Jump to content


* * * * * 1 votes

Obama Care Could Be Deadly


#5131 kill3r7   MiNd ThE GaP CAGiversary!   4628 Posts   Joined 14.0 Years Ago  

Posted 30 October 2013 - 02:39 PM

62% in a whole decade! That seems like a lot...


...but not as much as 66% in a single year.

Obviously, this is just one guy's story. Should be interesting to see where the chips fall on this one.

And yet premium rates are plummeting ~50% in NY. The reality is that rates will go up for some and down for others. Hopefully it'll be a wash. End result being more people are receiving coverage.

 

That said, having lived in NYC and North Jersey my entire life, I can tell you that insurance rates are significantly higher here than virtually anywhere else in the US.  One of my coworkers who is from St. Louis was shocked at how high his premium rates were. Let's just say he was paying about $150 a month in St. Louis and $660 in NYC (that rate is heavily subsidized by our company). 



#5132 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6251 Posts   Joined 14.1 Years Ago  

Posted 30 October 2013 - 04:01 PM

Germany has had government health care for over 100 years. Is that not long enough?

#5133 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.3 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 30 October 2013 - 07:40 PM

Ok so mr. wear has an insurance company that decided to get one last increase and blamed Obummer.

 

How is that evidence of anything?

Well I would think an official letter from the insurance company would have some credibility. 

 

This thread has won my heart over. The fact that we've gotten to the point where the basic functioning and structure of insurance has to be explained. Priceless...

BTW, absolutely love the anecdote about first considering going to "Asia" then Mexico to get healthcare. Was the Mexico trip before or after they started their public run healthcare? Of course that "Asian country" was gonna be one that doesn't have a public run healthcare system, correct? Quick let us now which one that is.

Fact of the matter is nearly every first world country (and even some non-first work countries at this point) already have government run public healthcare options. Thankfully the giant health insurance companies already have the republicans and tea partiers to protect their very existence because we couldn't have the gubment running things, no not at all...

Is it really a bad thing when we try to break things down in order to clarify the issue at hand? 

 

I do not think you understand what I was trying to argue. As the government becomes more involved and over-regulates the market, the higher the costs will be. Government was involved in the healthcare system for decades but it used to be cheaper so what is changing? 

 

I think you'll have a hard time finding an example of a successful health care system based on free market principles but if you can feel free to share.

Absolutely, but as I mentioned above it seems that prices keep rising as the government is becoming more intrusive. One of the reasons why we had such a boom in the tech market unlike the healthcare is because government has not over-regulated the industry. Would you agree?



#5134 kill3r7   MiNd ThE GaP CAGiversary!   4628 Posts   Joined 14.0 Years Ago  

Posted 30 October 2013 - 09:48 PM

Absolutely, but as I mentioned above it seems that prices keep rising as the government is becoming more intrusive. One of the reasons why we had such a boom in the tech market unlike the healthcare is because government has not over-regulated the industry. Would you agree?

Disagree. You are comparing apples and oranges. The tech industry does not need to cater to everyone. They can pick and choose their customers. For example, Apple doesn't have to worry about folks who cannot afford their products. It's not their problem. They don't need to cater to them.

 

The health care industry is the complete opposite.  It needs to account for the whole population. in any given year a small percentage of the population accounts for the bulk of the medical costs. These costs must be shared by all with no way of mitigating or eliminating this type of risk. If you were operating in a free market then you would run up against adverse selection. The point where healthy people do not deem it worthwhile to pay for coverage and the only people who are partaking are the sick individuals who have no choice but to seek coverage due to high medical costs. Thus, it is not possible to be inclusive of society as a whole. You cannot cover the medical expenses of every citizen without either incurring major losses or raising premiums to astronomical levels.

 

I am a strong proponent of the free market in most cases but I just don't think it can work for the health care industry. Simply because it has to cover everyone rich and poor, young and old, and everyone in between regardless of cost or risk.



#5135 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6251 Posts   Joined 14.1 Years Ago  

Posted 30 October 2013 - 11:06 PM

Well I would think an official letter from the insurance company would have some credibility. 

 

You would think wrong.

 

 

 

I was trying to argue. As the government becomes more involved and over-regulates the market, the higher the costs will be. Government was involved in the healthcare system for decades but it used to be cheaper so what is changing?

 

Even in universal systems, people are living longer (which costs more) due in part to technology (that costs) more it is a cycle.

 

However the systems were government is "more" involved. They spend half of what we do.



#5136 Rasen   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   693 Posts   Joined 13.4 Years Ago  

Posted 31 October 2013 - 02:26 AM

 

I saw that story on the news. It was interesting because the girl they interviewed who was losing her insurance was originally paying ~$65 /month. And that Obamacare would make her pay ~$200.

 

My first reaction was "Dang! I want in on this plan!"

 

And then the news goes on to saying how plans like that don't cover Hospital, Prescriptions, Maternity, etc.... y'know, all the actually expensive stuff that would break your home finances like a twig. The reasons why people buy insurance.

 

Issues about Obamacare aside, those particular plans sound more like life insurance than health insurance. The only thing I think they cover is doctor's visits, and unless you're a hypochondriac who insists on making visits, you'd probably save more money by not having insurance at all.



#5137 willardhaven   Thief of Life CAGiversary!   7086 Posts   Joined 14.7 Years Ago  

willardhaven

Posted 31 October 2013 - 11:41 PM

Maybe Obamacare was a troll move to get people behind single payer.



#5138 kill3r7   MiNd ThE GaP CAGiversary!   4628 Posts   Joined 14.0 Years Ago  

Posted 01 November 2013 - 12:20 AM

Maybe Obamacare was a troll move to get people behind single payer.

One can only hope. IMO, single payer is the ideal system. Doubt I'll see it implemented in my lifetime. 



#5139 Dr Mario Kart   SD/2D Defense Force CAGiversary!   10957 Posts   Joined 15.0 Years Ago  

Dr Mario Kart

Posted 01 November 2013 - 12:58 AM

ACA has tangibly slowed single payer down and further entrenches us in a private system thats going to fail anyway but it keeps it alive longer.  If ACA's intent is to get us to single payer, its a shitty way of doing it.



#5140 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.3 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 01 November 2013 - 01:16 AM

Disagree. You are comparing apples and oranges. The tech industry does not need to cater to everyone. They can pick and choose their customers. For example, Apple doesn't have to worry about folks who cannot afford their products. It's not their problem. They don't need to cater to them.

 

The health care industry is the complete opposite.  It needs to account for the whole population. in any given year a small percentage of the population accounts for the bulk of the medical costs. These costs must be shared by all with no way of mitigating or eliminating this type of risk. If you were operating in a free market then you would run up against adverse selection. The point where healthy people do not deem it worthwhile to pay for coverage and the only people who are partaking are the sick individuals who have no choice but to seek coverage due to high medical costs. Thus, it is not possible to be inclusive of society as a whole. You cannot cover the medical expenses of every citizen without either incurring major losses or raising premiums to astronomical levels.

 

I am a strong proponent of the free market in most cases but I just don't think it can work for the health care industry. Simply because it has to cover everyone rich and poor, young and old, and everyone in between regardless of cost or risk.

Lets clarify something real quick, healthcare is not a right. Agreed? 

 

Apple does have to worry about who and who cannot afford their products. That is how business works, if they price it out of the range of consumers, it would lead to loss of revenue and end of the company if they do not change their ways. Health care is a little different due to the fact that you have a government which has a constant stream of revenue regardless of their financials. 

 

There is a flaw in your example, sick people would have a choice if young people decide not to pay for healthcare. They can stay and pay higher premiums but being covered for conditions which may affect them. Or they can pay out of pocket for expenses which would go down in a free market economy because equilibrium would be reached. 

 

I am glad that you embrace the ideas of free markets in other cases and I hope you will see my point when it comes to healthcare.  I think Milton Friedman did a study in which showed that between early and late 1990s, for-profit hospitals deacreased from 50% to 10%. During this time spending rose by about 200% and yet cost per patient rose became 15 times higher than needed. Nations like France and Canada have a nationalized health care system and look at them, they are facing many challenges which are crippling them. 

 

You would think wrong.

 

 

 

 

Even in universal systems, people are living longer (which costs more) due in part to technology (that costs) more it is a cycle.

 

However the systems were government is "more" involved. They spend half of what we do.

K I guess Ill just write them back and tell em to stop fucking lying and blaming Obama. 

 

I do not understand why you bring up the fact that some of these people live longer, better healthcare is just one of many reasons.

 

Almost a half, I think it was about 60% more. Which is something I have been trying to explain to many people here. More unecessary government regulations means more bureaucracy meaning inefficiency. Just because some other countries are spending less does not mean they are doing much better. Review the France's health care system.  



#5141 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 9.4 Years Ago  

Posted 01 November 2013 - 01:48 AM

This thread has won my heart over. The fact that we've gotten to the point where the basic functioning and structure of insurance has to be explained. Priceless...

BTW, absolutely love the anecdote about first considering going to "Asia" then Mexico to get healthcare. Was the Mexico trip before or after they started their public run healthcare? Of course that "Asian country" was gonna be one that doesn't have a public run healthcare system, correct? Quick let us now which one that is.

Fact of the matter is nearly every first world country (and even some non-first work countries at this point) already have government run public healthcare options. Thankfully the giant health insurance companies already have the republicans and tea partiers to protect their very existence because we couldn't have the gubment running things, no not at all...


Pretty sure nasum and myself have had to explain the concept of risk pools ad nauseam, but as you know, there are always a new batch of morons that can't see the forest for the trees.

#5142 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6251 Posts   Joined 14.1 Years Ago  

Posted 01 November 2013 - 01:52 AM

Why would we agree healthcare is not a right? Is there something sacred about the old system which cost more than any other country to exclude people?



#5143 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.3 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 01 November 2013 - 02:38 AM

Because it is not a human right. You have a few rights including life, freedom and to pursue happiness which can include seeking healthcare for yourself and your family. Stating that healthcare is a right would mean that it is a government's purpose to guarantee it. By believing in it would mean that your right to healthcare would infringe upon my right to liberty as I would be forced to pay for your healthcare. A human right is something you are born with, not something one can give you. 

 

I do not think you fully read my previous statements. I am not defending today's system, it is broken. I propose a better system and not this ACA crap under which millions of people are going to lose coverage. 



#5144 egofed   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   1020 Posts   Joined 12.3 Years Ago  

Posted 01 November 2013 - 02:56 AM

Healthcare is performed by people, ie. nurses, doctors, etc. To say that healthcare is a right is to say that you are entitled to the work of these people. They need to be compensated for their services. I would like for the gov't to treat all citizens equally. Why subsidize some people but not others?

 

Its also BS that we use tax payer money to pay for conditions that people have self inflicted on themselves due to poor choices in diet and lifestyle. Drink yourself to cirrhosis of the liver and spent all your money on a jet ski? The gov't should say "Fuck you". Its not Christian, but do we want religion in our politics? The gov't should protect us from others, not ourselves.  Stop rewarding stupidity.



#5145 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6251 Posts   Joined 14.1 Years Ago  

Posted 01 November 2013 - 03:00 AM

Because it is not a human right. You have a few rights including life...

Stopping you right there a) you will need more than just an assertion and b) you don't find life being a right while defending letting people die because they can't afford medical attention incongruous?



#5146 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.3 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 01 November 2013 - 03:31 AM

Stopping you right there a) you will need more than just an assertion and b) you don't find life being a right while defending letting people die because they can't afford medical attention incongruous?

a) Its not an assertion. This country was founded on the rights I mentioned, not right to healthcare...

b) Its a negative right. You therefore have a right to your life and I can not take it away. It does not mean that I am obligated to save you by paying for someone's medical attention. 



#5147 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.3 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 01 November 2013 - 04:17 AM

Six people enrolled in Obamacare on Day 1. That is some legacy, he seems to deserve the ratings he has been getting which are as low as Bush's. 

http://news.yahoo.co...-233817649.html



#5148 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6251 Posts   Joined 14.1 Years Ago  

Posted 01 November 2013 - 08:50 AM

a) Its not an assertion. This country was founded on the rights I mentioned, not right to healthcare...

b) Its a negative right. You therefore have a right to your life and I can not take it away. It does not mean that I am obligated to save you by paying for someone's medical attention. 

A) What do you think universal healthcare would have looked like in the Founders day? Free leeches? There is a general welfare clause and a necessary and proper clause. You fail again.

 

B) I never bought the positive/negative right dichotomy. Also, the constitutionality of the program was already debated and it passed. You are no more forced to pay for it then for any thing government does you personally don't like.

 

C) Since your arguments based on other criteria have been demolished, why not try an argument based on the merits of various healthcare systems?



#5149 UncleBob  

Posted 01 November 2013 - 01:54 PM

ACA has tangibly slowed single payer down and further entrenches us in a private system thats going to fail anyway but it keeps it alive longer.  If ACA's intent is to get us to single payer, its a shitty way of doing it.


This. So much this.

#5150 kill3r7   MiNd ThE GaP CAGiversary!   4628 Posts   Joined 14.0 Years Ago  

Posted 01 November 2013 - 03:02 PM

Lets clarify something real quick, healthcare is not a right. Agreed? 

 

You are correct. Healthcare is not an expressed right under the US Constitution but congress was given the power to spend for general welfare. Furthermore, healthcare is an enumerated right under Article 25 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Apple does have to worry about who and who cannot afford their products. That is how business works, if they price it out of the range of consumers, it would lead to loss of revenue and end of the company if they do not change their ways. Health care is a little different due to the fact that you have a government which has a constant stream of revenue regardless of their financials. 

 

You totally missed my point. Apple doesn't have to cater to everyone. They don't have to price their product so it's affordable for a homeless person.

There is a flaw in your example, sick people would have a choice if young people decide not to pay for healthcare. They can stay and pay higher premiums but being covered for conditions which may affect them. Or they can pay out of pocket for expenses which would go down in a free market economy because equilibrium would be reached. 

 

Either you choose not to understand how insurance/risk allocation works or you being daft. I am done trying to explain it.

I am glad that you embrace the ideas of free markets in other cases and I hope you will see my point when it comes to healthcare.  I think Milton Friedman did a study in which showed that between early and late 1990s, for-profit hospitals deacreased from 50% to 10%. During this time spending rose by about 200% and yet cost per patient rose became 15 times higher than needed. Nations like France and Canada have a nationalized health care system and look at them, they are facing many challenges which are crippling them.

 

Friedman's views on social medicine are well know. I personally don't agree with them but that doesn't mean they are without merit. I believe that everyone is entitled to the same basic level of care. He doesn't. Again I'm not saying he is right or wrong.

 

That said, Friedman has been wrong before as was the case with his strong belief in Corporate Social Responsibility.   Also, those stats are skewed because they fail to account for an aging baby boomer population amongst many other factors. Here's a link to a study done by the New England Journal of Medicine over that same period.

 

Also, Canada and France are facing major economic issues today. So it would be foolish to think that slow economic growth or recession wouldn't impact socialized healthcare.



#5151 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.3 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 01 November 2013 - 09:17 PM

A) What do you think universal healthcare would have looked like in the Founders day? Free leeches? There is a general welfare clause and a necessary and proper clause. You fail again.

 

B) I never bought the positive/negative right dichotomy. Also, the constitutionality of the program was already debated and it passed. You are no more forced to pay for it then for any thing government does you personally don't like.

 

C) Since your arguments based on other criteria have been demolished, why not try an argument based on the merits of various healthcare systems?

a) I am pretty sure every single founding father would reject the idea of nationalized healthcare.

General Welfare Clause does not apply as healthcare is a specific welfare. National defense and managing money is general welfare. 

Necessary and Proper Clause does not apply. It gives the congress the power to carry out its existing powers and healthcare is not one of them. Again it does not grant new powers. 

Didn't ACA get passed because it was argued as a tax? 

 

b) So you are saying that Supreme Court is always right and never has overturned a decision? You do also realize that many laws exist today which are being enforced by the federal government and yet should be completely illegal. Example: NSA spying on American citizens with no ties to terrorist organizations.

 

c) As I mentioned before, France a shining example of socialized healthcare is doing pretty poorly. 

 

Also I would not use any more of the smart ass comments since it only diminishes your credibility considering nothing I said was refuted nor demolished. 



#5152 kill3r7   MiNd ThE GaP CAGiversary!   4628 Posts   Joined 14.0 Years Ago  

Posted 01 November 2013 - 09:38 PM

a) I am pretty sure every single founding father would reject the idea of nationalized healthcare.

You do know that Ben Franklin setup our nation's first hospital in Philadelphia. A venture run solely off charitable donations to take care of the needy and mentally disabled people who were roaming the streets of Philadelphia. So, I wouldn't be so quick to say what the founding fathers would reject the idea of socialized medicine.



#5153 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.3 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 01 November 2013 - 09:47 PM

You are correct. Healthcare is not an expressed right under the US Constitution but congress was given the power to spend for general welfare. Furthermore, healthcare is an enumerated right under Article 25 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

General Welfare clause does not apply. Please response Msut77. UN is an international organization and has no real power here in US. US Constitution> UN Declaration of Human Rights. Just imagine how people would feel if they declared abortion illegal, you think Americans would give a shit what they have to say? 

 

You totally missed my point. Apple doesn't have to cater to everyone. They don't have to price their product so it's affordable for a homeless person.

 

Maybe I did. Explain to me again then why the government should make sure that healthcare is accessible to everyone? Is there a legal precedent or just because you think it is best for everyone?  

Either you choose not to understand how insurance/risk allocation works or you being daft. I am done trying to explain it.

 

So in a free market, prices would not go down therefore we would just need to force the young generation into the healthcare system to offset the costs. K got it. 

Friedman's views on social medicine are well know. I personally don't agree with them but that doesn't mean they are without merit. I believe that everyone is entitled to the same basic level of care. He doesn't. Again I'm not saying he is right or wrong.

 

That said, Friedman has been wrong before as was the case with his strong belief in Corporate Social Responsibility.   Also, those stats are skewed because they fail to account for an aging baby boomer population amongst many other factors. Here's a link to a study done by the New England Journal of Medicine over that same period.

 

Also, Canada and France are facing major economic issues today. So it would be foolish to think that slow economic growth or recession wouldn't impact socialized healthcare.

 

Friedman has been wrong before just like many other economists. Yet I believe he is one of the best in the recent memory. Paul Krugman, Obamas BFF, actually stated that ACA will be extremely popular and will bring the costs down. He did say a "few" will be hurt which is more like millions of people. Anyways I will read the study later on. 

 

I never said anything about recession or economic growth. The French health care system has been having major problems since the 1990s. Billion dollar deficits long before the recession of 2008. And Canada, I wonder how their economic problems have started...



#5154 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.3 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 01 November 2013 - 09:49 PM

You do know that Ben Franklin setup our nation's first hospital in Philadelphia. A venture run solely off charitable donations to take care of the needy and mentally disabled people who were roaming the streets of Philadelphia. So, I wouldn't be so quick to say what the founding fathers would reject the idea of socialized medicine.

No, I didn't. I also did not realize that charitable donations were taxes. 



#5155 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6251 Posts   Joined 14.1 Years Ago  

Posted 01 November 2013 - 10:24 PM

a) I am pretty sure every single founding father would reject the idea of nationalized healthcare.

 

I am pretty sure every single person who has been dead for hundreds on years would agree with me.

 

Not certain if you are having a giggle, but how would a general clause not count because something is "specific",

 

 

At this point I am done with this part of the "discussion" I have asked you make an argument based on the merits of reform.

 

See below:

 

" France a shining example of socialized healthcare is doing pretty poorly." 

 
 
Great, they still spend way less than us. Unless you get a little more specific I will state you are flat out wrong.


#5156 egofed   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   1020 Posts   Joined 12.3 Years Ago  

Posted 01 November 2013 - 10:25 PM

Right on, silk. Using the "general welfare" terminology with such a broad stroke is a dangerous precedent. What if the gov't decided that all households should be mandated to take in a homeless person? Eliminate homelessness and make shelter a right. Sounds good, huh? Promotes the general welfare also. Mandated nutrition via gov't law would also promote general welfare. Should we also give these powers to the gov't?

#5157 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.3 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 01 November 2013 - 11:22 PM

 

I am pretty sure every single person who has been dead for hundreds on years would agree with me.

 

Not certain if you are having a giggle, but how would a general clause not count because something is "specific",

 

 

At this point I am done with this part of the "discussion" I have asked you make an argument based on the merits of reform.

 

See below:

 

" France a shining example of socialized healthcare is doing pretty poorly." 

 
 
Great, they still spend way less than us. Unless you get a little more specific I will state you are flat out wrong.

 

I am not randomly picking it out people. Founding Fathers were very conservative and libertarian, that is just a fact. 

 

You see, the 9th and the 10th amendments restrict the general welfare to the few functions such as providing a national defense. If the federal power is not listed in the constitution then it goes to state. If the state decides to have a single payer health system then it will be constitutional as far I know. As Egofed mentioned, if you definition prevailed then it would be used for anything that can be deemed general welfare which could be ban of fast food or electric cars. You might think that is crazy but remember times change and anything can happen. Also if you definition prevailed then it would violate the entire constitution and thus voiding it. 

 

If you wish to stop talking about the constitutional aspect then no problem, we can focus on the operational side of it. Is France spending less money? Yeah and I always agreed with you that we spend more money and yet cover less people. What you propose though is not a solution but merely merely applying duct tape. As I mentioned before, their system has been seeing billion dollar deficits for years. In a single payer system, wait times increase. I know in Canada it can be months for a surgery of almost any type. This is why many travel here to US or seek a private clinic. I assume you would agree that this is an unfortunate effect?

 

That is as specific I can get for the moment until you tell me which parts you want me to talk about. 



#5158 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 9.4 Years Ago  

Posted 02 November 2013 - 01:31 AM

:rofl:

Holy Fuck balls, I've seen some crazy shit in this subforum, but you take the fucking cake, junior underoos. Well done.

#5159 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.3 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 02 November 2013 - 01:58 AM

:rofl:

Holy Fuck balls, I've seen some crazy shit in this subforum, but you take the fucking cake, junior underoos. Well done.

KiguIjo.gif

Hope you didn't have a hard time following it through. 



#5160 willardhaven   Thief of Life CAGiversary!   7086 Posts   Joined 14.7 Years Ago  

willardhaven

Posted 02 November 2013 - 02:02 AM

ACA has tangibly slowed single payer down and further entrenches us in a private system thats going to fail anyway but it keeps it alive longer.  If ACA's intent is to get us to single payer, its a shitty way of doing it.

 

Yeah you're right. I wasn't being serious but this is not going well for team Obama.