleading people. EMTALA definition of ‘emergency medical condition’
The term “emergency medical condition” means—
(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—
(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or
(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or
(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions–
(i) That there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.
EMTALA definition of ‘stabilized’
To provide such medical treatment of the condition as may be necessary to assure, within reasonable medical probability, that no material deterioration of the condition is likely to result from or occur during the transfer of the individual from a facility, or, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(B) [a pregnant woman who is having contractions], to deliver (including the placenta).
Assuming you can understand that, you'll need to go read the associated case law, which further defines the limits and constraints.
To provide additional factual information that cannot be rebutted.....what drives the cost of health care in the United States?
1] Technology up to 65%
2] Consumer Demand up to 36%
3] Insuring more people up to 13%
4] Price Inflation up to 19% (caused by Consumer Demand and insuring more people)
5] Administrative Costs up to 13% (caused by Technology, Consumer Demand and Regulations)
6] Aging/Elderly up to 7%
Neutral Source: GAO-13-281
PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, January 2013
Where are the, um, you know, "uninsured?"
The uninsured do not drive up the cost of health care in an amount that is even remotely significant.
It would be like you losing a penny and then screaming you'll be poor the rest of your life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
... where insurance companies can drop your coverage when you need it most;....
|
Explain what you think insurance really is.
More to the point, explain what you think health insurance (which doesn't legally exist in the US) really is.
The legal definition of insurance used by the US Supreme Court is...
Insurance is a contract whereby for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a specific subject by specified perils.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
...where costs have already been skyrocketing for a long time;...
|
And your government has explained why costs are rising.....
Technology is the #1 driver of health care costs in the US
Consumer Demand is the #2 drive of health care costs in the US
Neutral Source: GAO-13-281
PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, January 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
.... and where we lead the advanced world in cost per capita...
|
Per capita is not something you wanna hang your hat on.
But, in the interest of Truth, I'll let your government explain it to you...
As personal income increases, people demand more and better goods and services, including health care. This means that holding other factors constant, as higher personal income increases the quantity and quality of care demanded, overall health care spending increases as well. GDP is a good indicator of the effect of increasing income on health care spending. When GDP is growing, many Americans experience increases in income and will demand more health care services.
Neutral Source: GAO-13-281
PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, January 2013
Economics.....it's what rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
.... and get mediocre quality of life results in return?
|
Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.
Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list.
This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.
US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
That is the United Kingdom and its vaunted National Health Service (NHS).
So....are you ready......ready to die on a waiting list.....waiting for an operation....having hope....only to see your hopes dashed?
Who among you is ready?
The Laws of Economics can never be violated by any person living or dead or who will ever live, without suffering negative consequences....
....
those people died.
Health care in the United Kingdom is not cheaper or less expensive than health care in the US......it costs exactly the same.....the difference is that the British government spends less...
...costing less and spending less are not the same thing...
...and because the government spends less,
people die.
In accordance with the Laws of Economics, if the British government and people were paying what health care actually truly really does cost, then it would be
impossible to be one of the 1 in 5 people on a waiting list who die.
The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study
However, only 37% of the procedures overall were completed within the requested waiting time.
Interpretation: Patients awaiting cardiac catheterization may experience major adverse events, such as death, myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure, which may be preventable. Our findings provide a benchmark by which to measure the effect of increased capacity and prioritization schemes that allow earlier access for patients at higher risk, such as those with aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular function.
Waiting lists exist, due to the fact that the government interferes in healthcare,
by restricting the Supply of Healthcare available.
What I have proven, by posting those articles from peer-reviewed medical journals and government publications, is that healthcare in Canada --- or the UK or anywhere else --- is not cheaper nor does it cost less than the US.
In spite of the flaws in the US system, an American can get cardiac catheterization within minutes, or hours, but never longer than a few days.
Those Canadians were waiting for weeks....and weeks....and weeks....and they died.
Spending Less ≠ Costing Less
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
I'm open to something else, but I don't think "just go back to the way it was" is sustainable. So...what is that "something else?"
|
You have no idea what "
the way it was" is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
The problem is that this is not the kind of a market where each participant can just bear the full cost of their consumption by themselves; by its very nature, costs need to somehow be shared between the healthy and the sick. That is the essence of the insurance concept. You need some sort of a comprehensive solution, because everyone is in the healthcare market, whether they like it or not.
|
That is factually incorrect and misleading, and contrary to the Principles of Actuarial Science.
Furthermore, it is proof that you do not understand the problem, apparently because you choose to willfully remain ignorant of Reality™.
The "health insurance" companies that you hate so badly....for no valid reason at all....are not responsible for the mess you are in....they are victims just like you and I and all other Americans.
Technology increases health care costs.
Higher GDP causes higher living standards and superfluous life-styles that create ever-increasing Consumer Demand which drives the cost of health care higher.
Claiming high "insurance" rates causes high health care costs is moronic, not to mention false and erroneous.
Pooling people for purposes of insurance does not lower the cost of health care; does not lower the cost of Technology; does not lower the cost of increased Consumer Demand; nor does pooling provide any benefit at all to the Consumer concerning the cost of services rendered/provided/obtained.
The purpose of pooling
is to reduce administrative and operational costs to the insurance company, not the Consumer.
You claim participants cannot or should not bear full cost.
Why not?
And full cost for what?
I'm supposed to fork over $6,000 so you can ride around stylin' in a motorized wheel-chair/scooter because the $35 no-frills wheel-chair is beneath your dignity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
If Republicans offered a clear, comprehensive solution that addressed cost,...
|
Read the Constitution of the United States of America; study Economics; and more importantly, study governmental systems such as Federal, Confederal and Unitary States.
Once you have become educated and enlightened, and no longer remain ignorant, you will understand that this is a State issue, and not something that Washington DC should be involved with, unless you think this is really cool....
The federal government claims the "Poverty Level" is $11,490 for a single person in the US (excluding Hawaii and Alaska).
The problem with the federal government's claim is Reality™...because Poverty Level for 1 Person in Reality™ equals....
$6,038.85 per year in Cincinnati
$21,861.80 per year in San Fransisco
And those two cities are neither the cheapest in the US, nor the most expensive in the US.
Two families of four each receiving $400/month in Food Stamps except that $400 buys....
$578.13 worth of food in Cincinnati.
$210.23 worth of food in San Fransisco
....due to the differences in Cost-of Living and Purchasing Power.
Consider this....
Federal minimum wage...$7.25/hour x 40 hours per week: $290 week or
$15,080 annually.
Can a person in Cincinnati survive on $
15,080 annually?
Oh, yes, they most certainly can, since the true poverty level is only $
6,000 per year, a person in Cincinnati getting paid the federal minimum wage gets over like a fat cat.
But someone in San Fransisco on the federal minimum wage? They suffer terribly
Who does not see the severe harm and financial and economic damage caused by Liberal policies?
You see, your centrally nationalized government in contravention of the Constitution will create one more problem like the many it has already created with Social Security, and Medicare, and Food Stamps and Minimum Wage and everything else it messes up.
Economics.....it's Reality™..
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
