Debate Now An Unhappy Birthday for Obamacare?

[candycorn]

Well, as I understood the question posed by Sun Devil 92 Devil 92, I was supposed to state what I thought the winning position was (aka the right thing).

If we're going to spend money on welfare, we should aim at the truly defenseless...

Why do you think being in one of the two age groups you specified makes you "truly defenseless?"

Most kids do not have insurance. A great amount of seniors have to decide between medicine and food. Real life example; when I worked at Target back in the day...one lady bought cat food for herself to eat.

Most kids do not have insurance? Huh? First off provide support for this claim. Secondly, why do I need insurance when I can pay for my health care in cash? I thought the idea was we needed health care, not insurance for health care.

Drugs are expensive because our government is creating monopolies for drug suppliers.

Cat food is expensive. Your real life example would have saved money and eaten healthier by buying different products. I suspect your real life example was lying to you.

With your 5th grade education I don't expect you to believe much beyond what you are spoon fed.

Is this the flame zone? Cause if it's allowed I'd surely like to respond to this message.

Nothing you stated was worth responding to....sorry but you're simply not very bright.

There are no monopolies for drug suppliers (I assume you meant manufacturers and not the wholesalers but really, who the hell knows). The only "monopoly" is under patent laws and some drugs undergo ever-greening where they change the formula a little and re-new the patent. That is not the government creating anything though.

Cat food is expensive? Really.

 

[candycorn]

Hasn't worked in the past...hence medical costs being the #1 source of personal bankruptcy in the nation.

Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies Study

Additionaly in the past, you couldn't get insurance if you had some PECs, and lifetime caps rendered insurance benefits almost worthless.

That became the case after government started meddling with healthcare and taking it over for large segments of the population. It was not tthe case before.

That is a false statement on your part.

Sorry, but I was in the medical field, actually dealing with hospital bills before Medicare went into effect. And I witnessed the fraud kicking in on day one that Medicare went into effect and watched the very sharp escalation in prices after that. Prior to Medicare the hospitals did a lot of pro bono services for those who were destitute but there weren't a lot of those. The low income folks would be set up on payment plans that they could afford--even $10/month. If somebody was faced with an expensive operation he/she could not afford and insurance didn't cover, the community rallied and raised the money to help.

Since Medicare and Medicare were enacted in 1965, the government has passed much more legislation trying to control insurance companies and medical costs and each time has only made things worse.

See here:

Considering how much the technology has increased for toasters and washing machines (or think the cost of electronics like calculators or computers that are a fraction of what they once cost):

The Cost of Health Care 1958 vs. 2012

Or this:

. . .The increasing share of medical bills paid by third-party payers (insurance companies and governments) and the disastrous consequences are documented. Patients overuse medical resources since those resources appear to be free or almost free. Producers of medical equipment create new and more expensive devices, even if they are of only marginal benefit, since third-party payers create a guaranteed market. Attempts to rein in those costs have led to a blizzard of paperwork but proven ineffective in controlling costs.

The cure for the present problems is straightforward: the patient must once again be made the central actor in the medical marketplace. Patients need to be given the same motivations to economize on medical care that they have to economize in other markets. Tax laws need to be rewritten. The use of medical savings accounts needs to be promoted. High-deductible health insurance should be encouraged.

Returning the patient, and normal market principles, to center stage is all that is necessary to bring the costs of health care under control.
Why Health Care Costs Too Much​

. . .Congress enacted Medicaid and Medicare as part of the Great Society program in 1965.

The passage of these bills had two immediate effects. First, they substantially enlarged the U.S. health care market. Millions of Americans who previously lacked health insurance now enjoyed coverage under one of these publicly funded plans. Second, they altered the composition of health care spending. As the government covered a larger portion of the health care bill, the share of out-of-pocket spending decreased. The combined effects of the increase in federal funding and the decrease in out-of-pocket spending generated sharp increases in the price of health care. . . .
An Introduction to the Health Care Crisis in America How Did We Get Here ​

And????

What you said was a false statement. Medical bills were and are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy.

No. You are failing to find the root cause. The root cause is government run amok that has forced the costs of medical care to go through the roof.

Very well...

Sure...well, get your guys to campaign on getting rid of medicare and the like. Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[Foxfyre]

How about expecting and requiring people to pay the bills they run up? That would be a pretty good incentive to buy insurane. I believe government forcing people to buy a product dictated by government is just as immoral as making people dependent on government.

Hasn't worked in the past...hence medical costs being the #1 source of personal bankruptcy in the nation.

Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies Study

Additionaly in the past, you couldn't get insurance if you had some PECs, and lifetime caps rendered insurance benefits almost worthless.

That became the case after government started meddling with healthcare and taking it over for large segments of the population. It was not tthe case before.

That is a false statement on your part.

Sorry, but I was in the medical field, actually dealing with hospital bills before Medicare went into effect. And I witnessed the fraud kicking in on day one that Medicare went into effect and watched the very sharp escalation in prices after that. Prior to Medicare the hospitals did a lot of pro bono services for those who were destitute but there weren't a lot of those. The low income folks would be set up on payment plans that they could afford--even $10/month. If somebody was faced with an expensive operation he/she could not afford and insurance didn't cover, the community rallied and raised the money to help.

Since Medicare and Medicare were enacted in 1965, the government has passed much more legislation trying to control insurance companies and medical costs and each time has only made things worse.

See here:

Considering how much the technology has increased for toasters and washing machines (or think the cost of electronics like calculators or computers that are a fraction of what they once cost):

The Cost of Health Care 1958 vs. 2012

Or this:

. . .The increasing share of medical bills paid by third-party payers (insurance companies and governments) and the disastrous consequences are documented. Patients overuse medical resources since those resources appear to be free or almost free. Producers of medical equipment create new and more expensive devices, even if they are of only marginal benefit, since third-party payers create a guaranteed market. Attempts to rein in those costs have led to a blizzard of paperwork but proven ineffective in controlling costs.

The cure for the present problems is straightforward: the patient must once again be made the central actor in the medical marketplace. Patients need to be given the same motivations to economize on medical care that they have to economize in other markets. Tax laws need to be rewritten. The use of medical savings accounts needs to be promoted. High-deductible health insurance should be encouraged.

Returning the patient, and normal market principles, to center stage is all that is necessary to bring the costs of health care under control.
Why Health Care Costs Too Much​

. . .Congress enacted Medicaid and Medicare as part of the Great Society program in 1965.

The passage of these bills had two immediate effects. First, they substantially enlarged the U.S. health care market. Millions of Americans who previously lacked health insurance now enjoyed coverage under one of these publicly funded plans. Second, they altered the composition of health care spending. As the government covered a larger portion of the health care bill, the share of out-of-pocket spending decreased. The combined effects of the increase in federal funding and the decrease in out-of-pocket spending generated sharp increases in the price of health care. . . .
An Introduction to the Health Care Crisis in America How Did We Get Here ​

And????

What you said was a false statement. Medical bills were and are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy.

No. Having more medical bills than a person can pay has no doubt been a factor in personal bankruptcy at times. And I have offered an argument as to how that could be made a lot less likely and why it was much less likely before the government started meddling. You might try rebutting some of the statements I have made instead of using an accusation that I made a false statement as your argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, as I understood the question posed by Sun Devil 92 Devil 92, I was supposed to state what I thought the winning position was (aka the right thing).

If we're going to spend money on welfare, we should aim at the truly defenseless...

Why do you think being in one of the two age groups you specified makes you "truly defenseless?"

Most kids do not have insurance. A great amount of seniors have to decide between medicine and food. Real life example; when I worked at Target back in the day...one lady bought cat food for herself to eat.

Most kids do not have insurance? Huh? First off provide support for this claim. Secondly, why do I need insurance when I can pay for my health care in cash? I thought the idea was we needed health care, not insurance for health care.

Drugs are expensive because our government is creating monopolies for drug suppliers.

Cat food is expensive. Your real life example would have saved money and eaten healthier by buying different products. I suspect your real life example was lying to you.

With your 5th grade education I don't expect you to believe much beyond what you are spoon fed.

Is this the flame zone? Cause if it's allowed I'd surely like to respond to this message.

Let the mods take care of it.

 

[Coyote]

For those who are confused - this is NOT the Flame Zone.

A refresher for those who've forgotten the OP's rules:

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION

1. No ad hominem. Affirm, criticize, or comment on statements made by Obama, politicians, commentators, writers, or other members, but do not comment on the character, credibility, motives, intent etc. of the person making the statement.

2. Please note the specific focus of this discussion in the question to be answered below, and relate your comments to that as much as possible.

3. Links or sources may be useful but are not required to express your opinion. If you do use them to reinforce your argument or to rebut somebody's argument, provide a short excerpt or your own short summary of what we will see or learn if we click on your link.

THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED:

Do you still support Obamacare in its entirety or are you ready to support those who want to repeal it in favor of a different and potentially better system? Why or why not? If you choose to repeal, what would a better system look like?

 

[RKMBrown]

Why do you think being in one of the two age groups you specified makes you "truly defenseless?"

Most kids do not have insurance. A great amount of seniors have to decide between medicine and food. Real life example; when I worked at Target back in the day...one lady bought cat food for herself to eat.

Most kids do not have insurance? Huh? First off provide support for this claim. Secondly, why do I need insurance when I can pay for my health care in cash? I thought the idea was we needed health care, not insurance for health care.

Drugs are expensive because our government is creating monopolies for drug suppliers.

Cat food is expensive. Your real life example would have saved money and eaten healthier by buying different products. I suspect your real life example was lying to you.

With your 5th grade education I don't expect you to believe much beyond what you are spoon fed.

Is this the flame zone? Cause if it's allowed I'd surely like to respond to this message.

There are no monopolies for drug suppliers (I assume you meant manufacturers and not the wholesalers but really, who the hell knows). The only "monopoly" is under patent laws and some drugs undergo ever-greening where they change the formula a little and re-new the patent. That is not the government creating anything though.

Cat food is expensive? Really.

Why do you think providing an example of a monopoly for a drug supplier provides support for your statement that there are no monopolies for suppliers? Manufacturers of a drug are not necessarily the owner of it. As for creation of monopolies... patents are one route... another is making non-prescription drugs illegal... a third is FDA approvals.. and dis-approvals... a fourth is government approvals of drug company buyouts by large corporations to squash competition... a fifth is government refusing to do it's job of breaking up monopolies. Shall we continue with the plethora of ways this happens?

Yes, cat food can be expensive for example a quick google shows about 1.50 / lb. for friskies in a can. Compare this to
65 cents a pound for sugar, 32 cents a pound for flour, 70 cents a pound for chicken... As with there being cheaper and better ways to get food than buying cat food.. There are also cheaper and better ways to get health care than buying insurance.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most people have heard of Charles Krauthammer and most think of him as a conservative political pundit. Many don't know that he is a M.D. and a distinguished awarded psychiatrist and is no ideologue. He worked in the Carter Administration and for Walter Mondale, but he calls it as he sees it which generally places him on the right side of the ideological spectrum.

And, as a doctor with many friends and colleagues in the medical profession, he recently expressed his observations after a discussion with a doctor friend who was depressed over the current state of medical practice:

. . .I was reminded of this exchange upon receiving my med-school class’s 40th-reunion report and reading some of the entries. In general, my classmates felt fulfilled by family, friends and the considerable achievements of their professional lives. But there was an undercurrent of deep disappointment, almost demoralization, with what medical practice had become.

The complaint was not financial but vocational — an incessant interference with their work, a deep erosion of their autonomy and authority, a transformation from physician to “provider.”

As one of them wrote, “My colleagues who have already left practice all say they still love patient care, being a doctor. They just couldn’t stand everything else.” By which he meant “a never-ending attack on the profession from government, insurance companies, and lawyers . . . progressively intrusive and usually unproductive rules and regulations,” topped by an electronic health records (EHR) mandate that produces nothing more than “billing and legal documents” — and degraded medicine. . . .
Why doctors quit - The Washington Post​

He continues in the piece describing the frustrations, deterioration of medical practice, and the waste of resources under the current Obamacare mandates.

One reason that this piece really resonated with me is that the medical professionals I know who are abandoning their practices, taking early retirement, etc. are all saying essentially the same thing. I fear that all that we will have left will be those who just do medicine as a job and who don't see it as a calling and a patient/doctor relationship and who don't care all that much whether they are healing.

 

[Greenbeard]

Hard to reconcile his point that doctors are increasingly committing fraudulent "billing inflation" with the implicit premise that docs should be left to do whatever they want, no questions asked--no need to account for the quality of the services they provide or how they're using the money and resources thrown at them, just keep the checks coming thank you (oh and by the way, apparently your medical information belongs to your doctor, not you!).

 

[Foxfyre]

It never ceases to amaze me that I read a piece like that very differently than somebody does who is on the other side of the argument.

 

[Greenbeard]

It never ceases to amaze me that I read a piece like that very differently than somebody does who is on the other side of the argument.

Krauthammer's piece is a standard trope: angst that doctors are now accountable, when the Krauthammers of the world think they should answer to no one (even though he's the one who says docs are increasingly using EHRs to steal money, as if that's an indictment of the medical record and not the thief).

Shunning the recording and sharing with competing providers of a patient's medical information in favor of the "subtlety of a doctor’s unique feel and judgment" is the height of arrogance--a relic of a time when it was taken for granted that that information (and, indeed, the patient himself) belonged to the doctor.

 

[dblack]

Presuming that government can make better health care spending decisions for individuals than the individuals can make for themselves is the height of arrogance.

 

[Foxfyre]

Presuming that government can make better health care spending decisions for individuals than the individuals can make for themselves is the height of arrogance.

And presuming that doctors who see the flaws and deficiencies in a government system are opposing being held accountable and also misstating and mischaracterizing what a person actually says is not only arrogant but dishonest.

 

[dblack]

Presuming that government can make better health care spending decisions for individuals than the individuals can make for themselves is the height of arrogance.

And presuming that doctors who see the flaws and deficiencies in a government system are opposing being held accountable and also misstating and mischaracterizing what a person actually says is not only arrogant but dishonest.

That's always the fallback position of authoritarians. Anyone who opposes their powergrabs is up to no good. (ie only people with something to hide are worried about government snooping.)

 

[Foxfyre]

Presuming that government can make better health care spending decisions for individuals than the individuals can make for themselves is the height of arrogance.

And presuming that doctors who see the flaws and deficiencies in a government system are opposing being held accountable and also misstating and mischaracterizing what a person actually says is not only arrogant but dishonest.

That's always the fallback position of authoritarians. Anyone who opposes their powergrabs is up to no good. (ie only people with something to hide are worried about government snooping.)

But sooner or later, when the cut and paste and assigned rhetoric is exhausted, the true agenda does usually show itself doesn't it.

 

[Greenbeard]

And presuming that doctors who see the flaws and deficiencies in a government system are opposing being held accountable and also misstating and mischaracterizing what a person actually says is not only arrogant but dishonest.

The position you've offered is that doctors shouldn't record your information so that you can take it with you to a rival doc (or, heaven forbid, have it accessible in an emergency situation).

Diagnosis and treatment should instead be a subtle, mystical process that just happens to lock you into a commitment to a particular practitioner and course of treatment. You've paid lip service to "patient-centered" care before but I don't think you get what is. It's not ceding all your autonomy to a doctor, no questions asked.

 

[dblack]

And presuming that doctors who see the flaws and deficiencies in a government system are opposing being held accountable and also misstating and mischaracterizing what a person actually says is not only arrogant but dishonest.

The position you've offered is that doctors shouldn't record your information so that you can take it with you to a rival doc (or, heaven forbid, have it accessible in an emergency situation).

That was NOT the position offered. And it's tiresome as hell to put up with regulatory zealots playing this game. Opposition to a law dictating a certain practice is not opposition to the practice. Nor is it advocacy of its opposite. Kindly stow the guilty-until-proven-innocent posturing.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Hard to reconcile his point that doctors are increasingly committing fraudulent "billing inflation" with the implicit premise that docs should be left to do whatever they want, no questions asked--no need to account for the quality of the services they provide or how they're using the money and resources thrown at them, just keep the checks coming thank you (oh and by the way, apparently your medical information belongs to your doctor, not you!).

He didn't say they were...he said it was possible. And there are some who do.

Wow...the market does not weed out the poor providers ? Who knew ?

Did we read the same article...... ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And presuming that doctors who see the flaws and deficiencies in a government system are opposing being held accountable and also misstating and mischaracterizing what a person actually says is not only arrogant but dishonest.

The position you've offered is that doctors shouldn't record your information so that you can take it with you to a rival doc (or, heaven forbid, have it accessible in an emergency situation).

Diagnosis and treatment should instead be a subtle, mystical process that just happens to lock you into a commitment to a particular practitioner and course of treatment. You've paid lip service to "patient-centered" care before but I don't think you get what is. It's not ceding all your autonomy to a doctor, no questions asked.

It's what we are doing now. It didn't used to be that way for many of us.

BTW: Are we seeing a reduction in our 16 % of GDP ? I've asked before. It seems like a big metric the left used to sell this mess. If it does not come down....what does that mean ?

 

[Foxfyre]

And presuming that doctors who see the flaws and deficiencies in a government system are opposing being held accountable and also misstating and mischaracterizing what a person actually says is not only arrogant but dishonest.

The position you've offered is that doctors shouldn't record your information so that you can take it with you to a rival doc (or, heaven forbid, have it accessible in an emergency situation).

Diagnosis and treatment should instead be a subtle, mystical process that just happens to lock you into a commitment to a particular practitioner and course of treatment. You've paid lip service to "patient-centered" care before but I don't think you get what is. It's not ceding all your autonomy to a doctor, no questions asked.

That is not what I said.

 

[Foxfyre]

And the beat goes on with the uncertainties hanging over everybody's heads. But of course the Administration made sure that any rate hikes would be made public AFTER the election.

Health insurers are asking federal and state regulators to sign off on double-digit rate hikes for hundreds of Obamacare plans next year, increases that are being driven by skyrocketing drug costs and better data on how healthy or sick their customers are.

On Monday, the Obama administration posted proposed premium hikes from a wide range of carriers — including major players like Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — and their rate requests provide the most comprehensive preview yet of what insurers expect for the 2016 enrollment season. . .

. . .(though all states are not affected) Some health plans, particularly Blue Cross and Blue Shield carriers, are seeking major hikes. The Blues plans with top market share in Maryland, New Mexico and Tennessee all want increases of at least 30 percent.

The Blue plan in Illinois is requesting a 23.4 percent average rate hike for individual plans, including a 29.1 percent increase for an HMO product covering 330,000 people. The Illinois plan justifies the latter request by pointing out that claims outpaced premiums by nearly $300 million in 2014, the first year of exchange operations.

Even within a single plan, rate proposals can vary dramatically. The Illinois Blue is proposing changes that range from a 5 percent decrease to a 49 percent increase depending on the product. . .

. . .The Obama administration doesn’t have much power to hold down rates. It can’t negotiate with insurers or kick them out of the marketplace if their rates are deemed unreasonable. What federal officials can do is essentially shame health plans proposing unreasonable hikes through public transparency.

The ability of states to challenge rates varies, too. A dozen states have no authority to reject premium hikes. . .

. . .Even if rates go up significantly, it doesn’t necessarily follow that plans become more expensive for most consumers. That’s because more than 80 percent of exchange customers qualified for Obamacare subsidies this year, which are tied to income available to households with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. . .

. . .The proposed 2016 rates largely don’t account for the possibility that subsidies could be eliminated, which would throw the insurance markets into chaos.

Read more: Insurers seek double-digit Obamacare hikes - Paul Demko - POLITICO​