• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Health care costs set to increase sharply next year... thanks, Obamacare!


I still doubt that getting treatment to someone already having symptoms of a disease is preventative. Preventative would be prior to the symptoms starting. A Flu shot prevents the flu. A vaccine prevents the measels, flue, whatever. From the OBamacare website:


And what you are describing, where the patient already has the symptoms and you are diagnosing:

This isn’t Preventive Care: Medical treatment for specific health conditions, on-going care, lab or other tests necessary to manage or treat a medical issue or health condition are considered diagnostic care or treatment, not preventive care.


I am not able to find any links indicating that giving test to someone already having the disease or symptoms of the disease is preventative care.

And it IS what Obamacare did.

Obamacare is giving free preventative care to all (healty and sick) in all insurance plans - I know I get my complete workup every year, all free. Which is not exactly what you are describing for only already sick people.
 

Helix

Please re-read Jaeger's response to this post of yours (in #169) where he denies that the wealthy can buy preferential treatment. Then read this post where he describes two patients, one of whom received better treatment due to their having better coverage

 

Yes Sangha.. please read it.. and try to actually understand it.

It proves my points about healthcare in this country and why single payer is a bad idea.
 
Yes Sangha.. please read it.. and try to actually understand it.

It proves my points about healthcare in this country and why single payer is a bad idea.

I said nothing about your single payer points. I pointed out how Helix pointed out that the wealthy can buy better care than the poor in the US, that he is correct and that even you know he was right about that

But instead of acknowledging that he was right, you raised a straw man about how the wealthy can't buy better care in the hospital (which is also untrue) and that was a dishonest thing to do.

Will you ever admit that Helix was right about how the wealthy can buy better care than the poor in the US?
 
Buck.. please read the whole paragraph you posted and not just the highlighted portion.

.

Please try to understand that. If a person comes in and has thirst, has fatigue,.frequent urination or has HAD symptoms of such.. then they would be appropriate for a blood test. It does not mean that the person may be experiencing symptoms AT THAT VERY MOMENT. But their history of whats going on with them would tell the clinician that something is not right and therefore a test will be ordered based on what the physician sees.

That means that the tests will be ordered if the patient has or has had symptoms indicative of a problem.. AGAIN... LIKE I SAID.

You aren't giving everyone a chest CT to check for cancer. Only those folks that have the history and symptoms or history of symptoms and other warning signs that indicate a need for testing are tested .

I am not able to find any links indicating that giving test to someone already having the disease or symptoms of the disease is preventative care.

Come now.. I found a link it 2 seconds:


Preventive medicine definition - MedicineNet - Health and Medical Information Produced by Doctors

Another:

.

Preventive Medicine: A Student Resource Page
 

Actually.. that's not right.. sorry but the standard of care that I pointed out for an ACL is for basically any private insurance.,.and for medicare. which includes all the poor people and middle class that have private insurance or medicare. THEY ARE NOT WEALTHY. and the the CEO that has bluecross blue shield cannot buy better care than the ditchdigger who works for him that has BlueCross Blue Shield.

Not to mention.. that ACL surgery in the first place.. and the hospital stay.. all that care is exactly EQUAL no matter your wealth. THATS the facts.

No sangha.. whats dishonest is to claim that the wealthy in America can "buy better care" like what happens in Europe where there are WHOLE HOSPITALS.. and hospital wings.. that are JUST FOR THOSE THAT CAN PAY. Where their really is too separate systems.. a pubic system of doctors and hospitals.. and a private one for those that can pay.

THATS whats dishonest.
 

Only a fool would think that they could trick someone into thinking they didn't use a straw man by using another straw man

We weren't talking about the middle class vs the wealthy, or the wealthy vs people on medicare or private insurance. Here, let me remind you of what you said

Your own words show that even you know that the wealthy can purchase better health care than the poor

In one post you claim that people on Medicaid get the same treatment as the wealthy, and in another thread you make it clear that your own experience proves you know better.
 

And that's because what I said was true Sangha. Sorry that you are so upset about being proven wrong by me that you have to create strawman arguments to try and help your ego.. but what I said was true.

The patient in the room was a millionaire. and the other patient in the room was a person on Medicaid. They both got the same care in the hospital,, the wealthy person could not buy themelves better care.

Now in many places in Europe.. they COULD TRULY buy themselves better care, better surgeon.. better technique, better room, heck better whole hospital.

Now.. as far as the outpatient care in my other patient? Yes.. if you have government insurance like Medicaid.. or VA.. there is a chance that your insurance will limit your care as opposed to private insurance or medicare. this is not a function of wealth as much as its a function of their insurance.

The poor person with Medicare.. is going to get the same care as the rich person with Medicare. And the rich CEO with Bluecross blueshield is going to get the same care as his employee with bluecross blueshield.

No doubt that having insurance and what insurance you have matters. That's true.. but its not the function of wealth as much as it is in other countries.. where their aren;t just different insurances but actually different care provision. there are actually private hospitals. private clinics that the wealthy and upper middle class can go to and a public system where everyone else goes.

We don't really have that tiered system here in the states. Heck.. a poor person with Medicaid is going to get better care than a middle class person without insurance.. so wealth isn't the primary factor in the US.

those are the facts. Now here is another fact.. that the worst insurance to have in this country.. and insurance does matter.. is usually Medicaid.. a government healthcare.. the next worse is usually the VA.. another government healthcare. And for people in other countries that have government healthcare.. the insurance that's most like what they have in most of these countries is like the VA and Medicaid

that's the reality.. and yet do you and others clamor for? "government healthcare"....

Now I know that after being proven wrong over and over again... your ego stings.. but you need to get over it.
 

the argument that money doesn't buy better care is quite frankly too ridiculous to address.
 
And that's because what I said was true Sangha. Sorry that you are so upset about being proven wrong by me that you have to create strawman arguments to try and help your ego.. but what I said was true.

No, it was untrue and dishonest.

First, you responded to the factual claim that the wealthy can purchase better health care than the poor with the straw man that the rich and the poor get the same care in the hospital (even though that's not true)

Then, when I pointed out how you contradicted yourself (by posting what you said in another thread), you made some argument about people on private insurance or *Medicare* when what your other post spoke about was *MedicAID*
 

Nope.. it was true and honest...

I responded to the incorrect claim that the wealthy can purchase better healthcare than the poor with the fact that the rich and poor get the same care in the hospital.. in the same room. same doctors, same nurses, etc. EVEN the Medicaid patient is getting the same care.

where in many other countries with universal government care.. there are separate PRIVATE hospitals or wings of hospitals for the wealthy and public facilities for everyone else.

Again all facts.

Sure.. if you are wealthy in America.. you have a better chance of having better insurance than a poor person. Because as I stated insurance matters. BUT that doesn;t take away from the fact that if the CEO has bluecross.. and the employee has bluecross... they get the same care.
It doesn't take away from the fact that the person on Medicaid.. is going to the same hospital and getting the same hospital care as the wealthy guy with even with Bluecross.

UNLIKE many other countries with universal government insurance where there are two distinct facility and provider divisions.. one for the wealthy and one public one for everyone else.

Make it personal all you want.. but you simply can;t get around the facts.
 
the argument that money doesn't buy better care is quite frankly too ridiculous to address.

Because you have no clue what you are talking about.

Sorry but true. If you were willing to admit the truth to yourself.. you would admit that everything I have said has been correct.
 
Because you have no clue what you are talking about.

Sorry but true. If you were willing to admit the truth to yourself.. you would admit that everything I have said has been correct.

that's almost as funny as your claim that money can't buy better care in the states. good luck convincing even your own side of that one.
 
Nope.. it was true and honest...

I responded to the incorrect claim that the wealthy can purchase better healthcare than the poor

There's nothing incorrect about it.

with the fact that the rich and poor get the same care in the hospital

Which is a straw man and irrelevant to whether or not the rich can buy better care than the poor.
 
that's almost as funny as your claim that money can't buy better care in the states. good luck convincing even your own side of that one.

Whatever.. if it makes you feel better.. go for it.

I clearly explained what I said. If you choose to be obtuse.. that's your prerogative.
 
There's nothing incorrect about it.



Which is a straw man and irrelevant to whether or not the rich can buy better care than the poor.

Yes it was incorrect.. and I explained why in detail.

Particularly in the context of the conversation comparing our countries healthcare with other countries.

And no its not a strawman...

If the rich and poor get the same care in the hospital... it is certainly relevant to a discussion of whether " the rich can buy better care than the poor"

Particularly if you are comparing a country where the rich and the poor go to the same hospital and get the same care.. and a country where the rich can go to private hospitals while everyone else goes to a public hospital.

I guess your definition of a "strawman" is "if it doesn't fit my narrative.. then its a strawman"

Whenever you or anyone else wants to have a legitimate and intelligent discussion of healthcare I am available... but the BS that you are spouting claiming I am "dishonest" and strawman for pointing out facts.. is too tiring...

good day.
 

You're argument is so wrong its almost laughable. Anyone in the US healthcare system knows there is a massive disparity in care between rich and poor. Yes, one gets similar care in some situations - an ICU stay, for example - but not in the vast majority.'

There's a reason the rich live 20 years more than the poor on average... and it isnt just a healthy lifestyle.

The new inequality: Health care - Dec. 18, 2013
 

Sorry.. but my argument is absolutely correct. One gets the same care in the vast majority of situations. Heck man.. the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

Might want to read your own article:


Yep.. move along folks.. nothing to see here.. we are trying to say that the wealthy just buy better healthcare and that's the major factor.. not that any of that obesity, healthier food, safer neighborhoods.. have any effect.

Come now.
 

Did not say the disparity was not partially due to lifestyle factors. Sorry to demolish your straw man.
 

That is not possible, and you just hate Obamacare.

We were told that under Obamacare all the plans would have to meet specific actuarial overhead expense to health expenditure ratios, and that every plan level would meet that benchmark. Any plan that failed to meet those requirements would not exempt those 'rich' from a 2 percent penalty on their gross income.

Or are you implying that Obamacare is such a crappy deal, that anyone of serious means will pay the fine just to get better care? Do you realize you are dissing Obamacare?
 

In the future, please word your arguments coherently
 

Get back to me when you form a relevant point.

Edit: just saw Sangha's better wordsmithed response. I concur.
 
Whatever.. if it makes you feel better.. go for it.

I clearly explained what I said. If you choose to be obtuse.. that's your prerogative.

and i've already posted the data which supports my argument many times. if you choose to try to twist, contort, and pretend that it somehow supports your position... then that's your prerogative. i'd recommend dancing away from your claim that money doesn't buy better care in the states, though.
 
Get back to me when you form a relevant point.

Edit: just saw Sangha's better wordsmithed response. I concur.

What eludes you? You wrote "Anyone in the US healthcare system knows there is a massive disparity in care between rich and poor. Yes, one gets similar care in some situations - an ICU stay, for example - but not in the vast majority.'"

I asked you how was that possible, given that the health insurance market has been replaced by the Obamacare treatment requirements mandated under law? How is it that someone who has most or all of their premiums and out-of-pocket expenses paid by the government going to get such poor care to cause "a massive disparity"?

Your "point" may be true, but only if Obamacare is ****ty insurance that provides only minimal care, or only sub-standard doctors take it, AND the very rich pay a 2 percent penalty and get great care by paying professionals directly out of pocket.

You can't escape the implications of your claim, whether or not you chose to understand the basis of my sarcasm.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…