Jimmy Carter Cures ObamaCare

[ogibillm]

Fewer US Bankruptcies after the Affordable Care Act? Probably Not.

Ready to apologize and beg forgiveness, Jim-bo????
I demand penitential prostration......now!


Did Reagan make certain that in America, every single person has healthcare?????


Well????????

So why didn't Reagan stop the bankruptcies? His plan wasn't a very good one was it?

You claimed Reagan didn't provide healthcare for all.

Now you're changing your tale.

Makes you a dissimulator....
...better go look that up before you think it's a compliment.

Never said he didn't improve it. He put a bandaid on it. It only affected ER frequents. The ACA nailed it.

And stop your lying.

You denied that Reagan provided healthcare for every person in the nation...as I stated.


In post #35 you wrote this:

"Ronald Reagan did what? Are u on drugs?"



I proved my statement, and now you're running from it with your tail between your legs.

Wanna doggie treat?

he did not 'provide' anything.

 

[JimH52]

RR only dealt with emergencies. He put a band-aid on a large wound. Obamacare healed it.

 

[Searcher44]

This is a post for information purposes only, just to give a little context. This is CIA info provided here. I'm not defending Obamacare, I actually think it's pretty shitty. But high healthcare costs in the U.S. cannot be blamed on this admin. It's been a trend and a fact of life for decades.

"While the United States has consistently fallen in the rank of world nations over the last 50 years, the average life expectancy has risen from 69.8 years in 1960 to 78.49 today."
"Life expectancy in America ranks 51st in the CIA's table at 78.49 years - lower than Canada (81.48), Australia (81.90), New Zealand (80.71), Japan (83.91), the UK (80.17) and much of Europe."

Forbes says;

"Health care costs are dramatically higher in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Yet our health care outcomes – from life expectancy to infant mortality – are average at best. There is little dispute over these facts.
The real debate comes when we ask why. While there isn’t one single answer, the rapidly rising cost of drugs and medical devices is a significant factor.
And the magnitude of this problem is likely to spike in the future if not properly addressed.
Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers have been criticized for their role in health care for over a decade. Little has changed. Americans pay significantly more for prescription drugs and medical devices than patients in the rest of the world.
The justifications for these extraordinarily high prices vary, but the industry is well aware that most patients have no choice but to pay whatever they charge."

This is all well known stuff. Concentrating on partisan blame is not even a start toward solutions. I find the infant mortality rate stats the most disturbing, in Canada as well as the U.S.;

Rahm's brother's or Blumenthal's opinions have nothing to do with this stuff. "Death Panels" is a worn out partisan talking point dead end. I suggest getting on with the business of improving the situation and not spending so much time trying to reinforce obsolete attacks on the satanic barry hussein kenyatobama.

Even tho the thrill of the fight is seductive we shouldn't let the truth be collateral damage.

OMG!!!

You're not serious...are you????

1. So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General


2. The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.

WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses
theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems.

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance



3. Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.


4. Now, who are you going to believe if not Michael Moore? Moore states that Cuba has a better healthcare system (they live longer). "All the independent health organizations in the world, and even our own CIA, believes that the Cubans have a pretty good health system. And they do, in fact, live longer than we do," he said.

But when "20/20" contacted the CIA, officials said, "We don't say that Cuba has a pretty good system or that Cubans live longer than Americans."

In fact, the CIA's World Fact Book says Americans live nearly a year longer. Although a U.N. report supports Moore's position, that data comes straight from the Cuban government.
Michael Moore to John Stossel: 'Little Debate' About Health Care in Cuba

5. How to judge healthcare:


Here's a shocker for you: America...before ObamaCare had the best healthcare in the world!!


a) life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In "The Business of Health," Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
http://www.davepetno.com/blog/index.php?itemid=30


" The standardized estimate of life expectancy at birth is the mean of the predicted value for each country over the period 1980–99. As shown in table 1-5, the raw (not standardized) mean life expectancy at birth for the United States over this period was 75.3 years, compared to 78.7 years for Japan, 78.0 years for Iceland, and 77.7 years for Sweden. However, after accounting for the unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States, the estimate of standardized life expectancy at birth is 76.9 years, which is higher than the estimates for any other OECD country."
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf



Wise up.....stop accepting Leftist propaganda.

Hey, P.C.

Wise up.....stop padding your reply with stuff not related to my post

I didn't include any WHO data and I didn't say a word about Moore or Cuba, so tear that all out and throw it away. That would be at least 50% of your dodgy reply.
I used C.I.A data on purpose, I figured a good conservative rightwinger like you would find it trustworthy. If you consider it "Leftist propaganda" alrighty then....let's use OECD data, a group I assume you trust, you've cited that organization and it's methods in your post. I'm sorry though, there's not a chance in hell I'll accept AEI - American Enterprise Institute's "adjusted" and "standardized" data creation. I trust them about as much as climate change deniers trust NOAA's adjusted and standardised data, or more bluntly - as much as Eve should have trusted the Serpent's forked tongue.

First, we'll remove Obamacare as a factor even though I don't buy...

"Here's a shocker for you: America...before ObamaCare had the best healthcare in the world!!"

no matter how loud you shout it. There's no way it's been in effect long enough to have any effect on healthcare significant enough to show up in any data, if you've got the facts show'em, otherwise pull your head out of AEI's bullshit. Let's do this fairly, let's look at a few metrics that will represent the true relationship of America's healthcare to other major countries without introducing any "unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States" that you think skews the results so much, (having to use that dodge must be a little embarrassing anyway.) And using your OECD org's. data you shouldn't have any complaints, right? What metric should we start with?
How about Infant Mortality, that's an important measure of a country's healthcare's effectiveness isn't it? So...We'll compare the 36 OECD member states as well.

According to OECD - Health status - Infant mortality rates - OECD Data

In the year 2006 (Notice, well before Obamacare) Japan's infant mortality rate was
2.6/1000 deaths per live births which placed it at #3 in the World. The U.S.A was at 6.7/1000 which placed it at #31. For comparison they say in 2012 Japan 2.2 #3 again and U.S.A 6.0 dropping it to #30.

Next, life expectancy after 65 should be good to look at. Again this should reduce the influence of injuries, gunshots and so on just in case OECD hasn't "standardized" it enough for you. And 2006 thus removing Obamacare as a factor.
https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/life-expectancy-at-65.htm#indicator-chart
Health status - Life expectancy at 65 - OECD Data

This indicator in 2006 places Japan in the #1 spot. In Japan a 65 yr. old man could expect to live for another 18.5 yrs. A 65 yr old man in the U.S.A could expect to live 17 more yrs. placing in the middle of the OECD pack at #18. In 2012 Japan fell to #5, (resulting from the nuke disaster? I don't know.) it still improved to 18.9 yrs. The U.S.A. fell to # 19 even though it improved to 17.9 more years of life for a 65 yr. old.

Now the biggie - Cancer, all types it looks like.
https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/deaths-from-cancer.htm#indicator-chart
Health status - Deaths from cancer - OECD Data

Here Japan is at #4 among the 36 OECD's with 194 deaths per 100,000 and the U.S.A. is at #13 in a squeaker with Chili at # 12. The U.S. had 210 deaths/100,000 from Cancer, Chili 209.

Okay, that's 3 major health status indicators before your nemesis President Obama was even close to the White House and the U.S.A. didn't come close to #1 even with any deleterious "unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States" removed.
I've used your vaunted OECD data, you can look at the other pertinent indicators and other years, the results are about the same. So now do what you do best - pull that magic rabbit out of the hat, show us the body of evidence, suspended in reality as usual without any visible means of support, and explain how;

"Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country."

I'm damned if I can see how you're going to do it. You'll have to turn on your OECD org. and throw it under the bus I guess. In 2011 they ranked the U.S. at #26 combined. Just please don't try to feed me any more of AEI's disreputable "adjusted and standardised" version of arithmetic where they try to convince us #1+n>0 =#1.

P.S. I want to throw in this OECD 2007 chart....

And this one, even I don't know where The Guardian got the stats. No "fatal injury"
influence here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is a post for information purposes only, just to give a little context. This is CIA info provided here. I'm not defending Obamacare, I actually think it's pretty shitty. But high healthcare costs in the U.S. cannot be blamed on this admin. It's been a trend and a fact of life for decades.

"While the United States has consistently fallen in the rank of world nations over the last 50 years, the average life expectancy has risen from 69.8 years in 1960 to 78.49 today."
"Life expectancy in America ranks 51st in the CIA's table at 78.49 years - lower than Canada (81.48), Australia (81.90), New Zealand (80.71), Japan (83.91), the UK (80.17) and much of Europe."

Forbes says;

"Health care costs are dramatically higher in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Yet our health care outcomes – from life expectancy to infant mortality – are average at best. There is little dispute over these facts.
The real debate comes when we ask why. While there isn’t one single answer, the rapidly rising cost of drugs and medical devices is a significant factor.
And the magnitude of this problem is likely to spike in the future if not properly addressed.
Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers have been criticized for their role in health care for over a decade. Little has changed. Americans pay significantly more for prescription drugs and medical devices than patients in the rest of the world.
The justifications for these extraordinarily high prices vary, but the industry is well aware that most patients have no choice but to pay whatever they charge."

This is all well known stuff. Concentrating on partisan blame is not even a start toward solutions. I find the infant mortality rate stats the most disturbing, in Canada as well as the U.S.;

Rahm's brother's or Blumenthal's opinions have nothing to do with this stuff. "Death Panels" is a worn out partisan talking point dead end. I suggest getting on with the business of improving the situation and not spending so much time trying to reinforce obsolete attacks on the satanic barry hussein kenyatobama.

Even tho the thrill of the fight is seductive we shouldn't let the truth be collateral damage.

OMG!!!

You're not serious...are you????

1. So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General


2. The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.

WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses
theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems.

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance



3. Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.


4. Now, who are you going to believe if not Michael Moore? Moore states that Cuba has a better healthcare system (they live longer). "All the independent health organizations in the world, and even our own CIA, believes that the Cubans have a pretty good health system. And they do, in fact, live longer than we do," he said.

But when "20/20" contacted the CIA, officials said, "We don't say that Cuba has a pretty good system or that Cubans live longer than Americans."

In fact, the CIA's World Fact Book says Americans live nearly a year longer. Although a U.N. report supports Moore's position, that data comes straight from the Cuban government.
Michael Moore to John Stossel: 'Little Debate' About Health Care in Cuba

5. How to judge healthcare:


Here's a shocker for you: America...before ObamaCare had the best healthcare in the world!!


a) life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In "The Business of Health," Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
http://www.davepetno.com/blog/index.php?itemid=30


" The standardized estimate of life expectancy at birth is the mean of the predicted value for each country over the period 1980–99. As shown in table 1-5, the raw (not standardized) mean life expectancy at birth for the United States over this period was 75.3 years, compared to 78.7 years for Japan, 78.0 years for Iceland, and 77.7 years for Sweden. However, after accounting for the unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States, the estimate of standardized life expectancy at birth is 76.9 years, which is higher than the estimates for any other OECD country."
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf



Wise up.....stop accepting Leftist propaganda.

Hey, P.C.

Wise up.....stop padding your reply with stuff not related to my post

I didn't include any WHO data and I didn't say a word about Moore or Cuba, so tear that all out and throw it away. That would be at least 50% of your dodgy reply.
I used C.I.A data on purpose, I figured a good conservative rightwinger like you would find it trustworthy. If you consider it "Leftist propaganda" alrighty then....let's use OECD data, a group I assume you trust, you've cited that organization and it's methods in your post. I'm sorry though, there's not a chance in hell I'll accept AEI - American Enterprise Institute's "adjusted" and "standardized" data creation. I trust them about as much as climate change deniers trust NOAA's adjusted and standardised data, or more bluntly - as much as Eve should have trusted the Serpent's forked tongue.

First, we'll remove Obamacare as a factor even though I don't buy...

"Here's a shocker for you: America...before ObamaCare had the best healthcare in the world!!"

no matter how loud you shout it. There's no way it's been in effect long enough to have any effect on healthcare significant enough to show up in any data, if you've got the facts show'em, otherwise pull your head out of AEI's bullshit. Let's do this fairly, let's look at a few metrics that will represent the true relationship of America's healthcare to other major countries without introducing any "unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States" that you think skews the results so much, (having to use that dodge must be a little embarrassing anyway.) And using your OECD org's. data you shouldn't have any complaints, right? What metric should we start with?
How about Infant Mortality, that's an important measure of a country's healthcare's effectiveness isn't it? So...We'll compare the 36 OECD member states as well.

According to OECD - Health status - Infant mortality rates - OECD Data

In the year 2006 (Notice, well before Obamacare) Japan's infant mortality rate was
2.6/1000 deaths per live births which placed it at #3 in the World. The U.S.A was at 6.7/1000 which placed it at #31. For comparison they say in 2012 Japan 2.2 #3 again and U.S.A 6.0 dropping it to #30.

Next, life expectancy after 65 should be good to look at. Again this should reduce the influence of injuries, gunshots and so on just in case OECD hasn't "standardized" it enough for you. And 2006 thus removing Obamacare as a factor.
Health status - Life expectancy at 65 - OECD Data

This indicator in 2006 places Japan in the #1 spot. In Japan a 65 yr. old man could expect to live for another 18.5 yrs. A 65 yr old man in the U.S.A could expect to live 17 more yrs. placing in the middle of the OECD pack at #18. In 2012 Japan fell to #5, (resulting from the nuke disaster? I don't know.) it still improved to 18.9 yrs. The U.S.A. fell to # 19 even though it improved to 17.9 more years of life for a 65 yr. old.

Now the biggie - Cancer, all types it looks like.
Health status - Deaths from cancer - OECD Data

Here Japan is at #4 among the 36 OECD's with 194 deaths per 100,000 and the U.S.A. is at #13 in a squeaker with Chili at # 12. The U.S. had 210 deaths/100,000 from Cancer, Chili 209.

Okay, that's 3 major health status indicators before your nemesis President Obama was even close to the White House and the U.S.A. didn't come close to #1 even with any deleterious "unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States" removed.
I've used your vaunted OECD data, you can look at the other pertinent indicators and other years, the results are about the same. So now do what you do best - pull that magic rabbit out of the hat, show us the body of evidence, suspended in reality as usual without any visible means of support, and explain how;

"Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country."

I'm damned if I can see how you're going to do it. You'll have to turn on your OECD org. and throw it under the bus I guess. In 2011 they ranked the U.S. at #26 combined. Just please don't try to feed me any more of AEI's disreputable "adjusted and standardised" version of arithmetic where they try to convince us #1+n>0 =#1.

P.S. I want to throw in this OECD 2007 chart....

And this one, even I don't know where The Guardian got the stats. No "fatal injury"
influence here.

"how about Infant Mortality, that's an important measure of a country's healthcare's effectiveness isn't it? So...We'll compare the 36 OECD member states as well."


1. Infant mortality. So, Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate? On January 2, 2009 they announced 4.7 out of every 1,000 for 2008. Seem believable? Well, maybe the number, but calculated in 48 hours? It takes the US about two years to get all the data for our. One reason that Cuba has a low infant mortality, and the corresponding high life expectancy, is because they induce abortion at the first sign of possible trouble with a fetus. “Cuba's annual induced abortion rate persistently ranks among the highest in the world, and abortion plays a prominent role in Cuban fertility regulation.”
The Persistence of Induced Abortion in Cuba: Exploring the Notion of an “Abortion Culture” - Bélanger - 2009 - Studies in Family Planning - Wiley Online Library

2. And, of course, there are a variety of ways that infant mortality statistics are measured. While 40% of America’s infant mortality rate is due to reporting of infants who die on the day of their birth, many countries don’t register such deaths at all. Other countries require specific size (Switzerland, 30 cm) and weights (Austria and Germany, 500 gms) to be listed as having been born.
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm

3. Rarely reported in comparing infant mortality rates it the negative effect of “very pre-term” babies, whose death rate is far higher than full term. When comparing the US infant mortality rate to such category-stars as in this NYTimes report of 11/4/09:

“If the United States could match Sweden’s prematurity rate, the new report said, “nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year, and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower.”


4. We find the usual anti-US slant of the Times, in not mentioning that race is the reason:

“The use of this example highlights to disingenuousness of the authors. In their supposedly “detailed” report on infant mortality, they fail to analyze the most important detail: race. Unfortunately, African descent is a major risk factor for prematurity, and prematurity is a major cause of infant mortality. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than Sweden. The US has the highest proportion of women of African descent of any first world country. Sweden, of course, has virtually none. So our higher rate of infant mortality does not reflect poor medical care. It reflects factors beyond the control of doctors. Race is an uncontrollable factor; obstetricians and pediatricians have no control over assisted reproductive techniques. In fact, the data actually show obstetricians and pediatricians do a remarkable job of ensuring infant health.”
http://open.salon.com/blog/amytuteu...ity_report_neglects_most_the_important_detail


5. One factor contributing to the U.S.'s infant mortality rate is that blacks have intractably high infant mortality rates -- irrespective of age, education, socioeconomic status and so on. No one knows why.

Neither medical care nor discrimination can explain it: Hispanics in the U.S. have lower infant mortality rates than either blacks or whites. Give Switzerland or Japan our ethnically diverse population and see how they stack up on infant mortality rates.
A Statistical Analysis of Maritime Unemployment Rates, 1946-1948. Just Kidding, More Liberal Lies About National Healthcare! | Human Events

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ready to apologize and beg forgiveness, Jim-bo????
I demand penitential prostration......now!


Did Reagan make certain that in America, every single person has healthcare?????


Well????????

So why didn't Reagan stop the bankruptcies? His plan wasn't a very good one was it?

You claimed Reagan didn't provide healthcare for all.

Now you're changing your tale.

Makes you a dissimulator....
...better go look that up before you think it's a compliment.

Never said he didn't improve it. He put a bandaid on it. It only affected ER frequents. The ACA nailed it.

And stop your lying.

You denied that Reagan provided healthcare for every person in the nation...as I stated.


In post #35 you wrote this:

"Ronald Reagan did what? Are u on drugs?"



I proved my statement, and now you're running from it with your tail between your legs.

Wanna doggie treat?

he did not 'provide' anything.

Time to review:

These are the truths that have been revealed-

1. As I stated, President Reagan saw to it that every person in this nation had healthcare available to him or her.
I stated that as a fact...and was proven correct.


2. I stated that nearly 90% of all those with healthcare insurance, prior to the failed scheme of ObamaCare, were more than happy with their plans.
I stated this, and proved it.


3. You three are of low character, and either lied about what I said, what I proved or what you were claiming, and that can be seen in the series of back-and-forths.


4. At no time did I state, as you are trying to suggest, that the 1986 Reagan bill covered every possible medical exigency

Nor does the fraudulent ObamaCare plan. That plan is an economic disaster, a source of hundreds of millions in new taxes and regulation.....and, at its center, based on reducing the availability of medical care by rationing.


5. Political ideologues and free-loaders have been recruited to support the plan, one originally instituted by Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, and no one will win an argument that the communists wanted to better healthcare for the Russian.....millions of whom they, themselves, slaughtered.

 

[PoliticalChic]

RR only dealt with emergencies. He put a band-aid on a large wound. Obamacare healed it.

Really?

"A new report by Avalere Health points out what an “improvement” ObamaCare has been:

[E]nrollees in ObamaCare plans have access to 34% fewer providers than those who buy a commercial plan outside the exchange. On average, it found, ObamaCare enrollees had 32% fewer primary care doctors and 24% fewer hospitals from which to choose.

Worse, ObamaCare plans covered 42% fewer oncologists and cardiologists than non-ObamaCare plans.

Yes indeed, what a deal. Couple that with sky-high deductibles (according to Health Pocket, average deductibles for the lowest cost Bronze Plan in ObamaCare are 42% higher than before the law was passed) and you’ve got a real winner on your hands. By the way, the average Bronze Plan costs around $3,500 a year and has a whopping $5,181 deductible to be paid."
ObamaCare: Fewer doctors but higher premiums and deductibles

 

[ogibillm]

3. You three are of low character,

you tap danced around a simple question and rather than answer you decided to throw insults at me.

that you could do that and accuse anyone of low character is flabbergasting.

 

[ogibillm]

RR only dealt with emergencies. He put a band-aid on a large wound. Obamacare healed it.

Really?

"A new report by Avalere Health points out what an “improvement” ObamaCare has been:

[E]nrollees in ObamaCare plans have access to 34% fewer providers than those who buy a commercial plan outside the exchange. On average, it found, ObamaCare enrollees had 32% fewer primary care doctors and 24% fewer hospitals from which to choose.

Worse, ObamaCare plans covered 42% fewer oncologists and cardiologists than non-ObamaCare plans.

Yes indeed, what a deal. Couple that with sky-high deductibles (according to Health Pocket, average deductibles for the lowest cost Bronze Plan in ObamaCare are 42% higher than before the law was passed) and you’ve got a real winner on your hands. By the way, the average Bronze Plan costs around $3,500 a year and has a whopping $5,181 deductible to be paid."
ObamaCare: Fewer doctors but higher premiums and deductibles

your copied and pasted text seems to think obamacare is insurance.
that doesn't make it terribly credible

 

[Arianrhod]

It's the same subject. You said Reagan's EMTALA meant that everyone could go to the ER and get treatment. I've asked you numerous times who you believe paid for that treatment when the patient was unable to.

You can't answer. Why is that?

That would be the tax payer. Let me help her.

But it's fun to watch her flail.

Every reader will recognize you're a liar.

Prove it.

With your help.....I did.

Nope.

 

[JimH52]

RR only dealt with emergencies. He put a band-aid on a large wound. Obamacare healed it.

Really?

"A new report by Avalere Health points out what an “improvement” ObamaCare has been:

[E]nrollees in ObamaCare plans have access to 34% fewer providers than those who buy a commercial plan outside the exchange. On average, it found, ObamaCare enrollees had 32% fewer primary care doctors and 24% fewer hospitals from which to choose.

Worse, ObamaCare plans covered 42% fewer oncologists and cardiologists than non-ObamaCare plans.

Yes indeed, what a deal. Couple that with sky-high deductibles (according to Health Pocket, average deductibles for the lowest cost Bronze Plan in ObamaCare are 42% higher than before the law was passed) and you’ve got a real winner on your hands. By the way, the average Bronze Plan costs around $3,500 a year and has a whopping $5,181 deductible to be paid."
ObamaCare: Fewer doctors but higher premiums and deductibles

Are you still here? I thought you were on the way to Scalia's wake? Better reserve a place ticket now!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

This is a post for information purposes only, just to give a little context. This is CIA info provided here. I'm not defending Obamacare, I actually think it's pretty shitty. But high healthcare costs in the U.S. cannot be blamed on this admin. It's been a trend and a fact of life for decades.

"While the United States has consistently fallen in the rank of world nations over the last 50 years, the average life expectancy has risen from 69.8 years in 1960 to 78.49 today."
"Life expectancy in America ranks 51st in the CIA's table at 78.49 years - lower than Canada (81.48), Australia (81.90), New Zealand (80.71), Japan (83.91), the UK (80.17) and much of Europe."

Forbes says;

"Health care costs are dramatically higher in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Yet our health care outcomes – from life expectancy to infant mortality – are average at best. There is little dispute over these facts.
The real debate comes when we ask why. While there isn’t one single answer, the rapidly rising cost of drugs and medical devices is a significant factor.
And the magnitude of this problem is likely to spike in the future if not properly addressed.
Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers have been criticized for their role in health care for over a decade. Little has changed. Americans pay significantly more for prescription drugs and medical devices than patients in the rest of the world.
The justifications for these extraordinarily high prices vary, but the industry is well aware that most patients have no choice but to pay whatever they charge."

This is all well known stuff. Concentrating on partisan blame is not even a start toward solutions. I find the infant mortality rate stats the most disturbing, in Canada as well as the U.S.;

Rahm's brother's or Blumenthal's opinions have nothing to do with this stuff. "Death Panels" is a worn out partisan talking point dead end. I suggest getting on with the business of improving the situation and not spending so much time trying to reinforce obsolete attacks on the satanic barry hussein kenyatobama.

Even tho the thrill of the fight is seductive we shouldn't let the truth be collateral damage.

OMG!!!

You're not serious...are you????

1. So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General


2. The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.

WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses
theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems.

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance



3. Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.


4. Now, who are you going to believe if not Michael Moore? Moore states that Cuba has a better healthcare system (they live longer). "All the independent health organizations in the world, and even our own CIA, believes that the Cubans have a pretty good health system. And they do, in fact, live longer than we do," he said.

But when "20/20" contacted the CIA, officials said, "We don't say that Cuba has a pretty good system or that Cubans live longer than Americans."

In fact, the CIA's World Fact Book says Americans live nearly a year longer. Although a U.N. report supports Moore's position, that data comes straight from the Cuban government.
Michael Moore to John Stossel: 'Little Debate' About Health Care in Cuba

5. How to judge healthcare:


Here's a shocker for you: America...before ObamaCare had the best healthcare in the world!!


a) life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In "The Business of Health," Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
http://www.davepetno.com/blog/index.php?itemid=30


" The standardized estimate of life expectancy at birth is the mean of the predicted value for each country over the period 1980–99. As shown in table 1-5, the raw (not standardized) mean life expectancy at birth for the United States over this period was 75.3 years, compared to 78.7 years for Japan, 78.0 years for Iceland, and 77.7 years for Sweden. However, after accounting for the unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States, the estimate of standardized life expectancy at birth is 76.9 years, which is higher than the estimates for any other OECD country."
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf



Wise up.....stop accepting Leftist propaganda.

Hey, P.C.

Wise up.....stop padding your reply with stuff not related to my post

I didn't include any WHO data and I didn't say a word about Moore or Cuba, so tear that all out and throw it away. That would be at least 50% of your dodgy reply.
I used C.I.A data on purpose, I figured a good conservative rightwinger like you would find it trustworthy. If you consider it "Leftist propaganda" alrighty then....let's use OECD data, a group I assume you trust, you've cited that organization and it's methods in your post. I'm sorry though, there's not a chance in hell I'll accept AEI - American Enterprise Institute's "adjusted" and "standardized" data creation. I trust them about as much as climate change deniers trust NOAA's adjusted and standardised data, or more bluntly - as much as Eve should have trusted the Serpent's forked tongue.

First, we'll remove Obamacare as a factor even though I don't buy...

"Here's a shocker for you: America...before ObamaCare had the best healthcare in the world!!"

no matter how loud you shout it. There's no way it's been in effect long enough to have any effect on healthcare significant enough to show up in any data, if you've got the facts show'em, otherwise pull your head out of AEI's bullshit. Let's do this fairly, let's look at a few metrics that will represent the true relationship of America's healthcare to other major countries without introducing any "unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States" that you think skews the results so much, (having to use that dodge must be a little embarrassing anyway.) And using your OECD org's. data you shouldn't have any complaints, right? What metric should we start with?
How about Infant Mortality, that's an important measure of a country's healthcare's effectiveness isn't it? So...We'll compare the 36 OECD member states as well.

According to OECD - Health status - Infant mortality rates - OECD Data

In the year 2006 (Notice, well before Obamacare) Japan's infant mortality rate was
2.6/1000 deaths per live births which placed it at #3 in the World. The U.S.A was at 6.7/1000 which placed it at #31. For comparison they say in 2012 Japan 2.2 #3 again and U.S.A 6.0 dropping it to #30.

Next, life expectancy after 65 should be good to look at. Again this should reduce the influence of injuries, gunshots and so on just in case OECD hasn't "standardized" it enough for you. And 2006 thus removing Obamacare as a factor.
Health status - Life expectancy at 65 - OECD Data

This indicator in 2006 places Japan in the #1 spot. In Japan a 65 yr. old man could expect to live for another 18.5 yrs. A 65 yr old man in the U.S.A could expect to live 17 more yrs. placing in the middle of the OECD pack at #18. In 2012 Japan fell to #5, (resulting from the nuke disaster? I don't know.) it still improved to 18.9 yrs. The U.S.A. fell to # 19 even though it improved to 17.9 more years of life for a 65 yr. old.

Now the biggie - Cancer, all types it looks like.
Health status - Deaths from cancer - OECD Data

Here Japan is at #4 among the 36 OECD's with 194 deaths per 100,000 and the U.S.A. is at #13 in a squeaker with Chili at # 12. The U.S. had 210 deaths/100,000 from Cancer, Chili 209.

Okay, that's 3 major health status indicators before your nemesis President Obama was even close to the White House and the U.S.A. didn't come close to #1 even with any deleterious "unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States" removed.
I've used your vaunted OECD data, you can look at the other pertinent indicators and other years, the results are about the same. So now do what you do best - pull that magic rabbit out of the hat, show us the body of evidence, suspended in reality as usual without any visible means of support, and explain how;

"Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country."

I'm damned if I can see how you're going to do it. You'll have to turn on your OECD org. and throw it under the bus I guess. In 2011 they ranked the U.S. at #26 combined. Just please don't try to feed me any more of AEI's disreputable "adjusted and standardised" version of arithmetic where they try to convince us #1+n>0 =#1.

P.S. I want to throw in this OECD 2007 chart....

And this one, even I don't know where The Guardian got the stats. No "fatal injury"
influence here.

While your first chart is pretty meaningless because we don't know what all that pays for, the second one has been troubling for some time.

A coworker just lost his wife and newborn while she tried to delivery (it was an emergency and we don't know details).

This is clearly a place where the data should be evaluated to ensure apples to apples....but it appears to me to be a BIG problem.

 

[Arianrhod]

This is a post for information purposes only, just to give a little context. This is CIA info provided here. I'm not defending Obamacare, I actually think it's pretty shitty. But high healthcare costs in the U.S. cannot be blamed on this admin. It's been a trend and a fact of life for decades.

"While the United States has consistently fallen in the rank of world nations over the last 50 years, the average life expectancy has risen from 69.8 years in 1960 to 78.49 today."
"Life expectancy in America ranks 51st in the CIA's table at 78.49 years - lower than Canada (81.48), Australia (81.90), New Zealand (80.71), Japan (83.91), the UK (80.17) and much of Europe."

Forbes says;

"Health care costs are dramatically higher in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Yet our health care outcomes – from life expectancy to infant mortality – are average at best. There is little dispute over these facts.
The real debate comes when we ask why. While there isn’t one single answer, the rapidly rising cost of drugs and medical devices is a significant factor.
And the magnitude of this problem is likely to spike in the future if not properly addressed.
Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers have been criticized for their role in health care for over a decade. Little has changed. Americans pay significantly more for prescription drugs and medical devices than patients in the rest of the world.
The justifications for these extraordinarily high prices vary, but the industry is well aware that most patients have no choice but to pay whatever they charge."

This is all well known stuff. Concentrating on partisan blame is not even a start toward solutions. I find the infant mortality rate stats the most disturbing, in Canada as well as the U.S.;

Rahm's brother's or Blumenthal's opinions have nothing to do with this stuff. "Death Panels" is a worn out partisan talking point dead end. I suggest getting on with the business of improving the situation and not spending so much time trying to reinforce obsolete attacks on the satanic barry hussein kenyatobama.

Even tho the thrill of the fight is seductive we shouldn't let the truth be collateral damage.

OMG!!!

You're not serious...are you????

1. So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General


2. The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.

WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses
theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems.

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance



3. Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.


4. Now, who are you going to believe if not Michael Moore? Moore states that Cuba has a better healthcare system (they live longer). "All the independent health organizations in the world, and even our own CIA, believes that the Cubans have a pretty good health system. And they do, in fact, live longer than we do," he said.

But when "20/20" contacted the CIA, officials said, "We don't say that Cuba has a pretty good system or that Cubans live longer than Americans."

In fact, the CIA's World Fact Book says Americans live nearly a year longer. Although a U.N. report supports Moore's position, that data comes straight from the Cuban government.
Michael Moore to John Stossel: 'Little Debate' About Health Care in Cuba

5. How to judge healthcare:


Here's a shocker for you: America...before ObamaCare had the best healthcare in the world!!


a) life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In "The Business of Health," Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
http://www.davepetno.com/blog/index.php?itemid=30


" The standardized estimate of life expectancy at birth is the mean of the predicted value for each country over the period 1980–99. As shown in table 1-5, the raw (not standardized) mean life expectancy at birth for the United States over this period was 75.3 years, compared to 78.7 years for Japan, 78.0 years for Iceland, and 77.7 years for Sweden. However, after accounting for the unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States, the estimate of standardized life expectancy at birth is 76.9 years, which is higher than the estimates for any other OECD country."
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf



Wise up.....stop accepting Leftist propaganda.

Hey, P.C.

Wise up.....stop padding your reply with stuff not related to my post

I didn't include any WHO data and I didn't say a word about Moore or Cuba, so tear that all out and throw it away. That would be at least 50% of your dodgy reply.
I used C.I.A data on purpose, I figured a good conservative rightwinger like you would find it trustworthy. If you consider it "Leftist propaganda" alrighty then....let's use OECD data, a group I assume you trust, you've cited that organization and it's methods in your post. I'm sorry though, there's not a chance in hell I'll accept AEI - American Enterprise Institute's "adjusted" and "standardized" data creation. I trust them about as much as climate change deniers trust NOAA's adjusted and standardised data, or more bluntly - as much as Eve should have trusted the Serpent's forked tongue.

First, we'll remove Obamacare as a factor even though I don't buy...

"Here's a shocker for you: America...before ObamaCare had the best healthcare in the world!!"

no matter how loud you shout it. There's no way it's been in effect long enough to have any effect on healthcare significant enough to show up in any data, if you've got the facts show'em, otherwise pull your head out of AEI's bullshit. Let's do this fairly, let's look at a few metrics that will represent the true relationship of America's healthcare to other major countries without introducing any "unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States" that you think skews the results so much, (having to use that dodge must be a little embarrassing anyway.) And using your OECD org's. data you shouldn't have any complaints, right? What metric should we start with?
How about Infant Mortality, that's an important measure of a country's healthcare's effectiveness isn't it? So...We'll compare the 36 OECD member states as well.

According to OECD - Health status - Infant mortality rates - OECD Data

In the year 2006 (Notice, well before Obamacare) Japan's infant mortality rate was
2.6/1000 deaths per live births which placed it at #3 in the World. The U.S.A was at 6.7/1000 which placed it at #31. For comparison they say in 2012 Japan 2.2 #3 again and U.S.A 6.0 dropping it to #30.

Next, life expectancy after 65 should be good to look at. Again this should reduce the influence of injuries, gunshots and so on just in case OECD hasn't "standardized" it enough for you. And 2006 thus removing Obamacare as a factor.
Health status - Life expectancy at 65 - OECD Data

This indicator in 2006 places Japan in the #1 spot. In Japan a 65 yr. old man could expect to live for another 18.5 yrs. A 65 yr old man in the U.S.A could expect to live 17 more yrs. placing in the middle of the OECD pack at #18. In 2012 Japan fell to #5, (resulting from the nuke disaster? I don't know.) it still improved to 18.9 yrs. The U.S.A. fell to # 19 even though it improved to 17.9 more years of life for a 65 yr. old.

Now the biggie - Cancer, all types it looks like.
Health status - Deaths from cancer - OECD Data

Here Japan is at #4 among the 36 OECD's with 194 deaths per 100,000 and the U.S.A. is at #13 in a squeaker with Chili at # 12. The U.S. had 210 deaths/100,000 from Cancer, Chili 209.

Okay, that's 3 major health status indicators before your nemesis President Obama was even close to the White House and the U.S.A. didn't come close to #1 even with any deleterious "unusually high fatal-injury rates in the United States" removed.
I've used your vaunted OECD data, you can look at the other pertinent indicators and other years, the results are about the same. So now do what you do best - pull that magic rabbit out of the hat, show us the body of evidence, suspended in reality as usual without any visible means of support, and explain how;

"Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country."

I'm damned if I can see how you're going to do it. You'll have to turn on your OECD org. and throw it under the bus I guess. In 2011 they ranked the U.S. at #26 combined. Just please don't try to feed me any more of AEI's disreputable "adjusted and standardised" version of arithmetic where they try to convince us #1+n>0 =#1.

P.S. I want to throw in this OECD 2007 chart....

And this one, even I don't know where The Guardian got the stats. No "fatal injury"
influence here.

While your first chart is pretty meaningless because we don't know what all that pays for, the second one has been troubling for some time.

A coworker just lost his wife and newborn while she tried to delivery (it was an emergency and we don't know details).

This is clearly a place where the data should be evaluated to ensure apples to apples....but it appears to me to be a BIG problem.

Infant Mortality | Maternal and Infant Health | Reproductive Health | CDC

Infant mortality remains a serious problem regardless of modern technology, and there are any number of reasons.

Loss of the mother as well has eclampsia as a primary cause, something which vigilant medical treatment can monitor and often resolve. The only "excuse" for eclampsia and preeclampsia in the industrialized world is that the mother does not receive adequate prenatal treatment.

 

[BlueGin]

Just you.

What your OP shows is the costs of cancer treatment, and why people need insurance to cover them.

Welcome to the real world.

Is that drug that saved Carter available to those covered under ObamaCare?

ObamaCare is not an insurance company. Who's the patient's insurer? Ask them.

As I never posted against folks having health insurance, and President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care....perhaps you'd care to answer:

Is that drug that saved Carter available to those covered under ObamaCare?

Ronald Reagan did what? Are u on drugs?

President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care..

Now, I'll prove this...and await your apology:


"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments fromMedicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay."
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1986...President Reagan gave healthcare to every single person in the United States.

Just one more reason to see Reagan as the finest President in the last hundred years.


Waiting for that apology.

And for a lot of the MSE's. The hospitals write off the charges and eat the cost.

 

[BlueGin]

Is that drug that saved Carter available to those covered under ObamaCare?

ObamaCare is not an insurance company. Who's the patient's insurer? Ask them.

As I never posted against folks having health insurance, and President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care....perhaps you'd care to answer:

Is that drug that saved Carter available to those covered under ObamaCare?

Ronald Reagan did what? Are u on drugs?

President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care..

Now, I'll prove this...and await your apology:


"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments fromMedicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay."
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1986...President Reagan gave healthcare to every single person in the United States.

Just one more reason to see Reagan as the finest President in the last hundred years.


Waiting for that apology.

Predicted you'd do this in Post #36.

Now tell the class what happened when people used emergent services and couldn't pay.

The hospitals wrote it off to " indigent care"

 

[Arianrhod]

ObamaCare is not an insurance company. Who's the patient's insurer? Ask them.

As I never posted against folks having health insurance, and President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care....perhaps you'd care to answer:

Is that drug that saved Carter available to those covered under ObamaCare?

Ronald Reagan did what? Are u on drugs?

President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care..

Now, I'll prove this...and await your apology:


"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments fromMedicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay."
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1986...President Reagan gave healthcare to every single person in the United States.

Just one more reason to see Reagan as the finest President in the last hundred years.


Waiting for that apology.

Predicted you'd do this in Post #36.

Now tell the class what happened when people used emergent services and couldn't pay.

The hospitals wrote it off to " indigent care"

Exactly. Which meant it was passed along to other patients either directly or by padding the costs of medicines and devices and procedures or, if the expenses were too high, the hospital went bankrupt.

These are the things the mob either doesn't know or chooses not to remember.

 

[BlueGin]

As I never posted against folks having health insurance, and President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care....perhaps you'd care to answer:

Is that drug that saved Carter available to those covered under ObamaCare?

Ronald Reagan did what? Are u on drugs?

President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care..

Now, I'll prove this...and await your apology:


"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments fromMedicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay."
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1986...President Reagan gave healthcare to every single person in the United States.

Just one more reason to see Reagan as the finest President in the last hundred years.


Waiting for that apology.

Predicted you'd do this in Post #36.

Now tell the class what happened when people used emergent services and couldn't pay.

The hospitals wrote it off to " indigent care"

Exactly. Which meant it was passed along to other patients either directly or by padding the costs of medicines and devices and procedures or, if the expenses were too high, the hospital went bankrupt.

These are the things the mob either doesn't know or chooses not to remember.

All hospitals have had an indigent care fund. Still do.

 

[Arianrhod]

Ronald Reagan did what? Are u on drugs?

President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care..

Now, I'll prove this...and await your apology:


"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments fromMedicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay."
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1986...President Reagan gave healthcare to every single person in the United States.

Just one more reason to see Reagan as the finest President in the last hundred years.


Waiting for that apology.

Predicted you'd do this in Post #36.

Now tell the class what happened when people used emergent services and couldn't pay.

The hospitals wrote it off to " indigent care"

Exactly. Which meant it was passed along to other patients either directly or by padding the costs of medicines and devices and procedures or, if the expenses were too high, the hospital went bankrupt.

These are the things the mob either doesn't know or chooses not to remember.

All hospitals have had an indigent care fund. Still do.

Evidence?

What happens when the money runs out?

Also, how does it help people with chronic conditions?

 

[JimH52]

President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care..

Now, I'll prove this...and await your apology:


"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments fromMedicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay."
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1986...President Reagan gave healthcare to every single person in the United States.

Just one more reason to see Reagan as the finest President in the last hundred years.


Waiting for that apology.

Predicted you'd do this in Post #36.

Now tell the class what happened when people used emergent services and couldn't pay.

The hospitals wrote it off to " indigent care"

Exactly. Which meant it was passed along to other patients either directly or by padding the costs of medicines and devices and procedures or, if the expenses were too high, the hospital went bankrupt.

These are the things the mob either doesn't know or chooses not to remember.

All hospitals have had an indigent care fund. Still do.

Evidence?

What happens when the money runs out?

Also, how does it help people with chronic conditions?

People go bankrupt or as the GOP wants, they die.

 

[BlueGin]

President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care..

Now, I'll prove this...and await your apology:


"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments fromMedicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay."
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1986...President Reagan gave healthcare to every single person in the United States.

Just one more reason to see Reagan as the finest President in the last hundred years.


Waiting for that apology.

Predicted you'd do this in Post #36.

Now tell the class what happened when people used emergent services and couldn't pay.

The hospitals wrote it off to " indigent care"

Exactly. Which meant it was passed along to other patients either directly or by padding the costs of medicines and devices and procedures or, if the expenses were too high, the hospital went bankrupt.

These are the things the mob either doesn't know or chooses not to remember.

All hospitals have had an indigent care fund. Still do.

Evidence?

What happens when the money runs out?

Also, how does it help people with chronic conditions?

How many homeless people apply for Obamacare do you think?

 

[Arianrhod]

Predicted you'd do this in Post #36.

Now tell the class what happened when people used emergent services and couldn't pay.

The hospitals wrote it off to " indigent care"

Exactly. Which meant it was passed along to other patients either directly or by padding the costs of medicines and devices and procedures or, if the expenses were too high, the hospital went bankrupt.

These are the things the mob either doesn't know or chooses not to remember.

All hospitals have had an indigent care fund. Still do.

Evidence?

What happens when the money runs out?

Also, how does it help people with chronic conditions?

How many homeless people apply for Obamacare do you think?

If you have the data, don't be coy - present it.