Will ObamaCare be repealed this year?

[Bonestorm]

Today the vote will be symbolic. Maybe then we'll be able to get to fixing this thing. Realistically the only way they'll make an impact is by fixing the legislation, "repeal" is just a wish. However, this will show they are keeping their promise to those who voted for them and it makes some sense for them to do it.

This assumes that the Republicans have some ideas about "fixing" it. They don't. Symbolic nonsense is really all they've got.

 

[Damocles]

It's better than any "pay or suffer" system and, again, life expectancy is longer. When it comes to health care surely life expectancy is the primary measurement to go by.

Only if it is evenly applied. US reports infant deaths using a different measure which artificially decreases our average life expectancy when compared to European measures which use a different method. This increases both our infant mortality as well as decreases average life expectancy as the numbers are included.

In short, if one ignores the difference in reporting one can assume we are dying "younger" than other nations. With all of that we are amazingly close to the same average life expectancy of most other developed nations, even though we report a lower expectancy average due to those differences.

It is a distraction to use those numbers without noting the differences in reporting and that our average would be higher if we didn't report infant deaths differently, but it is convenient for propaganda and arguments like this where you use emotive terms and poor statistical math to "support" an argument.

 

[Topspin]

no freaky way it's repealed
dems still have the senate, and republican zeal for repeal is waining.

 

[Phantasmal]

no freaky way it's repealed
dems still have the senate, and republican zeal for repeal is waining.

I turned on the lamestream media, channeling Sarah, and saw Rep. King. talking about repealing health care. What a joke.

It stinks, they want to completely repeal health care so that they can get the credit for health care reform. They claim their plan will be better and cover more people for less.

Promises, promises, but so far, no one has presented their plan!

This is a real gamble with the country so even split over the health care plan.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

They spend less because they ration healthcare. In the UK, for example, the NHS controls spending from the top-down and hospitals must ration services accordingly. Do you view this as a positive thing?

As for achieving better results, what a joke. I have personal experience with Canadian healthcare and while their preventative care is decent (probably superior to ours), everything else sucks incredibly bad. One of my friends went into the ER with a collapsed lung and they told him to come back in a few days. My friend Beth nearly bled to death while waiting for medical attention (they eventually told her to drive to another hospital 20 miles away), and my friend Lorah had to wait 9 months for knee surgery. I can continue if you wish...

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill

You know Apple is going to tell you that those where just "isolated incidents" and that Canada's Health Care is the best in the world.

It's better than any "pay or suffer" system and, again, life expectancy is longer. When it comes to health care surely life expectancy is the primary measurement to go by.

Now, how did I know this response was coming!!

:lol:

 

[Bonestorm]

I turned on the lamestream media, channeling Sarah, and saw Rep. King. talking about repealing health care. What a joke.

It stinks, they want to completely repeal health care so that they can get the credit for health care reform. They claim their plan will be better and cover more people for less.

Promises, promises, but so far, no one has presented their plan!

This is a real gamble with the country so even split over the health care plan.

No one has presented their plan because they really have no plan. The whole idea of "repeal and replace" is a total scam. Changing the law is a one step process. Just propose and pass a new law. There is no need to first repeal something to later replace it with something else. "Repeal and replace" is a scam because now that "step one" fails, they will claim to be freed of the obligation to come up with the second, much harder, step - the replacement.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Then why do all the other wealthy industrialized nations require all citizens to carry some sort of health insurance and why is their national health care cost, on average, about half of what ours is?

For several reasons....

1) They have price controls set on procedures
2) They have panels decide the cost effectiveness of allowing people to have said procedures

3) Their populations tend to be far denser than in the US

4) They do not have the litigious effect and subsequent defensive medical practices we do

5) They are starting to fold under the pressure as their populations age.

6) Is their spending as a percent of GDP higher or lower than ours? (edit: adding link that answers this...)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tot_exp_as_of_gdp-health-total-expenditure-gdp

So as a percent of GDP... we are still the highest. About 50% higher than the often touted French/Canadian systems.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Democracy is dead. It's now a fight for the survival of this country. My avatar has changed and so has my attitude toward brainwashed conservative traitors. No more mr nice guy.

Very fitting avatar for the backwards 'thinking' you do.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

For several reasons....

1) They have price controls set on procedures

Yes they do and price controls will become an integral aspect of health care reform in the US too along with a single payer system.

2) They have panels decide the cost effectiveness of allowing people to have said procedures

that's a poltically charged misrepresentation. They have standardised reporting which allows for government personell to evaluate medical practices and modalities actually work, and are therefore worth paying for and those which are not. The current reform bill has such reporting measures.

3) Their populations tend to be far denser than in the US

If this were true I'd still have to ask you, how is this relevent?

4) They do not have the litigious effect and subsequent defensive medical practices we do

They most certainly do but that's irrelevent as it's another strawman. Litigation is minute fraction of the total cost for health care.

5) They are starting to fold under the pressure as their populations age.

Another strawman. Only some European nations are having large deficits they cannot sustain due to generous pension systems, those have nothing to do with health care spending/cost becaue reverting back to a pay or suffer systems would cost them even more. You're completely discounting other Eupropean nations that have no such problem or the nations in Asia, such as, Japan, Tawian, Singapore and South Korea who have no such problem.

6) Is their spending as a percent of GDP higher or lower than ours? (edit: adding link that answers this...)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tot_exp_as_of_gdp-health-total-expenditure-gdp

So as a percent of GDP... we are still the highest. About 50% higher than the often touted French/Canadian systems.

Well that's the point SF. We spend nearly double as a percentage of GDP what the French do, which is not sustainable. What is differant is that France is #2 in terms of spending as a % of GDP but they are rated #1 in the word in health care outcomes where as we rate #37, even though we spend nearly double what the French do.

Xenophobia is no excuse for us not to adopt and implement the fundamental reforms that all the other wealthy nations of the world have adopted to manage their health care costs.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes they do and price controls will become an integral aspect of health care reform in the US too along with a single payer system.

Forced price controls DO NOT WORK. Price should be based on the supply/demand equation and on expense/revenue. You can lower prices by either reducing demand or expenses or increasing supply or revenue.

Simply saying 'you can't charge more than 'x' for procedure 'y'' is moronic.

that's a poltically charged misrepresentation. They have standardised reporting which allows for government personell to evaluate medical practices and modalities actually work, and are therefore worth paying for and those which are not. The current reform bill has such reporting measures.

No, they don't judge based on what works and what doesn't. They judge the procedures based on how much it costs. If the procedures didn't work they would not be used due to liability issues.

If this were true I'd still have to ask you, how is this relevent?

first off, it is true. Our population is spread out over a much greater area than any of those countries.

Second, it adds to costs. We have far more high end medical equipment than any other nation. That adds to health care costs.

They most certainly do but that's irrelevent as it's another strawman. Litigation is minute fraction of the total cost for health care.

It is not a straw man if 'they most certainly do'. You look to the government studies citing costs of 'litigation'. But those studies are deliberately biased. For one... they only include the costs of the litigation itself. They do not include the costs of defensive medical practices that result from greater litigation, nor to they include the higher premiums doctors then pay as a result of both, nor do they include the bumps in individual premiums that result from the previous two.

In addition, the 'studies' show the litigation costs as a percent of total health care. Which you would think makes sense. Until you realize that the idiots doing the study include SS in the costs of health care.

Another strawman. Only some European nations are having large deficits they cannot sustain due to generous pension systems, those have nothing to do with health care spending/cost becaue reverting back to a pay or suffer systems would cost them even more. You're completely discounting other Eupropean nations that have no such problem or the nations in Asia, such as, Japan, Tawian, Singapore and South Korea who have no such problem.

You need to learn the definition of 'straw man'. Because you clearly don't comprehend what it is. It is not a straw man to state 'they are STARTING to fold'.... when they are indeed STARTING to fold. The actual straw man is of your own making. As I did not say 'they are ALL failing'.

Well that's the point SF. We spend nearly double as a percentage of GDP what the French do, which is not sustainable. What is differant is that France is #2 in terms of spending as a % of GDP but they are rated #1 in the word in health care outcomes where as we rate #37, even though we spend nearly double what the French do.

Your math skills are horrid. We spend about 50% more than them as a percent of GDP, not double.

Don't even start on the bogus 'the US is 37th in outcome' bullshit. Because that is a study biased towards socialized medicine. They judge us on 'fairness' and other arbitrary bullshit. We are number 1 on that study in terms of MEDICAL outcomes.

Add on... one other factor in why our costs are higher is that we are the most obese country on the planet.

Add that to the other factors I mentioned and it is not hard to comprehend why we spend more.

Simply shifting HOW we pay for the medical care will not resolve that fact.

Xenophobia is no excuse for us not to adopt and implement the fundamental reforms that all the other wealthy nations of the world have adopted to manage their health care costs.

Xenophobia????

Who is it creating straw men???

 

[Bonestorm]

Forced price controls DO NOT WORK. Price should be based on the supply/demand equation and on expense/revenue. You can lower prices by either reducing demand or expenses or increasing supply or revenue.

Simply saying 'you can't charge more than 'x' for procedure 'y'' is moronic.

I think maybe perhaps your criteria for what "works" is at odds with mine (and Mott's?). Price controls work to keep costs low.

No, they don't judge based on what works and what doesn't. They judge the procedures based on how much it costs. If the procedures didn't work they would not be used due to liability issues.

Um, I'll just go ahead and call bullshit until you post a citation for this nonsense.

first off, it is true. Our population is spread out over a much greater area than any of those countries.

Second, it adds to costs. We have far more high end medical equipment than any other nation. That adds to health care costs.

It isn't true in all instances as I've shown you before and you are the only person that I am aware of that asserts that differences in population density is a significant reason for differences in health care costs. Also, too, Japan.

It is not a straw man if 'they most certainly do'. You look to the government studies citing costs of 'litigation'. But those studies are deliberately biased. For one... they only include the costs of the litigation itself. They do not include the costs of defensive medical practices that result from greater litigation, nor to they include the higher premiums doctors then pay as a result of both, nor do they include the bumps in individual premiums that result from the previous two.

Again, I've pointed out to you that the latest CBO study includes defensive medicine costs and the most recent studies on this issue. You continue to ignore these things and just repeat the tired old nonsense.

In addition, the 'studies' show the litigation costs as a percent of total health care. Which you would think makes sense. Until you realize that the idiots doing the study include SS in the costs of health care.

Cite?




Edit: I'm a jackass. I was going to edit out the Japan comment because it is ass-fucking backwards but I've decided to leave it in because it's hilariously wrong and cracks me up.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I think maybe perhaps your criteria for what "works" is at odds with mine (and Mott's?). Price controls work to keep costs low.

The ONLY way you can set arbitrary price controls and make them work is if you CUT demand or increase supply. You set government control on medical pricing and what will happen....

Medical professionals will stop accepting people on government plans and the government will start restricting what medical procedures people can have.

Just stomping your feet and saying 'this is the magic price' does not work. The costs have to be absorbed somewhere.

It isn't true in all instances as I've shown you before and you are the only person that I am aware of that asserts that differences in population density is a significant reason for differences in health care costs. Also, too, Japan.

It is true and you have not shown me any of the countries with socialized/government health care that are less dense in population than the US.

As I stated, on a per capita basis, the US has far more high end tech than any of those other countries.

Also too... Japan WHAT?

Again, I've pointed out to you that the latest CBO study includes defensive medicine costs and the most recent studies on this issue. You continue to ignore these things and just repeat the tired old nonsense.

No, it does not include all the costs I mentioned. You simply stamping your feet and proclaiming it as such does not change that.

Cite?

Post your standard bullshit CBO study and I will show you where it is at in that study.

 

[apple0154]

Only if it is evenly applied. US reports infant deaths using a different measure which artificially decreases our average life expectancy when compared to European measures which use a different method. This increases both our infant mortality as well as decreases average life expectancy as the numbers are included.

In short, if one ignores the difference in reporting one can assume we are dying "younger" than other nations. With all of that we are amazingly close to the same average life expectancy of most other developed nations, even though we report a lower expectancy average due to those differences.

It is a distraction to use those numbers without noting the differences in reporting and that our average would be higher if we didn't report infant deaths differently, but it is convenient for propaganda and arguments like this where you use emotive terms and poor statistical math to "support" an argument.

Any more info on the infant mortality measure? I'd like to see the numbers to evaluate what difference it would make, overall. Unless infant mortality was generally high overall, which I doubt, it would not factor in.

 

[apple0154]

Now, how did I know this response was coming!!

:lol:

You must be psychic to know facts may be presented. Excellent!

 

[Bonestorm]

The ONLY way you can set arbitrary price controls and make them work is if you CUT demand or increase supply. You set government control on medical pricing and what will happen....

Medical professionals will stop accepting people on government plans and the government will start restricting what medical procedures people can have.

Just stomping your feet and saying 'this is the magic price' does not work. The costs have to be absorbed somewhere.

The doomsday scenario you are describing is not happening in countries with price controls.

It is true and you have not shown me any of the countries with socialized/government health care that are less dense in population than the US.

Actually, I have. Australia, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland.

As I stated, on a per capita basis, the US has far more high end tech than any of those other countries.

Also too... Japan WHAT?

See my edit. HA!

No, it does not include all the costs I mentioned. You simply stamping your feet and proclaiming it as such does not change that.

Sure it does.

Post your standard bullshit CBO study and I will show you where it is at in that study.

You can find it yourself. I've posted it, like, eleventy billion times.

 

[apple0154]

No one has presented their plan because they really have no plan. The whole idea of "repeal and replace" is a total scam. Changing the law is a one step process. Just propose and pass a new law. There is no need to first repeal something to later replace it with something else. "Repeal and replace" is a scam because now that "step one" fails, they will claim to be freed of the obligation to come up with the second, much harder, step - the replacement.

And just the name of the bill "Job-killing" shows where the Repubs place their priority when discussing health care.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The doomsday scenario you are describing is not happening in countries with price controls.

Right...

Actually, I have. Australia, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland.

LMAO... NONE of those countries are less dense than the US. The bulk of their populations are located in highly dense population centers.

As I stated, on a per capita basis, the US has far more high end tech than any of those other countries.

Ok... so there is a significant difference in cost and availability of the high end tech.

See my edit. HA!

lol...yeah I saw it after I posted. you dumbass.

 

[Bonestorm]

Right...

Exactly.

LMAO... NONE of those countries are less dense than the US. The bulk of their populations are located in highly dense population centers.

Yes, they are, at least by standard measures of population density (people/area). And 80+% of the US population is in urban areas.

Ok... so there is a significant difference in cost and availability of the high end tech.

Is that something I said or something you said?

lol...yeah I saw it after I posted. you dumbass.

Totally. I was going to try to disappear it down the memory hole but I was laughing too hard and it was so fucking mind-numbingly stupid that I had to leave it for all to relish.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You must be psychic to know facts may be presented. Excellent!

You can believe that this was about "facts", if you wish; but then, you are use to being in a round room.

 

[apple0154]

For several reasons....

1) They have price controls set on procedures

Yes, they do.

2) They have panels decide the cost effectiveness of allowing people to have said procedures

Let's clarify that. Cost effectiveness is not determined by individual cases. For example, if a certain procedure is covered for 50 year old men then any and every 50 year old man requiring that procedure is eligible.

3) Their populations tend to be far denser than in the US

Huh? You just mentioned Canada in your post with 1/10 of the population of the US and just as large, area-wise. Now, not many people live way up north, however, they are covered by the plan and taken to a hospital if facilities are not available locally.

4) They do not have the litigious effect and subsequent defensive medical practices we do

That can easily be corrected.

5) They are starting to fold under the pressure as their populations age.

Not really. Obviously, medical expenses will increase as the population ages, however, countries with medical plans currently spend considerably less than the US so increasing their budgets is doable and logical.

6) Is their spending as a percent of GDP higher or lower than ours? (edit: adding link that answers this...)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tot_exp_as_of_gdp-health-total-expenditure-gdp

So as a percent of GDP... we are still the highest. About 50% higher than the often touted French/Canadian systems.

Exactly. Higher expenditures and less coverage. That's the problm!

It may be interesting to note government plans differ. For example, in France, doctors make house calls. Not so in Canada. The point being a US government plan is very doable once people commit to a single payer system.

As you noted the money is there. The percentage of GDP is being spent by Americans, in America, on health care.