• 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!

maxparrish said:
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I asked you how was that possible, given that the health insurance market has been replaced by the Obamacare treatment requirements mandated under law?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.
Click to expand...

Still incoherent
 
maxparrish said:
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I asked you how was that possible, given that the health insurance market has been replaced by the Obamacare treatment requirements mandated under law?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.
Click to expand...

You really are in over your head on this one.
 
Threegoofs said:
How about you craft a one sentence thesis statement of your point?
Click to expand...

I can't give a one sentence thesis when I am asking a question. I will try to make if very simple tho:

a) You said the rich get massively better care than others, particularly the less well off.

b) However, all health care policies on the market are standardized by Obamacare federal requirements. Someone on medicare is entitled to the same requirements in preventive care, etc. For example, Rush Limbaugh's plan in Florida is an ACA plan.

c) The only way the rich could be getting massively better health care to cause this gap IS IF everyone else is getting much worse health care. In other words, the rich MUST be paying out of pocket to go to Obamacare dropout doctors, labs, clinics, and hospitals that do not accept most or all insurance.

In other words, ACA provides access to relatively lower class care, and the rich go to the 'massively better healthcare' providers who have dropped out under Obamacare.

Do you believe this? How does the rich (whatever that means to you) get such massively better care, in spite of Obamacare's stringent mandates?
 
maxparrish said:
I can't give a one sentence thesis when I am asking a question. I will try to make if very simple tho:

a) You said the rich get massively better care than others, particularly the less well off.

b) However, all health care policies on the market are standardized by Obamacare federal requirements. Someone on medicare is entitled to the same requirements in preventive care, etc. For example, Rush Limbaugh's plan in Florida is an ACA plan.

c) The only way the rich could be getting massively better health care to cause this gap IS IF everyone else is getting much worse health care. In other words, the rich MUST be paying out of pocket to go to Obamacare dropout doctors, labs, clinics, and hospitals that do not accept most or all insurance.

In other words, ACA provides access to relatively lower class care, and the rich go to the 'massively better healthcare' providers who have dropped out under Obamacare.

Do you believe this? How does the rich (whatever that means to you) get such massively better care, in spite of Obamacare's stringent mandates?
Click to expand...

No. The wealthy have better access to better providers and can pay OOP for more stuff.

Has little to do with the ACA.
 
Threegoofs said:
No. The wealthy have better access to better providers and can pay OOP for more stuff.

Has little to do with the ACA.
Click to expand...

max is operating under the delusion that because ACA sets standards, all plans are the same and some people are paying more for their plan because they like to waste money
 
jaeger19 said:
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
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? The poor can't get experimental cancer treatments. The poor get the bare minimum to get them out the door.

What fucking planet do you live on?
 
Threegoofs said:
Did not say the disparity was not partially due to lifestyle factors. Sorry to demolish your straw man.
Click to expand...

Right... You need to read your own post.

You said that my point regarding the poor and wealthy getting the same medical in the vast majority of situations.. was "so wrong its laughable"..

And as evidence you tried to portray the difference in health status between the rich and poor as evidence that the rich are paying for better healthcare..
when the reality is that the difference is more due to lifestyles, access to safer neighborhoods, less obesity. and so on.
 
sangha said:
That's almost as funny as "the rich can't buy better health care than the poor"
Click to expand...

Sure.. because we all know that young people and working age people are more likely to use heathcare than those really healthy bastards over the age of 65!.

Wow.. I can't wait until I get older and get into my older age.. where I will be healthier and have less medical problems than when I was in my teens and twenties... can't WAIT.

:doh:roll:
 
Kobie said:
Are you kidding me? The poor can't get experimental cancer treatments. The poor get the bare minimum to get them out the door.

What fucking planet do you live on?
Click to expand...

I guess that planet would be earth. Oh and reality.

When it comes to experimental treatments for cancer.. its probably equal in the US (now that's the US.. not other countries). Because in the US.. experimental treatments are not usually financed by insurance companies for the rich or the poor. Generally experimental treatments for cancer are provided free of charge by drug companies and universities in patient studies (pharma or could be government or charity funded) . (Hence the "experimental).

If you meet the criteria for the study and are accepted then you get the treatments in the drug trial. That's not based on income.

(I will grant you that its in some circumstances a wealthy person has more access because if travel is required they are more likely to have the finances to travel).

NOW. . here is the irony... in other countries that have universal government coverage.. its usually the poor that don;t have access to advanced cancer treatments and test because the government in order to save costs.. rations care to those most likely to have a good outcome. the wealthy in these countries simply step outside of the public system.

Its in part why the cancer survivability in the US is higher than most European countries.

The report was published in the April issue of Health Affairs.

For the study, Tomas Philipson, the chair in public policy at the University of Chicago, and colleagues looked at cancer care in the United States and in 10 European countries from 1983 to 1999.

The investigators found that for most cancers, U.S. patients lived longer than Europeans. Americans lived an average of 11.1 years after diagnosis, compared with 9.3 years for Europeans, they said
Click to expand...
 
jaeger19 said:
Sure.. because we all know that young people and working age people are more likely to use heathcare than those really healthy bastards over the age of 65!.

Wow.. I can't wait until I get older and get into my older age.. where I will be healthier and have less medical problems than when I was in my teens and twenties... can't WAIT.

:doh:roll:
Click to expand...

And we all know that the 65+ demographic accounts for the majority of the population and every single one of them is sick, while everyone else has no need for health care
 
sangha said:
And we all know that the 65+ demographic accounts for the majority of the population and every single one of them is sick, while everyone else has no need for health care
Click to expand...

Actually we know that:

People 65-79 (9 percent of the total population) represented 29 percent of the top 5 percent of spenders. Similarly, people 80 years and older (about 3 percent of the population) accounted for 14 percent of the top 5 percent of spenders of healthcare. A principal reason why health care spending is spread out more evenly among the elderly is that a much higher proportion of the elderly than the non-elderly have expensive chronic conditions.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure 29% is somewhat less than a majority
Click to expand...

not when it comes to who uses healthcare. Older people use more healthcare than the general population.

Are you really going to argue with me on this? Please show me where young people represent a large segment of the population that uses healthcare more than those 65 year older. I'd love to know that I am going to be healthier in another 3 decades. Can't wait.
 
jaeger19 said:
not when it comes to who uses healthcare. Older people use more healthcare than the general population.

Are you really going to argue with me on this?
Click to expand...

No, I am going to argue with what you said and not allow you to pretend you said something different. Here's what you said
the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
No, I am going to argue with what you said and not allow you to pretend you said something different. Here's what you said
Click to expand...

Yep.. whats your problem?
 
sangha said:
I'm laughing so hard at your claim it's making it hard to breathe
Click to expand...

You should go to the physician.. when you are in the office.. take a look around and note how many 65 plus somethings you see and how many 20 somethings are in there.

WAIT.. that explains it.. given your responses.. you probably are seen by a pediatrician.. and that's why you don't realize that older people are much more prone to need healthcare.
 
jaeger19 said:
You should go to the physician.. when you are in the office.. take a look around and note how many 65 plus somethings you see and how many 20 somethings are in there.
Click to expand...

When I go to the doctors, the majority of people there are too young to be on Medicare

WAIT.. that explains it.. given your responses.. you probably are seen by a pediatrician.. and that's why you don't realize that older people are much more prone to need healthcare.
Click to expand...

Keep pretending that you said "older people are more prone to need healthcare" instead of what you actually said:

jaeger19 said:
the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
When I go to the doctors, the majority of people there are too young to be on Medicare



Keep pretending that you said "older people are more prone to need healthcare" instead of what you actually said:
Click to expand...

If as I suspect you see a pediatrician.. then yes.
And I know what I said.. and the vast majority of folks that NEED healthcare are on medicare.
 
Yes it will save us.

Guess what?

The cap on the price you pay is still the same..........only the RICH have to pay more to subsidize our plans!

LMAO!!!!!

You can only pay 4-8 % of your pay check for Obamacare per the law...............
 
Pollycy said:
But wait! I thought the "Messiah's" miraculous health care plan was going to save us $2,500 every year!

Instead:
Feds' health care costs to increase on average by 6.4 percent - FederalNewsRadio.com
Health insurance may cost more in 2016 under Affordable Care Act - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

And for those poor bastards on Medicare, an even worse outlook, thanks to the fact that although both Repubs and Demos think it's great to save the too-big-to-fail, people who were forced to contribute to SS and Medicare all their lives are going to get NO increase next year. Why? Because gas prices are lower (like old, retired people are big gas-guzzlers... :roll:): What the potential Medicare Part B increases mean for healthcare | Healthcare Dive

The only people who are going to come out of this in relatively good shape are the ones who will be given "subsidies", which is just another word for WELFARE. If you don't qualify for this WELFARE, you are going to get screwed, and it will get worse year by year by year....
Click to expand...

Just read that Alaska's premiums are expected to rise 49% for 2016.
 
274ina said:
Yes it will save us.

Guess what?

The cap on the price you pay is still the same..........only the RICH have to pay more to subsidize our plans!

LMAO!!!!!

You can only pay 4-8 % of your pay check for Obamacare per the law...............
Click to expand...

It's 8%. And what that means is that you don't have insurance. The 8% means only that you qualify for a hardship exemption to the penalty for not buying insurance. It doesn't mean the premiums are lowered or that you qualify for a subsidy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom