Pres. Administration Intentionally Lied

Originally Posted by joeydb

It's time to stop drinking the Obama Kool Aid.

No Kool Aid available any more. It was all stockpiled by the Tea Party in preparation for the coming apocalypse.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Our current health care system certainly isn't great. I would certainly like to see some reform. But overall, I think our health care is the best in the world. Yes, it is expensive but there is always going to be a trade-off. In other countries where it is cheaper, it's not as cheap as it appears because most of those countries have higher taxes, so you are still paying for it indirectly. Not only that, in many of those countries there are long waits to get fairly routine procedures. If I want to get an MRI right now, I'd rather pay $500 for it right now rather than have to wait for 5 months and and get it for free.

When you compare our health care to other countries, there are things better about ours and there are things better about theirs. But when you weigh all the pros and cons, I still think ours is the best.

By the way, I have no problem requiring everyone to have health insurance. In California, everyone has to have auto insurance. If auto insurance is required, I don't see a problem with health insurance being required.

i agree that our health care is the best-but, it's not worth a damn if you can't access it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Um - no - four trophies to celebrate that we have the best medical system in the world - the one that Saudi Kings - who can afford the best - come to in order to save their own lives.

Don't you think that's indicative of the quality and innovation that we had prior to this Obamacare BS? You think we just magically whipped up some great doctors and facilities for the once in a while that some bigshot comes into the country to get treated? Get real. We have made many strides in the access to healthcare, the technology of new treatments, medicines, and the like ever since "modern" medicine first started during the Civil War. That's 150 years of progress.

I should say we "had" the best because you're going to get your way - the medical industry will essentially be destroyed and we will be as mediocre as other nations. We'll get the UK's breast cancer survivability stats instead of our current, higher stats.

Look up the cancer survival statistics in general. Ours are the highest. Anything that adds delay to treatment is a bad idea, and that is exactly what will happen when the red tape gets in the way, and when doctors start retiring early, and when there are fewer applying to medical school. Do the math. Less supply meeting more demand equals longer delays in treatment. And, consequently - higher death rates. These aren't reported unless the person actually makes it to the hospital. Dying while waiting for an appointment or a surgery is easily ignored by the government statisticians.

Obamacare's biggest sin is that it is STUPID. You can't force "bending the cost curve" without DENYING service, and allowing whatever the consequences of that to manifest themselves on would-be patients.

And by the way - there is no such thing as "single payer". That is the name for socialized medicine, yes, but the payers are the same as always - all us suckers who work for a living. If 47% are paying no taxes, the other 53% are your "single payer".

It's time to stop drinking the Obama Kool Aid.

i don't drink kool aid, obama, cruz or any other flavor.
and guess what, all us suckers who work for a living pay for it-regardless of what it's called.
so, right now i pay premiums and taxes.
hey, what if we all just paid taxes, instead of premiums AND taxes? and no convoluted system of
how much do you make
your wife
does your employer offer coverage?
if yes, you have to buy theirs-unless it's not up to aca snuff.
if not, you go thru an exchange.
then subsidies come into play.
oh, you got a raise, you have to pay this much back.
oh, a child graduated?
oh, you divorced?
oh, halfway thru the year she got a job/quit a job?

all while the health insurance companies make a profit.

so..single payer. no web sites. no medicare, no medicaid, no subsidies, no profit margin, none of the mess. yeah, that would be wayyy worse.


obamacare is a horrible, godawful mess. i doubt it turns out well. i understand why the attempt has been made, but not the way they chose to do it.
single payer failed not because it's a bad idea, or that too many are against it.
it's that the few against it are those who make money, tons of it, off the current system. they paid to get this crap passed, and stocks soared after the scotus ruling for a reason.

i understand that you think 'socialized' means something, but you prefer people making tons of money off the current system? lots of money to be made, and it's going to be made like crazy.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i agree that our health care is the best-but, it's not worth a damn if you can't access it.

What a great motivation to do something with your life.

Starting with graduating from high-school child/felony-free.

[Danzig]

another issue arising for many:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...overnment.html


insurance companies have been getting their ducks in a row for a while. some plans won't be continued, much like the one described in the article. how many people will have gaps in coverage because of this?
i wonder tho if the article's subject contacted her current insurer, who most likely has other options besides the plan that is being discontinued-no doubt because it doesn't meet minimum requirements.
yet another issue with the govt mandating various things that have to be covered, whether one wants them or not. it would be nice if they could still offer catastrophic coverage, without doctor co pays, testing, etc. not everyone needs every available bit of coverage.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

another issue arising for many:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...overnment.html
it would be nice if they could still offer catastrophic coverage, without doctor co pays, testing, etc. not everyone needs every available bit of coverage.

Or maternal coverage for non-child baring customers. Whether it be due to medical, choice or sexual orientation.

I think there may be a niche market for insurers to offer catastrophic insurance outside of ACA. For those who may choose it's economically sound to pay the penalty, at least the first and second years.

I guess just like we won't know what Obamacare is until we pass it we won't know how bad it is until it's implemented.

Let Round 1 begin Jan 1. No delays!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't drink kool aid, obama, cruz or any other flavor.
and guess what, all us suckers who work for a living pay for it-regardless of what it's called.
so, right now i pay premiums and taxes.
hey, what if we all just paid taxes, instead of premiums AND taxes? and no convoluted system of
how much do you make
your wife
does your employer offer coverage?
if yes, you have to buy theirs-unless it's not up to aca snuff.
if not, you go thru an exchange.
then subsidies come into play.
oh, you got a raise, you have to pay this much back.
oh, a child graduated?
oh, you divorced?
oh, halfway thru the year she got a job/quit a job?

all while the health insurance companies make a profit.

so..single payer. no web sites. no medicare, no medicaid, no subsidies, no profit margin, none of the mess. yeah, that would be wayyy worse.


obamacare is a horrible, godawful mess. i doubt it turns out well. i understand why the attempt has been made, but not the way they chose to do it.
single payer failed not because it's a bad idea, or that too many are against it.
it's that the few against it are those who make money, tons of it, off the current system. they paid to get this crap passed, and stocks soared after the scotus ruling for a reason.

i understand that you think 'socialized' means something, but you prefer people making tons of money off the current system? lots of money to be made, and it's going to be made like crazy.

So are you assuming the taxes would be the same? "Single payer" will be even higher in tax burden - high enough that your premiums + current taxes will seem low by comparison.

Socialized medicine sucks. Long lines, inadequate care and much higher mortality rates. An Orwellian nightmare in the truest sense. The total politicization of health care. And again, the supply will be less even as the demand goes up.

[Rupert Pupkin]

A new poll just came out and it shows that President Obama's approval rating has now reached an all-time low.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...nks-to-new-low

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

So are you assuming the taxes would be the same? "Single payer" will be even higher in tax burden - high enough that your premiums + current taxes will seem low by comparison.

Socialized medicine sucks. Long lines, inadequate care and much higher mortality rates. An Orwellian nightmare in the truest sense. The total politicization of health care. And again, the supply will be less even as the demand goes up.

how would it be higher? for starters, no need to turn a profit. no need to make shareholders happy. it wouldn't be a business, it would be a service.
if we're no healthier with the 'greatest care in the world' and the highest price, how would we get a higher mortality rate?
medical costs here have been astronomical for years, because those of us with insurance have been paying through the nose, both in premium and in bills, to cover those without.


as for mortality rates--do you think the u.s. enjoys the highest life expectancy with this 'great care'? because guess what-we don't. we are currently ranked 33rd in the world. all that cost, all this advanced medicine...and we're 33rd, tied with our ally BAHRAIN. also with costa rica, chile and denmark. south korea and kuwait have a better rate...oh, and check out the others ahead of us. how many of them have 'socialized' medicine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy

infant mortality--we rank 34th behind even cuba!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mortality_rate


now, tell me again how we have the best care in the world?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert


Pupkin;951607

A new poll just came out and it shows that President Obama's approval rating has now reached an all-time low.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...nks-to-new-low

i suppose whale s##t is lower as that is on the bottom of the ocean after all.



http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/10/repu...ating_low.html

[dellinger63]

The fact we as a nation are obese wouldn't have anything to do with it.

What are the stats comparing drug/alcohol positive babies born here compared to in Cuba?

I'm sure that has nothing to do with it either.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The fact we as a nation are obese wouldn't have anything to do with it.

What are the stats comparing drug/alcohol positive babies born here compared to in Cuba?

I'm sure that has nothing to do with it either.

Has everything to do with it but you know that.

[Danzig]

http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data...care-countries


we rank number one in the world on spending on health care.

where do we rank on efficiency in the world, in regards to health care? not first.

46th!
note that japan is at the top on life expectancy and efficiency. i'm sure tho that it's just a coincidence.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data...care-countries


we rank number one in the world on spending on health care.

where do we rank on efficiency in the world, in regards to health care? not first.

46th!
note that japan is at the top on life expectancy and efficiency. i'm sure tho that it's just a coincidence.

As others have said, we have a terrible obesity problem in this country. They don't have that problem in Japan. People in Japan have much healthier diets. I think they live longer because of that, not because of a better healthcare system. How can you expect people in this country to live longer than in Japan with our high levels of obesity?

I think a lot of the numbers in that chart are very misleading. Practically every medical facility in this country has a cash price, in addition to their retail price. I needed an MRI last year. I asked what the price was and they told me it was $2,300. I had a high deductible so my insurance wasn't going to do me any good. I asked them how much it would be if I just paid cash and didn't go through my insurance company. If I paid cash the price was only $500.

It is pretty silly that a place will charge $2,300 to the insurance company but only $500 if you pay cash. That shows that our system certainly needs some reform. But as I said before, I still prefer our imperfect system to most other countries' healthcare systems. I'd rather pay $500 in this country and get my MRI immediately than have to wait for 4 or 5 months in countries like England and Canada.

[joeydb]

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As others have said, we have a terrible obesity problem in this country. They don't have that problem in Japan. People in Japan have much healthier diets. I think they live longer because of that, not because of a better healthcare system. How can you expect people in this country to live longer than in Japan with our high levels of obesity?

I think a lot of the numbers in that chart are very misleading. Practically every medical facility in this country has a cash price, in addition to their retail price. I needed an MRI last year. I asked what the price was and they told me it was $2,300. I had a high deductible so my insurance wasn't going to do me any good. I asked them how much it would be if I just paid cash and didn't go through my insurance company. If I paid cash the price was only $500.

It is pretty silly that a place will charge $2,300 to the insurance company but only $500 if you pay cash. That shows that our system certainly needs some reform. But as I said before, I still prefer our imperfect system to most other countries' healthcare systems. I'd rather pay $500 in this country and get my MRI immediately than have to wait for 4 or 5 months in countries like England and Canada.

i'd imagine the cash price is there, much like with auto body shops, because if you have to deal with insurance the payout could take months.

yes, there's obesity here. what that has to do with our efficiency of care and infant mortality i don't know. we have obesity because we have poverty-seems to be counterintuitive, right? it's not, because study after study has shown that people with very limited funds have to get as many calories with as few dollars as possible-hence, bad diet, obesity. i doubt one in seven in japan is on food stamps. i wonder what japans poverty level is. i'll look. i also wonder if many of their lower paid workers are also on subsistence such as food stamps, since so many of our employed are working poor, because walmart, fast food etc don't pay a decent wage, unlike in the past when minimum wage was enough to support oneself.

also, more kids then ever in this country are in a poor household, with food insecurity. this also affects our education, as studies have shown that kids raised in poverty don't do as well in school, which will cause another downward spiral. these things will all present a snowball effect in this country.

[randallscott35]

6 people from a nation of 320 million signed up on Day 1 for Obamacare....Hmmm.

[Danzig]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...tle=10_Finland


here's an article that lists the 10 most obese countries...but i think it's by larger countries only.
please note that only two of the countries, mexico and chile, don't have a higher life expectancy than we do. we're tied with chile.

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/obesity.html

that's a list of fattest countries. note kuwait, ahead of us by obesity. also ahead of us with longevity.

obesity is becoming an issue worldwide, it's a growing issue. that said, we still rank far behind, considering how much money is spent on medical care, with many of those nations doing a better job (but i thought socialized medicine was bad, amazing they are doing so well) with less money-but they have better access as well.

in other words, yes, obesity is an issue, but it's not why we are so far behind these other countries.


you guys think we are so far down on life expectancy due only to obesity? surely not. no doubt lack of access to care plays a role. how could it not? people with no insurance means no doctor, no checkups, no visits unless it's a serious illness. no doctor means no guidance, no info, no nothing.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...tle=10_Finland


here's an article that lists the 10 most obese countries...but i think it's by larger countries only.
please note that only two of the countries, mexico and chile, don't have a higher life expectancy than we do. we're tied with chile.

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/obesity.html

that's a list of fattest countries. note kuwait, ahead of us by obesity. also ahead of us with longevity.

obesity is becoming an issue worldwide, it's a growing issue. that said, we still rank far behind, considering how much money is spent on medical care, with many of those nations doing a better job (but i thought socialized medicine was bad, amazing they are doing so well) with less money-but they have better access as well.

in other words, yes, obesity is an issue, but it's not why we are so far behind these other countries.


you guys think we are so far down on life expectancy due only to obesity? surely not. no doubt lack of access to care plays a role. how could it not? people with no insurance means no doctor, no checkups, no visits unless it's a serious illness. no doctor means no guidance, no info, no nothing.

You may be right. If people have no access to healthcare, they are obviously in trouble. I honestly didn't realize people had no access. Rich people obviously have access. Middle class people like me have access. And I always hear stories of poor people getting free care. So I honestly thought everybody had access.

I know plenty of poor people who have had cancer. They all got free treatment. So I can't figure out who the people are that don't get treatment. I'm not saying they don't exist. They must exist. I just don't know who they are.

[Danzig]

because not all people qualify for medicaid. many have no access, because they have to pay in full to be treated. they make just a bit too much to qualify for medicaid (and quite often, medicaid is given to women for certain coverage only, such as ob/gyn) and work where there's no insurance. many don't go to a doctor unless it's something catastrophic, when they know the er must treat them and can't turn them away. they might not have seen a doctor for years.
many think because of how their life is, that's how it is for everyone. far from the truth.
kids can stay on their parents care now til age 26, but many kids' parents don't have health care.
the common number tossed around is that about 50 million had no insurance. how many by choice? how many because they had pre-existing conditons, and how many because they couldn't afford it, but make too much to get assistance? i know there are many adults in this area whose kids are on arkids, but the adults have no coverage.