Half of Americans consume almost no healthcare.

[PoliticalChic]

Half of Americans consume almost no healthcare.


You must be counting the people that have died during the last thirty years.

It's true that they consume almost no health care. And it would make your claim true.

"You must be counting the people that have died during the last thirty years."

No, you must learn to read more carefully...

"Data released last week by two federal agencies — the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)..."

You have an argument with these two federal agencies?
No doubt your intense research has resulted in a different conclusion?


I'm certain a google search would provide their email addresses, and they might be able to alter their results to accord with yours......

 

[rightwinger]

Half of Americans consume almost no healthcare.


You must be counting the people that have died during the last thirty years.

It's true that they consume almost no health care. And it would make your claim true.

"You must be counting the people that have died during the last thirty years."

No, you must learn to read more carefully...

"Data released last week by two federal agencies — the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)..."

You have an argument with these two federal agencies?
No doubt your intense research has resulted in a different conclusion?


I'm certain a google search would provide their email addresses, and they might be able to alter their results to accord with yours......

I am only puzzled why you seem concerned by that

 

[kiwiman127]

I think at least one possible answer is more competition for insurance companies nation-wide. More choices is always good, plus I'd do some kind of tort reform to hold down the costs.

Tort reform would cut the costs but only by 2-3%.

The US's cost compared to the rest of the world are obscene, why people sit back and let themselves get steamrolled by far the highest costs in the world totally is amazing. Tort reform isn't the big answer to stop the runaway cost.

Searching for a correct post of yours is like seeking a reference to cats in the bible.


Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - Tampa Bay Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

The conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!

Once providers don’t have to watch over their shoulders for the lawyers, we should move toward coordinated care networks that take responsibility for their members' medical needs in return for fixed annual payments (called "capitation"). One approach is through vouchers; Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality.


But...please continue, as your posts on this subject make those of us who actually know, look like geniuses!

You know PC, you THINK you know but in fact you only know one-side-of-the-issue, because you are so friggin partisan. Sorry, but real life isn't quite like that. Look at your posts, it's always one side on highly complex issues. Tunnel vision or what?

Does Tort Reform Reduce Health Care Costs?
Does Tort Reform Reduce Health Care Costs?

Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs
Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs | The Washington Independent

Because I'm fair and balanced and because there are good arguments on both sides, here's a fair and balanced article that covers both sides of the discussion:

Would medical malpractice reform (tort reform) significantly reduce the cost of health care?
Would medical malpractice reform (tort reform) significantly reduce the cost of health care? - Health Care Reform - ProCon.org

 

[PoliticalChic]

Tort reform would cut the costs but only by 2-3%.

The US's cost compared to the rest of the world are obscene, why people sit back and let themselves get steamrolled by far the highest costs in the world totally is amazing. Tort reform isn't the big answer to stop the runaway cost.

Searching for a correct post of yours is like seeking a reference to cats in the bible.


Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - Tampa Bay Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

The conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!

Once providers don’t have to watch over their shoulders for the lawyers, we should move toward coordinated care networks that take responsibility for their members' medical needs in return for fixed annual payments (called "capitation"). One approach is through vouchers; Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality.


But...please continue, as your posts on this subject make those of us who actually know, look like geniuses!

You know PC, you THINK you know but in fact you only know one-side-of-the-issue, because you are so friggin partisan. Sorry, but real life isn't quite like that. Look at your posts, it's always one side on highly complex issues. Tunnel vision or what?

Does Tort Reform Reduce Health Care Costs?
Does Tort Reform Reduce Health Care Costs?

Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs
Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs | The Washington Independent

Because I'm fair and balanced and because there are good arguments on both sides, here's a fair and balanced article that covers both sides of the discussion:

Would medical malpractice reform (tort reform) significantly reduce the cost of health care?
Would medical malpractice reform (tort reform) significantly reduce the cost of health care? - Health Care Reform - ProCon.org

Hey...your procon.org has this: "they estimate goes toward defensive medicine (about 7.4% - 12.5%'

"You know PC, you THINK you know ..."
Guilty as charged.


"... but in fact you only know one-side-of-the-issue"
That's where you're wrong.

What I know is the big picture, and that is the 'other side' is knowingly or unknowingly, a tool of the Leftist political philosophy which believes in a totalitarian worldview.

What we're discussing under healthcare is the details, what you fail to understand is the impetus behind the details.

For example, there was no reason for a government push to take over one seventh of the economy. The problem was designed by the Leftists, even though the vast majority of folks, some 80-90%, were satisfied with their healthcare.

And, the real increases in costs were associated with education costs, not healthcare.

But...I suspect your outlook would change if you understood the French Revolution, and the Frankfurt School, and the associations of our elected officials.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Half of Americans consume almost no healthcare.


You must be counting the people that have died during the last thirty years.

It's true that they consume almost no health care. And it would make your claim true.

"You must be counting the people that have died during the last thirty years."

No, you must learn to read more carefully...

"Data released last week by two federal agencies — the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)..."

You have an argument with these two federal agencies?
No doubt your intense research has resulted in a different conclusion?


I'm certain a google search would provide their email addresses, and they might be able to alter their results to accord with yours......

I am only puzzled why you seem concerned by that

"...that..."?

 

[rightwinger]

"You must be counting the people that have died during the last thirty years."

No, you must learn to read more carefully...

"Data released last week by two federal agencies — the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)..."

You have an argument with these two federal agencies?
No doubt your intense research has resulted in a different conclusion?


I'm certain a google search would provide their email addresses, and they might be able to alter their results to accord with yours......

I am only puzzled why you seem concerned by that

"...that..."?

That half of Americans use little healthcare. Why would that surprise you?

Are you implying that half of Americans don't need healthcare?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am only puzzled why you seem concerned by that

"...that..."?

That half of Americans use little healthcare. Why would that surprise you?

Are you implying that half of Americans don't need healthcare?

You misunderstand.

It is a surprise, it seems, to the Obama administration.

From the OP:
" Why should a majority of the under-65 population be subject to a health insurance requirement when they consume little or no healthcare? That is the reasoning behind the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision last August to strike down the Obama health law’s mandatory insurance provision. "

 

[rdean]

Everyone needs it eventually.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Everyone needs it eventually.

So...how about everyone paying for their own?

 

[rightwinger]

"...that..."?

That half of Americans use little healthcare. Why would that surprise you?

Are you implying that half of Americans don't need healthcare?

You misunderstand.

It is a surprise, it seems, to the Obama administration.

From the OP:
" Why should a majority of the under-65 population be subject to a health insurance requirement when they consume little or no healthcare? That is the reasoning behind the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision last August to strike down the Obama health law’s mandatory insurance provision. "

I asked for your opinion, not the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Aren't you capable of doing more than cutting and pasting other peoples opinion?

 

[rdean]

Everyone needs it eventually.

So...how about everyone paying for their own?

Even those in a coma?

 

[rightwinger]

Everyone needs it eventually.

So...how about everyone paying for their own?

Even those in a coma?

Let em die!

 

[PoliticalChic]

That half of Americans use little healthcare. Why would that surprise you?

Are you implying that half of Americans don't need healthcare?

You misunderstand.

It is a surprise, it seems, to the Obama administration.

From the OP:
" Why should a majority of the under-65 population be subject to a health insurance requirement when they consume little or no healthcare? That is the reasoning behind the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision last August to strike down the Obama health law’s mandatory insurance provision. "

I asked for your opinion, not the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Aren't you capable of doing more than cutting and pasting other peoples opinion?

I used to think you were a bright guy...
...did you think that I posted the article because I disagreed with it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Everyone needs it eventually.

So...how about everyone paying for their own?

Even those in a coma?

How many are in a coma?
Let's agree that they are a special case.

Now, how about you pay for your own healthcare insurance.
Just like you pay for your own auto and home insurance.

Fair enough?

 

[rightwinger]

You misunderstand.

It is a surprise, it seems, to the Obama administration.

From the OP:
" Why should a majority of the under-65 population be subject to a health insurance requirement when they consume little or no healthcare? That is the reasoning behind the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision last August to strike down the Obama health law’s mandatory insurance provision. "

I asked for your opinion, not the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Aren't you capable of doing more than cutting and pasting other peoples opinion?

I used to think you were a bright guy...
...did you think that I posted the article because I disagreed with it?

So, your opinion is that those under 65 should not have to get healthcare?

By your example....when I was in my 20s I did not visit a doctor once. However, my wife had two children and ran up over $30,000 in medical bills. We perfectly fit your example of 50% don't use health insurance

 

[PoliticalChic]

I asked for your opinion, not the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Aren't you capable of doing more than cutting and pasting other peoples opinion?

I used to think you were a bright guy...
...did you think that I posted the article because I disagreed with it?

So, your opinion is that those under 65 should not have to get healthcare?

By your example....when I was in my 20s I did not visit a doctor once. However, my wife had two children and ran up over $30,000 in medical bills. We perfectly fit your example of 50% don't use health insurance

I really didn't find the OP too difficult....
....it seems that you did...or do.

No, the OP identifies two federal studies that prove the falsity of the Obama legal defense of ObamaCare.

Try it again. I'm sure you'll get it.

 

[rightwinger]

I used to think you were a bright guy...
...did you think that I posted the article because I disagreed with it?

So, your opinion is that those under 65 should not have to get healthcare?

By your example....when I was in my 20s I did not visit a doctor once. However, my wife had two children and ran up over $30,000 in medical bills. We perfectly fit your example of 50% don't use health insurance

I really didn't find the OP too difficult....
....it seems that you did...or do.

No, the OP identifies two federal studies that prove the falsity of the Obama legal defense of ObamaCare.

Try it again. I'm sure you'll get it.

I'm afraid you don't get it. You need to do more than cut and paste. Is that how you got through college? Just parroting other peoples ideas?

What is so hard about posting your own ideas?

 

[California Girl]

Did you read post #16?
Do you see auto insurance 'mandating' dozens of requirements?
No?

That's why your analogy fails.

No, I don't read your posts

They tend to be rambling cut and pastes and you just take too damn long to reach your point

Pretty good strategy if you are afraid of being proven wrong.

That's beside the point that one can opt out of auto insurance - by choosing not to drive. I'd damned if I can work out how we opt out of living.... particularly for Catholics - suicide is a huge no no.

 

[Flopper]

Why should a majority of the under-65 population be subject to a health insurance requirement when they consume little or no healthcare?

You seem to be implying that most people under 65 really don't want healthcare insurance. They would prefer to risk the the health and financial future of themselves and their family. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of people under 65 who do not carry health insurance do so because either they can't get it or they can't afford it.

Most Americans don't use healthcare? Well, that's like saying most Americans don't use an emergency room. Almost everyone will need healthcare and will need it badly. If they are among the lucky few who don't, their spouse or other family members will.

Sorry if it comes across that way. My premise is that there is a better way than government one-size-for-all coercion as the answer.

It is not.

Freedom and liberty apply to healthcare.

Now, for a bedtime tale, on that point:


The Dog and the Wolf

A gaunt Wolf was almost dead with hunger when he happened to meet a House-dog who was passing by. "Ah, Cousin," said the Dog. "I knew how it would be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get your food regularly given to you?"

"I would have no objection," said the Wolf, "if I could only get a place."
"I will easily arrange that for you," said the Dog; "come with me to my master and you shall share my work."

So the Wolf and the Dog went towards the town together. On the way there the Wolf noticed that the hair on a certain part of the Dog's neck was very much worn away, so he asked him how that had come about.

"Oh, it is nothing," said the Dog. "That is only the place where the collar is put on at night to keep me chained up; it chafes a bit, but one soon gets used to it."

"Is that all?" said the Wolf. "Then good-bye to you, Master Dog."
Better starve free than be a fat slave.
Doctor Aesop

Nice analogy, but the situation is a bit more complex.

As the saying goes, one person's freedom ends where another begins. Is a person to be allowed to act irresponsibly when those actions hurt others? This is exactly what would transpire if people were allowed to reject health insurance for themselves and their families and subscribe to it once they become ill or to depend on government to pick up the tab.

Just as before healthcare reform, there are plenty of healthcare options. Individual policies and group policies, PPOs, HMOs, EPO's, and a host of new policy types, some being catastrophic policies featuring high deductibles and low cost and other that cover everything. There will also be more Co-Ops which offer even more choices. Policies can be acquired just as they are now. For individuals and low income workers, they can be acquired through regional exchanges. Healthcare reform is certainly not one size fits all. In fact people will have far more choices, not less.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, your opinion is that those under 65 should not have to get healthcare?

By your example....when I was in my 20s I did not visit a doctor once. However, my wife had two children and ran up over $30,000 in medical bills. We perfectly fit your example of 50% don't use health insurance

I really didn't find the OP too difficult....
....it seems that you did...or do.

No, the OP identifies two federal studies that prove the falsity of the Obama legal defense of ObamaCare.

Try it again. I'm sure you'll get it.

I'm afraid you don't get it. You need to do more than cut and paste. Is that how you got through college? Just parroting other peoples ideas?

What is so hard about posting your own ideas?

Well, since I explained it to you, I'm going to assume that your blather about the way the material is provided, is simply a diaphanous attempt to argue against the point without way of doing so.

Be honest.