Obamacare may turn away the chronically uninsured

[LaMidRighter]

I already told you the high-risk pool itself does not address costs. You're making connections where there are none. Again.

Wrong, you are arguing that because more people are in the system it will reduce costs. So I will ask you again, how in your "expert" opinion will that happen? Oh, and you haven't told me ****, if anything all you have done is regurgitated sources that have incomplete data, speculative opinion based analysis, and other biases.

UHC has some advantages that reduce cost. A high-risk pool like this one does not. Clear enough?

Too bad UHC country budgets disagree with you, clear enough?

Here, I'll help you out:
I do not now, nor have I ever believed this high-risk pool would somehow make unhealthy people cheaper to care for.

Ahh, so "more people in the pool will reduce cost" but "adding more people who wouldn't be in the pool otherwise" won't reduce costs. Nice circular argument there.

 

[Deuce]

Wrong, you are arguing that because more people are in the system it will reduce costs. So I will ask you again, how in your "expert" opinion will that happen? Oh, and you haven't told me ****, if anything all you have done is regurgitated sources that have incomplete data, speculative opinion based analysis, and other biases.

Too bad UHC country budgets disagree with you, clear enough?

Ahh, so "more people in the pool will reduce cost" but "adding more people who wouldn't be in the pool otherwise" won't reduce costs. Nice circular argument there.

Holy **** you're literally telling me that I'm wrong about my own opinion. It was funny the first couple of times but now it's just ridiculous. I never called myself an "expert," so the quotes around that are a bit absurd.

"more people in the pool will reduce cost" and "adding more people who..." are also things I didn't actually say, so why are you putting quotes around them?

YOU'RE MAKING UP ARGUMENTS USING WORDS I NEVER WROTE.

Edit: Seriously, this sort of thing should be infraction worthy. Or maybe I'll just start debating you on your awful belief that "children should be sold for meat." You believe that. Because I said so.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Holy **** you're literally telling me that I'm wrong about my own opinion. It was funny the first couple of times but now it's just ridiculous. I never called myself an "expert," so the quotes around that are a bit absurd.

"more people in the pool will reduce cost" and "adding more people who..." are also things I didn't actually say, so why are you putting quotes around them?

YOU'RE MAKING UP ARGUMENTS USING WORDS I NEVER WROTE.

Edit: Seriously, this sort of thing should be infraction worthy. Or maybe I'll just start debating you on your awful belief that "children should be sold for meat." You believe that. Because I said so.

Considering you are arguing FOR higher risk pools by stating that a complete pool such as UHC has advantages(which it doesn't), and then conceding that higher risk pools don't address actual cost mechanisms. Yeah, I'd say your opinion is confused and very wrong. Anyway, been fun but I'll wait until you are more prepared to debate this before further responding to you.......ta.

 

[Deuce]

Considering you are arguing FOR higher risk pools by stating that a complete pool such as UHC has advantages(which it doesn't), and then conceding that higher risk pools don't address actual cost mechanisms. Yeah, I'd say your opinion is confused and very wrong. Anyway, been fun but I'll wait until you are more prepared to debate this before further responding to you.......ta.

UHC and the high-risk pools were separate discussions. You still haven't picked up on that? I was not relating one to the other at all. I was not making any such argument.

So, see ya!

 

[LaMidRighter]

UHC and the high-risk pools were separate discussions. You still haven't picked up on that? I was not relating one to the other at all. I was not making any such argument.

So, see ya!

Yes, you in fact were. Considering UHC is a universal risk pool, you then conceded that high risk pools are budget busters. The economics of insurance dictate you cannot have things both ways, you either cut or overspend when the risk pool is skewed. Now, maybe you don't understand where you took this argument, which is okay, you are not a financial professional but if you A) Argue for high risk pools and B) Universal Health Care which is necessarily a large high/low risk pool and C) Universal healthcare has built in advantages then the logic dictates that I have clearly nailed your position down and you don't understand how.

Here's where the problem in the debate comes in, unlike some very good debaters here who disagree and want to pick my brain you come in and try to beat my professional knowledge with uselessly biased sources. Then you try to lecture me on something's benefit when I clearly know it's failings, at this point I cannot take you seriously.

 

[Deuce]

Yes, you in fact were. Considering UHC is a universal risk pool, you then conceded that high risk pools are budget busters. The economics of insurance dictate you cannot have things both ways, you either cut or overspend when the risk pool is skewed. Now, maybe you don't understand where you took this argument, which is okay, you are not a financial professional but if you A) Argue for high risk pools and B) Universal Health Care which is necessarily a large high/low risk pool and C) Universal healthcare has built in advantages then the logic dictates that I have clearly nailed your position down and you don't understand how.

Here's where the problem in the debate comes in, unlike some very good debaters here who disagree and want to pick my brain you come in and try to beat my professional knowledge with uselessly biased sources. Then you try to lecture me on something's benefit when I clearly know it's failings, at this point I cannot take you seriously.

Well, that's not a surprise because you appear to be debating against yourself.

You seem to be equating UHC with single-payer. So much for being an expert.

Let me start over. Ignore everything. EVERYTHING. I'll dumb it way down for you.

1) This bill, which Republicans voted against, contains a high-risk pool section. Sets aside $5billion to the task of improving or creating such a pool in each state.

2) Republicans are now attacking the bill, saying that the high-risk pool, which they were against funding in the first place, will run out of money. Hypocritical, somewhat.

3) UHC is an extremely wide range of systems, ranging from full-blown socialized medicine like in the UK to a more hybrid public/private system like in, say, Australia. Making blanket statements about UHC is tricky for that reason, but every country with UHC spends less of their GDP and less per-capita on healthcare than we do. A few of the cost-saving advantages in some of those systems are reduced overhead, better bargaining with pharmaceutical or supply companies, and better access to preventative medicine. Also many of these countries are just healthier than we are, but that's a different issue.

Anything other than the words above is a fabrication on your part.

edit: Or you can just take the road of "I'm smarter than you so I win so there neener neener neener!"

You keep talking about expert knowledge and whatnot, but I've yet to see a single link or figure from you in this thread. For all I know, you're a twelve year old off his meds in Ohio.

edit2: So, in 1971 when Canada switched to their current system, they had the same expenditure as % of GDP for health care as we do.
Now we're at ~16%. Canada is at ~10%. Can you explain that?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Well, that's not a surprise because you appear to be debating against yourself.

You seem to be equating UHC with single-payer. So much for being an expert.

Let me start over. Ignore everything. EVERYTHING. I'll dumb it way down for you.

1) This bill, which Republicans voted against, contains a high-risk pool section. Sets aside $5billion to the task of improving or creating such a pool in each state.

2) Republicans are now attacking the bill, saying that the high-risk pool, which they were against funding in the first place, will run out of money. Hypocritical, somewhat.

3) UHC is an extremely wide range of systems, ranging from full-blown socialized medicine like in the UK to a more hybrid public/private system like in, say, Australia. Making blanket statements about UHC is tricky for that reason, but every country with UHC spends less of their GDP and less per-capita on healthcare than we do. A few of the cost-saving advantages in some of those systems are reduced overhead, better bargaining with pharmaceutical or supply companies, and better access to preventative medicine. Also many of these countries are just healthier than we are, but that's a different issue.

Anything other than the words above is a fabrication on your part.

edit: Or you can just take the road of "I'm smarter than you so I win so there neener neener neener!"

You keep talking about expert knowledge and whatnot, but I've yet to see a single link or figure from you in this thread. For all I know, you're a twelve year old off his meds in Ohio.

edit2: So, in 1971 when Canada switched to their current system, they had the same expenditure as % of GDP for health care as we do.
Now we're at ~16%. Canada is at ~10%. Can you explain that?

You know, I really tried reaching out and being nice to you in the last post but don't worry I'll never make that mistake again. All I am going to say is you have yet again repeated the GDP argument as if it matters in a comparison of public vs. private health coverage, it doesn't. Again you are using false analogies, and again I will be saying goodbye to you as I don't see you doing anything more than attacking and blatantly misrepresenting the situation.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Well, that's not a surprise because you appear to be debating against yourself.

You seem to be equating UHC with single-payer. So much for being an expert.

Let me start over. Ignore everything. EVERYTHING. I'll dumb it way down for you.

1) This bill, which Republicans voted against, contains a high-risk pool section. Sets aside $5billion to the task of improving or creating such a pool in each state.

2) Republicans are now attacking the bill, saying that the high-risk pool, which they were against funding in the first place, will run out of money. Hypocritical, somewhat.

3) UHC is an extremely wide range of systems, ranging from full-blown socialized medicine like in the UK to a more hybrid public/private system like in, say, Australia. Making blanket statements about UHC is tricky for that reason, but every country with UHC spends less of their GDP and less per-capita on healthcare than we do. A few of the cost-saving advantages in some of those systems are reduced overhead, better bargaining with pharmaceutical or supply companies, and better access to preventative medicine. Also many of these countries are just healthier than we are, but that's a different issue.

Anything other than the words above is a fabrication on your part.

edit: Or you can just take the road of "I'm smarter than you so I win so there neener neener neener!"

You keep talking about expert knowledge and whatnot, but I've yet to see a single link or figure from you in this thread. For all I know, you're a twelve year old off his meds in Ohio.

edit2: So, in 1971 when Canada switched to their current system, they had the same expenditure as % of GDP for health care as we do.
Now we're at ~16%. Canada is at ~10%. Can you explain that?

Moderator's Warning:

Knock off the personal attacks.

 

[Deuce]

You know, I really tried reaching out and being nice to you in the last post but don't worry I'll never make that mistake again. All I am going to say is you have yet again repeated the GDP argument as if it matters in a comparison of public vs. private health coverage, it doesn't. Again you are using false analogies, and again I will be saying goodbye to you as I don't see you doing anything more than attacking and blatantly misrepresenting the situation.

Fine by me. It's irritating to have someone put words in your mouth. See ya.

 

[cpwill]

notice that we pay twice as much per person in health care costs compared to other major nations which means those public health care systems in the other major industrial nations only incur half the per capita expense of health care coverage

hmm, nope. we spend more because we get more - quite a bit more. enough to justify the expense? eh, that's a subjective question; certainly we pay more than we have to for the same service, but that's because we have a stupid third-party-payer system dominated by a completely pointless employer provided model (thank you FDR).

it would appear the facts work against your position ... unless you would be able to prove our health care is twice as good as our international counterparts

twice as good? no, the more you improve in quality, the higher the marginal price rises. but i'm pretty confident we can safely establish that it is generally better by several rather important metrics. for example, when it comes to healing those with severe or difficult diseases?

Cancer Survival Rates Significantly Higher in United States Than in Europep

...The greatest differences were seen in the major cancer sites: colon and rectum (56.2% in Europe vs 65.5% in the United States), breast (79.0% vs 90.1%), and prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%), and this probably represents differences in the timeliness of diagnosis. That in turn stems from the more intensive screening for cancer carried out in the United States, where a reported 70% of women aged 50 to 70 years have undergone a mammogram in the past 2 years, one-third of people have had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the past 5 years, and more than 80% of men aged 65 years or more have had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test... The differences in survival are due to a variety of reasons, Dr. Verdecchia and colleagues write. They include factors related to cancer services — for example, organization, training, and skills of healthcare professionals; application of evidence-based guidelines; and investment in diagnostic and treatment facilities — as well as clinical factors, such as tumor stage and biology...

huh. so it turns out that all that 'preventative care' that ya'll were yelling about during the obamacare debate.... is something that we already do better. and it turns out that providing expensive and difficult care.... is also something that we already do better.

and that is before recognizing that unlike us, they care for their entire populations

:lol:

no, they're not; thanks to a shortage of available resources (because they have socialist systems). to quote the Canadian Supreme Court, as they struck down part of that country's Universal Healthcare System: Access to a waiting list is not access to health care. furthermore, you'd have to define what you're willing to state is 'care'. if you have a debilitating disease, and instead of giving you a more expensive cure i just give you some pain medication and tell you to go home and die; have i provided 'care' for you? maybe technically, but i'm thinking as the patient in that scenario i wouldn't feel very 'cared for'.

especially if they then stopped giving me pain medication alltogether. Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections. those who complain about such a thing, apparently, are told that Patients 'should not expect NHS to save their life if it costs too much'.

..Nice is facing increasing accusations that it is giving undue weight to financial considerations - rather than medical benefits - when making decisions on whether to allow drugs or other treatments on the NHS. Doctors and patients have alleged that they are treated with contempt by the organisation and that life-saving drugs are being unfairly denied. The Daily Telegraph disclosed yesterday that Nice is preparing to offer patients advice on the medical benefits of drugs that are not available on the NHS. The disclosure is likely to anger patients who face paying tens of thousands of pounds for expensive drugs which may prolong their lives...


price always exists; no matter who you have pay it. and it is properly a function of supply and demand. attempts to jack with the price 'in order to be more fair' inevitably alters the supply and the demand. so, for example, when you create a price ceiling (nobody can charge more than X for a good or service), then demand for that product will climb just as supply drops. this in turn creates the incentives for a black market, and means that a significant portion of demand will go unmet. so when you alter the form of payment so that the patient doesn't have to pay for it, you have effectively just instituted a price ceiling of $0, creating a massive upswing in demand. but, since price will not be allowed to swing with it (no government has that much money), you have just created a giant shortage. to allocate the scarce resources that no longer meet your populations' demand, you by necessity have to create government-dictated rationing.

 

[Deuce]

Ahh, yes. Standard cherry-picking of cancer survival rates.
1) Prostate cancer has an artificially high "survival" rate in the US, because we treat people who may not have even had cancer. You can be listed as a "survivor" without ever having exhibited any symtoms.

2) Comparing the US to "Europe" is also deceptive, as it groups in several poorer nations and nations that don't have a UHC system.

The waiting list data is also always from the UK and Canada. Funny how they never mention all those countries with UHC that have shorter waiting times than the US. Canada, by the way, has been significantly improving their waiting times, if the current trends continue they'll be beating us there pretty soon. Waiting times are less a function of the type of system and more a function of what doctors/equipment are available vs. the number of patients who need them. The solution to long wait times is more doctors, not fewer patients.

 

[LaMidRighter]

hmm, nope. we spend more because we get more - quite a bit more. enough to justify the expense? eh, that's a subjective question; certainly we pay more than we have to for the same service, but that's because we have a stupid third-party-payer system dominated by a completely pointless employer provided model (thank you FDR).

Part of the problem is third party, but not because of the third party payor itself. What ends up happening is regulations kind of interfere with other regulations and the outcome gets bastardized on all ends. For instance an ER may not turn away patients, must stabalize before release, while in a way we have to all agree to some extent that people shouldn't be sent out in the streets to die there is a major problem that people are cheating this principle to get a freebie. The major part of the prior problem comes from high costs and they tend to feed each other in a way, there is a set number of medical professionals in this country by design, the artificial limits on medical school students from the early 1900's should be abolished since it is single handedly responsible.

Then there is the fact that if you can actually pay cash for services you tend to get a discount that the insurance provider doesn't(they have big pockets so abuses of the system are passed on to HI companies) and this raises rates for coverage artificially, it is indirectly linked to the entire problem in this way. As well, many people get frivolities into their policies as they think it will save them on routine medical services, this actually increases not only their own premiums but adds to HI company payouts and so we all see increases. A major med/catastrophic policy will do the trick and many have routine checkups built in. You are correct about the employer model, however we are in a benefits mentality in these days, some people do need to go employer because of personal ineligability, but healthier people can easily save on individual(and they have portability).

So, in a way, the system has much bigger problems than the payment system, it really boils down to inefficient mechanisms that increase costs.

 

[cpwill]

Ahh, yes. Standard cherry-picking of cancer survival rates.
1) Prostate cancer has an artificially high "survival" rate in the US, because we treat people who may not have even had cancer. You can be listed as a "survivor" without ever having exhibited any symtoms.

interesting. so you are saying that whereas other nations are forced by their shortages to ration and reduce care to those in need, here we have such an abundunce of health care resources that we can afford to lavish care and treatment on people who might not even have the disease, just to be sure we don't lose them?

well. i guess we'll have to suffer with that.

incidentally, if you have a source on that, i would be interested in reading it.

Comparing the US to "Europe" is also deceptive, as it groups in several poorer nations and nations that don't have a UHC system.

which is why i like country-to-country comparisons, such as with the UK, Canada, or Australia. however, really State-by-State comparisons are going to be best when attempting to figure out what medical system is going to be best for America; they are the labratories of Democracy for a good reason.

which is why I note with aclarity the multiple failures of Romneycare, and predict that we will see similar issues with Obamacare.

The waiting list data is also always from the UK and Canada

the UK is both culturally most similar to us, and has had UHC the longest; so they are a good study of what we would likely to produce, and where UHC leads. apparently (as with most socialist schemes) the product quality and quantity degrades over time. Canada is next door, has a comparable per capita economy, a similar culture and history, and is heavily emeshed in the American economy; so they are a worthy comparison as well as far as UHC is concerned.

you get into other countries and you have to get alot more specific. for example, France technically has UHC, but they also have copays that roughly equal the American ones, so the effect is blunted.

Funny how they never mention all those countries with UHC that have shorter waiting times than the US.

i'd be interested in hearing about anyone who provides more high quality care than the United States.

Canada, by the way, has been significantly improving their waiting times

good on them. but are they doing it in similar ways to what we see in the UK, where waiting times are 'reduced' by refusing to accept patients or having them wait for hours in ambulances?

Waiting times are less a function of the type of system and more a function of what doctors/equipment are available vs. the number of patients who need them.

:shock:

:lol:

The Amount of Resources Available v the Number of Patients Who Need Them IS a Function of the Type of System!

it's, sort of, like, you know, one of the 'defining features'. :2razz:

supply demand and price, remember? health care is a good or service; and therefore economic law applies.

The solution to long wait times is more doctors, not fewer patients.

that's one of them absolutely. reducing defensive medicine is another.